Red star tribune | revolutionary news & history

Donald Trump’s victory in the 2024 election–and the Democratic Party’s significant underperformance–has created a storm of ‘hot takes’ and analysis from all sectors of politics. Is there a ‘Red Wave’, has the working class become more reactionary, is an overt fascist dictatorship inevitable, what could communists and the working class have done differently, and what should the working class do now? 

There are two fundamental questions–that deeply interconnect–that communists must start asking themselves (and do the necessary theoretical and historical research). Is the US on the road to fascism or is it already here—and ultimately how to combat it? How should communists adjust electoral strategies after the last few cycles? 

Let’s Look at Reality…the Numbers of the 2024 Election

Before diving into Marxist theories on elections within bourgeois societies–or the long-standing internal debate about the nature of fascism in the US–let’s materially analyze the election results. The GOP–and an increasingly MAGA-controlled GOP–will be in control of all branches of the federal government. Kamala Harris received ~8 million less votes than Biden in 2020. 

Even though it’s universally regarded in the Left and especially communist spaces that Harris ran a horrible campaign, it’s surprising the degree of alienation and apathy we see from that drop-off. There was much talk about the collapse of the Liberal-Left alliance of 2020, and that number perhaps shows it more than anything. 

When combined with the Green Party getting hundreds of thousands of more votes than in 2020 and PSL getting a historic turnout for a communist presidential ticket–150,503 votes at the time of writing–it’s clear a shift from that alliance is a reality. 

While it is hard to get an accurate gauge of the working class vote–exit polls don’t often differentiate by class, and bourgeois understanding of class differs from Marxism–we do see that 50% of voters with an income under $50,000 voted for Trump. Union households were almost evenly split, with 45% voting in favor of Trump. 

Now, it’s impossible to say Trump has a majority working class support, however, it’s clear about half of the people who are poor in terms of income and union members supported a fascist candidate for President. That should alarm any communist organizer. 

Some other data/facts that seem alarming:

• Voters 18-29 dropped off support for Democrats by 11 points–meaning Trump gained ground amongst young people drastically and across the board.
• 71% of voters are white regardless of class and 57% of them voted for Trump. 
• 32% of voters said the “Economy” was the number 1 issue and 80% of them voted for Trump
• 68% of voters said the condition of the economy was “not so good/poor” and 70% of them voted for Trump
• Trump won the majority of votes in the suburbs, small cities, and rural areas which account for 70% of the electorate. 

In terms of positive news, Independent voters are a larger voting bloc than Democratic registered voters and they lean liberal instead of reactionary MAGA–49% to 46%. There were quite a few electoral wins down the ballot that People’s World covered quite well, such as abortion rights, minimum wage increases, ‘Worker’s Bill of Rights,’ strengthening labor rights, etc. 

No matter how one slices it, though, the MAGA fascist movement has now developed over nearly a decade of organizing directly a strong base that is angry about the economy that has never recovered from neoliberal shock therapy and recession after recession. That base is a largely white–settler–population mainly and increasingly recruiting young people who are most alienated by the decline and crisis of US capitalism. We see communities such as Latino men increasingly try to be accepted by the White Identity as well.

Furthermore, as it will be theoretically fleshed out later on in this article, the rise of Trump again and the growing acceptance of reactionary and demagogical politics is due to the Democratic establishment utterly capitulating to their own stated concern of the fascist threat MAGA represents. If the Democrats in power shifted policy and rhetoric to 1. Ruthlessly attack fascism, and 2. Relentlessly push left economic policies–the fascist danger wouldn’t be a concern. 

The onus was on the DNC and liberal bourgeois class to recognize the shift in the air–they didn’t. In seven battleground states (Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina, Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Michigan) Trump’s margin of victory was larger than the combined third-party vote. They can’t blame the Green Party or communists. 

The tragic reality for many liberal working class people is that their party would rather continue to support the Palestinian genocide and increase profits for their donors than address the material needs of the people. The Democratic Party fundamentally isn’t a worker’s party but a party for the neoliberal capitalist wing of the ruling class. As we see, born out in the election, a capitulating bourgeois party lays the fertile ground for a fascist movement to smash the seemingly old order.

