In this section, we begin to write about the new government of the United States (US), the second government of the ultra-reactionary Donald Trump, and we will do so in the usual way, with notes and comments on his own statements and speeches, as well as those of other members of his government and more diverse representatives that will serve us for our analysis and conclusions on the matter. It is important to address this issue, because Yankee imperialism, despite going through the long process of its irremediable collapse, is still the only hegemonic imperialist superpower and the main enemy of the peoples of the world. To get into the subject, let us begin with the statement of the ex-president, the genocidal Joe Biden, a few days before leaving office to the current Trump, on the 20th of this month.
The major
world media, regarding the statement, reported something similar to the
following note:
“The
president of the United States, Joe Biden, warned that a dangerous oligarchy is
being created in his country, during the farewell speech he offered this
Wednesday.
"Today,
an oligarchy of extreme wealth, power and influence is taking shape in the
United States that really threatens all of our democracy, our basic rights and
our freedom," said Biden, who will leave office on January 20, the day
Donald Trump takes office.
Biden, 82,
also denounced that there is an "ultra-rich technological industrial
complex" that, he said, could gain unchecked power over Americans"
(BBC News World, January 16, 2025).
The next
day, January 17, 2025, in the "phoenix persönlich" broadcast,
journalist Theo Koll spoke with Thomas Enders, president of the German Society
for Foreign Policy (Deutschen Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, DGAP), on
the topic: what can be expected in a second Donald Trump government, how is
Germany prepared for it and what challenges lie ahead for Europe? In response
to the interviewer's question about the danger of an oligarchy for the United
States, as expressed by Biden, Enders commented that this is nothing new in the
United States, but let us remember Henry Ford, etc., in any case it is a change
from one oligarchic group to another.
It should
be noted in relation to the president of the DGAP, that although he declares
himself independent, his closeness to the candidate for Chancellor Merz (CDU)
in the next elections scheduled for the end of February is known. Merz is
linked to Yankee financial capital, and was CEO of Black Rock.
In his own way, this reactionary is right when he points out that what is happening is not new in the United States, it is a generational or group change in economic and political predominance. Among the political representatives of the US financial oligarchy there are differences in particular interests according to the faction of this oligarchy and even the groups they serve. But these, beginning with the President, despite their differences in many cases only of degree or style, serve the overall interests of the bourgeois dictatorship of the Yankee imperialist state, headed by the financial oligarchy. The struggle between these factions and groups is reflected as a struggle for political principles and is so distorted that one must be patient to unravel its secret.
IIt is necessary to see how the interaction between the political representatives of Yankee imperialism and the interests of those who employ them, the factions and groups, has taken place. In the superstructure of monopoly capitalism or imperialism, this interaction has been modified with the transition to state monopoly capitalism, around the First World War, with the union of the immense power of the large private monopolies with the immense power of the imperialist State, giving rise to the two factions in the different imperialist countries. In the USA, these two factions are politically represented by the two party mafias: the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, the same ones that take turns in the presidency and in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. Marx and Engel referred to the two bourgeois factions that existed in the bourgeois State in the stage of free competition capitalism, in the 19th century, as government and opposition, a liberal faction and a conservative faction. In the bourgeois state, as the political superstructure of this first stage of capitalism, the division of labor between those who dedicate themselves to the political function and those who dedicate themselves to the economy is expressed most clearly.
In the imperialist stage, with the fusion of the immense power of private monopolies and the great power of the State (State monopoly capitalism), there is also the personal union of political representatives with the monopolies, which is expressed on the political level as the so-called revolving door; that is, in one way or another, the high officials of the State and the leaders of the monopolies (boards of directors and supervisors of the large monopolies) pass from a public function to an economic function in the large companies or conglomerates and vice versa.
The fact is that the development of imperialism has its phases; we are in its third phase, that of its greatest decomposition and of sweeping away by the world revolution. At this stage, this relative independence of the political function from the economic function becomes increasingly blurred by the contrary tendency, to the ever-decreasing relative independence between the representatives of politics and the economy, until this indirect domination appears more and more clearly as governments of one or another faction or group of financial capital or financial oligarchy . As Chairman Gonzalo pointed out on one occasion, now these prominent members of the financial oligarchy are serving themselves directly from the pot. We noted this in a note at the beginning of the first government of the genocidal Donald Trump.
