Trump Rightwing Marxist
The title and the mockery of MAGA rhetoric highlight a central irony. The argument is that Trump's policies—massive industrial subsidies (“nationalize and subsidize the necessary minerals”), protectionism, and a state-directed industrial policy—are not capitalist in a classical liberal sense. They represent a form of “destructive capitalism” or nationalistic state intervention, akin to a right-wing socialism that picks winners, disrupts global supply chains, and seeks to de-couple from integrated systems.
Underlying Worldview and Context
This perspective aligns closely with certain strands of Eurasianist and civilizational-state thought, often articulated by Russian philosophers like Alexander Dugin and embraced in certain Chinese intellectual circles. In this view: China is the modern heir to integrative, civilizational empires.
The Anglo-American world (especially the US) is a transient, disruptive, “thalassocratic” (sea-power) force that rules through division and financial manipulation, not lasting, land-based integrative governance.
The current geopolitical struggle is not between democracies and autocracies, but between a civilizational model and a tribal-mercantile model.
But America is Capitalist. Sure, and I am Socialist.
GenZ! Nationalism is the stupidest thing. don't fall for it.
The concepts of homeland and nation (or ethnicity) exist on an essentially natural or “physical” level. What must be rejected is nationalism—along with its monstrous outgrowth, imperialism—and chauvinism; in other words, every fanatical absolutization of a particular group. Therefore, in a doctrinal sense, the correct term should be “European Empire,” not “Nation Europa” or “European Fatherland.” Among Europeans, we must appeal to a higher‑order feeling, qualitatively distinct from nationalist sentiment, which is rooted in other, lower strata of the human being. We cannot claim to be “Europeans” based on a feeling analogous to what makes one feel Italian, Prussian, Basque, Finnish, Scottish, Hungarian, and so forth, nor can we believe that a single feeling of the same kind could become widespread—erasing and flattening these differences and replacing them within a “Nation Europa.”
The model of a true and organic empire (which must be clearly distinguished from every form of imperialism—a phenomenon to be seen as a regrettable extension of nationalism) was previously embodied in the European medieval world, which upheld the principles of both unity and multiplicity. In that world, individual states functioned as partial organic units, gravitating around a unum quod non est pars (“a one that is not a part,” in Dante’s words)—that is, a principle of unity, authority, and sovereignty of a different nature than that proper to each particular state. But the imperial principle can possess such dignity only by transcending the strictly political sphere, grounding and legitimizing itself through an idea, a tradition, and a power that is also spiritual.
What are the conditions and opportunities for realizing such an idea in Europe today? Obviously, it would require the will and the ability to go against the current. As I have stated, we must discard the notion of a “Nation Europa,” as if the ultimate goal were to merge the individual European nations into a single nation—a kind of undifferentiated European communal mass that erases linguistic, ethnic, and historical distinctions.
Since what is needed is an organic unity, the premise should instead be the integration and consolidation of each individual nation as a hierarchical, unified, and well‑differentiated whole.
The nature of the parts ought to reflect the nature of the whole.