Marxist Theory on Elections

There was much debate and discussion in US communist circles concerning the right electoral strategy in this last election. And while most of that debate is now moot, there were and by default still are key distortions seen in those debates. Many offered plans of abstention, voting third-party, and voting for and organizing with the Harris campaign out of fear of Trump. Which of these methods have a Marxist theoretical foundation from which to argue? What did Marx, Engels, and Lenin say about bourgeois elections? 

After the wave of revolutions rocked Europe in 1848–and most were defeated in counter-revolutionary waves–Marx and Engels had to assess what went wrong and where to improve. One key aspect was electoral strategies. A tendency of the 1848 revolutions was the capitulation of the bourgeois class towards the landed aristocracy to ‘reform’ absolutist Europe instead of propelling for any radical change–a clear difference from the days of the French and Haitian revolutions. Marx and Engels in 1850 reported to the First International: 

“[T]hat workers’ candidates are nominated everywhere in opposition to bourgeois-democratic candidates. As far as possible they should be League members and their election should be pursued by all possible means. Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention. They must not be led astray by the empty phrases of the democrats, who will maintain that the workers’ candidates will split the democratic party and offer the forces of reaction the chance of victory. All such talk means, in the final analysis, that the proletariat is to be swindled. The progress which the proletarian party will make by operating independently in this way is infinitely more important than the disadvantages resulting from the presence of a few reactionaries in the representative body. If the forces of democracy take decisive, terroristic action against the reaction from the very beginning, the reactionary influence in the election will already have been destroyed.” 

Marx and Engels clearly develop the theory of working class independence here and how that would necessarily function through an independent workers’ party. They need to run their own candidates “even when there’s no prospect” of winning. Because for Marx and Engels elections within a bourgeois democracy were not fundamentally about changing the social fabric that way, but as a “gauge” of the revolutionary strength of the communist organizations and working class. What about the threat of a reactionary takeover of bourgeois democracy? Again, Marx and Engels center class independence and reject that “swindle” because, as they see it, “If the forces of democracy take decisive, terroristic action against the reaction from the very beginning, the reactionary influence in the election will already have been destroyed.”

Engels’s speech to the First International after the Paris Commune reiterated this theory, “For us abstention is impossible. The workers’ party already exist as a political party in most countries. The experience of real life and the political oppression imposed on them by existing governments…force the workers to concern themselves with politics, whether they wish or not. To preach abstention would be to push them into the arms of bourgeois politics.” So abstaining from engaging in electoral politics was also out of the question for the original heads of Marxism. The masses are deeply affected by bourgeois politics–political repression and economic exploitation exist. So, to ignore that area of struggle outright would in reality push the working class and oppressed people to bourgeois politics. Engels went further to explain the importance of electoral work for communists:

“We seek the abolition of Classes. What is the means of achieving it? The political domination of the proletariat . . . revolution is the supreme act of politics; whoever wants it must also want the means, political action, which prepares for it, which gives the workers the education for revolution and without which the workers will always be duped … But the politics which are needed are working class politics; the workers’ party must be constituted not as the tail of some bourgeois party, but as an independent party with its own objective, its own politics. The political freedoms, the right of assembly and association and the freedom of the press, these are our weapons- should we fold our arms and abstain if they seek to take them away from us? It is said that every political act implies recognition of the status quo. But when this status quo gives us the means of protesting against it, then to make use of these means is not to recognize the status quo.”

  We see clearly from Engels that engaging in the electoral struggle is not accepting the “status quo” of bourgeois politics. Still, it is a vehicle for training and organizing the working class. That’s if it’s conducted not as a tailist endeavor behind the bourgeoisie. Even within this polemic, Engels echoes the concept of capitalism producing its own gravediggers–the bourgeois rights won by the masses are tools to undermine that very authority. 

In a letter to Paul Lafargue, Engels went further to connect the concepts of armed struggle with electoral work as a means of pushing the bourgeois to undermine its own authority and propel workers to revolution. 

“Do you realize now what a splendid weapon you in France have had in

your hands for forty years in universal suffrage; if only people knew how to use it! It’s slower and more boring than the call to revolution, but it’s ten times more sure, and what is even better, it indicates with the most perfect accuracy the day when a call to armed revolution has to be made; it’s even ten to one that universal suffrage, intelligently used by the workers, will drive the rulers to overthrow legality, that is, to put us in the most favorable position to make the revolution.”