With the development of class society, the division of labor between the political and economic functions is expressed in the political superstructure, where the political function, with the development of the State, gains relative independence. In capitalism, wealth exercises its power indirectly but more securely, according to Engel in a letter to Konrad Schmidt, London, October 27, 1890, and see the quote from Lenin, which we record at the end. Then, Lenin says, "the indirect domination of the absolute power of capital", with imperialism the immense power of financial capital is exercised with any republic.
Therefore,
the statement of the genocidal Joe Biden is false, when he “warned that a
dangerous oligarchy is being created in his country (…) that threatens all
democracy”, it is as false as it is cynical, since both he and his government,
as well as Donald Trump and his new government are political representatives of
the financial oligarchy. It is not a danger as this genocidal wants to make it
seem, but a reality since Yankee imperialism is imperialism; The bourgeois
state of the USA, founded on a slave-owning basis as a slave-owning democracy,
retains that mark to this day. Then, at the end of the 19th century and
beginning of the 20th century, it became an imperialist bourgeois state, under
the direction of the big monopolistic bourgeoisie, a handful of the most
powerful members of financial capital, that is, what is called the financial
oligarchy.
Let us recall:
The members of the financial oligarchy change from the Rockefellers, Mellons, DuPonts, Cleveland and other financial groups closely connected to the weapons industry. The power of the Kuhn-Loeb and Boston financial groups, whose main strength lay in railways and light industry, declined, while the California financial group, developing aircraft, space, electronics and other military supply industries, and the First National City Bank financial group, controlling guided missiles and related military industries, rose in influence, these to mention a few, until the 1970s of the last century. In this century, there are those of the Magnificent Seven who received large subsidies from the Pentagon at the beginning of their activities and, recently, in the Biden period with the “big financial package” they have received great help from the State, some of them have had great prominence and supported the Biden government and the PD in the elections. And, now, there is Musk and others.
Read the
following quote:
“Engels
(...) deals with the democratic republic. The question is posed thus: can
wealth dominate with this form of government? That is, it is precisely about
the “contradiction” between -economics and politics.
Engels
answers: “... The democratic republic does not officially recognize differences
of fortune” (among citizens). "In it, wealth exercises its power
indirectly, but in a more secure way. On the one hand, in the form of direct
corruption of officials" ("of which America is a classic model")
"and, on the other hand, in the form of an alliance between the government
and the Stock Exchange...". There you have a model of economic analysis of
the "realisability" of democracy in capitalism, a question of which
another question is part of: the "realisability" of
self-determination in imperialism!
The
democratic republic is in "logical" contradiction with capitalism,
since it "officially" equates the rich and the poor. It is a
contradiction between the economic system and the political superstructure. The
republic has the same contradiction with imperialism, deepened or aggravated by
the fact that the substitution of free competition with monopoly "makes it
even more difficult" to achieve any political freedom.
How can
capitalism be made compatible with democracy? By indirectly exercising the
absolute power of capital! There are two economic means for this: 1) direct
bribery; 2) the alliance of the government with the stock exchange. (In our
theses this is expressed in the following words: under the bourgeois regime,
financial capital "will freely buy and bribe any government and its
officials.")
Since
commodity production, the bourgeoisie, the power of money, dominates, bribery
(direct and through the stock exchange) is "realizable" under any
form of government, under any democracy.
One may
ask: What changes in the relationship under analysis when capitalism is
replaced by imperialism, that is, pre-monopoly capitalism by monopoly
capitalism? Only that the power of the Stock Exchange increases! For financial
capital is big industrial capital, which has grown to monopoly and merged with
bank capital. The big banks merge with the Stock Exchange, absorbing it. (In
the works on imperialism it is said that the importance of the Stock Exchange
decreases, but only in the sense that each giant bank is itself an Stock
Exchange.) Let us proceed. If the rule of any democratic republic by means of
bribery and the stock exchange is fully feasible for "wealth" in
general, how can P. Kievsky assert, without falling into an amusing
"logical contradiction", that the enormous wealth of the trusts and
banks, which handle billions, cannot "realize" the power of finance
capital over a foreign, i.e., politically independent, republic? Where are we
now? Is bribery of officials in a foreign state "impossible"? Or is
the "alliance of the government with the stock exchange" only an
alliance of the government itself? (Lenin, ON THE CARTOON OF MARXISM, Collected
Works, 23, vol. 28)