There were many good reasons for the left feeling uncomfortable with the judgment on which candidate was to be considered as the “lesser evil” in the US presidential elections: not so for rejoicing, as someone does here and there, for Trump’s victory. Believing that the prospect that opens up could be more favorable is a dangerous illusion, because the path in which he will move is largely traced: the main difference lies in the eccentric singularity of the character that leaves open some unknowns, which could not be expected from Harris. But now it is necessary to get a more in-depth idea of the alternatives that may arise.

The comments on the reasons for the victory converge around two main explanations, which concern the economy and the war. As President, Biden has not acted so badly for US economy (referring to GNP as a whole) and even took some pro-labor measures, but inequalities increased, fueling the discontent on which Trump leveraged with his MAGA (Make America Great Again). In addition to this, a big weight is to be tributed to the economic commitment to the war undertaken by the Dems and to the positions taken by them for its continuation without any perspective for its conclusion, while Trump promised not to make any more and to close those in progress.

Other factors have been pointed out so to explain the result: Biden's late withdrawal, Harris' profile, the effectiveness of communication (while little weight is given to the differences on the issue of migrants). Limiting ourselves to those which most consider decisive, MAGA hides a contradiction (or a dilemma) that awaits the new president and that has repercussions on the other fundamental promise: in what sense is a greater America promised? For the impoverished middle class and for the inhabitants of the internal states, greatness means a growing society, certain of living in an impregnable stronghold and of being able to get into debt because the future is guaranteed. Which can therefore remove the memory of the Twin Towers and the sub-prime crisis.

In short, they believed in the promise of ending wars and raising barriers: physical barriers, but with a highly symbolic value, towards migrants; immaterial, but with very concrete effects, towards imported goods. However, the latter only hold within a framework that requires as an unavoidable condition the capacity for (military) deterrence, on the ground and in the skies, in intelligence services and in medias: provided that the risk of their violation in a nuclear conflict is really averted. While economic barriers, duties, do not allow an increase of their production in the USA instead of buying them from abroad, thus creation of new jobs, but a raise of the price of US goods, to the benefit of the profits of those who produce and sell them.

Well, one might think, betraying his promises could cost Trump dearly. But here the dilemma arises on which will be the solution that will be adopted for the contradiction because, in a substantially bipartisan framework, the only alternative is represented by the Dems, who certainly do not intend to displease the powerful economic subjects who support them, nor the upper middle class area that is their consensus base, decreasing in number but increasingly aggressive, having enriched themselves with the growth of the major investment funds.

Instead, it must not be underestimated the evolution that is taking place on the other side, which is now near to be ruling in the White House and the Capitol. What is forming is a substantial movement, not only of ideas but of means: not only money but technologies, not only followers but hired warriors. A movement that initially took hold transversally between the two parties, occupying key positions in the Administration and in what is commonly defined as the Deep State, and now is well-established and very influential in the world surrounding Trump (and has long been a source of inspiration for the Meloni-Atreju circle inn Italy). Bannon (recently released from prison) is one of its main ideologists and Musk, despite his unbridled individualism, has strong points of contact with them.

We can even give it a name, because its ideological background, historical roots, values, culture are increasingly recognizable and clear: it defines itself as white supremacism and is the evolution, up to the present day, of Nazi-fascism. Not the simple re-proposal of Hitlerian National Socialism and Italian fascism but still the antithesis to the democratic thought born of bourgeois revolutions, especially as regards the radical denial of the value of equality and the individualistic (one might say super-human) version of freedom.

  dueIt would be a grave mistake not to take in the right consideration the role that this political movement will have in Trump's choices of greater strategic weight, to the fact that he has in his mind to present itself as an heroic saver, in an ultimate last-ditch attempt to keep the capitalist system afloat after the market based on "perfect" competition has given way to solidarity-based conflict (it is not an oxymoron) between large monopolistic groups that is bringing to a planetary disorder. We cannot predict with certainty where this drift may lead: however, in the current of thought that we can still define as left, the conviction is growing that if it does not find powerful obstacles that can divert its course, it could become an avalanche capable of overwhelming the panorama in which we are inserted today, the conditions of our species and those of the planet that hosts us.

Will four years be enough to produce such a catastrophe (in the sense that the term has in the physical sphere)? Until its complete conclusion, probably not. But it could reach a point where it is irreversible or, at most, containable only in its extreme aspects.

The 99% that the anti-global movement referred to,  seems to have significantly reduced but in fact it has largely immerged into resignation and fatalism. We have learned that the time of history knows accelerations and even explosions: those who are aware of this and are able to do so must answer the call. The latest generations, the movements that glimpse the risk of extinction are mobilizing but there is a leap to be made. Here is Rhodes.