Russian revolutionary icon Vladimir Lenin also had much to say about electoral strategies leading up to, during, and after the Revolution. This was a topic of much concern for Bolsheviks and Marxists in that era even with the absolutism of the Tsarism regime and the de-facto police state. Marxists in the Russian empire didn’t resort purely to armed struggle even when democratic means of struggle were unavailable. Lenin, in 1897 while in exile wrote to fellow Marxists struggling against Tsarist Russia.  

“The attitude of the working class, as a fighter against the autocracy, towards all the other social classes and groups in the political opposition is very precisely determined by the basic principles of Social-Democracy expounded in the famous Communist Manifesto. The Social-Democrats support the progressive social classes against the reactionary classes, the bourgeoisie against the representatives of privileged landowning estate and the bureaucracy, the big bourgeoisie against the reactionary strivings of the petty bourgeoisie. This support does not presuppose, nor does it call for, any compromise with non-Social-Democratic programmes and principles—it is support given to an ally against a particular enemy. Moreover, the Social-Democrats render this support in order to expedite the fall of the common enemy, but expect nothing for themselves from these temporary allies, and concede nothing to them. 

The Social-Democrats support every revolutionary movement against the present social system, they support all oppressed nationalities, persecuted religions, downtrodden social estates, etc., in their fight for equal rights…”

“The proletariat alone can be—and because of its class position must be—a consistently democratic, determined enemy of absolutism, incapable of making any concessions or compromises. The proletariat alone can be the vanguard fighter for political liberty and for democratic institutions…That is why the merging of the democratic activities of the working class with the democratic aspirations of other classes and groups would weaken the democratic movement, would weaken the political struggle, would make it less determined, less consistent, more likely to compromise. On the other hand, if the working class stands out as the vanguard fighter for democratic institutions, this will strength the democratic movement, will strengthen the struggle for political liberty, because the working class will spur on all the other democratic and political opposition elements, will push the liberals towards the political radicals, will push the radicals towards an irrevocable rupture with the whole of the political and social structure of present society…”

“Even in England we see that powerful social groups support the privileged position of the bureaucracy and hinder the complete democratisation of that institution. Why? Because it is in the interests of the proletariat alone to democratise it completely ; the most progressive strata of the bourgeoisie defend certain prerogatives of the bureaucracy and are opposed to the election of all officials, opposed to the complete abolition of electoral qualifications, opposed to making officials directly responsible to the people, etc., because these strata realise that the proletariat will take advantage of such complete democratisation in order to use it against the bourgeoisie. This is the case in Russia, too. Many and most diverse strata of the Russian people are opposed to the omnipotent, irresponsible, corrupt, savage, ignorant and parasitic Russian bureaucracy. But except for the proletariat, not one of these strata would agree to the complete democratisation of the bureaucracy, because all these strata (bourgeoisie, petty bourgeoisie, the “intelligentsia” in general) have some ties with the bureaucracy, because all these strata are kith and kin of the Russian bureaucracy.” 

Lenin quite clearly is not pushing a sectarian or alienating policy from the masses. The fight for democratic and political liberty was a means of organizing the struggle in the short and long term, and it was one the working class–and particularly an independent working class party–to push for that struggle because other classes had capitulating tendencies. 

Now of course, this is not the totality of theoretical works by these respective revolutionaries or the entirety of the Marxist tradition. However, this does lay out the principle theories within the methodology of Marxism. One must be careful to always consider their local and national material conditions when trying to apply to theory as well. 

Marxist Theory on Fascism and Is the US Fascist?

Now, like the topic of electoral strategy and theory, this won’t be an exhaustive examination of the topic of fascism in the US. That discussion would need to be centered fully and be collective in nature to truly arrive at any materialist truth. But, with the electoral win of Donald Trump who most consider a fascist, it’s imperative to at least have a cursory discussion of the matter of fascism is relevant to a discussion of elections. 

Marxists have been at the forefront of combating fascism since its development in the 20th century. But it’s important to also include Indigenous and decolonial perspectives on the topic of fascism–not least because the US is a settler colonial project but also to connect (settler) colonialism to imperialism and then to fascism globally. As Georgi Dimitrov echoed from the Comintern, “in a more or less developed form, fascist tendencies and the germs of a fascist movement are to be found almost everywhere.” 

