Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
How to Understand the Folk Marxism of Trump Supporters
How to Understand the Folk Marxism of Trump Supporters
Dec 31, 2025 7:00 AM

The phenomenon that is Donald Trump and his presidential campaign can only truly be understood when you recognize his basic appeal: he’s bringing a brand of folk Marxism to an entirely new audience.

Before we unpack what this means, we must first understand what it does not mean. Folk Marxism is not Classical Marxism, much munism. Marxism has so many varieties that even Karl Marx once said, “what is certain is that I myself am not a Marxist.” Folk Marxism is no different, and in America it manifest in different forms among divergent political groups.

Folk Marxism differs from academic forms of Marxism in the same way most folk beliefs differ from scholarly beliefs. As economist Arnold Kling explains, “Ordinary people and scholars may treat the same ideas differently. In terms of influence, it is the folk beliefs of ordinary people that matter, not the beliefs of scholars.”

A decade ago, when it was still a belief system found mostly on the political left, Kling outlined the basics of folk Marxism:

Folk Marxism looks at political economy as a struggle pitting the oppressors against the oppressed. Of course, for Marx, the oppressors were the owners of capital and the oppressed were the workers. But folk Marxism is not limited by this economic classification scheme. All sorts of other issues are viewed through the lens of oppressors and oppressed. Folk Marxists see Israelis as oppressors and Palestinians as oppressed. They see white males as oppressors and minorities and females as oppressed. They see corporations as oppressors and individuals as oppressed. They see America as on oppressor and other countries as oppressed.

I believe that folk Marxism helps to explain the pride and joy that many people felt when Maryland passed its anti-Walmart law. They think of Walmart as an oppressor, and they think of other businesses and Walmart workers as the oppressed. The mainstream media share this folk Marxism, as they reported the Maryland law as a “victory for labor.”

This brand of folk Marxism has been popular on the left for more than a century and continues to grow in influence (see: Bernie Sanders). But Donald Trump has tapped into a strain of folk Marxism that has cross-ideological appeal and extends across the political spectrum.

Here are some of the defining characteristics of Trump-style folk Marxism:

Class consciousness matters more than political identity –Class consciousness refers to the beliefs that a person holds regarding their social class or economic rank in society, the structure of their class, and their class interests. Almost all Trump supporters associate themselves with a particular (though largely undefined) oppressed class. They also consider Trump as the best candidate to champion their class interests. For them, these class interest are more important than almost any other affiliation.

This is why criticism that they are RINOs (Republicans in name only) or that they are not “true conservatives” falls on deaf ears. They identify more as a class of the oppressed than they do with any political party or historical ideological movement.

Defeating the oppressor class is the primary goal of the revolution —Talk to any Trump supporter for more than five minutes and you’ll inevitably hear them use the catch-all term they use for their perceived enemy: the Establishment.

Trump supporters don’t use the term merely to mean the Republican Party establishment. If they did they’d prefer Ted Cruz, who is more despised by that “establishment” than almost any other candidate — including Trump. Indeed, Trump is more closely aligned with the political establishment than any other candidate (with the exception of Hillary Clinton).

The Establishment, for Trump supporters, is not a specific entity but rather a term loosely used for any person or group who opposes, disagrees with, or is otherwise on the wrong side of their particular oppressor-oppressed line.

However, even this criterion is malleable. For example, Trump is a wealthy crony capitalist who has previously exploited the lower economic social classes for his own advancement. But because he uses rhetoric (i.e., “he isn’t politically correct”, “he tells it like it is”) that appears to trash the Establishment and their interest, he’s given a pass and considered one of their own. They assume that despite his lifelong connection to the Establishment that Trump is, at least in his heart, a traitor to his own class.

There are few if any true economic laws, only policies controlled by an oppressor class — As the Wikipedia entry on class consciousness explains:

Through dialectical materialism, the proletariat understands that what the individual bourgeois conceived as “laws” akin to the laws of nature, which may be only manipulated, as in Descartes’s dream, but not changed, is in fact the result of a social and historical process, which can be controlled. Furthermore, only dialectical materialism links together all specialized domains, which modern rationalism can only think as separate instead of as forming a totality. Only the proletariat can understand that the so-called “eternal laws of economics” are in fact nothing more than the historical form taken by the social and economical process in a capitalist society. Since these “laws” are the result of the collective actions of individuals, and are thus created by society, Marx and Lukács reasoned that this necessarily meant that they could be changed.

This is a wonky way of saying that the proletariat (working class) believe there are no true laws of economics. When the people in power claim they are simply following the “laws” what they are really doing is just protecting their interest and exploiting the oppressed class.

Trump supporters tend to believe this about issues like free trade. An almost universal belief shared by economists is that free trade tends to benefit all countries involved by making them more efficient and wealthy. But Trump and his supporters think in categories of “winners” and “losers” and assume that for every macroeconomic policy there must be an oppressor —and that they are likely to be the oppressed. What is needed to e this “law of economics”, they believe, is to put a strongman in power that will fight for them against the oppressor classes (e.g., China).

The desire for social revolution is more important than the e of the revolution—Like almost all other types of Marxists, the Trumpian folk-Marxists crave revolution less for what it will bring and more for what it will tear down. The desire to “burn down” their oppressor class (the Establishment) is much stronger than any eagerness to replace it with something better.

The oppressed that are attracted to Trump falsely believe that they are already as despised, ignored, and oppressed as it is possible to be (at least by American standards). The reality, of course, is that if they got their way they might succeed in bringing down the Establishment a peg while immiserating and impoverishing themselves considerably. Still, the emotion appeal of the Trumpian revolution trumps their reasoned self-interest.

