In the United States, the inauguration of a newly elected president, which occurs every four years on January 20 following the November election, is a significant event, but foreign dignitaries are typically not invited. Donald Trump broke this tradition by inviting foreign state officials and others to the “inauguration” ceremony. In our previous article, we explained why the notion that Trump’s political approach, summarized in the MAGA (Make America Great Again) slogan, is “isolationist” is baseless. Here, it is evident once again: Trump is not “isolationist”; he is a fascist!
Before saying, “What nonsense! Why should someone inviting foreigners be characterized thereby be as a fascist?”, take a closer look at who Trump has invited. Representing the U.S.’s backyard, Latin America, will be Argentina’s “el loco” [“the madman”], Javier Milei. He calls himself an “anarcho-capitalist,” but in reality, he is a “neoliberal fascist.” Trump likely drew inspiration for creating a new institution called DOGE, tasked with making massive cuts to state expenditures and headed by two billionaires, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, from this madman. Milei, after all, had promised to dismantle ministries as if tearing apart a piece of paper—and now he has left his people starving. A host of other vulgar right-wing leaders from Latin America have also been invited, but the most noteworthy is Brazil’s proto-fascist former president Jair Bolsonaro. Like Trump, Bolsonaro incited his supporters to storm the presidential palace, parliament, and supreme court (the centers of the three main branches of government) after losing his bid for a second term. Bolsonaro likely longed to attend, his heart beating with the fervor of fascist camaraderie, but due to this coup attempt, he is barred from leaving the country.
Let’s move to Western Europe, the U.S.’s main ally within the deep imperialist brotherhood of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), established after World War II. The guest of honor is Italy’s female prime minister, Giorgia Meloni. She is the leader of the Fratelli d’Italia (Brothers of Italy) party, the successor to the party of Benito Mussolini, the interwar dictator who gave fascism its enduring name, and currently serves as Italy’s prime minister. She will represent the European Union countries! Is that not enough? Let’s include a representative of Eastern European fascism. Viktor Orbán, Hungary’s prime minister, whom Trump recently praised as “Turkey’s prime minister,” will also be there. Still not enough? From the UK, the invitee is not a state official but Nigel Farage, the triumphant commander of Brexit and the brilliant leader of Britain’s strongest proto-fascist party. If that’s still not sufficient, France will also be represented by the stars of its second most prominent fascist faction: Éric Zemmour and Marion Maréchal, the niece of Marine Le Pen, France’s leading far-right figure. Zemmour and Maréchal have joined forces in the Reconquête (Reconquest) movement. The Iberian Peninsula’s proto-fascists will also be represented: leaders from Spain’s Vox party and Portugal’s Chega party are set to attend. Here are the representatives of your cherished “European civilization”! Celebrate—they’re worthy of your admiration!
What about Asia, one may ask? Of course, Asia is not absent. The foremost leader of Asian proto-fascism (and arguably of fascism proper), Narendra Modi, will also attend the inauguration ceremony.
Naturally, neighboring Canada has not been invited. It is considered to be already in the bag as the 51st state!
Those Who Fail to Recognize Fascism
Trump’s distinct status as a (proto-)fascist and his strategy to foster the development of fascism on an international scale are made abundantly clear by this latest maneuver. As many of our readers are well aware, we have been writing since Trump’s election in 2016 that he represents a form of “loose-cannon fascism.” While he has unique characteristics, we have consistently emphasized that he rose to prominence as a member of this international proto-fascist family. For those who may not be familiar, let us revisit some key points.
Unlike nearly all political parties and intellectuals across the Anglo-Saxon left—with the exception of a few rare figures—we identified Trump as part of this proto-fascist family early on. Based on this, we accurately predicted in 2016 that he would win the election against Hillary Clinton (while the fashionable consensus was that “he couldn’t possibly win”). Following his victory, we strongly opposed the naive consolation that “he’s an eccentric; in time he’ll normalize,” highlighting instead that Trump would increasingly engage in overtly fascistic practices.
Even when Trump described a mob of racists, including various fascists, Ku Klux Klan members, and the so-called American Nazi Party, as “good people,” many failed to awaken. During the nationwide uprising sparked by the deliberate killing of George Floyd by police—arguably the largest mass movement in U.S. history—Trump deployed the National Guard against the public and even staged a church visit to dramatize his stance. This still failed to open anyone’s eyes. (Ironically, the same groups now dread the possibility of Trump invoking the Insurrection Act—a 19th-century law allowing the military to suppress domestic uprisings—yet have not lifted a finger to avert such a prospect!) On all these issues, we provided concrete evidence to support our identification of proto-fascism.
