The trade war takes another turn

Marxist Analysis · 2026-05-13

Core Argument

The article argues that Trump's trade war represents not an aberration from capitalist normality but an intensification of capitalism's senile decline. The central thesis is that protectionism is a symptom of the system's inability to manage the contradictions of globalised production, not a solution to them. Trump's attempt to reverse the international division of labour through tariffs is doomed because the productive forces have outgrown the nation-state framework. The crisis is structural, not policy-driven: neither free trade nor protectionism can resolve the underlying decay, and the working class must therefore look beyond capitalist solutions entirely.

Theoretical Grounding

The analysis draws on the Marxist theory of the nation-state as a fetter on the development of the productive forces — a concept developed by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky. The article grounds this in the concrete example of global supply chains (General Electric's CFM56 engine, ASML's lithography machines) to show that modern production is irreducibly transnational. The implicit theoretical framework is the law of uneven and combined development: the world economy has integrated production to a degree that makes national autarky impossible, yet the political form of the nation-state persists and now actively obstructs further development. The piece also invokes the concept of capitalist senile decline — the notion, associated with Trotsky and later Marxist economists, that the system has exhausted its progressive potential and can only offer regressive, crisis-deepening measures.

Conjunctural Relevance

The article is written in April 2025, immediately after Trump's temporary pause on "reciprocal" tariffs. It cites specific data: average US tariffs at 30 percent (highest in 100 years, surpassing 1930s levels); container bookings down 49 percent globally and 64 percent for US imports; oil at $64 per barrel; the S&P 500 down despite a brief bounce; US 10-year treasury yields at 4.3 percent. It identifies concrete forces: Goldman Sachs estimates China holds a monopoly (>70 percent market share) on one-third of US imports from China; Haas Automation reports collapsing demand; Ursula von der Leyen's panicked outreach to Chinese Premier Li Qiang; Chinese manufacturers likely to dump goods on European markets. The conjuncture is one of immediate market dislocation, looming recession, and the impossibility of reshoring production within the timeframes required by Trump's policy.

Where the Argument Continues

The article is a conjunctural snapshot within a broader IDOM corpus on trade war dynamics. It leaves underdeveloped the question of how the working class can actually organise to take control of threatened industries — the call for nationalisation under workers' control is stated but not elaborated. The argument about "senile decline" is asserted rather than fully theorised; readers should consult IDOM's earlier pieces on the long-term tendency of the rate of profit to fall and the structural crisis of the 21st century. The piece also gestures toward the geopolitical dimension (US-China rivalry, European panic) without fully exploring how interimperialist rivalry interacts with domestic class struggle. Against the Stream episodes on the trade war and the crisis of global supply chains would be the natural continuation.

Connections

This article connects to Lenin's Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (on the nation-state as fetter) and Trotsky's writings on the law of uneven and combined development. Within the IDOM corpus, it should be read alongside earlier analyses of Biden and Obama's protectionism (the "buy American" turn) and pieces on the impossibility of capitalist solutions to the crisis. It also connects to Marxist debates on free trade vs. protectionism — Engels' and Marx's own writings on the Corn Laws and the Anti-Corn Law League provide the classical reference points. The article implicitly positions itself against both liberal free-trade apologetics and left-Keynesian proposals for managed trade, arguing both are inadequate.

Key Quotes

1. "The fact that the nation state puts a limit on the development of the productive forces has been explained time and again by Marxists: by Marx, by Engels, by Lenin and by Trotsky."

2. "The reality is that the capitalist economy is suffering senile decline, and there is nothing governments can do to stop that. If they aren't attempting to sell us yet another course of belt-tightening, all they can offer the workers is the snake-oil cure of protectionism."

3. "The question isn't really one of free trade or protectionism, a choice which is currently troubling the minds of the leaders of the labour movement. Under conditions of deep crisis, neither of these will move us one single step forward."

4. "For General Electric to avoid the 10 percent tariff, they would have to build another factory in the US, and, once the EU retaliates, another factory in France as well. No doubt the costs would be very large."

5. "Uncertainty in itself has a massively corrosive effect on the world economy, both on orders and, even more so, on investments. Who would want to build a new plant in this environment (whether in the US or elsewhere) when there is no way of knowing where they are going to get their components from?"

6. "The labour leaders abandoned socialism, the crisis has put it back in the centre of the agenda."