Trumpian folk-Marxists despise other types of folk Marxists —Let me state without equivocation: I do not believe that the average Trump supporter is racist. But it is indisputable that Trump is the favorite candidate of avowed racists. Why is that? Because most white supremacists are folk Marxists engaged in a long-term struggle against other folk Marxists.

One of the favorite terms of white supremacist groups is the term “cultural Marxism.” They believe that there is a concerted effort to overthrow “white culture” through the promotion of such Marxists ideologies as feminism, multiculturalism, etc. They don’t merely oppose these groups as harmful to the flourishing of mankind, though. They view “cultural Marxism” as the work of an oppressor class (the Establishment?) that is intentionally trying to oppress them personally by diluting and destroying their cultural “white identity.”

When he talks about “Mexican rapists” and preventing Muslims from immigrating to the U.S., Trump is speaking their language. They recognize he is a folk Marxist who is on their side and who opposes the wrong kinds of “cultural Marxist.”

****Like all brands of Marxism — including that of Bernie Sanders — Trumpism is a perfidious and dangerous political virus that can infect and destroy a body politic. But we can learn to better fight against it when we recognize it for what it is, and stop confusing it for right-wing populism, malformed conservatism, or a particularly vehement strain of anti-establishmentarianism.

Trumpism is real, unique, and not a belief system that is going to fade away on its own. We must therefore act quickly to quell what could be one of the most dangerous form of Marxism every to pose an internal and existential threat to America.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Hubris old and new
Adam MacLeod, a law professor at Faulkner University in Alabama, wrote a couple of years ago in the New Boston Post of “chronological snobbery,” the idea that “moral knowledge progresses inevitably, such that later generations are morally and intellectually superior to earlier generations, and that the older the source the more morally suspect that source is.” We don’t have to look too hard to see how widespread this attitude is now. No other age has had the hubris of ours....
Acton Commentary: Liberty for AOC but not for thee
During a congressional hearing late last week, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez likened Christians who refuse to perform medical procedures that violate their religious beliefs to Klansmen, segregationists, and slaveholders. But in this week’s Acton Commentary, Rev. Gregory Jensen writes that it is the congresswoman who shares the Jim Crow tactics of using the government to deny other people their inalienable rights. In a video clip that went viral, AOC, a democratic socialist, said that Christians lack the right to live according to...
Bernie Sanders’ pagan view of charity
Bernie Sanders holds a pagan view of charity. I mean that not in a pejorative but in a denotative sense: Sanders’ preference for government programs over private philanthropy echoes that of ancient pagan rulers. Sanders, a democratic socialist, has said that private charity should not exist, because it usurps the authority of the government. Sanders voiced this antipathy at a United Way meeting shortly after being elected mayor of Burlington in 1981. The New York Times reported: “I don’t believe...
Clayton Christensen: ‘If you take away religion, you can’t hire enough police’
The Founding Fathers understood, in the words of John Adams, that “we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.” An Ivy League professor recently heard the same conclusion repeated by a Chinese Marxist. “I had no idea how critical religion is to the functioning of democracy,” the economist told Clayton Christensen. Christensen, who died last month at the age of 67, taught business administration at Harvard Business School and served...
Bloomberg and Sanders are both wrong about money in politics
Super Tuesday – the single day in the U.S. presidential primaries with the most delegates at stake – e and gone, and so have quite a few presidential candidates. Former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) both dropped out before Tuesday and endorsed former Vice President Joe Biden. After lackluster performances on Tuesday, both former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his debate nemesis, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, have dropped out, as well. The...
As it turns out, Lake Erie does not have ‘rights’
Last week, a federal district court judge in Ohio declared that the city of Toledo’s move to establish a Lake Erie Bill of Rights, or LEBOR, was invalid. Judge Jack Zouhary put it this way: Frustrated by the status quo, LEBOR supporters knocked on doors, engaged their fellow citizens, and used the democratic process to pursue a well-intentioned goal: the protection of Lake Erie. As written, however, LEBOR fails to achieve that goal. This is not a close call. LEBOR...
3 books to help you think and talk about politics without practicing politics
When people talk about politics, they are usually discussing passions and interests, often with a whole lot of passion and interest. This is why prohibitions exist in polite society against talking about politics. Political discussions about issues, parties, or candidates are often performative recitations of opinion: yesterday’s knowledge, right or wrong, applied to today’s situation. These debates can be engaging, enraging, or enjoyable. It is this sort of politics that, as Henry Adams observed, “as a practice, whatever its professions,...
The Green New Deal sits on a throne of lies
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez intended the Green New Deal to cement her position as the intellectual leader of the democratic socialist movement, but even passing scrutiny caused the $93 trillion proposal to fade into obscurity. In an attempt to revive her signature plan, the New York congresswoman read the entire text of the bill during a ponderous speech before the House of Representatives. More than a year may have passed since the plan’s critics snickered at its proposals to end air travel...
Acton Line podcast: The biggest problems of national conservatism
In recent years, a rift has opened within American conservatism, a series of divisions animated in part by the 2016 presidential election and also by a right concern with an increasingly progressive culture. Among these divisions is a growing split between self-professing liberal and illiberal conservatives as some on the right scramble to give explanation for a culture which has e hostile to civil society and traditional institutions, most notably the family. One movement which has grown out of this...
For Roger Scruton, philosophy and culture were inseparable
It’s almost two months since the death of perhaps the twentieth century’s most important conservative philosopher, Sir Roger Scruton, but discussion of the significance of his work and life continues to occupy a great deal of space in journals, opinion pieces and on the airwaves. Like many others, I have found myself looking again at many of Scruton’s great books, such as his classic “The Meaning of Conservatism” (1980), the very reflective “England: An Elegy” (2000) and the aesthetic arguments...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved