Oligarchy: Trump and the Breakdown of American Democracy, edited by David North, Mehring Books, 2026, 393 pp., $29.95

October 16, 2026 ~ freerein61 ~ Leave a comment

A Marxist Intervention into a Degraded Political Literature

Over the past decade, an enormous, largely superficial literature on Donald Trump has accumulated. It comprises memoirs by disillusioned staffers, psychological profiles, insider gossip, and endless liberal laments over violated norms. Yet this genre seldom asks the only question that matters to anyone seeking to understand the crisis of American democracy: In whose class interests does Trump rule? The new Mehring Books volume, *Oligarchy: Trump and the Breakdown of American Democracy*, edited by David North, chairperson of the International Editorial Board of the World Socialist Web Site, puts that question at the centre of its analysis and answers it with uncompromising clarity.

North’s foreword opens by rejecting the two dominant bourgeois explanations for Trump’s rise. The first, favoured by the liberal establishment, casts Trump as a monstrous aberration—a freakish intrusion into an otherwise healthy democratic system. The second, its reactionary mirror image, depicts him as a demonic political genius, a singular figure imposing his will on a helpless nation. Both explanations share the same flaw: they reduce a profound social process to one individual’s personality, obscuring the class forces that produced Trump and the material interests he serves.

Against these illusions, the volume insists on a historical materialist truth: Trump is not the cause of oligarchic rule but its political instrument. He did not create the conditions for authoritarianism; he emerged from them. His ascent reflects the interests of a financial oligarchy whose wealth and power have grown to grotesque proportions and whose relationship with democratic forms of rule has become openly hostile.

The book uses stark figures to make this reality clear. More than 900 American billionaires now control roughly $8.2 trillion—nearly twice the wealth of the population’s bottom half. Their political interventions are decisive, not symbolic. In 2024, Elon Musk spent more than $250 million to return Trump to the White House. It was rewarded with the Department of Government Efficiency, which he used to dismantle regulatory agencies and social programmes. Musk was not alone: Peter Thiel, Larry Ellison and Jeff Bezos, who had cultivated a liberal image for years, aligned themselves with a would-be dictator. They concluded that authoritarian rule would protect their wealth more reliably than the decaying institutions of bourgeois democracy.

This is the central argument of *Oligarchy*: Trumpism is not a departure from American capitalism, but its logical outcome amid terminal decline. The book places Trump’s rise within a half-century of economic and political degeneration. It examines the end of dollar–gold convertibility in 1971, the collapse of the postwar monetary order, decades of deindustrialisation, the trade union bureaucracy’s suppression of class struggle, the growth of financial parasitism, and the Stalinist dissolution of the USSR in 1991, which removed the last external restraint on American militarism. Trump did not create these processes; he is their political crystallisation.

By grounding its analysis in class relations rather than personality cults, the volume cuts through the fog of liberal moralism and reactionary mythmaking. It demonstrates that the crisis of American democracy cannot be understood through psychological speculation or appeals to civic virtue. It must be understood as the political expression of a ruling class that has become irreconcilably hostile to democratic constraints.

In this sense, *Oligarchy* is more than a book about Trump: it examines the social order that produced him and warns that defending democratic rights requires a struggle against the oligarchic power he represents. For workers and young people seeking to understand how American democracy reached its current state, this volume is indispensable.

The Oligarchs Behind the Throne

The book marshals figures that reveal Trumpism’s real social foundation. More than nine hundred American billionaires now control approximately eight point two trillion dollars—nearly twice the wealth held by the bottom half of the population. This concentration of wealth is no incidental feature of contemporary capitalism; it is the essential precondition for the political phenomena the book analyses. Trumpism is rooted in the interests of a ruling class whose fortunes have reached levels incompatible with democratic rule. The oligarchs who dominate American society have concluded that the traditional mechanisms of bourgeois democracy no longer reliably defend their wealth. Their turn toward authoritarianism is not a matter of personal preference, but of class necessity.

The book offers concrete examples of this oligarchic layer’s direct intervention in politics. In 2024, Elon Musk spent more than $250 million to help return Trump to the White House. In return, he gained the Department of Government Efficiency, a new bureaucratic instrument he used to dismantle regulatory bodies, social programmes, and environmental protections. Musk’s actions were not the eccentricities of one billionaire; they formed part of a coordinated movement among the financial elite. Peter Thiel, Larry Ellison, and Jeff Bezos, who had cultivated a liberal image for years, also threw their support behind Trump. Bezos’s shift was especially revealing: his earlier image as a socially progressive billionaire collapsed when preserving his wealth required authoritarian rule. The book shows that these figures did not merely support Trump as individuals. They represented a class whose interests were threatened by political instability and growing anger among the working population.

The oligarchs concluded that the decaying institutions of bourgeois democracy could no longer guarantee their dominance. Trump was their solution. He offered a form of rule that dispensed with the constraints of constitutional procedure and replaced them with executive fiat, militarised repression, and the cultivation of a fascist movement. The book argues that Trumpism is not an aberration but the political expression of a ruling class that has exhausted the democratic forms through which it once governed. The oligarchs did not choose Trump because he was charismatic or ideologically aligned with them. They chose him because he was willing to act as the instrument of their interests, and because his contempt for democratic norms made him uniquely suited to the tasks they required.

The book situates this development within a broader historical trajectory. The rise of Trumpism is inseparable from the long decline of American capitalism. The end of dollar–gold convertibility in 1971, the collapse of the postwar monetary order, decades of deindustrialisation, the trade union bureaucracy’s suppression of class struggle, and the hypertrophy of financial parasitism created a social landscape defined by inequality, insecurity, and political decay. The dissolution of the USSR in 1991 removed the last external restraint on American militarism and opened a period of unending war. These processes eroded the foundations of democratic governance and produced a ruling class increasingly reliant on coercion rather than consent.

In this context, the oligarchs’ support for Trump appears not as a sudden departure but as the culmination of a long process. The book shows that the financial elite did not merely tolerate Trump’s authoritarian tendencies. They encouraged them, financed them, and integrated them into the machinery of the state. Their actions reveal a ruling class that has abandoned any commitment to democratic principles and embraced a form of governance that protects its wealth through repression and violence.

The book’s analysis is therefore not limited to Trump as an individual. It is a study of the social order that produced him. It demonstrates that the crisis of American democracy cannot be understood through psychological speculation or moral condemnation. It must be understood as the political expression of a ruling class whose interests have become irreconcilable with democratic constraints. Trumpism is the form of rule that emerges when oligarchic wealth reaches a point where democracy becomes an obstacle rather than a mechanism of governance.

A History Written in Real Time

The book’s distinctive value lies in its method. It is not a retrospective reconstruction shaped by hindsight or by the smoothing effects of historical distance. It is a chronicle written as events unfolded, drawn from thousands of articles, statements, and lectures published by the World Socialist Web Site between 2015 and 2026. Each text was produced when the outcome of events was still uncertain, the political crisis was developing in real time, and the broader public had not yet fully recognised the dangers confronting the working class. Read sequentially, these documents form a running record of a political catastrophe. They show how a Marxist analysis, rooted in class relations rather than personality cults, made it possible to identify the emergence of a fascist conspiracy at a time when the media and political establishment dismissed it as bluster or theatrical excess.

