The German language blog Communaut asked IP’s Sanderr to answer ten questions about the Trump administration’s policies. He did, with some help of other US-based IP members.
1. One of the more controversial questions of the day is how to read the Trump administration: A bunch of ideological lunatics in bed with self-serving billionaires and hence doomed to create nothing but chaos – or a team serving the long-term interests of US capitalism, even though at the price of some disruption in the here and now? You tend to take the second view, linking it closely to the question of war. Could you briefly explain that perspective?
It’s not either or, one does not exclude the other. It is obvious that Trump’s government (and family) contains “ideological lunatics in bed with self-serving billionaires” but that doesn’t mean that it has no geopolitical and domestic long-term strategy. To the contrary, there is a unity between both aspects which is expressed in a kind of shamelessness, a willingness to use raw power without excuses, an arrogance and a contempt that permeates all that they do and say. Not only are the conventional pretenses dropped, they are actively despised: anger against “wokism”, “political correctness” is what binds all factions of the MAGA movement. The background of this is US capital losing ground within a context of global capitalism suffering from a declining general rate of profit and overcapacity. Losing ability to win the competitive game on a purely economic level, the US leans more on its extra-economic might. Corruption, blackmail, coercion, military intervention domestically and abroad are the result. I’m not saying that the Trump administration wants global war but in many ways it is preparing for it. Creating doubt about the US’ willingness to protect Europe against Russia is part of it. Without this, it would have been difficult to get Europe to increase its military spending that much. And this also fits the transactional zeal of this government, since it is a boon for the American arms industry. Another example is the present aggression against Venezuela. The Trump administration is quite open about its desire to control that country’s oil and rare earth reserves, but its goal is also to push China out of the continent. Pundits write that the recent statement of the US government criticizing Europe reflects isolationism. To the contrary, it reflects intense involvement in Europe. This US government does not only want its European allies to prepare for war militarily, but also politically as they see it: by forging their own volksgemeinschaft, by becoming countries that are ideologically conditioned for war.
2. Large sections of US capital now support Trump, even the big Tech corporations that during his first Presidency had rather formed a counter-pole. However, besides tax cuts that capital of course always likes, it seems a lot of this support is simply born out of fear – capitalists seek good relations with a President known for his personal vendettas – and not so much enthusiasm about his economic agenda. Reading the business press from the Financial Times to the Economist, it seems the verdict of the pundits is fairly unambiguous: Trump is creating uncertainty and chaos, that’s bad for investment; and a proper trade war would even be worse.
In regard to the big tech companies, fear is not why they support Trump. Their initial oppositional posture towards Trump, during his first term, was born of fear: They were afraid of being seen as too close to him. Because of the social climate (the George Floyd protests) and the anti-Trump feelings of a large part of their own workforce whose position on the labor market was relatively strong at the time, they kept a distance. Now, in Trump’s second term, the tech oligarchs seem to be breathing a sigh of relief that they can shamelessly suck up to the Trump administration and use the loosening conditions on the labor market to whip their workforce into line. They might not like the tariffs but there is a lot in the government’s policies they do like, not in the least the opportunity to contribute to advanced weapons technology. But you are right, “Trump is creating uncertainty and chaos, that’s bad for investment”. To some extent, this may reflect the Trump team’s incompetence, or it may be seen as part of its negotiating tactics. But The Trump government is trying to upset the global status quo, so some increased uncertainty is to be expected. You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs. And these pundits you refer to assume that, without this chaos, investment would be higher, while it was already declining for years. And they also assume that with a different president, such as Kamala Harris, there would have been less uncertainty which is not certain either. Besides, some parts of the US capitalist class like the insecurity: It is good for the military industry and the safe haven-effect pulls the world’s savings to the US.
But it’s clear that not the entire capitalist class in the US is happy with this or other aspects of Trump’s rule. They are happy with the deregulation and the tax breaks but divided over the tariffs, the use of ‘soft power’ globally, the immigration policy and other things. The ruling class seems more divided than ever since the civil war but part of it is theatrics of course. There’s no question that there’s a near-unanimous commitment to pursuing continued US global economic and military dominance.
3. With respect to tariffs, you say that regardless of whether exporters to the US will lower their prices – in order to stay competitive in the US – or not, it will be good for US capital. But US manufacturers are of course themselves dependent on imports, and that is why the CEO of one of the “big three” car companies had the courage to raise the alarm last spring, when Trump unleashed his tariff orgy, saying that this would actually be disastrous for America’s industry. Often they are even more directly affected because it is their own factories outside the US that would pay the price.