Comintern General Secretary Dimitrov laid out what fascism in power is: 

“Comrades, fascism in power was correctly described by the Thirteenth Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International as the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital…it is fiendish chauvinism. It is a government system of political gangsterism, a system of provocation and torture practised upon the working class and the revolutionary elements of the peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia. It is medieval barbarity and bestiality, it is unbridled aggression in relation to other nations…acting as the spearhead of international counter-revolution, as the chief instigator of imperialist war…Fascism is the power of finance capital itself. It is the organization of terrorist vengeance against the working class and the revolutionary section of the peasantry and intelligentsia. In foreign policy, fascism is jingoism in its most brutal form, fomenting bestial hatred of other nations.”  

As I wrote about in the context of fascist movements and policies in California– Guyanese revolutionary, theorist, and historian Walter Rodney identified fascism as “a deformity of capitalism” that “heightens the imperialist tendency towards domination which is inherent in capitalism,” and “safeguards the principle of private property.” Likewise, he asserted that “at the same time, fascism immeasurably strengthens the institutional racism already bred by capitalism…” 

Indian Marxist economist Prabhat Patnaik in his work Neoliberalism and Fascism assessed that “[fascists] invariably invoke acute hatred against some hapless minority groups, treating them as the ‘enemy within’ in a narrative of aggressive hyper-nationalism, and attribute all the existing social ills of the ‘nation’ to the presence of such groups; second, they are based not only on prejudice but also on complete unreason, in the sense that no amount of evidence can possibly shake off such prejudice; third, they set themselves up as movements, trying to acquire social hegemony, as distinct from mere secret societies or murderous gangs (though the latter may also be inspired by fascist ideology and may find room within these movements); and fourth, they are not averse to the use of street violence for achieving their political ends…”

A key aspect here–or tendency–of fascism is to close democratic avenues of struggle. That the working class is forced out of the political struggle is a common move by fascism. There has been much debate on that concept in relation to the US. George Jackson said, “The fascists have deliberately manufactured a false sense of security…They will never permit conditions to go out of their control…” He went further and added, “Conditions will never be altogether right for a broadly based revolutionary war unless the fascists are stricken by an uncharacteristic fit of total madness. Should we wait for something that is not likely to occur at least for decades? The conditions that are not present must be manufactured.” In response to Lenin and other Marxist theorists in regards to electoral work, Jackson said:

“Lenin, Guevara and Fanon, all in their particular fashion, postulate that before revolution can take place, all other forms of redress must be exhausted, clearly exhausted. Electoral processes must have broken down, the confidence of the electorate in any of the old forms completely shattered, confidence in the ability of the old system to honestly organize any aspect of public life must be shaken to the core. Years and years ago it may have been an acceptable tactic to organize a people’s ticket of solid worker and revolutionary credentials and arm it with an ideal platform—only to be defeated by a mud-slinging opportunist-warlord, demonstrably inferior, scum-swilling pig. Then pass out a pamphlet to explain to the people how the system has failed them, or speak it in Pershing Square—or, years ago, in the Campus Hall. Today it is not a tactic—it’s counterrevolution.” 

According to Jackson–and reflective of the New Left and its theoretical descendants–the US was already fascist and electoral work was “counterrevolution.” Marxist historian Gerald Horne has critiqued this analysis from Jackson and broadly the New Left movement, “…the White House was prosecuting a relentless campaign against the [BPP] but…the nation had yet to reach fascism…What had befuddled many [including both the CPUSA and BPP] was that…the ruling class was deploying fascist tactics against Black folk and bourgeois democracy for the…settler population.”

And this is where we get into the murky waters of theory meeting specific material conditions. The US being a settler colonial project–and in the last ~100 years becoming the imperial hegemony–has created unique dynamics. Dimitrov wrote about this phenomenon:

“The development of fascism, and the fascist dictatorship itself, assume different forms in different countries, according to historical, social and economic conditions and to the national peculiarities, and the international position of the given country. In certain countries, principally those in which fascism has no broad mass basis and in which the struggle of the various groups within the camp of the fascist bourgeoisie itself is rather acute, fascism does not immediately venture to abolish parliament, but allows the other bourgeois parties, as well as the Social-Democratic Parties, to retain a modicum of legality.” 

