White House shakedown: Capitalism’s brutal reality… and our tasks
Editorial of the Socialist in England and Wales issue 1312
Under Donald Trump’s brutish ‘America First’ presidency, US imperialism’s ruthless determination to defend its own interests is no longer disguised by diplomatic fig leaves. Instead, naked self-interest is the order of the day. That was demonstrated to the world at the jaw-dropping Oval Office press conference where Trump and vice-president JD Vance gave Ukrainian president Zelensky a verbal battering. Summoned to Washington, Zelensky was there to sign over to the US – with his arm twisted up his back – a large part of Ukraine’s mineral rights. But domestic pressure meant Zelensky could not do so without publicly pleading for security ‘guarantees’ from Trump. As a result, he was given a metaphorical kicking in front of the world’s media.
Trump’s presidency is launching an onslaught on the crumbling ‘rules-based’ order, through which the US previously dominated the globe. Still the strongest power on the planet, US imperialism has nonetheless been in relative decline over a long period, as a consequence of China’s rise in particular. It is therefore no longer as able to set the framework for the world. The resulting growing global ‘multipolarity’ predates Trump, but his presidency is acting to dramatically accelerate the process as he blatantly defends what he sees as the best interests of the US billionaires against all comers, whether an ‘ally’ or not.
Of course, US imperialism has always acted in its own interests, including in its previous arming of Ukraine, where it saw an opportunity to test and undermine Russia’s military strength. Superficially, president Joe Biden appeared to successfully unite the members of NATO behind this approach, particularly after the Russian invasion in 2022, but they were always going to fall out when it came to deciding when the war’s goals had been achieved, and in drawing up the cost balance sheet. It is clear that if Kamala Harris had won the presidency, she too would have soon decided that, regardless of the views of other NATO members, US imperialism’s aim – which was never the national liberation of the Ukrainian peoples but rather the weakening of the Russian armed forces – had been largely reached and the time had come to negotiate. Trump’s approach is nonetheless far cruder and more public. No one can doubt that we are in a new world of capitalist disorder.
Starmer fawns
But while the world is in turmoil, some things have not changed a jot. The day before Zelensky’s visit, the UK prime minister Sir Keir Starmer came to pay homage to the new ‘king’. His nauseating fawning over Trump was nothing new. It was typical of British prime ministers over generations. In particular, it was straight out of the playbook of Tony Blair, Starmer’s New Labour predecessor.
Blair’s prostration before the then Republican US president, George W Bush, led to the New Labour government sending British troops to take part in the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq. An estimated 600,000 Iraqi civilians perished during the occupation, along with nearly 5,000 US and British troops. Far from bringing the stability, prosperity and democracy promised by Bush and Blair, Iraq has since been riven by civil war, an ISIS insurgency, and social disintegration.
Blair was opposed by the biggest anti-war movement in British history, which almost forced him out of office. And he began with a far stronger social base than Starmer, who was elected by the lowest share of the electorate of any government since 1918. The consequences of Starmer licking Trump’s boots – who is not even pretending to offer prosperity and democracy for the world – are likely to be even more disastrous than those faced by New Labour Mark One. For millions of people, the events of the last week have already driven home the conclusion that Starmer’s government is fundamentally no different to the Tories. It too defends the interests of Britain’s capitalist class at the expense of the rest of us.
Like all supplicants, Starmer arrived at the White House with an offering. Britain’s military spending, he promised, already the fifth highest in the world, would be increased further immediately, with foreign aid cut to do so. Even Lord Richard Dannatt, retired head of the British Army, opposed the cut to foreign aid, recognising the value of its ‘soft power’ in furthering the interests of British imperialism. Two weeks ago, that was also the government’s position but as soon as Trump demanded Starmer jump, he only asked how high.
Starmer also gushed about the brutal austerity being planned by Trump in the US. In the days before his visit, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives had agreed a budget framework which, if implemented, would mean $4.5 trillion in tax cuts for the rich paid for by huge cuts to public spending, including Medicaid – the only means via which millions of Americans can get any health care. How did Starmer respond? By ‘joking’ about how, while a chainsaw wasn’t quite his style, New Labour too were cutting “red tape and bureaucracy” and were “open for business”. Make no mistake, this was not just measly words to satisfy Trump; Britain’s government is also planning a new wave of cuts to public services, on the grounds that there is ‘no money’ – except of course for weaponry.
Puny Britain no bridge
But while millions of working-class people were disgusted by Starmer’s love-in with Trump, the New Labour government was ecstatic with the result – for 24 hours at least! They clutched at Trump’s reference to a possible US-UK trade deal, desperately hoping that his fondness for Britain’s Royal Family was going to mean Britain would get a speedy deal and escape the US tariffs currently being threatened against a swathe of other countries. This was always a pipe dream. In his first term, Trump promised the then UK prime minister Boris Johnson a trade deal, but nothing came of it. And the fact that vice president Vance is, according to Trump, going to head up the negotiations on such a deal does not bode well! Britain’s biggest trading partner is the EU, and its second is the US. There is, for example, no deal Britain could do on food with the US which would not hugely increase difficulties for trade with the EU.
The buoyant mood in Downing Street didn’t last, however. The reality of British capitalism’s growing and insoluble dilemmas – as a weaker power outside any of the major blocs – was resoundingly brought home by Trump’s public row with Zelensky. Starmer claims Britain can be a bridge between Trump and Europe, but that is clearly utterly utopian. True, he hosted a summit of European leaders to try and come up with a ‘peace plan’ for Ukraine that Trump would accept, but there was not even agreement between the participants on what to put forward, and it is clear that what Trump will or won’t accept is going to have nothing to do with the pleading of Britain’s government.
Trumpism is both a reflection and an accelerant of the ruling elites worldwide increasingly beating the nationalist drum. While the productive forces have long since outgrown the barriers of the nation state, capitalism has never been able to fully surmount them, even in the age of US-dominated globalisation. Now, however, in a sign of the growing sickness of capitalism worldwide, the nation state has come roaring back as the different national capitalist classes struggle to defend their own interests in a multipolar world.
Workers’ of the world unite
Trump’s crude ripping off of the mask of diplomacy to reveal the horrible reality of capitalism will lead many to draw socialist and therefore internationalist conclusions. From its earliest days, the best traditions of the workers’ movement have been built on international solidarity. Karl Marx called for ‘workers of the world’ to unite if they wanted to lose their chains. In Britain many of today’s biggest trade unions came out of the huge strikes of previously unorganised workers at the end of the nineteenth century. But they did not fight alone. For example, the five-week-long London dockers’ strike in 1889 was saved from being starved back to work by donations from trade unions on the other side of the world in Australia.
Today, more than in the past, global travel and communication mean that there are strong internationalist instincts among the working class in Britain and other countries. The strength of the movement against the horror in Gaza is one indication of that. But at the same time, of course, capitalist nation states have created deep-rooted national consciousnesses, which the ruling elites are prepared to stoke up whenever it suits them.
Currently, the capitalist classes in EU countries and Britain, realising that they can no longer rely on the military strength of US imperialism to protect their profits and interests, are banging the drum for increased military spending. Horrified by Trump, some on the left have succumbed to this. Writing in the Guardian, for example, George Monbiot declared that he had “reluctantly” drawn the conclusion that the “UK needs to rearm”. But what does this mean? Does Monbiot think that Britain’s capitalist class has the same interests as the working-class majority? Has he forgotten the army generals who made clear that military tops don’t defend the interests of the majority, but the elite, when they indicated they would not obey orders from a democratically elected Jeremy Corbyn-led government?
The current government and its Tory predecessor backed the Israeli government’s slaughter of Gazans, regardless of a large majority opposing it doing so. That has not made the world a safer place! Britain may today be a second-rate imperialist power, but Britain’s capitalist class still plays its part in adding to the danger and violence in the world. Taking part in the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan not only created a nightmare in those countries, but it massively fuelled the growth of Islamist terrorism in Britain and elsewhere.
Unfortunately, the leaders of a number of unions that organise workers in the defence industry have rushed to welcome the pledged increase in military spending, including Sharon Graham, general secretary of Unite. Under her leadership, Unite has stepped up action in defence of jobs and conditions, and it is absolutely correct for fighting trade unions to defend every member’s job, including of workers in the defence industry. This, however, should be done on the basis of arguing for a switch to socially useful production, rather than giving even a hint of support to the capitalist warmongers.
Capitalism today is a system in crisis. Wars and conflicts are on the rise, but rather than banging the drum to arm one capitalist class against another, the workers’ movement needs to urgently fight to build its own independent strength. Just six weeks in, the hopes of some US workers that Trump’s presidency would bring increased living standards for them are beginning to pall a little, as inflation rises and cuts to social programmes loom. At a certain stage he will face mass opposition from the US working class. Putin too will get his comeuppance from below at some point. And while right now Zelensky has probably had a temporary popularity boost at home, as he has internationally, for being seen to stand up to Trump, his is also a pro-capitalist government that is intertwined with the oligarchs and has attacked workers’ rights.
For the working class in any of these countries, the most important assistance they could see from the working class in Britain would be for us to build a mass movement against Starmer, Badenoch, Farage, and all of the capitalist politicians. Central would be the creation of a workers’ party – giving a political voice to the trade unions, independent of all the rotten capitalist elites and fighting for a socialist programme: for power to be taken out of the hands of the major corporations and banks that dominate the economy, so society can be run democratically in the interests of the majority, based on planning and cooperation, instead of capitalism’s ruthless pursuit of profit which leads to poverty, environmental destruction, and war.
We should not underestimate the effect that the creation of such a party – in Britain or any country – would have on strengthening the confidence of the working class and oppressed worldwide to build parties that struggle for the ending of this rotten capitalist system.
Possibly the only concrete thing to come out of Starmer’s attempt to charm Trump will be his second state visit at some point this year. We will fight to make sure that the scale of opposition to Trump among workers and young people is demonstrated on the streets, for the world’s working class and poor to see, as a further impetus to building the mass workers’ parties that we need.
