Trump and the crisis of European imperialism

The following is the third of a three-part serialisation of a speech on world perspectives, given on Tuesday 28 January at a meeting of the International Executive Committee of the Revolutionary Communist International. 

The first part, which can be read here, looks at the upheaval in world relations which has been caused by Trump’s presidency. The second part looks specifically at Trump’s effect on Ukraine and the Middle East.

The way Trump speaks openly and without subterfuge about the interests of US imperialism is having an important impact on consciousness. The majority of people in the world can now see how the world really is, and how imperialism really works. These changes in consciousness have been massively accelerated by the war on Gaza.

We have talked about the relative decline of US imperialism and the rise of China and Russia as imperialist powers on the world scene, but these processes go hand in hand with the long-term decline of European imperialist powers, which has now accelerated enormously. We have explained it in a number of articles, including our article about Mario Draghi’s report on ‘European competitiveness’, and our recent article about the crisis of the European car industry.

Europe is in a deep crisis, one from which it cannot escape. It doesn't have the means to get out of it. Germany has now been in recession for two years, and some bourgeois economists say the recession will continue for the whole of 2025. That would be unprecedented since World War Two.

This process has been massively accelerated as a result of the Ukraine war and European sanctions on Russia. These have not impeded the Russian war effort, but have mainly hurt Europe, and particularly Germany.

Just to give a few figures to illustrate the process: German industrial production is down 7 percent since 2021, but in energy-intensive industries it is down 20 percent! Germany is obviously the most affected country in Europe, as it was the one which was most dependent on the supply of cheap Russian energy. 

The competitiveness of Europe is lagging behind the competitiveness of the US and China / Image: fair use

But other countries are not far behind. In Britain industrial production has suffered a long-term decline. Nevertheless, the figures showing the collapse in production since the Ukraine war began are shocking: manufacturing output is down 9 percent since 2021, metals are down 35 percent, chemicals down 38 percent, cement 39 percent, and electrical equipment is down an incredible 49 percent! This is an absolute bloodbath. 

What this reflects, beyond the impact of energy sanctions on Russia, is a deeper underlying process which is clearly explained in the Draghi report. The competitiveness of Europe is lagging behind the competitiveness of the US and China. Capitalism is based on reinvesting surplus value in order to advance the productive technique and develop the means of production, in order to produce in a more efficient manner.

While in the recent period there have been some increases in the productivity of labour in the United States, Europe is lagging far, far behind. The Draghi report explains very well that the level of economic integration of Europe is not enough to compete with the massive economies of scale and capital markets of China and the US.

The original idea of European integration was an attempt by the European ruling classes to stand together for fear of being hanged separately. Nevertheless, different regulatory regimes, separate capital markets and so on prevent the mobilisation of the combined strength of the different European capitalist classes in a joint European effort in any field. There are very few exceptions to this phenomenon. Airbus is one of the few. 

Today, in a period of crisis and increased global competition between blocs, Europe, rather than standing together, is being pulled in all different directions. This will be increasingly the case. 

This is the case, for instance, in Austria, whose capitalist class has a lot of interests in Russia. It is, therefore, being pulled in that direction. Other countries are being pulled towards the US. As a result, any attempt at a joint European policy to face this crisis will flounder. 

They cannot agree on tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, because different European countries have different interests. Chinese electric vehicles are seen as a threat to the European car industry, which employs millions of workers. But still they cannot agree on tariffs, as some countries are courting Chinese companies to install electric vehicle or battery plants in their country, rather than in others.

The rise of the demagogues

This multi-faceted crisis is at the root of the rise of right-wing demagogues across Europe. This is not just a phenomenon in the United States, although Trump’s election victory has massively accelerated the rise of right-wing demagogic formations in Europe. This already existed before.

While there are differences – each of these formations are shaped by slightly different national characteristics, history, national peculiarities and so on – the process is broadly the same and the causes are common. 

We see, for example, the rise of the AfD in Germany, which, as well as blaming migrants, is riding on the wave of anti-establishment anger, particularly around opposition to the war in Ukraine and the economic impact in Germany of sanctions on Russia.

Trump’s election victory has massively accelerated the rise of right-wing demagogic formations in Europe / Image: Gage Skidmore, Flickr

Already during the general election in Britain in July 2024, there were certain advances for Farage’s party, Reform. But now the opinion polls put him at the same level as Labour. One of the polls even had him two points ahead. 