Throughout Trump’s first term, intellectuals in not only Anglo-Saxon countries like the U.S., UK, Canada, and Australia but also continental Europe—and, of course, Turkey’s armchair intellectuals, echoing these centers, especially the left-liberals—persisted in describing Trump’s actions as mere “populism.”
However, after Trump lost the election to Biden and launched a campaign of denial, culminating in the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot (the storming of the legislative body, Congress), these same groups suddenly joined the bourgeois chorus, crying “fascism!” Overnight, they pivoted off from the “populism” refrain. In Turkey, for instance, the journal Birikim, a journal that is the main mouthpiece for left-liberalism, which had until then parroted the populism narrative, published a special issue on fascism in its first post-January 6 (double) edition (issues 382–383, February–March 2021). Similar about-faces occurred among intellectuals in the U.S. and other imperialist capitals.
It should not be assumed, however, that this denial of fascism was limited to left-liberals or the post-Leninist left. It was also widespread among those who still subscribe to a revolutionary brand of Marxism. For instance, this denial was evident among the intellectuals of the UK’s largest socialist party, the SWP, and among Italian Trotskyists. In 2018, during an international conference in Buenos Aires organized by the Argentine revolutionary party Partido Obrero(Workers’ Party)—then part of the same international movement as our own party—its main spokespersons pompously rejected a resolution we proposed on the rise of the proto-fascist movement across Europe and other imperialist countries and some other regions. In other words, this misjudgment was nearly universal.
As the Revolutionary Workers’ Party (DIP - Devrimci İşçi Partisi), having identified Trump’s proto-fascist nature over the past four years, we were able to foresee the potential for post-election tantrums to escalate into violent outbursts. Our party literature, in both Turkish and English, is filled with such warnings. (A summary of the literature on 6 January before the event can be read here.) As January 6 approached, we explicitly expressed our concerns. This is the power of Marxist science! And in the end, the inevitable happened.
Some readers may ask, “What does it matter?” Humanity, in all its actions, relies on predictions about the near or distant future. When you cross the street at a red light, you’re making a prediction that no car will hit you. If your prediction is wrong, you’ll be smashed. Similarly, a miscalculation about January 6 could have resulted in devastating consequences for the American working class and the left. That it did not is attributable to the lack of adequate organization on the opposite side. However, the U.S. left, which failed to understand the situation at all, did not bother to assess the strengths and weaknesses of Trump’s MAGA movement and was thus left defenseless. No precautions were taken. It was sheer luck (or, rather, the weaknesses of the MAGA camp, to repeat) that saved the left and the American people from a significant fascist escalation.
Therefore, correct analysis and identification are vital for revolutionary working-class politics. Those who fail to analyze correctly will also fail to take the necessary precautions.
Barbarism, Much Stronger This Time
As Trump prepares to return to the White House for a second term, America, MAGA, and Trump himself exhibit very different characteristics compared to his first tenure. The world has changed, too. Without awareness of these differences, the American working class and the left will be rendered helpless in the face of a historic disaster. Let’s quickly review the key differences between the two periods.
We will focus only on the most critical factors. The first point is that, unlike before, Trump’s political base—the Republican Party—has now secured dominance across all three branches of government. When Trump assumed office in 2017, the legislative branch, Congress, was not under Republican control. Similarly, the Supreme Court, often the deciding power under certain conditions in the U.S., appeared evenly split between the two camps. Now, however, Republicans hold majorities in both chambers of Congress (the Senate and the House of Representatives), leaving Democrats in the minority. In the Supreme Court, thanks to Trump’s appointments during his first term, the number of justices aligned with Trump has risen to six out of nine, with the opposition holding just three votes. A 6-3 majority is significant; for the court to rule against Trump, two justices from his camp would need to break ranks. This gives Trump the ability to implement policies with ease, not only through executive orders but also by enacting laws and securing Supreme Court endorsements for this legislation and his practice. This objective reality makes a second Trump presidency much stronger than the first.