You may have misinterpreted what I wrote on the tariffs. (“In either case, U.S. capital wins”) I was not claiming that the tariffs are “good for US capital” but that, because of the rest of the world’s dependency on the US market, their impact is more complicated than just adding inflationary pressure in the US. The tariffs fulfill multiple functions but arguably the main one is protectionism in function of war preparation. They seek to decrease the dependency of the US on foreign production, especially from China, its main enemy in a potential global conflict. But you’re right, the tariffs are damaging to world trade and already for that reason they are bad for US profits, on top of the direct costs they impose on American business and consumers. That’s why I wrote in the same article “If the government persists with its tariff war despite the negative economic consequences, then we will know how urgent war preparations are for it.” And we have seen that the government has had to withdraw a number of tariffs under pressure of ‘the markets’ (the owners of capital).
4. And what about consumers? It seems inflation really helped Trump to win the elections. His lower class voters were of course particularly affected. Wouldn’t they also be the ones suffering most strongly from his tariffs?
Yes the are. To what extent they blame Trump’s tariffs for the high prices is debatable but it seems to me that they do so increasingly, hence the recent electoral victories of the Democrats who won by campaigning mainly on the theme of “affordability”. Trump has achieved a lot for his class in his first 11 months but it seems to me that he has peaked, that his popularity is sinking and his authority is beginning to crumble. This trend will likely accelerate as the impact of the austerity measures (such as in health care) becomes more felt and unemployment rises. That also means that divisions within his party come to the surface and that the role of the Democrats as a political force in defense of US capital from a position of opposition to the current government will become more prominent. When there are few strikes and protests, the function of the Democrats is less crucial for capital. It is when social unrest is rising that their role becomes more important in order to contain and defang the resistance.
5. How realistic is the idea to reindustrialize the US by means of tariffs?
In the foreseeable future, it is not realistic at all, with or without tariffs. Since Trump became president again, there are 50 000 industrial workers less in the US. In many basic industries, US domestic production cannot compete against Asian producers. In part, this idea of re-industrialization through tariffs it is simply a mystification to rally support from the working class. But in part it is really pursued, especially in regard to industries that would be vital in a global war, such as steel and aluminum. That is something think tanks like the Rand Corporation emphasize. Another crucial industry is the production of chips, which are the lifeblood of today’s economy as much as oil now or ever was. The US dominates the sector, but most of the actual physical manufacturing of chips takes place in Asia, and of advanced chips in Taiwan in particular. This is seen as a major weakness of the US in a potential war with China. The Biden administration’s CHIPS act began an industrial policy to entice with massive subsidies and to pressure with threats foreign capital to build chips factories in the US, some of which are already ready to operate. German capital is also involved in these projects. Domestic US companies as well are building chips factories with major government support. In one of them, Intel, the US government took a 5 billion dollar ownership stake. These new American chips factories make no sense economically, they cannot produce as cheaply as the Asian ones. They only make sense because capitalism is preparing for major wars. And since these giant investments are not profitable, they could only be organized by the state. Every acceleration of war preparation is an acceleration of state capitalism. But the state’s capacity to do so is not unlimited. No doubt that the government would love it if it could decouple the US economy from China but for now that is not possible. Under pressure of the capital markets Trump had to lower the tariffs on Chinese goods substantially.
6. You write that one of the goals of the Trump administration is »maintaining the dominant position of the dollar and thus control over the global financial system«. However, his chief economic adviser Miran is famous precisely for seeing the reserve function of the dollar – normally interpreted as an “enormous privilege” – as a burden, as it drives up the dollar’s value and thus hampers exports.
Truman desperately asked for a one-armed economist, one that would not begin his advise with “on the one hand…” There usually is a “but on the other hand”. To the advantage of the dollar’s global role for the US as well: the impact on export of the upward pressure on the dollar. But when you look at how the economic order designed in Bretton Woods, with the dollar at its center, has shaped the history of the world since the end of world war 2, it’s clear which hand is the strongest. The dollar’s unique role gives the US special powers which no other country has, in regard to deficit spending, money creation and attracting capital (surplus value) from all over the world. The US would not want to give up that advantage, today less than ever. There are not many who like Miran would like to get rid of the reserve function of the dollar for the sake of a lower dollar. In the past, the US was able to impose, when it really wanted, a currency revaluation on its competitors (the German Mark in the 70’s, several currencies but mainly the Japanese Yen in 1985 (Plaza- accord). But now it doesn’t really need to yet. While the dollar’s unique role creates a global demand for it which raises its price, it also allowed the US to preside over a never seen orgy of money creation which in turn lowered the dollar’s price. It’s the old “on the one hand..but on the other..” again.