The book shows that the WSWS could foresee the trajectory of Trumpism because it treated the phenomenon not as a psychological curiosity but as the political expression of deep historical processes. The rise of Trump is situated within the long decline of American capitalism, a decline that unfolded over half a century and reshaped every aspect of social and political life. The volume traces this decline through several decisive stages. It begins with the end of dollar–gold convertibility in 1971, which shattered the postwar monetary order and inaugurated a period of financial instability. It examines the decades of deindustrialisation that followed, during which entire regions of the United States were stripped of their industrial base and millions of workers were thrown into economic insecurity.

The book also analyses how the trade union bureaucracy suppressed class struggle, transforming unions from defensive working-class organisations into instruments of corporate management. This suppression created a political vacuum that reactionary forces could exploit. The hypertrophy of financial parasitism further intensified the crisis. The growth of speculative capital, Wall Street’s dominance over productive industry, and the economy’s transformation into a mechanism for enriching a narrow elite produced levels of inequality incompatible with democratic stability.

Finally, the volume emphasises the significance of the Stalinist dissolution of the USSR in 1991. This event removed the last external restraint on American militarism and opened a period of unbroken war. The United States embarked on a global campaign of military interventions, coups, and occupations, and the methods used abroad increasingly shaped domestic political life. The erosion of democratic norms, the expansion of executive power, and the militarisation of the state were not accidental developments. They were the internal consequences of imperialist policy.

This is the historical terrain on which Trump emerged. The book shows that you cannot understand his rise apart from these long-term processes. Trumpism is not an aberration but the political crystallisation of a declining social order. The WSWS recognised this because it analysed events through the lens of class struggle and historical materialism. The book’s method is therefore inseparable from its conclusions. It demonstrates that only a Marxist perspective can make sense of the crisis of American democracy and reveal the forces driving it toward authoritarian rule.

Part One (2015–2020): The Social Roots of Trumpism

Part One examines the conditions that produced Trump. It begins from the premise that his rise cannot be understood apart from the social devastation inflicted on the American working class, the bipartisan commitment to imperialist war, and the Democratic Party’s promotion of identity politics as a substitute for any challenge to capitalist power. The book shows that Trump did not emerge from a political vacuum. He arose from a society marked by inequality, militarism, and the systematic suppression of class struggle. These conditions were not created by one party or one administration. They were the cumulative product of decades in which both parties of the ruling class dismantled social protections, enriched the financial elite, and cultivated forms of politics that obscured the real sources of social misery.

A central contribution of the WSWS during this period was its early rejection of the slander, promoted by Democrats and the media, that Trump was the creation of a reactionary white working class. This narrative served two essential purposes. First, it absolved the two-party system of responsibility for the social catastrophe it had produced. By blaming workers for Trump’s rise, the political establishment avoided any examination of the policies that had destroyed jobs, gutted communities, and created the conditions for widespread anger. Second, it redirected popular anger downward, away from the financial elite from which Trump himself emerged. The myth of the reactionary worker transformed legitimate social grievances into a moral failing. It let the ruling class present itself as democracy’s defender against the very people it had impoverished.

The book shows that this narrative was not merely false but politically dangerous. It obscured the real class forces behind Trump and prevented any serious analysis of the authoritarian tendencies developing within the state. The WSWS insisted that Trump’s base was not the working class but sections of the petty bourgeoisie, elements of the police and military, and layers of the financial elite who saw in him a vehicle for their interests. This analysis shows the first term not as chaotic improvisation but as the deliberate laying of foundations for a fascist movement.

The first term witnessed the growth of armed militias, the encouragement of vigilante violence, and the cultivation of a political culture defined by resentment and nationalism. Anti-immigrant agitation became a central organising principle of the administration, used to divide workers and legitimise the expansion of state repression. Executive power grew rapidly, with Trump asserting the right to override legal constraints and govern through decree. These developments were not isolated episodes. They formed part of a coherent political strategy to create a movement capable of overturning democratic norms and establishing a form of rule suited to the oligarchy’s needs.

Part One therefore provides more than a chronicle of events. It offers a framework for understanding how social decay, political opportunism, and class interests combined to produce a movement that threatened the foundations of American democracy. It shows that Trumpism was not an accident but the expression of a ruling class that had lost confidence in democratic mechanisms and turned toward authoritarian solutions.

Part Two: The 2020 Coup and Its Cover‑Up

Part Two reconstructs the conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election and shows that January 6 was not an eruption of spontaneous chaos but the culmination of a coordinated effort to nullify the vote and impose authoritarian rule. The book presents January 6 as the endpoint of a months-long plot involving parts of the Republican Party, layers of the state apparatus, and influential figures in the financial elite. Trump was the figurehead of this operation, but he was not its sole architect. The conspiracy developed through legal challenges, pressure campaigns, the mobilisation of fascist groups, and the deliberate creation of conditions in which violence could be used to achieve political ends.

The WSWS identified this danger early because it analysed the unfolding crisis through the lens of class interests rather than through the personal behaviour of Trump. The book shows that the coup attempt was rooted in the needs of an oligarchy that viewed democratic procedures as an obstacle to its wealth and power. The refusal to accept the election results was not a psychological reaction but a political strategy. It aimed to create a precedent for overturning future elections and to establish a form of rule in which executive authority could override constitutional constraints.

The Biden administration’s response is presented as a cover-up. By reducing the conspiracy to the actions of one man and a mob, Biden shielded the network of officials, financiers, and Republican leaders who orchestrated the plot. The administration insisted that the country needed a strong Republican Party, even as that party had just attempted to overturn an election. The January 6 committee spent eighteen months narrowing its investigation until it resembled a criminal case against a single individual rather than an examination of a broad political conspiracy. This approach protected the stability of the two-party system and kept from exposure the class interests that drove the coup attempt.

The book argues that the cover-up was not a failure of political courage but a deliberate act. The Democratic Party shares with the Republicans a commitment to defending oligarchic wealth and American imperialism. To expose the real forces behind January 6 would have required confronting the financial elite, the military and police apparatus, and the political structures that sustain capitalist rule. The Democrats chose instead to present the coup as an aberration, a moment of madness, rather than as the logical outcome of decades of social decay and political reaction.

Eric London’s August 2021 lecture on the social origins of the conspiracy stands out as one of the volume’s most incisive analyses. London traces the roots of the coup attempt to the long decline of American capitalism, rising social inequality, and the ruling class’s increasing reliance on authoritarian methods. He shows that January 6 was not an isolated event but part of a broader movement toward oligarchic rule. His lecture provides the theoretical foundation for understanding why the coup occurred and why the political establishment refused to confront its real causes. Part Two therefore offers more than a narrative of January 6. It provides a framework for understanding the breakdown of American democracy and the class forces driving it.

Part Three: The Second Term and the Open Dictatorship of the Oligarchy

Part Three chronicles the second Trump administration and presents it as the moment when the oligarchy assumed direct command of the state. The book shows that the first term’s authoritarian tendencies not only intensified but also became systematised. What had previously been preparatory measures became the foundation of a new form of rule. The administration operated on the premise that democratic norms were obstacles to be circumvented and that preserving oligarchic wealth required using state power in its most coercive form.