Musk is fuelling this process. He intervened in a style which is similar to Trump’s, attacking Starmer, Macron and Scholz, and openly supporting the AfD by appearing via a video link at their national congress. 

His intervention was inflammatory. He called on King Charles to dismiss the British government and for the people to rise up against Starmer’s government as he was, according to Musk, protecting grooming gangs and “covering up the biggest crime in Britain’s history”.

Of course, his interventions are deranged, but he is not only the billionaire owner of a social media platform. He is, at the same time, someone who has an official position in Trump's administration. Incidentally, this is an official position, but one which is directly linked to the presidential office and outside of the state structure.  

He is openly attacking European heads of state, without any regard for diplomacy or protocol, as well as using his wealth and his social media reach to push this message.

The liberals and the left are in a panic mode over this. They are raising a hue and cry over disinformation on social media and the “polarising effect of the algorithms", and demanding “regulation”. 

Yes, of course, there is plenty of disinformation on social media. But what you have to ask yourself is: is the ‘traditional media’ full of truthful information? The answer is no. Some of us still remember Saddam’s ‘weapons of mass destruction’. Secondly, why do people tend to believe disinformation on social media? It is because there is such a degree of mistrust in the traditional media. They've been lying and defending the system for such a long time, and people can now see through them.

The liberals turn around and say that the Romanian presidential election was manipulated through Russian-funded TikTok messages and that this is what led to the victory of Georgescu. This is completely ridiculous, and they have not yet provided any proof of it, but the Supreme Court has already cancelled the result of the first round on the basis of these allegations.

In fact, if it were so simple, why didn't the liberals organise a campaign on TikTok themselves? The question is not the medium through which the campaign was spread. The question that needs to be asked is: what was the content of the campaign? Georgescu’s campaign was based on opposition to the war in Ukraine, against NATO and asked the question: why are we spending so much money on the war in Ukraine when our own people have to emigrate to western Europe because there are no jobs in Romania? And this obviously resonated with millions of Romanians. 

This case really exposes the nature of liberals. What they are saying is that, if the wrong candidate wins the election – wrong from the point of view of NATO, Brussels, etc. – then we simply cancel the election. That is the sum total of the liberal’s attachment to democracy and the ‘right to vote’ that they keep going on about, and which they say is under threat from right-wing demagogues. 

If you look at Europe, everywhere you see the same phenomena. Le Pen is rising in France and might eventually become the president. Farage is already polling ahead of Labour in Britain and might become the prime minister at the head of some sort of Reform-Tory coalition. The FPÖ might become the senior partner of a right-wing coalition in Austria. In Germany, we see the rise of the AfD either pulling the conservatives towards its positions or splitting them. Meloni is already in power in Italy. 

For years we have been discussing the crisis of legitimacy of bourgeois democracy, of all its institutions, of all its established parties. That is caused by the crisis of capitalism, and it has accelerated since 2008. As a result, we have a growing anti-establishment mood, which is now being reflected in the rise of right-wing demagogues.

Shifts in consciousness

The rise of right-wing demagogues can be explained by these two factors: the anti-establishment mood, but also the collapse, the failure, the utter bankruptcy of the so-called ‘left’. 

What is the default response of this so-called ‘left’ when faced with this situation? “We must all unite in defence of the Republic, we must all unite to defend liberal democracy and freedom of speech”, etc. This is the worst possible response and it actually helps the right-wing demagogues. They can then turn around and say, “Look. They're all the same. They're all defending the system.” And in fact, they are.

This is the system that is destroying jobs, which is responsible for the high cost of living, etc. Of course, the right-wing demagogues add to their argument an attempt to scapegoat migrants for these problems. 

The question we need to ask ourselves is: what is going to happen when these formations come to power? Trump is in power already in the US. He has made many promises. He is riding on the expectations of millions of people who think that he is really going to Make America Great Again.

There are strong illusions amongst millions of people in the United States that Trump will bring back the ‘good old days’ of the post-war period / Image: Gage Skidmore, Flickr

What does this mean for a significant section of working class people? To them, making America great again means decent well-paid jobs. It means that they can get to the end of the month without being forced to work two or three different jobs, or having to sell plasma to make ends meet.