Moreover, the Democratic Party is likely to face an internal crisis to recover from its wounds. In the American tradition, parties are not typically centered around individual leaders. Nonetheless, discussions and debates about potential Democratic candidates will quickly begin. Keeping a failing elderly figure at the helm on the political battlefield until just months before an election is an unprecedented political blunder. Even when Biden first assumed office, there were signs of age-related decline. We often remarked to our comrades that the choice of Kamala Harris as Vice President was a significant mistake. Harris, aside from her career as a prosecutor, had minimal involvement with politics or the party machinery. She was not someone who had earned the trust of the American public through years of service, such as that of a senator. In every respect, she was an outsider. As Vice President, she delivered an unremarkable performance. If Biden had passed away mid-term, Harris’s ascension would have handed Trump a significant advantage. While this scenario did not occur, Harris ultimately demonstrated her weaknesses when elections arrived. Despite being prematurely announced as the candidate before the party convention, Harris’s nomination was accompanied by an unprecedented surge in donations, creating a false impression of equality leading up to the election. This façade, however, crumbled on November 5 when Trump decisively won. The Democratic Party now faces a difficult reckoning, likely focusing primarily on internal issues for at least the first two years, until the 2026 midterm elections. Early risers gain the most ground.
The second major difference lies in the American public’s shifting attitudes toward the Democrats. Their abandonment of the Democratic Party isn’t solely due to entrusting the country to a president in cognitive decline. The Democratic Party is increasingly perceived as a party of Wall Street. A growing portion of the working class, particularly Latino immigrant communities and young Black Americans, turned to Trump in this election, despite his overt racism.
This shift isn’t confined to the working class. Within the bourgeoisie, a landslide has also occurred. In 2016 and during his first term, Trump enjoyed support from more traditional sectors of capital, such as those benefiting from protectionist policies (e.g. steel) or lack of ecological regulation (e.g. oil and natural gas). Over the past four years, however, competition with China has intensified, drawing technologically advanced, globally active sectors into Trump’s camp. To simplify: Silicon Valley, which once aligned with globalist interests, is now largely backing Trump. Elon Musk stands as the most prominent example, though others such as Mark Zuckerberg and Microsoft CEO Bill Gates are also moving toward the Trump camp (see photo above). Jeff Bezos, once a globalist liberal, has gradually shifted the Washington Post’s stance toward Trumpism. With these tycoons on his side, Trump is on his way to becoming the representative of the majority of American capital. Even OpenAI’s CEO recently advocated for state support to counter China’s advancements in artificial intelligence, signaling a shift toward nationalist policies within the tech sector.
Third, Trump’s policies during his first term have, in many cases, been adopted and even intensified by the Biden administration. Tariffs imposed by Trump on not only China but also allies like Mexico, Canada, and European countries have largely been maintained. Additionally, Biden introduced significant incentives to reshore the production of strategically vital goods, such as microchips. In immigration policy, Trump’s harsh measures were slightly softened cosmetically but later became even more stringent under Biden. These developments amount to a tectonic shift: they indicate that the globalist wing of the bourgeoisie has partially adopted the policies of the nationalist-fascist wing, a reality that objectively strengthens Trump.
Fourth, the nature of the MAGA movement has evolved. Initially, Trump did not command a disciplined party or a paramilitary force, both essential to a fascist leader. However, over the years, Trump has transformed the Republican Party into a MAGA apparatus. While it is not yet a tightly organized fascist party, progress has been made. Similarly, while MAGA lacks a paramilitary structure, it has laid the groundwork for future developments.
Lastly, Trump, previously a political novice, has become far more experienced. Surrounding him now is a team driven by greed and rage, bolstering Trump’s inflated ego and reckless ambitions. Already prone to impulsiveness, Trump is likely to act swiftly and aggressively, especially given his advancing age. We believe Trump may aim for a third term, despite the significant backlash this would generate. But whatever the prospects for a third term, his sense of urgency will likely drive rapid and decisive action.
Prospects and contradictions
We’ve previously discussed in detail what kind of barbarity fascism entails. Readers interested in understanding the substance of the concept of “barbarity” mentioned in the title of this piece can refer to that source. On the other hand, it is premature to speculate—whether through alternative scenarios or otherwise—about Trump’s precise strategy, his prioritized areas, and the measures and moves he will adopt before the MAGA movement fully articulates its tactical and strategic priorities. However, in the short term, some critical moves can be summarized as follows:
- Strengthening tariff protections against China immediately, and against allies more gradually;
- Initiating the implementation of the mass deportation policy previously proposed regarding immigrants and asylum seekers;
- Significant cuts to social service programs under the leadership of the Musk/Ramaswamy duo;
- Raising controversial topics like Panama, Greenland, and Canada;
- Imposing at least some restrictions on gay and trans groups;
- Prosecuting certain public officials for allegedly using their authority to serve Democratic Party interests and pursuing revenge against influential anti-Trump, liberal, or globalist figures;
- Introducing new low tax rates and exemptions for the wealthy, alongside upper limits;
- Reducing ecological measures and undertaking projects that will increase carbon emissions.