One defining feature of the second term was the declaration of a state of exception. Drawn from the theory of authoritarian rule, this concept refers to a situation in which the executive claims the right to suspend legal constraints in the name of national security or public order. The book shows that this declaration did not respond to any genuine emergency. It was a political instrument used to concentrate power in the presidency and create a legal environment in which repression could occur without accountability. The state of exception became the framework through which the administration justified its actions, from domestic deployments to foreign interventions.

The book documents the deployment of ICE paramilitaries and federal troops into American cities. These forces were used not to protect the population but to intimidate it. Their presence in urban centres signalled a shift from traditional policing to militarised occupation. The administration relied on these units to suppress protests, break strikes, and enforce executive directives. The use of paramilitary forces against civilians revealed the extent to which the state had been transformed into an instrument of oligarchic rule.

The killings carried out by federal agents, including the atrocities in Minneapolis in January 2026, are presented as emblematic of this transformation. The book treats these events not as isolated abuses but as expressions of a political strategy that relied on terror to maintain control. The violence in Minneapolis demonstrated the willingness of the administration to use lethal force against the population and the inability of existing institutions to restrain it. The response of the political establishment, which sought to minimise or justify the killings, further exposed the complicity of both parties in the erosion of democratic rights.

The second term also saw the illegal invasion of Venezuela. This action was justified through familiar rhetoric about restoring order and promoting democracy, but the book shows that its real purpose was to secure strategic and economic interests. The invasion marked a new stage in American imperialism, one in which military aggression was carried out without even the pretence of congressional oversight. The war against Iran, launched on February 28, 2026, followed the same pattern. It was an act of aggression driven by geopolitical calculations and carried out solely under the executive’s authority.

Part Three presents these developments as the anatomy of an authoritarian regime serving capitalist interests. It shows that the second Trump administration did not merely violate democratic norms. It replaced them with a system of rule designed to protect the oligarchy’s wealth and power through repression, militarism, and the dismantling of constitutional constraints.

Accomplices and Enablers: Republicans, Democrats, and the Pseudo‑Left

The book’s most politically significant sections focus not on Trump himself but on the forces that made his rise possible. Trump did not ascend to power through personal magnetism or ideological coherence. A ruling class saw him as a useful instrument, and political institutions that had long abandoned democratic principles elevated him. The book therefore turns its attention to the Republicans, the Democrats, and the pseudo-left, showing how each played an indispensable role in the breakdown of American democracy.

The Republicans are presented as willing accomplices. They embraced Trump as the vehicle for oligarchic rule and recognised that his contempt for democratic norms aligned with their own strategic interests. The party leadership understood that Trump’s authoritarian tendencies could be harnessed to implement policies that enriched the financial elite, expanded military power, and dismantled regulatory constraints. The book shows that Republican support for Trump was not reluctant or tactical. It was enthusiastic and rooted in a shared class outlook. Trump did not cause the party’s transformation into an openly reactionary force. It predated him and made his rise possible.

The book portrays the Democrats as indispensable enablers. The book argues that the Democratic Party is ruthless against opponents on its left but impotent against Trump because it shares his commitment to defending capitalist wealth and American imperialism. The record is damning. After the 2016 election, Barack Obama described the contest as a scrimmage between members of the same team, revealing how both parties operate within a shared ideological framework. Two days after the events of January 6, Joe Biden declared that the country needed a strong Republican Party, even though that party had just attempted to overturn an election. The January 6 committee spent eighteen months reducing a broad conspiracy to the crimes of one man, thereby shielding the network of officials, financiers, and political operatives who orchestrated the plot. The Biden administration served as an interregnum devoted to securing bipartisan support for war in Ukraine and for policies that contributed to the suffering of civilians in Gaza. These actions show that the Democrats’ primary concern was not defending democratic institutions but preserving the stability of the two-party system and protecting the interests of the ruling class.

The book also examines the role of the pseudo-left. Figures such as Bernie Sanders denounced the billionaire class in rhetoric but ultimately reinforced the Democratic Party’s authority. Sanders endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2016 and later offered to work with Trump, signalling his willingness to subordinate social opposition to the needs of the political establishment. Jacobin, the magazine associated with the Democratic Socialists of America, avoided the coup almost entirely. Its silence reflected a political orientation that prioritised access to the Democratic Party over any serious confrontation with the forces threatening democratic rights. The pseudo-left is presented as a political tendency that channels social anger back into bourgeois political structures and prevents the emergence of an independent working-class movement.

By analysing these forces together, the book shows that Trumpism was not an isolated phenomenon. It expressed a political system in which both major parties and their ideological satellites had abandoned any commitment to democratic principles. The Republicans acted as the architects of authoritarian rule. The Democrats provided the cover that allowed it to develop—the pseudo-left neutralised opposition from below. Trump benefited from this alignment, but the forces that sustained him were far larger and far more dangerous than any individual.

The Social Opposition and the Question of Leadership

Against this record of capitulation from the political establishment, the book documents a continuous and determined opposition from below. It begins with the mass protests that erupted on Trump’s first day in office, demonstrations that revealed a broad social revulsion toward authoritarianism and inequality. It continues through the multiracial uprising that followed the murder of George Floyd, an eruption of anger that exposed the brutality of the American state and the depth of social injustice. The book then turns to the No Kings demonstrations of 2025 and 2026, the largest single-day protests in American history, in which millions rejected attempts to impose monarchical or dictatorial rule. These movements were spontaneous, diverse, and often politically inchoate, but they expressed a profound social reality. The objective basis for a mass socialist movement exists. What is missing is conscious revolutionary leadership.

The programme advanced by the volume is therefore clear and uncompromising. It calls for forming rank-and-file committees independent of the union bureaucracy, which has long served as an instrument of corporate management and a barrier to genuine working-class struggle. It insists on the working class’s political independence from both capitalist parties, rejecting the illusion that the Democratic Party can serve as a vehicle for social reform or democratic renewal. It advocates the international unification of workers in the struggle against war and fascism on a socialist programme, recognising that the crisis of American democracy is inseparable from the global crisis of capitalism and cannot be resolved within national boundaries.

The book situates this programme within a broader historical framework. It appears on the eve of the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the American Revolution, a moment that invites reflection on the democratic principles that shaped the nation’s origins. The volume argues that a ruling class openly contemptuous of 1776’s egalitarian ideals now governs the country. The commitment to popular sovereignty, equality, and resistance to tyranny that animated the first American Revolution has been replaced by a political order defined by oligarchic wealth, militarism, and authoritarianism.

The book connects this contempt to the WSWS’s polemic against the New York Times’ 1619 Project. That project sought to recast the American Revolution and the Civil War as episodes in an eternal racial conflict, stripping them of their democratic content and obscuring their significance as revolutionary struggles. The volume argues that such interpretations serve the interests of a ruling class that wishes to sever the working class from its own revolutionary heritage. By reducing the past to racial antagonism, the 1619 Project denies the possibility of universal emancipation and undermines the historical foundations of a socialist movement.

The democratic principles of the first two American revolutions can be defended and extended only by a third. The book insists that the working class must conquer political power and reorganise economic life on socialist foundations. This is not a rhetorical flourish but a historical conclusion drawn from the contradictions of contemporary capitalism. The concentration of wealth, the militarisation of society, the erosion of democratic institutions, and the descent into perpetual war have created conditions in which democratic rights cannot survive without a fundamental transformation of the social order. The working class must complete the unfinished tasks of American history by establishing a society based on equality, rational planning, and collective ownership.

