Trumpism and the Dictatorship of Petty Shopkeepers

              Trumpism and the Dictatorship of "Petty Shopkeepers": A Reflection
                on Modern Democracy

             by Vladmir and Pierre-Paul Angelblazer, Moscow, Mosfilm, 12-11-2024


       ("Демократия проводит к диктатуре мелких лавочников" - диалог Штирлица и генерала вермахта в Мосфильме.)

       ("The democracy leads to the dictatorship of petty shopkeepers" is one of the well-known lines from the Soviet film Seventeen Moments of Spring, produced by the Mosfilm studio. In this scene, Wehrmacht General Karl Wolff says this line to Stierlitz (a Soviet intelligence officer embedded within Nazi Germany), attempting to discuss the prospects for postwar Europe. This line reflects a sarcastic and critical view of democratic systems from the perspective of the Nazi general.)

       In Seventeen Moments of Spring, a Wehrmacht General makes a cutting remark: “democracy leads to the dictatorship of petty shopkeepers.” Though intended as a critique of democratic processes, this sentiment may unexpectedly resonate with aspects of modern American Trumpism. Although Trumpism represents a distinctly American populism, it incorporates a unique blend of nationalism, market-driven values, and a transactional approach to politics that can align, in spirit, with the General’s cynical perspective. Here, Trumpism channels the “petty shopkeeper” mentality—a system grounded in economic pragmatism and personal advantage that risks undermining the broader principles and stability of democracy itself.

       At its core, Trumpism represents a political movement that champions economic nationalism, prioritizing domestic business interests and deriding globalist policies. Trump’s rhetoric, especially around “America First,” is driven by the concerns of small business owners, industrial workers, and those disillusioned by the perceived inefficacies of global capitalism. This aligns with the General’s portrayal of “petty shopkeepers” who prioritize self-interest and immediate gain over broader democratic ideals. Trumpism often appears to equate national strength with economic dominance, focusing on trade deals, tariffs, and protectionist policies as central to the nation’s success. In doing so, it shifts the democratic dialogue from the realm of collective well-being and justice to a more transactional, market-driven perspective.

       In addition, Trumpism's skepticism toward established institutions mirrors the General’s dismissive view of democratic structures. “Drain the swamp,” a recurring theme in Trump’s discourse, points to an antagonism toward the very institutions that sustain democracy, portraying them as compromised and corrupt. This sentiment aligns with the General’s implication that democratic governance is inherently vulnerable to self-interested actors—politicians who, in Trump’s rhetoric, are often portrayed as ineffective, untrustworthy, or solely interested in personal gain. In practice, Trumpism leans heavily on populist appeals, fostering a culture of distrust in established democratic norms, with loyalty and charisma often taking precedence over institutional integrity.

       Furthermore, Trump’s style of governance—transactional, pragmatic, and results-oriented—resonates with the “shopkeeper” mentality, as it frequently prioritizes short-term gains over long-term societal values. Rather than grounding policy in democratic ideals or collective progress, Trumpism centers on “winning” and “deals,” echoing a capitalist approach that often appears more business-oriented than civic-minded. In essence, this approach treats democracy as a marketplace where influence is currency and governance a negotiation, diluting the ideal of democracy as a participatory system built upon collective principles of justice and equality.

       This alignment with the “petty shopkeeper” mentality does not simply reflect a populist appeal to economic pragmatism but signifies a deeper ideological shift. Trumpism, by prioritizing economic self-interest and nationalism, implies that democracy’s worth is judged by immediate, measurable successes rather than its enduring commitment to ideals like equity, justice, and democratic participation. In the same way that the General saw democracy as vulnerable to the encroachment of narrow, self-serving values, Trumpism has amplified a version of democracy that appears to favor the transactional over the transformative.

       In both cases, democracy is portrayed as a system that can be manipulated to serve narrow interests, one that lends itself to the pragmatism and individualism of the “shopkeeper” rather than the communal ideals of citizenship. Trumpism, then, inadvertently embodies aspects of the General’s critique—subverting democracy’s aspirational principles by adopting an ethos that prioritizes power and advantage over inclusivity and collective welfare.

       As we reflect on the convergence of Trumpism with this historic critique of democracy, we are reminded of the inherent tensions in democratic governance. If democracy becomes dominated by the values of short-term pragmatism and personal gain, it risks losing its foundational principles and, indeed, its very character. This perspective invites us to consider whether, in embracing transactional governance, Trumpism has brought American democracy closer to the General’s “dictatorship of petty shopkeepers,” potentially eroding the deeper values that give democracy its enduring strength.

        I. What distinguishes socialist democracy from bourgeois democracy?

       Socialist and bourgeois democracies differ in the goals they pursue and the power structures they support. Here are a few key differences:

Economic Foundation:

       Socialist democracy is aimed at collective ownership of the means of production. It assumes that key resources and enterprises are owned by the state or the community, which allows wealth to be distributed more evenly among the population.
       Bourgeois democracy (also called capitalist democracy) assumes private ownership of the means of production, supporting a market economy and encouraging private enterprise. Power is concentrated among capital owners, who control the allocation of economic resources.