This is not going to happen. This is certainly not going to happen. There are strong illusions amongst millions of people in the United States that Trump will bring back the ‘good old days’ of the post-war period. This is completely ruled out. 

They think that Trump's policies will bring better times. 

It is not ruled out that, for a short period of time, some of these measures – for example tariffs, which will promote industrial development in the United States at the expense of other countries – might have a little bit of an impact. Many people will also give him the benefit of the doubt for a period of time. He can also use the argument that it is the establishment, the ‘deep state’, which is not allowing him to carry out his policies. 

But once reality sinks in and these illusions are dispelled, we will see an equally sharp and violent shift of the pendulum to the left. The deep-seated anti-establishment mood that propelled Trump to power will express itself on the opposite side of the political spectrum.

There is an article by Trotsky called If America Should Go Communist, where he talks about the American temperament which he describes as “energetic and violent”: “It would be contrary to the American tradition to make a major change without choosing sides and cracking heads.”

The American worker is practical and demands concrete results. He is prepared to take action to get things done.

Farrell Dobbs, the leader of the great Minneapolis Teamsters strike in 1934, went straight from being a Republican to being a Trotskyist leader. In his account of the strike, he explains why. To him, the Trotskyists were the ones offering the most practical and effective solutions in dealing with the problems the workers faced.

The tasks of the communists

I'll just finish with this question. We have been discussing for some time how there is a shift in consciousness, particularly amongst the youth. That was the case even before we launched the “Are You A Communist” turn. There is a layer of the youth that are drawing very radical conclusions, some of whom consider themselves communists.

Incidentally, we shouldn't exaggerate this question. This is still only a layer. But in terms of numbers, the amount of young people who consider themselves communist is quite large for a small organisation like ours.

There is a new opinion poll in Britain that shows that 47 percent of youth agreed with the statement: ‘the entire way our society is organised must be radically changed through revolution’. That is actually a very sharp way to ask a question, and still it got the support of 47 percent of the youth. 

The poll also has a number of other interesting results. A majority of the youth think that what is required is a strong leader not bound by parliament. So, of course, there is also a lot of confusion, and a rejection of the rotten politicians in parliament. Nevertheless, the fact that 47 percent of the youth think that revolution is needed to upend the whole of the political system as it is organised today is extremely significant.

As I said at the beginning, we live in extremely turbulent times. It seems like everyone else on the left is mired in a mood of desperation and dark pessimism. But we are optimistic. We are optimistic because we understand the underlying processes at play.

Rutte is exaggerating the Russian danger in order to push his agenda of increased military spending / Image: NATO, Flickr

These processes will lead to massive clashes in the class struggle. What is obvious is that governments will find it increasingly difficult to implement the policies that the capitalist class needs to deal with the crisis. They cannot get a parliamentary majority for even more and even deeper austerity cuts, as any parties voting for these would be trounced at the election.

The Secretary General of NATO, Mark Rutte, gave a speech to the European Parliament a few days ago where he said that they have to increase defence spending, and that the previous target of 2 percent of GDP is not enough. They are now demanding 4 or even 5 percent of GDP. In fact, many of the NATO countries currently do not even reach 2 percent!

Rutte added that, in order to do this they will need to cut spending in other areas. He specifically mentioned social spending, pensions, education, healthcare, etc. He told the European MPs that this was a difficult decision they needed to make, but that if they didn’t they might as well start a “Russian language course or emigrate to New Zealand”. 

Of course, he is exaggerating the Russian danger in order to push his agenda of increased military spending. There is an element of scaremongering. Russia is not about to invade Europe. But the policy is clear: increase defence spending and cut social spending. This is on top of the already difficult situation working class people are facing.

This is the real situation we are in, a situation that is already provoking massive political radicalisation, part of which is now expressing itself in a very distorted manner. 

Our modest forces do not allow us yet to intervene in a decisive manner in events. We are too small. There needs to be a certain urgency in the building of our forces. If we manage to get to an organisation of 5,000 or 10,000 members in an advanced capitalist country – a cadre organisation, with roots amongst the youth and the working class – before massive events break out – as they will – then we will be in business.

And this is perfectly possible too, if we carry out our work in a patient and systematic manner, if we don't lose our heads and if we are able to connect with a small percentage of this layer of very radicalised youth who are looking for a serious alternative to fight against this rotten, senile capitalist system.