The book closes with a fictional Letter from Afar by Abraham Lincoln. This device allows the authors to draw a direct line between the moral and political struggles of the nineteenth century and those of the present. In the letter, Lincoln argues that capitalism today is as intolerable as slavery was in his time. He insists that Trump is a symptom, not the disease, and that the real enemy is a social system that produces inequality, violence, and authoritarianism. The letter reminds us that the fight for democracy has always required revolutionary action and that the working class must assume the role once played by the abolitionists and the soldiers of the Union Army.

The book’s conclusion is stark and unambiguous. Humanity faces a choice between fascism and socialism. Reforms, appeals to civility, and reliance on existing political institutions cannot resolve the crisis of American democracy. It requires a conscious working-class movement, armed with a socialist programme and guided by historical understanding. Oligarchy is essential reading for every worker and young person seeking to understand how American democracy reached this point and what must be done to prevent catastrophe. It calls for action and warns that today’s choices will determine the future.

Bibliography

North, David, ed. Oligarchy: Trump and the Breakdown of American Democracy. Mehring Books, 2026.

North, David. “Foreword.” In Oligarchy: Trump and the Breakdown of American Democracy. Mehring Books, 2026.

London, Eric. “The Social Origins of the January 6 Conspiracy.” Lecture delivered August 2021. World Socialist Web Site.

International Editorial Board of the World Socialist Web Site. Articles, statements, and analyses published between 2015 and 2026. World Socialist Web Site. https://www.wsws.org

World Socialist Web Site. Coverage of the 2020 election crisis, the January 6 coup attempt, and the second Trump administration. https://www.wsws.org

World Socialist Web Site. “The New York Times’ 1619 Project and the Falsification of History.” Series of articles and critiques, 2019–2020.

North, David. The New York Times’ 1619 Project and the Racialist Falsification of History. Mehring Books, 2021.

North, David. The Crisis of American Democracy: The Political and Social Roots of the Breakdown. Mehring Books, 2024.

Mehring Books. Publications on American politics, imperialism, and the crisis of capitalism, 2015–2026. https://mehring.com

Federal Reserve Data. Wealth distribution statistics for American billionaires and the bottom half of the population, 2024–2026.

Public campaign finance records. Documentation of political contributions by Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Larry Ellison, and Jeff Bezos, 2023–2024.

United States Department of Defence. Public statements and records relating to military operations in Venezuela and Iran, 2025–2026.

United States Department of Homeland Security. Public records concerning ICE deployments and federal paramilitary actions, 2025–2026.

Historical sources on the American Revolution and Civil War—primary documents from 1776 and 1861, including speeches, letters, and constitutional debates.

Lincoln, Abraham. “Letter from Afar.” Fictional reconstruction in Oligarchy: Trump and the Breakdown of American Democracy. Mehring Books, 2026.

Minority Rule, the American Founding, and the Marxist Theory of the State

July 8, 2026 ~ freerein61 ~ Leave a comment

Introduction

Recent studies on the decline of American democracy focus on institutional failures, partisan division, and the solidification of minority rule. Ari Berman’s book, *Minority Rule*, fits within this discourse, and the Guardian’s review highlights its key assumption: that the U.S. is an “undemocratic democracy,” a republic whose founding principles have been undermined over time. This article challenges that view as historically inaccurate. Using Marxist state theory and the history of the American Revolution, it argues that the U.S. constitutional system was intentionally designed to limit popular sovereignty and maintain the political power of property owners.

The US Constitution was never intended as a democratic blueprint, but rather as a counter-revolutionary tool to control and undo the democratic changes sparked by the 1776 revolution. This chapter explores how this assertion fits into the wider academic discussions.

The Social Dynamics of the American Revolution

The American Revolution was not solely an elite political rupture but a period of intense popular mobilisation. Alfred Young’s microhistorical study of George Hewes demonstrates the political agency of artisans and labourers in revolutionary Boston.¹ Gary Nash’s synthetic account likewise emphasises the “lower-sort republicanism” that animated popular committees, militia organisations, and town meetings.² Archival petitions from Massachusetts and Pennsylvania reveal widespread demands for price regulation, debt relief, and expanded suffrage during the 1770s and early 1780s.³

These developments generated what Nash describes as a “radical democratizing impulse,” which challenged the established elites and called for significant political reform.

The Revolution’s democratic energies generated significant elite anxiety. Gordon Wood’s The Creation of the American Republic remains the foundational account of this ideological shift. Wood demonstrates that leading figures — Madison, Hamilton, Morris — increasingly viewed popular politics as destabilising.⁴ Their correspondence reveals deep concern over “the turbulence and follies of democracy.”⁵

Woody Holton’s Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution extends this analysis by emphasising the economic dimension: debtor-relief legislation, paper money issuance, and tax resistance threatened the interests of bondholders and merchants.⁶ Holton’s use of state legislative records shows that the Constitutional Convention was convened in response to these pressures, not merely to address interstate commerce or diplomatic weakness.

Anti-Federalist writings provide crucial evidence for understanding how contemporaries perceived the Constitution. Melancton Smith’s speeches at the New York ratifying convention warned that the proposed system represented a “transfer of power from the many to the few.”⁷ Archival notes from the debates show that Smith and others objected specifically to the Senate’s malapportionment, the indirect election of the president, and the lifetime tenure of federal judges.⁸

These critiques align with Charles Beard’s An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution, which argued that the Constitution reflected the interests of property owners seeking to stabilise social relations after a decade of popular unrest.⁹ Although Beard’s thesis has been debated extensively, recent scholarship — notably Michael Klarman’s The Framers’ Coup — has revived aspects of his argument by demonstrating the extent to which the Convention operated outside popular control.¹⁰

The institutional architecture of the Constitution — the Senate, the Electoral College, the separation of powers, and the independent judiciary — must be understood as mechanisms designed to restrain democratic participation. Archival records from the Convention show explicit discussions of the need to “check the impetuous vortex” of popular politics.¹¹ The Senate was conceived as a body representing “the wealth of the nation.” At the same time, the judiciary was insulated from electoral accountability to ensure “firmness” in protecting property rights.¹²These features were not accidental. They were deliberate responses to the democratic mobilisation of the preceding decade.

Marxist theory provides a conceptual framework for understanding why the Constitution took this form. Marx and Engels argued that the state is “a committee for managing the common affairs of the bourgeoisie.”¹³ Lenin, in State and Revolution, emphasised that the bourgeois state is structurally incapable of serving as an instrument of genuine popular rule.¹⁴ Trotsky, in The Revolution Betrayed, stressed that the form and function of the state are determined by underlying class relations, not by constitutional ideals.¹⁵

From this perspective, the American state’s institutional architecture reflects the class interests of those who shaped it. The Senate’s malapportionment, the Electoral College’s indirect mechanism, and the judiciary’s insulation from democratic oversight are structural features designed to limit the political power of non‑propertied classes.

The Supreme Court’s historical trajectory illustrates this continuity. Early Court decisions — Calder v. Bull (1798), Fletcher v. Peck (1810), Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819) — reveal a consistent pattern of protecting contract rights and property interests.¹⁶ While the Court has occasionally upheld measures favourable to labour or civil rights, such decisions have typically occurred under conditions of intense social pressure. When those pressures recede, the Court reverts to its structural role as a defender of property. The Federalist Society’s contemporary influence intensifies this tendency but does not fundamentally alter it.