       Just think about how much the U.S. Democrats and Republicans spent on the 2024 election campaign. The final financial reports from the Democratic and Republican parties in mid-October showed that the Democrats raised over $2.3 billion for Harris’s campaign and spent $1.9 billion. Republican expenses were somewhat more modest. They managed to raise over $1.8 billion for Donald Trump's presidential campaign, but only spent $1.6 billion of that amount. Such expenses, while reflective of capitalist democracy, appear absurd against the backdrop of urgent global issues.

Goals and Priorities:

       Socialist democracy seeks to eliminate social inequality and fight exploitation. It emphasizes collective interests and strives for equality in the distribution of resources.
       Bourgeois democracy supports freedom of private property and individual enterprise, and thus prioritizes personal success and individual financial well-being. It may allow inequality as an incentive for development and competition.

Political System and Representation:

       Socialist democracy often aims for a system of direct or Soviet-style representation, where workers and peasants play an essential role in governance. The main idea is that power should be concentrated in the hands of the working class.
       Bourgeois democracy traditionally operates through representative democracy, where citizens elect representatives who then make decisions. However, due to unequal distribution of wealth, the influence of capital can grant privileges to certain groups, sometimes leading to a concentration of power among economically affluent layers of society.

Social Policy:

       Socialist democracy promotes policies of free education, healthcare, and other public goods, as the state sees it as its role to ensure the basic needs of all citizens.
       Bourgeois democracy supports a mix of public and private services, where citizens can choose between state and private options, and basic services are not always free.
       Thus, socialist democracy is aimed at eliminating class distinctions and assumes a more equitable distribution of resources, while bourgeois democracy protects the right to private property and economic freedom, where inequality is seen as a natural outcome of free competition.

       II. Applying the Fibonacci law in the context of democracy can be an interesting metaphorical approach to finding the "golden mean."

       A "golden mean" in democracy that satisfies everyone is an ideal that, while appealing, is extraordinarily difficult to achieve. Democracy inherently thrives on diversity of opinion, often including opposing values and interests that make universal agreement unlikely.

       The essence of democracy is compromise—seeking balance among competing viewpoints to create a society where a broad majority, if not everyone, feels heard and represented. However, this balance is delicate, as any compromise may leave some individuals or groups feeling underserved or marginalized. Striving for a "golden mean" can lead to a functional middle ground, but it is rare for it to be fully satisfying to all, especially in societies with complex social, economic, and cultural divides.

       In practice, a "golden mean" in democracy could perhaps mean a system that prioritizes fairness, equal opportunity, and respect for minority rights, allowing most to feel they have a stake in society’s direction, even if they don't agree with every policy. While total satisfaction for everyone may be impossible, achieving a broadly accepted balance remains a valuable pursuit in any democratic society.

       Pierre-Paul Angelblazer, an expert on the political systems of the United States and Canada, observes: “A democracy based on one person, one vote need not be classified as ‘Western,’ ‘Eastern,’ or otherwise. Democracy as a system is inherently simple, shaped largely by the unique political culture, values, and conventions of its people.

       In practice, however, the U.S. democratic structure currently enables a form of minority rule that favors rural conservative ideologies. Through mechanisms like the Electoral College and the first-past-the-post system, conservatives often have a more straightforward path to power than liberals, and they hold it more decisively when they do. Notably, Donald Trump was the only Republican presidential candidate in decades to win the popular vote, yet Republicans frequently wield significant power even without it, whereas Democrats typically capture the popular vote but struggle to control all branches of government.

       For example, the Senate grants equal representation to each state, so Montana’s vote carries the same weight as California’s, despite their population disparity. When liberal Democrats do gain office, their legislative goals—such as expanding healthcare access or taxing the wealthy—are often thwarted by opposition from a conservative Congress, Senate, or judiciary, limiting their ability to implement popular reforms. While progressive policies consistently enjoy public support of around 60%, frustration arises when these policies fail to materialize due to institutional barriers.

       This dissatisfaction has fueled a willingness among voters to support Trump, who has introduced influential oligarchs like Elon Musk into his administration. This approach risks transforming the American economic landscape, with moves toward privatization and deregulation echoing the turbulent Yeltsin era in post-Soviet Russia. For Americans, this may represent a pivotal period of political experimentation, one that could redefine the nation’s democratic trajectory for years to come.”

       This comparison to the Yeltsin era offers a timely and significant insight for a Canadian researcher of global politics. The United States appears to have fused two transformative processes: Mikhail Gorbachev's perestroika in the USSR from 1985 to 1991, and Boris Yeltsin's populist ascent, which culminated in his signing of an agreement that dissolved a vast state. One might infer that U.S. elites are keenly aware of their actions in supporting Trump and his allies, driven by a belief that Trumpism serves as a necessary 'red pill'—a means to preserve the nation and infuse it with new democratic vitality. Unlike former Central Committee Secretary Yeltsin, businessman and billionaire Donald Trump is unburdened by communism or alcohol. Instead, he envisions true democracy—not the 'democratic centralism of the Communist Party' (a concept introduced by Lenin in State and Revolution, 1917)—as essential to the United States’ future.

