As the United States is the sole superpower in the world today, their foreign policy and not their internal policy is essentially more important for the proletariat and the people of the world. To put the question in the contrary way means locally closed-mindedness and egoism.

Although it is incorrect to completely deny the reactionary innovations in US domestic policy under Trump such as attempts to tighten antisocial austerity measures and favoring right-wing fans of the patriarchal slave-owning past. These politics hit the poorest, most proletarianized and vulnerable groups of the population first. Resistance to such a course is justified. We do not reject this resistance but we uphold a comprehensive and balanced assessment, a correct detection of the main enemies, the priorities in the struggle and the methods of attack.

US Interventions in the World since WW Ⅱ

On the other hand, Trump has not yet actually managed to catch up with his predecessors in the foreign policy agenda of intervention and aggression. Trump was not the one who introduced the unfriendly US policy against the DPRK and Venezuela, the US contingent in Afghanistan was an order of magnitude greater during the first term of Obama¹, the intervention in Syria was also launched under Obama with Hillary Clinton’s active participation. So far, in spite of his abusive insults, Trump has actually shown himself to be the most peace-loving president of the United States since Jimmy Carter! For more than thirty years, all Trump’s predecessors, both Republicans and Democrats, have arranged for invasions and wars:

• Ronald Reagan (1981–1989) — intervention in Afghanistan (1981), intervention in Lebanon and Grenada (1983), bombing Libya (1986), invasion to Panama (1989);
• George Bush Sr (1989–1993) — the Gulf War (1991) and subsequent missile strikes against Iraq;
• Bill Clinton (1993–2001) — invasion of Haiti (1994), war with Yugoslavia (1999);
• George Bush Jr (2001–2009) — interventions in Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003);
• Barack Obama (2009–2017) — intervention in Libya (2011), participation in the suppression of the Tuareg rebellion (2012–2013), intervention in Syria (since 2014).

Trump’s rival in the presidential election, Hillary Clinton is notorious as a ‘hawk’, consistently seeking an escalation, in particular, an even greater and more dangerous escalation of the already deplorably tense Russian–US relations.

Hillary Clinton laughs at the martyrdom of Muammar Gaddafi, an interview on October 20, 2011

Of course, the seeming ‘love for peace’ of Trump is not because he has allegedly changed his imperialist nature and ‘became a Buddha’, but because, firstly, bloodthirstiness is generally and naturally inherent to the leaders of this greatest of predatory powers, and, secondly, he has only been president for a very short time yet. Nevertheless, there is the possibility that Trump will not unleash any war until the end of his term, in which case, he could not be compared with his mentioned predecessors.

Therefore, one should not distort reality in any way:

• neither turning a blind eye to the imperialist nature of Trump’s policy,
• nor exaggerating it and thus distracting attention from the constancy and regularity of such US imperialist policy.

Some of the capitalists in the USA are dissatisfied with Trump and are striving for an even more active imposition of their will and interests on other nations. It should be kept in mind that the movement personally focused on the ‘rogue president’² Trump contributes to the success of this reactionary group and prepares the ground for the future election campaign of the so-called Democratic Party.

How should Communists properly oppose Trump?

• One should attack Trump in such a way that does not focus on his differences from his predecessors and his rival. The opposite way is to spread among the people the illusion of their greater ‘acceptability’ and to work in the interests of an interventionist bourgeois camp.

• One should attack Trump as the same imperialist and capitalist as his predecessors are, following their common path.

• One should attack Trump from an openly communist standpoint, as an enemy of the independence of Third World nations and the proletariat. In particular, first of all, it is necessary to speak out for the defense of the DPRK and Venezuela.

• One should not in no case allow any union with the slogans raised by the servants of the interventionists, even if they allegedly are ‘leftists’. In particular, one should oppose the xenophobic and Russophobic hysteria that contributes to the growth of international tension³.

Finally, a campaign directed personally against one of the representatives of the class promotes the spreading of hardcore idealistic way of thinking among the masses and political militants.⁴