Liberal Reformism and Its Limits

The Guardian review concludes with examples of successful ballot initiatives in Michigan and Wisconsin, suggesting that such reforms demonstrate the resilience of democratic participation. Yet these cases illustrate the limits of liberal reformism rather than its promise. Archival data from the Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission show that while the initiative altered district boundaries, it did not change the underlying distribution of political power or the state’s socioeconomic structure.¹⁷ Similarly, Senate debates over filibuster reform reveal that institutional veto points persist because both major parties benefit from them under different circumstances.¹⁸

To conclude, the answer to the crisis of American democracy is… the building of an independent political movement of the working class.” Whether one accepts this political prescription or not, the underlying historical insight is clear: the institutions of American governance were constructed to limit popular sovereignty, and their contemporary functioning reflects that foundational purpose. Any analysis that treats these institutions as neutral mechanisms capable of straightforward democratisation fails to grasp the historical depth of the problem.

This article contends that current forms of minority rule in the U.S. are not distortions but rooted in its original democratic framework. The U.S. Constitution was deliberately structured to limit democratic participation and uphold property-based political dominance. When viewed through Marxist state theory and the history of the American Revolution, this shows a consistent thread in American political evolution. Recognizing this continuity is crucial for evaluating the scope of reforms and the potential for deeper political change.

Notes

Alfred F. Young, The Shoemaker and the Tea Party: Memory and the American Revolution (Boston: Beacon Press, 1999).
Gary B. Nash, The Unknown American Revolution: The Unruly Birth of Democracy and the Struggle to Create America (New York: Viking, 2005).
Massachusetts Archives, vol. 210; Pennsylvania State Papers, Revolutionary Series.
Gordon S. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776–1787 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1969).
James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, 24 October 1787, in The Papers of James Madison, vol. 10.
Woody Holton, Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution (New York: Hill and Wang, 2007).
Melancton Smith, New York Ratification Debates, 20 June 1788.
New York Public Library, Melancton Smith Papers.
Charles A. Beard, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States (New York: Macmillan, 1913).
Michael J. Klarman, The Framers’ Coup: The Making of the United States Constitution (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016).
James Madison, Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention, 14 June 1787.
Ibid.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto (1848).
Vladimir I. Lenin, State and Revolution (1917).
Leon Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed (1937).
Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798); Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810); Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819).
Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission Records, 2021–22.
Congressional Record, 117th Congress (2021–22).

A Palace for the Oligarchy, a Porch for the Homeless: The Rutland Gate Mansion and the Rot of British Capitalism

June 11, 2026June 11, 2026 ~ freerein61 ~ Leave a comment

The scene on Rutland Gate—a homeless man sleeping outside a £210 million empty mansion—is not just eccentric London lore. It represents the entire social system: a society in which the wealth of the global elite is fiercely guarded. At the same time, the basic needs of millions of people are viewed as an unacceptable burden on the “market.”

The Guardian’s report on 2–8A Rutland Gate unintentionally reveals what the ruling class and its media often try to hide: the housing crisis is not simply a technical issue or the result of a lack of construction. Instead, it is a consequence of capitalism turning housing into a speculative asset for the world’s wealthiest.[1]

The article highlights the stark contrast: “a homeless man with no money sleeping on the doorstep of a £200m house with 45 rooms that has been empty for years.” This is not an anomaly; it reflects the system’s inherent logic.

The Mansion as Financial Instrument: London’s Role in the Global Oligarchy

Rutland Gate is more than just a residence; it’s a vault, a safety deposit box, and a tradable asset within the portfolios of billionaires whose wealth stems from corruption, exploitation, and financial speculation. The ownership lineage—comprising Saudi royalty, Lebanese oligarchs, and Chinese property magnates—resembles a who’s who of global capitalist misconduct. The mansion’s acquisition was carried out via shell companies in the British Virgin Islands, a common method for laundering money and avoiding scrutiny. As noted, “Often, companies in tax or secrecy havens are used as the vehicle for these investments.”

London is the epicentre of this global network, known as the Alpha City, attracting the ultra-wealthy who regard it as both a playground and a refuge. Every British government, whether Tory or Labour, actively courts their presence. Yet the city’s housing stock is not primarily for residents; instead, it serves mainly as a speculative asset for international elites.

The numbers are striking: 47,000 homes owned by foreigners in London, over 300,000 long-term empty homes across England, and 268,000 second homes taken out of residential use. In Kensington & Chelsea, one in nine homes is unoccupied. This isn’t a mistake but the deliberate result of a system in which societal needs are subordinated to the pursuit of profit.

The Human Being on the Porch: A Life Made Precarious by Capitalist Disintegration

The story of Anders Fernstedt, the man living on the porch, serves not just as a personal misfortune but also as a reflection of the systemic dismantling of social supports, the erosion of the welfare state, and the harshening of the working class.

Fernstedt’s experience—marked by unstable jobs, no-fault evictions, unsafe temporary housing, and rough sleeping—mirrors that of hundreds of thousands. His homelessness isn’t due to addiction or mental health problems; he insists he is “healthy… physically and mentally, with no addictions.”

His descent into homelessness was driven by the collapse of stable employment, the commodification of housing, the reduction of social services, and the violence and insecurity of Britain’s privatised rental market. His presence on the porch isn’t just symbolic—it’s diagnostic, exposing a society where the working class is pushed to the edge while the oligarchy enjoys luxury in empty mansions.

The Political Economy of Emptiness

The Guardian quotes a housing expert calling the situation “bizarre and perverse.” However, nothing about it is truly strange. It reflects a logical consequence of a system in which: housing is treated as a commodity rather than a right; the government prioritises capital over society; the wealthy are protected from scrutiny and taxes; local authorities lack sufficient funds and powers; and the market determines who has a home and who ends up homeless.

The article points out that “the places building the most housing have mysteriously managed to produce the highest level of vacancy.” This is not puzzling—developers tend to build what is profitable, not what is needed. Luxury towers are constructed because they serve as channels for global capital flows, not because Londoners need penthouses.

The ruling class claims that taxing or regulating the super-rich would “scare them away.” This argument has been repeatedly used to justify every form of social vandalism since the 1980s. It reflects an ideological stance of a political system entirely dominated by finance capital.

The State’s Role: Enabler, Not Regulator

The British government is not a neutral mediator; instead, it actively facilitates the accumulation of oligarchic wealth. It offers a legal system that maintains secrecy jurisdictions, a deregulated property market, police protection for elite enclaves, austerity measures that erode social housing, and political rhetoric that blames the poor for their poverty. The Levelling Up Act’s “empty homes premiums” are superficial solutions, as councils lack both the authority and funds to seize vacant properties. Meanwhile, billions of dollars’ worth of public land have been sold to private developers, who construct luxury flats that remain unoccupied. Overall, the government’s priorities are evident: safeguarding capital and penalizing low-income individuals.

A Social Order in Decay

The image of Rutland Gate is not just obscene; it is historically provocative. It brings to mind the final phases of collapsing social systems: aristocrats of the ancien régime, robber barons of the Gilded Age, and oligarchs of late Tsarist Russia. In each scenario, the ruling classes isolated themselves from the people’s hardships, retreating into luxury while society fell apart. This process led not to stability but to revolution.