We cannot reach substantive conclusions about the broader trajectory of developments without understanding Trump’s stance on major issues shrouded in uncertainty—such as the Ukraine War, the genocide in Gaza, and tensions with China. At the very least, until some clues emerge, it will be impossible to predict the overall shape of events. However, it seems certain that both domestically and internationally, a series of steps will be taken that can be described as “bloodthirsty.”
Some of these steps will generate significant contradictions. For example, the cuts to social services spearheaded by the Musk/Ramaswamy entity (referred to as DOGE) could trigger substantial struggles, potentially putting the labor movement in direct opposition to Trump. This could lead Trump to attempt to reshape the labor movement or its leadership. Similarly, the mass deportation initiative would likely result in severe human rights violations. For instance, during Trump’s first term, the forced separation of parents and young children, with the children held in separate facilities, led to devastating consequences for these children. (Biden continued this policy for some time as well.) Such measures could provoke serious backlash from segments of society that fiercely advocate for the rights of immigrants and refugees. On the international stage, these contradictions may be compounded by the abrasive attitude Trump frequently adopts in relations with other countries.
It must be emphasized: from now on, the defining features of American society will include harshness, tension, polarization, occasional witch hunts, human rights violations, deepening poverty, and mass conflicts in vulnerable institutions like prisons, schools, and impoverished neighborhoods. Calmness, civility, and moderation in everyday life will recede into the background. These developments could even lead to street clashes between major social groups.
One critical point to monitor is how the MAGA movement’s tendency toward gang formation and armament evolves. Another pressing issue is how the military’s upper command will respond if the army is deployed against the public. During Trump’s first term, his Chief of Staff, Michael Mulley, acted as a barricade against Trump.
Revolutionary Politics
We argued above that early identification and diagnosis allow for timely political measures, tactics, and strategies aligned with the interests of the working class and the oppressed. The Revolutionary Workers’ Party (DIP) has been clear on the policy that must be pursued because it identified the global rise of proto-fascism as a danger as early as the 2015–2016 turning point. However, the liberal left, the post-Leninist left, and even those revolutionary tendencies that are influenced by them continue to debate whether these movements are “populism,” “far-right,” “post-fascism,” or something else, failing to recognize (proto-) fascism when they see it.
Our approach to the line of struggle line is unequivocal. Of course, some issues will vary from country to country. But an effective fight against fascism will primarily require the following orientation:
- Building a socialist left that fights within and for the working class, replacing socialist or social democratic parties mired in identity politics and dominated by the modern petty-bourgeoisie and its educated proletarian or semi-proletarian allies;
- Returning to Marxism to ensure this construction is possible and successful;
- Defending the interests of other laboring or oppressed groups and uniting the exploited and oppressed masses in an alliance around the working class to defeat fascism;
- Connecting all working-class organizations—including reformist or economistic provided they are working-class—in a workers’ united front against fascism;
- Marching separately but striking together in this front without allowing banners to mix;
- Organizing self-defense, actively involving the working class and youth in areas terrorized by fascists, and teaching participants self-defense techniques and weapon use;
- Avoiding alliances, even in united front tactics, with parties masquerading as “left” but serving the interests of the affluent modern petty-bourgeoisie and its allies (e.g., France’s Socialist Party);
- For the U.S., applying tactics independent of the Democratic Party to create an alternative to it;
- Patiently working to establish an alliance between the working class of the dominant nation and oppressed groups, despite deeply ingrained prejudices in the former;
- Opposing the idea of the Popular Front, which entails fighting fascism under the shadow of the bourgeoisie and in alliance with it;
- Recognizing that the fight against fascism, at a certain stage, could create revolutionary opportunities through the rise of class struggle, and avoiding artificially imposed stages in advance of this.
Returning to the U.S., we noted earlier that the Democratic Party is expected to face a crisis of reckoning and recovery in the coming period. In this context, socialists should expose the weaknesses of this party, which draws the masses into a vortex, and work toward establishing a party that, at the minimum, has the character of a front or, ideally, brings together diverse tendencies under a program grounded in the struggle against fascism.
America is entering a tumultuous period. As the world’s foremost economic and military power, it will undoubtedly drag the world into this abyss. We must prepare to fight against barbarity.