Thank you, Marv Gandall, for that article. Yes, the presence of top capitalists in the government certainly is a phenomenon, but it doesn't disprove my thesis. Don't forget that a Bonapartist isn't independent of the capitalist class; it's just that his policies aren't really determined by that class. The article shows how the Silicon Valley venture capitalists have a particularly strong presence and influence in the Trump regime. That's something I've commented on several times before, for example in this article Silicon Valley Venture Capitalists Now in Charge <https://oaklandsocialist.com/2025/03/07/the-trump-vance-musk-triumvirate-and-the-silicon-valley-capitalists-now-in-charge/>. I think that title was somewhat misleading, though. I think they are not in charge of Trump. It's more like the two are using each other.
As I pointed out in this article explaining that they are experiencing buyers remorse <https://oaklandsocialist.com/2025/06/06/capitalists-experiencing-buyers-remorse/>, Trump has undertaken many of his major policies with or without their support or even consulting with them. His tariff policies are a foremost example. His present war against Iran is another. I think overall, we cannot ignore the difference between his first administration and the present one. In his first administration, he had top officials who continually restrained him. Mark Milley and even Bill Barr at the end of the day were two key examples. I think it is a mistake to ignore the fact that there is nobody, nobody whatsoever, in his present administration who plays that role. What do you make of the fact that his cabinet meetings are all "hail Trump" peahens? We've never seen anything like this before. There are some restraints, though - first and foremost his attempt to take direct control over the Fed. A former comrade of mine once coined the term the "lumpenization of the capitalist class". I think that's a very apt term. What it means is that the individual capitalists are increasingly just looking out for themselves rather than thinking about the needs of their class as a whole. On top of that, some of them are simply imposing their own personal interests. Musk's DOGE is an example. What he did did not serve the interests of the capitalist class as a whole. Or consider some of his appointees, first and foremost Pete Hegseth in the critical position of Secretary of Defense. He is not only truly "unqualified", he is imposing policies that are not in the interests of US capitalism - not only purging the top staff of all people of color and women but doing things like mandating that the rank and file troops may not have facial hair. That is aimed at black soldiers, many of whom grow beards because shaving causes skin problems. Or his now planning to test testosterone level of all his troops. Bonapartist regimes are not all the same. Compare the Baathist regimes to those of Galtieri and Pinochet to the PRI regime in Mexico. There are huge differences, but none of them was truly fully independent of the capitalist class. I think it is the same with Trump, whose regime is not fully Bonapartist yet. But if he manages to steal the upcoming election, I think that will be a huge step in that direction. John Reimann -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#42866): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/42866 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/120665425/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