Sai Englert in their book “Settler Colonialism: an Introduction” makes a point that settler colonialism is not, “a discrete, self-contained structure of domination, but one that interacts with—and is co-constituent of—key processes of domination…Capitalism, racism, and dispossession, as well as different forms of state violence and gender oppression, emerged within, through, and/or in relation to settler colonial expansion…”

Patrick Wolfe refers to settler colonial “invasion” as not an “event” but a “structure”, and Englert comments that, “as long as the colonial structures (states, property, regimes, etc.) that give settlers access to Indigenous land, labor, and resources,” settler colonialism “persists.” It should be quoted at length here but Aimé Césaire also makes a theoretical connection between (settler) colonialism and fascism: 

“People are surprised, they become indignant. They say: “How strange! But never mind-it’s Nazism, it will pass!” And they wait, and they hope; and they hide the truth from themselves, that it is barbarism, the supreme barbarism, the crowning barbarism that sums up all the daily barbarisms; that it is Nazism, yes, but that before they were its victims, they were its accomplices; that they tolerated that Nazism before it was inflicted on them, that they absolved it, shut their eyes to it, legitimized it, because, until then, it had been applied only to non-European peoples; that they have cultivated that Nazism, that they are responsible for it, and that before engulfing the whole edifice of Western, Christian civilization in its reddened waters, it oozes, seeps, and trickles from every crack. Yes, it would be worthwhile to study clinically, in detail, the steps taken by Hitler and Hitlerism and to reveal to the very distinguished, very humanistic, very Christian bourgeois of the twentieth century that without his being aware of it, he has a Hitler inside him, that Hitler inhabits him, that Hitler is his demon…At the end of capitalism, which is eager to outlive its day, there is Hitler. At the end of formal humanism and philosophic renunciation, there is Hitler…Between colonizer and colonized there is room only for forced labor, intimidation, pressure, the police, taxation, theft, rape, compulsory crops, contempt, mistrust, arrogance, self-complacency, swinishness, brainless elites, degraded masses.”   

The debate about the application of anti-fascist theory and anti-colonial theory is not a separate conversation–especially in the US. The question of “Is the US fascist already” is perhaps lacking dialectical materialist framing. The US is the imperial hegemony–and in perpetual crisis–so the “power of finance” capital is there to a certain degree because Imperialism is the monopoly stage of finance capital as Lenin said. And it would be preposterous to say the US hasn’t reached that stage of capital and is in crisis. However, due to the settler colonial contradictions and influence on the imperial and capitalist processes of the US, we perhaps have fascist movements that will not outright ban parties, etc.—as Dimitrov said was a possibility. 

We also have to see the clear voting bloc of white voters—and especially workers in the above section on the 2024 election—as a byproduct of settler colonial class collaborationism; and if class collaborationism is a key aspect of fascism developing, then the US settler colonial project is fertile ground for fascism to sprout and grow. It’s not an equating of colonialism and fascism, but looking at how they intertwine and affect each other. It is imperative to ultimately know how to undermine the structures of all these oppressive and exploitative systems. 

Again, this is not, and can not be, an exhaustive list of theoretical polemics on fascism and electoral strategies. That needs to be done in your collective. No matter where you fall on some of these debates/questions, the struggle against capitalism, imperialism, fascism, and (settler) colonialism is still here. These are deeply interconnected structures. Now I might personally disagree with George Jackson’s assessments of the worth of electoral work—for the aforementioned reasons stated and quoted—but he was absolutely right, and perhaps more so now than ever when he stated: 

“Settler your quarrels, come together, understand the reality of our situation, understand that fascism is already here, that people are already dying who could be saved, that generations more will die or live poor butchered half-lives if you fail to act. Do what must be done, discover your humanity and your love in revolution. Pass on the torch. Join us, give up your life for the people.”

Further Reading: 

The Ballot, the Streets, or Both? From Marx and Engels to Lenin and the October Revolution by August Nimtz 

Armed Struggle? By Gerald Horne

Blood in My Eye by George Jackson

The Fascist Offensive… by Georgi Dimitrov 

Settler Colonialism: an Introduction by Sai Englert