Photograph Source: The White House – Public Domain
Trump’s tariffs and war on free trade signal the end of an experiment in globalism that began in the 1990s with NAFTA and the breakup of the Soviet Union. Yet the question is whether this is a new stage for capitalism, or a futile or reactionary effort to turn back the clock on the global economy?
Over time, Marxists have preoccupied themselves with the problem of historical stages. When Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848, he envisioned capitalism teetering on the brink of collapse. The revolution, he believed, was imminent. Yet, capitalism persisted—evolving, adapting, and resisting its demise.
By the late 19th century, figures like Edward Bernstein and Rosa Luxemburg reignited the debate. Was capitalism nearing its end, or did it possess an infinite capacity to manage and survive the crisis? Their arguments revolved around the same fundamental question: What stage of capitalism were we in?
Then, in 1917, Vladimir Lenin authored Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. He contended that capitalism had entered a new phase—one no longer centered on industrial production but dominated by finance capital. This stage saw banks take center stage, colonial empires expand, and great powers battle for global influence and economic gain at the expense of others.
Lenin’s work is over a century old. Have we since moved beyond imperialism? The answer is, arguably, yes. By the 1990s, the global economy had shifted once again—from imperialism to globalism.
This new globalism retained the centrality of finance capital but reshaped its landscape. As New York Times writer Thomas Friedman described it, the world had become “flat.” National boundaries were eroded, and economies increasingly integrated across borders. It was a post-national, hyper-connected global system.
However, globalism faced shocks. The 2008 financial crisis, the Syrian refugee crisis that began in 2011, and the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019 exposed its vulnerabilities. These events prompted calls to slow financial mobility and reassert national boundaries. Globalism did not die, but it restructured.
Now, with the emergence of artificial intelligence, globalism—or post-globalism—stands on the cusp of another transformation. Technological change threatens to redefine borders, labor, and capital in unprecedented ways. Yet into this moment steps Donald Trump.
Trump, in many ways, seeks to turn back the clock. He rejects the globalism of the last thirty years and promotes a nationalist economic vision. His agenda revives great power politics, the assertion of economic spheres of influence, and the use of American financial power to advance domestic interests.
This vision mirrors, in part, the imperialism Lenin described. Trumpism aims to dismantle elements of globalism and restore earlier capitalist logics with the US at the center of international capitalism. But can one truly undo the structures of global integration? Moreover, can the US remain a dominant economic force if it retreats away from the global economy?
Does Trumpism represent yet another stage of capitalism? Is this a new effort being undertaken to restructure the global economy from a nationalist perspective in a world where physical borders are being erased and replaced by digital ones? Or is this simply a simplistic revanchism to return the US to a global economic position that simply does not exist anymore?
© Counter Punch