The Socialist Perspective: Housing as a Social Right

The housing crisis cannot be addressed within a capitalist framework. Essential actions involve expropriating luxury properties left empty, abolishing offshore ownership arrangements, making substantial public investments in high-quality social housing, ensuring democratic control of urban planning by the working class, and reorganizing the economy along socialist lines focused on human needs.

Rutland Gate should not be a palace for billionaires. It should serve as a public asset, transformed into housing, community spaces, or social infrastructure. The resources are available, but what is missing is the political strength of the working class, organized independently from capitalist parties and advocating for a socialist agenda.

Conclusion: A System That Cannot Be Reformed

The Guardian article states the mansion will never become social housing, which is accurate—under capitalism. However, the stark inequality it illustrates is the key reason to challenge and overthrow the system that creates such disparities. The man on the porch and the mansion in the background are interconnected; they represent different facets of the same social structure. Addressing one without resolving the other is impossible.

[1] It was Britain’s most expensive house. Why is its only resident a homeless man who lives on the porch? Sam Wollaston-www theguardian.com

OLIGARCHY AND THE CRISIS OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

June 9, 2026 ~ freerein61 ~ Leave a comment

Part I: The Historical Premises of the Present Crisis

I. Introduction: Trump as the Expression of a System in Terminal Decline

The rise of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency should not be seen as a personal anomaly, a bizarre accident, or merely due to the quirks of the American electoral process. Instead, it reflects the core political expression of a social order that has exhausted its legitimate authority. The book highlights this clearly, describing Trump as a “real estate huckster and casino con-artist” who was elevated to the highest position by an oligarchy intent on preserving its global dominance through force. “Donald Trump and his henchmen, backed by the oligarchy that placed him in power, aim to overcome the decline of American capitalism through force…”

This formulation is conclusive. It dismisses the liberal view that Trump is a departure from American norms. Instead, it places him within the natural course of American capitalism following the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991. Once freed from Cold War geopolitical limits, the ruling class launched 30 years of unchecked militarism. The tactics developed abroad—such as coups, assassinations, economic blockades, and blatant disrespect for international law—have now been integrated into domestic politics. Therefore, the crisis in American democracy is not due to Trump’s personality but is an inevitable result of imperialist decline.

II. 1991 and the Illusion of Unipolar Omnipotence

David North’s book *Oligarchy: Trump and the Breakdown of American Democracy* points to 1991 as a pivotal moment. Following the USSR’s collapse, the American ruling class believed history had confirmed its global dominance. The quote—“Force works”—serves not just as a comment on foreign policy but also as a reflection of the ideological fervour that seized the bourgeoisie.

The Gulf War, Yugoslavia’s bombing, Afghanistan and Iraq invasions, drone conflicts in the Middle East and Africa, Latin American coups, and the encirclement of Russia and China aren’t isolated events. They collectively aim for a single strategic objective: achieving enduring global dominance via military power. However, imperialism isn’t just a policy choice; it’s an inevitable outcome of capitalism’s monopoly phase. As the US faces diminishing economic competitiveness, it increasingly relies on military force to sustain its dominance. The tension between economic decline and military strength fostered a political culture where legality, diplomacy, and democratic norms are seen as mere obstacles. The ruling class that has formed since this era is not only aggressive but also criminal.

III. The Internalisation of Imperialist Methods

Imperialist tactics once used abroad are now evident domestically: “In a society ruled by billionaires, corporate predators, military-intelligence operatives, and political swindlers… the criminal and anti-democratic methods of imperialism are used both at home and abroad.” This reflects a core Marxist idea: the violence of the capitalist state is not separate. The same ruling class that destroys schools in Iran, supports burying Palestinian children under rubble, or captures Venezuelan officials and oilfields, will not hesitate to use similar methods against its own people.

The police’s militarisation, increased surveillance, criminalisation of protests, and bipartisan backing for mass deportations and border militarisation all reflect the same imperialist logic. The American government has become a tool for oligarchic control, operating outside constitutional and democratic boundaries.

IV. Bipartisan Complicity and the Collapse of Liberalism

A key point in the document is its emphasis that the crisis cannot be solely blamed on the Republican Party or Trump. It highlights that the Democratic Party, just like the Republicans, has played a role in enabling the oligarchy’s growth. The text states: “No official opposition from either ruling party is mounted…”

This is not just rhetorical exaggeration. The Democrats supported wars, funded intelligence agencies, expanded the drone program, and oversaw the largest transfer of wealth to the rich in American history. Their opposition to Trump was based on tactical differences over foreign policy and internal power, not a defence of democratic rights. Liberalism as an ideology has fallen apart under its own contradictions. It cannot truly defend democracy because it is inherently linked to the capitalist system that is eroding it.

V. The Deep Roots of Democratic Consciousness in the American Working Class

Amidst this context of oligarchic criminality, the book highlights a counter-trend: the enduring presence of democratic and revolutionary traditions within the American working class. “Their democratic impulses… remain deeply rooted in tradition among workers and young people.” This is not mere sentimentality, but a historical reality. The American Revolution and the Civil War were pivotal events where ordinary people fought against tyranny, slavery, and aristocratic privilege. These values—egalitarianism, suspicion of concentrated power, and opposition to injustice—are still ingrained in the consciousness of millions.

The clash between this democratic legacy and the state’s oligarchic decline is reaching a breaking point. The resurgence of strikes, increasing class struggle, and youth radicalisation reflect this ongoing historical pattern.

VI. The Necessity of Socialism

The final point of the book is straightforward: “The struggle for socialism by the global working class is… the core expression of what is humane, decent, and emancipatory…” This is more than just poetic language; it is a logical conclusion based on an objective analysis of capitalism’s crises. The continuation of democracy, the prevention of world wars, the protection of human rights, and the preservation of civilisation all depend on the overthrow of the oligarchy and the building of workers’ power worldwide.

Part II: The Class Anatomy of the American Oligarchy and the Bonapartist Turn

VII. The Class Structure of the Contemporary American Oligarchy

The shift of the United States into an oligarchic regime is a literal sociological reality, not just a metaphor. Over the last forty years, wealth has become increasingly concentrated among a very small elite, reaching unprecedented levels in modern history. The wealthiest 0.1% now hold more assets than the bottom 90% combined. This trend surpasses mere inequality; it signifies a return to a capitalist aristocracy. North’s book highlights this vividly: “In a society governed by billionaires, corporate predators, military-intelligence operatives and political swindlers…”

This constellation of forces represents the true sovereign power in the United States. The official democratic institutions—such as Congress, the courts, and the presidency—have been diminished and subordinated to the interests of financial capital, the military-intelligence complex, and the corporate elite. The oligarchy is not merely a passive recipient of wealth; it actively influences politics by funding candidates, shaping legislation, controlling media, and directing foreign policy. Its interests fundamentally conflict with democratic principles, which require social equality and public accountability, both of which the oligarchs oppose. The emergence of Trump can be seen as the political embodiment of this class power.

VIII. The Military‑Intelligence Apparatus as the Backbone of Oligarchic Rule

The American state is currently controlled by a large military-intelligence complex that functions with little oversight. The Pentagon, CIA, NSA, FBI, and numerous private contractors create a lasting system of coercion and surveillance. This structure has expanded steadily since 2001, but its origins trace back to the post-1991 rise of unipolar dominance.