7. Is the harsh crack-down on immigration not actually detrimental to the US economy? It seems many sectors would be in deep trouble if the government really moves forward with its announced mass deportations.
Yes it is. Although the government had to retreat a few times (most notably because of complaints of agribusinesses) and it would be catastrophic if it would try to deport the majority of the undocumented (which will not happen), its crackdown has been brutal, larger than anticipated and bad for profits. It does not have an economic aim, its goal is entirely political. This shows how important war preparation is for this government. War preparation is not only military production but also an attack on working class consciousness, an ideological battle to create a national community, a ‘volksgemeinschaft’ that is willing to fight and die for capital. I guess I don’t need to convince comrades from Germany how important the process of exclusion of an internal scapegoat is in forging the volksgemeinschaft. So it’s logical that there is a pronounced racial undertone in the government’s anti-immigrant words and actions. But there’s a problem in using racism, in that a large part of the US population (about 37 %) is non-white. The MAGA movement is divided over this. Aside from its use to reinforce the national community through exclusion of non-members, the hunt for migrants and the brutal and remarkably arbitrary way in which it is carried out (detentions of passers-by are done in front of cameras as if to advertise the danger) seem designed to spread fear and to divide the working class. Fear (of migrants, of crime, of violence, of minorities, of the poor, of moral decay and more) is constantly stoked and juxtaposed to the reassuring image of the powerful confident leader and his team of fearless warriors. The Trump administration spreads fear all around. In the general population to create a feared outsider infiltrated inside, the scapegoat, and by persecuting this scapegoat the majority is separated from it, and thereby being defined on a common ground. So a false community is formed and the danger of a unified working class is being averted. Or at least that’s the plan.
8. Let’s move on to the political and social climate in the states. What do you think about the protests so far, both the more liberal “No Kings” demos as well as the confrontations – mostly by migrants – with ICE?
The No King demos by and large were orchestrated by the Democrats and the like. So while they expressed the breadth of the discontentment they were also system-affirming, a pledge of allegiance to bourgeois democracy and all its trappings. The anti-ICE protests are more promising, although many of those also are carrying the same mystifications about striving for a more perfect capitalism. However, it is encouraging to see how fast spontaneous, intense reactions have appeared against ICE raids in LA, NYC and Chicago. Also neighborhood organization (warning a network of anti-ICE activists when ICE enters an area) has spread in cities. The weak point is the absence of work place protest. ICE is terrorizing a large segment of the working class and there are no strikes or other work place-based actions against it.
9. How is the working class affected? Do people already feel the impact of Trump’s policy in their everyday lives? And is the UAW in its support for higher tariffs representative for broader parts of the proletariat?
The big unions have been advocating protectionism for many years, blaming foreign countries for the decline of American industry. In that sense, they have prepared the way for Trump. It’s clear that there is some support in the working class for the tariffs and even for the anti-immigrant policy, especially in the South and the Midwest. It’s difficult to gauge how much, but my sense is that it is diminishing, perhaps mainly because of the failure of the Trump government to reverse the decline of their living standard. Trump is shouting out loud that they never had it so good but their real life experience tells them otherwise. Also, the brutality of ICE has shocked many.
10. Besides ICE raids, we’ve also seen drastic repression against the Palestine protests. Is that driven mainly by racism or also a pretext to attack the left? After all, there’s also been this idea that the Antifa, which is in fact no organization at all, must be banned as “a terrorist organization”.
These protests were against the government’s policies, they would have been met with harsh repression even if there was no racial/ethnic aspect. The government uses any pretext, the anti- ICE protests, the Gaza demos, Antifa, the murder of Charlie Kirk and others etc, to deploy or expand its repressive means and to accustom the population to the presence of the military in the streets. That too is war preparation. Trump said that the big cities would be a good training ground for the military. He is eager for a street fight, yearning to crack skulls, thinking that a frightful repression will excite his Maga army and intimidate its opponents. It’s Nation building to save Western civilization. Meanwhile that civilization produces the AI bubble, the Crypto bubble, shadow banking and many other roads to the abyss. Trump may be the Hoover of this time. But it was not Hoover but his ‘progressive’ successor FDR who turned out to be the greater obstacle to autonomous class struggle.
December 18, 2025