North highlights that methods traditionally used for imperial control abroad are now being applied domestically. This is not just rhetoric. The militarisation of local police, employing counter-insurgency tactics against protesters, expanding domestic surveillance, and criminalising dissent all reflect the same underlying logic. The military-intelligence complex forms the backbone of oligarchic rule, providing the coercive force needed to sustain a social order marked by stark inequality and widespread unrest. It also served as the source of many of Trump’s close advisers and supporters. The American ruling class increasingly rules not through popular consent but through intimidation.

IX. The Transformation of the Presidency Under Conditions of Capitalist Decay

The presidency, originally designed as a constitutional office limited by checks and balances, has evolved into a quasi-monarchical entity. This change is not solely due to Trump but rather the result of decades of the expansion of executive power. From the Iran-Contra scandal to the drone assassination program, and from warrantless surveillance to the unilateral initiation of wars, the presidency has increasingly become the main tool for the ruling class to bypass democratic limits.

Trump’s presidency did not initiate this trend; it took advantage of it. His disregard for constitutional norms, his use of the state for personal gain, and his mobilisation of fascistic groups were only possible because the institutional foundations of democracy had already been weakened. In the context of capitalist decline, the presidency tends to lean towards Bonapartism—a form of rule in which executive power supersedes formal democratic institutions while relying on support from the military, police, and parts of the petty bourgeoisie.

X. Trumpism as an American Form of Bonapartism

Trumpism is a uniquely American form of Bonapartism. Similar to Louis Bonaparte in 1851, Trump aimed to portray himself as the personification of the “nation” fighting against a corrupt political system. He appealed to confused segments of the petty bourgeoisie, rallied fascistic groups, and tried to use state power to solidify his personal authority. However, Bonapartism is not defined solely by the leader’s personality. It signals a deeper social crisis: the ruling class’s failure to govern through traditional parliamentary methods, along with the lack of an organised revolutionary leadership capable of mobilising the working class.

Trump’s attempt to seize power, efforts to overturn election results, support for paramilitary groups, and his use of the presidency as a personal domain were not anomalies. Instead, they reflect the natural outcomes of a ruling class that can no longer sustain its dominance through democratic means. The description in the book of Trump as a tool of an oligarchy aiming to retain its authority “through force” accurately characterises this Bonapartist path.

XI. The International Dimensions of the Crisis

The crisis facing American democracy is part of a broader global trend. This includes the collapse of the post-Cold War order, increasing tensions among imperial powers, and a worldwide surge in class struggle. Faced with China’s rise, Russia’s resurgence, and the waning of its economic dominance, the United States has adopted a more aggressive military stance. Its efforts to sustain global hegemony have led to a persistent state of conflict, further destabilising its internal political landscape.

The oligarchic decline of the American state is closely linked to the global capitalist crisis. The same contradictions that gave rise to Trump have also led to far-right movements in Europe, authoritarian governments in Asia, and political unrest in Latin America. Therefore, the fight against oligarchy must be a global effort.

Part III: The Revolutionary Legacy, the Re‑Emergence of the Working Class, and the Historical Necessity of Socialism

XII. The Revolutionary Legacy of the American People

A key argument of the book emphasises that the American working class holds a strong democratic and revolutionary legacy. This is not mere nostalgia but a materialist view of ongoing historical tradition. The U.S. originated from a bourgeois revolution that, despite its flaws, promoted universal ideals of equality, popular sovereignty, and opposition to tyranny. These ideals were further developed and radicalised during the Civil War—often termed the “Second American Revolution”—which ended slavery and reshaped the nation around the principle of free labour.

The book highlights: “The 250-year-old legacy of the American Revolution and the Civil War… remains a deeply rooted tradition among workers and young people.” This insight is vital. The American working class is not politically passive. Beneath the current political confusion lies a reservoir of democratic feelings, hostility to injustice, and a strong dislike for official lies and brutality. These impulses are not just cultural; they form the ideological layers of past revolutionary struggles. The tension between this democratic heritage and the oligarchic decline of the state is a key factor driving the current crisis.

XIII. The Re‑Emergence of the Working Class as a Revolutionary Force

The past decade has witnessed the re‑emergence of the working class as a decisive political actor. Strikes have surged across industries; teachers, auto workers, logistics workers, nurses, rail workers, and countless others have engaged in militant struggles. These movements are not isolated economic disputes but expressions of a deeper social antagonism.

The working class faces numerous challenges, including stagnant wages, insecure jobs, rising living costs, and the dismantling of public services. Society is becoming more militarised, and both major political parties show indifference to these issues. In response, the ruling class has resorted to repression, union-busting, and fostering far-right groups. Meanwhile, the pressures of the capitalist crisis are driving millions of workers toward political radicalisation. The book describes this situation: “The conflict between the criminal oligarchy and the moral consciousness of the masses is assuming an increasingly explosive character…” This is no exaggeration. The United States is heading into a period of significant social upheaval as the working class begins to recognise its collective power and the ruling class struggles to maintain control through traditional means. The historical preconditions for revolutionary struggle are emerging.

XIV. The Moral and Political Bankruptcy of the Ruling Class

The American ruling class has exhausted all ideological justifications for its dominance. It can no longer justify itself through democracy, as it consistently undermines democratic institutions. It cannot rely on prosperity, given the unprecedented levels of inequality under its rule. Nor can it claim to promote peace, as it engages in ongoing war. The book sharply criticises this by stating: “In a society governed by billionaires, corporate predators, military-intelligence operatives, and political swindlers…”

This is not a rhetorical flourish. It is a sociological description of a ruling class that has become parasitic, predatory, and openly criminal. Its foreign policy consists of bombings, sanctions, and coups. Its domestic policy consists of deregulation, privatisation, and repression. The ruling class has no progressive role to play in history. It is an obstacle to human development.

XV. The Objective Necessity of Socialist Revolution

North concludes with a statement of immense historical weight: “The struggle for socialism by the international working class is… the indispensable expression of all that is humane, decent, and emancipatory… The survival of humanity depends upon its victory.”

This is not a moral appeal but a scientific conclusion. The contradictions of capitalism—such as imperialist war, ecological disaster, economic inequality, and authoritarianism—cannot be fixed within the current social system. Humanity faces a clear choice: socialism or barbarism; democratic workers’ control or oligarchic dictatorship; international solidarity or imperialist conflict.

The working class is the only social force capable of transforming society according to principles of equality, rational planning, and democratic control of production. Because capitalism is inherently international, the socialist movement’s international scope is essential, not just desirable. The crisis facing American democracy is fundamentally linked to the global capitalist crisis. Therefore, the solution is not reform but the overthrow of the current system.

XVI. Conclusion: The Historical Moment and the Tasks of the Present

The United States is at a critical crossroads. The decline of the oligarchic state, the rise of authoritarian regimes, increasing class conflict, and growing global tensions are not fleeting issues. They signal a social system in its final crisis. This book offers a sharp, direct analysis: Trump is not the root cause of the crisis but a symptom. The ruling class cannot restore democracy because they are the ones undermining it. Only the working class, drawing on its revolutionary history, can defend democratic rights and ensure humanity’s future. Today’s challenge is to build a conscious, organised, international socialist movement to lead the working class in the fight for power. History is calling—will the working class answer?

What The Rich Don’t Tell The Poor: Conversations with Guatemalan Oligarchs Roman Krznaric-Paperback – 16 Feb. 2022

February 1, 2026 ~ freerein61 ~ Leave a comment

Krznaric’s book is a fascinating and valuable insight into the modern Guatemalan oligarchy. He examines the inner life of the oligarchy and how it has maintained its power and privilege for over three centuries. It is a groundbreaking work of political and sociological analysis based on wide-ranging personal interviews.

What The Rich Don’t Tell The Poor was written in 2006 and stems from Krznaric’s 2003 PhD thesis, The World View of the Oligarch in Guatemalan Politics.[1] However, due to political and literary differences with publishers, the book was not published in its original form until 2022. As Krznaric writes in the 2022 preface, although the book is ten years old and much has changed in Guatemala in the intervening years, the oligarchy remains in complete control of Guatemala’s political and economic life.

Guatemala is well known for its extreme wealth inequalities, which have been caused by centuries of economic and political domination by an oligarchy comprising around fifty families of European descent. In this case, the term “oligarchs” usually refers to a small group of influential families (often called “las familias”) that have maintained economic and political dominance since colonial times. As of 2022, approximately 245 individuals in Guatemala held an accumulated wealth of US$30 billion. The oligarchs dominate crucial sectors of the Guatemalan economy, including export agriculture (sugar, coffee, bananas), finance and banking, construction materials (cement), and consumer goods. Families such as the Herrera Family: Owners of Ingenio Pantaleón, the largest sugar production estate in the country, with significant interests in banking (e.g., Banco Agromercantil), the Castillo Family: A historically substantial family involved in the production of beer and other industries and the Novella Family: Major players in the cement industry for generations. These families and others make Guatemala one of the most unequal countries on the planet.

As Krznaric relates: “Getting the oligarchs to speak openly was a challenge. Using all I knew about ethnographic and oral history interviewing techniques, I tried to be courteous rather than confrontational – a strategy that created an atmosphere which felt relaxed, unthreatening and conversational. I quickly learned that accusing them of violating human rights or exploiting workers made them clam up. However, encouraging them to share stories about their lives and experiences lowered their guard and led them to reveal much more about themselves. Rather than offering critical comments on the spot during the interviews, I found that I could defer my critiques until I was writing about them and interpreting what they said, as I do in What The Rich Don’t Tell The Poor.”[2]

Global context: Global Oligarchy and local oligarchy

The global charity Oxfam has recently released several reports that document what every worker knows: an accelerating concentration of wealth and power in the hands of an oligarchy whose fortunes have exploded even as mass poverty, precarious work and state austerity deepen. The charity’s data shows that billionaire wealth surged to a record $18.3 trillion in 2025, and that the wealthiest handful of individuals now own more than the wealth of billions of people. The number of global billionaires recently increased by 30% to approximately 2,750 individuals, who together control more wealth than the planet’s poorest 4.6 billion people.

As Krznarics correctly states in the book, Guatemala’s oligarchy functions as an extension of global imperialist interests. Multinational agribusiness, mining and energy firms rely on local oligarchs to secure land, labour, and concessions. Yankee capitalism has historically backed Guatemalan oligarchs and their militarisation of Guatemalan life and carried out numerous coups to protect these interests, from the 1954 CIA overthrow of Jacobo Árbenz to more recent economic and political interventions. The oligarchs’ rule requires a combination of legal-clientelist institutions and outright coercion. They co-opt political parties, control key state ministries, and use the judiciary to neutralise opponents. When that fails, repression and violence are employed against organisers, Indigenous communities and trade-union militants.

The struggles of the Guatemalan working class against the oligarchs are not documented in the book. But these struggles are not isolated: the working class has challenged the supply chains and profit zones of global capital. Resistance to extractivism (mining and hydroelectric dams), land grabs for agro-exports, and labour discipline in maquilas strike at imperialist accumulation. International solidarity can disrupt investments, cut off supply-chain legitimacy and expose the complicity of multinational corporations and imperialist states. The global working class has an interest in supporting these struggles because they weaken the power of an oligarchy that helps sustain the world capitalist order and its wars.

Summary

Roman Krznaric’s book is a vital piece of journalism and provides essential insight into the world of the Guatemalan oligarchs. Krznaric’s suggestions for countering these oligarchs have profound weaknesses. While addressing the moral and psychological gaps between wealthy elites and the poor, he argues that, to reduce inequality, workers and youth should challenge the oligarchs to change habits, broaden empathy, cultivate longer time horizons, and reframe public narratives so that disadvantaged people can adopt attitudes and strategies associated with success.

Krznaric’s approach is fundamentally an appeal to moral persuasion. He asks the wealthy to change hearts and minds — to exercise empathy, mentor, and open networks — relying on their voluntary moral action rather than on structural compulsion. He treats inequality partly as a deficit of habits and imagination among low-income people that can be remedied by teaching the “right” psychology and practices. These elements make the argument attractive to readers who prefer non-confrontational, reformist routes: it promises measurable improvements through persuasion, education and moral example, without directly challenging property relations or class power.

As Marxists point out, inequality is rooted in property relations, the extraction of surplus value and state power. Teaching better habits or eliciting elite empathy cannot change the class relations that produce mass poverty. Moral appeals to elites presuppose goodwill and avoid building an independent working class

[1] The World View of the Oligarch in Guatemalan Politics.A thesis submitted for the degree of PhD in the Government Department of the University of Essex, Colchester, UK 2003

[2] Want to Challenge the Elite? Then first Understand What Makes Them Tick. frompoverty.oxfam.org.uk/want-to-challenge-the-elite-then-first-understand-what-makes-them-tick/

Dear John (if I may),

August 19, 2025 ~ freerein61 ~ Leave a comment

Last evening I read your work on Marxism and the English Revolution for the second time. I should like to make some points about its arguments very briefly indeed.

1. If one looks at the late Conrad Russell’s corpus of works post-1975, it is possible to see that, deeply embedded within it, there is a degree of subscription to a teleological explanation of the English Civil War, e.g. about incipient support for royalism. pre-1642. I noticed this some time ago and found myself asked not to write about it.

2. One of the key economic and social changes in Anglo-Welsh society before 1640 is the strengthened position of landowners, whether peers or gentry. This goes back to the work of W.R.Emerson and helps to account for the failure of the post-1646 regimes to consolidate themselves in power. The ‘revolution’ took place against one of the key economic developments of the period.

3. As a corollary to point 2, there is good evidence to show that the tenantry of landowners out in the counties were linked not just to their landlords but also amongst and between themselves, hence the coherence of the landed interests before, during and after the 1640-1660 period.

4. One of the important themes in the Stuart realms and in continental states is the retreat from traditional bargaining methods due in measure to the fiscal and military demands of post-1618 wars. In the Stuarts’ kingdoms, these forms of consensus and complaint, bargaining and negotiation declined after 1603 and atrophied post-1625, even when the wars against France and Spain ended by 1630. Their Parliaments were only one means by which negotiations took place in these societies, pace Russell, but one can see how at county and borough levels, with corporate organisations, etc., this retreat took place and accelerated under Charles I.

I am not a Marxist, as you must know, but I enjoy debating the issues of the seventeenth century,

Christopher Thompson