       III. The Fibonacci law is a sequence of numbers where each successive number is the sum of the previous two (1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, and so on).

       This sequence is known for its harmony and proportions, which are found in nature, art, and architecture. Interestingly, Fibonacci numbers are associated with the golden ratio, a ratio that is considered visually appealing and harmonious.

       In the context of democracy, the Fibonacci law can be used as a metaphor for achieving harmony between different points of view and interests in society. For example:

       Gradual change and evolution: Like the Fibonacci sequence, decisions and changes in the democratic process can be based on previous experience and knowledge, allowing society to evolve through small but significant steps that gradually lead to sustainable and harmonious results.

       Balance of Interests: The Fibonacci Law can symbolize the idea of finding proportions between different interests and groups in society. Instead of trying to please everyone at once, a democratic society can strive for proportional representation of different groups, creating compromises and solutions that harmoniously combine the needs of the majority and minorities.

       Mathematical and aesthetic balance: By applying the principle of the golden ratio, one can seek balance in decision-making, where the importance of different factors and opinions is assessed taking into account their “natural” role in the decision-making process. This can lead to a more harmonious and sustainable social development, where there are no excessive radical fluctuations, but the interests of different parties are not neglected.

       Of course, this is more of a metaphor than a strict method, since democracy is a complex process that depends on many factors, including cultural, economic and political circumstances. But the application of the Fibonacci idea can serve as a good symbol for the concept of harmony and gradual evolutionary development, in which ideology and reality can coexist in a constant search for balance.

IV. The Future of Democracy in a Cosmic Context

       It’s critical to clarify what we mean by the concept of a “democratic minority.” Modern liberal democracy, deeply rooted in the bourgeois societies of the “Western Maritime Civilization” (the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia), has transformed into a caricature of itself. It has reached an absurdity that, paradoxically, signals its failure—a failure that was evidenced by Donald Trump’s decisive victory in the 2024 U.S. presidential election. The American majority has grown weary of what might be termed a “Bolshevik liberal minority,” a faction whose radicalism has perverted fundamental democratic values.

       Democracy is not about race, not about sexual orientation, and not about the self-proclaimed identities of those with dyed hair or mental confusion. Nor is it defined by the issues of the day or the whims of any given minority. Democracy is not what we Russians experienced in the wake of our own revolution, when a fervent minority armed with the ideological zeal of the French Revolution and the feverish dogma of Marx and Engels seized power in a largely illiterate, patriarchal society, calling themselves the Bolsheviks—the “majority.” Through unspeakable bloodshed and suffering, that “majority” of a radical minority imprinted a tragic legacy on the Russian soul, a wound that endures even now. The intellectual virus of ideological extremism has since taken root across the world, demanding a cure—a “political physician” who can restore balance. Democracy is about WE THE PEOPLE.

        Russia, along with many other nations, has resisted the extremist liberalism that threatens to infiltrate our social homes. We strive to defend our families, our traditions, and our political systems. We’ve endured a similar experiment in collective madness before. Now, we are engaged in the democratic struggle to find a balanced course, one that respects a range of perspectives on how society and the world at large should evolve. The Russian leadership, represented by Vladimir Putin, has put forth the formula of "multipolarity" as a new political reality. However, we might call this instead a "formula of multilateral participation in the global world," in keeping with the immutable laws of physics and the divine design of our planet, which has only two poles. This distinction is important in the context we will continue to discuss further.

       Humanity will progress, yes, but let us not mistake movements toward oblivion as “progress.” We have advanced far beyond primitive stages of development; should we now return to becoming a manipulated, ignorant herd? Democracy, first and foremost, is the rule of the people—a system of collective governance, where decision-making is shared, and each voice has an influence on the outcomes of essential processes. In a functioning democracy, the minority submits to the majority, not the reverse. Elected representatives are not the owners of the souls and bodies of those who vote for them. The final word always rests with the people, who are the sole legitimate source of power. No superpower has the right to impose its civilizational or democratic values on others. Societies evolve, and states transform. Humanity stands at a transitional point, advancing from the Darwinian ape to what we might call the Homo Universalis—the universal human.(see Alexander Polyhistor, Johann von Wowern, Robert Burton, Robert Root-Bernstein, Peter Burke, Bharath Sriraman, Michael Araki, James C. Kaufman, Waqas Ahmed)

       In the realm of Russian philosophy, a significant movement called Russian Cosmism arose in the mid-19th century. It emphasized the interconnectedness of all things, the unity of existence, and sought to understand humanity’s place within the cosmos, recognizing the correlation between cosmic and earthly processes. Cosmism demands that human actions be aligned with the principles of this world’s wholeness. It combines elements from science, philosophy, religion, art, mysticism, and esotericism, merging influences from Eastern and Western traditions, including the Russian Orthodox Church. Russian Cosmism encompasses themes such as anthropocosmism, sociocosmism, biocosmism, astrocosmism, cosmo-aesthetics, cosmo-ecology, and other fields. Yet, it holds little traction in Western societies, which are preoccupied with transgenic engineering and artificial intelligence. The so-called Western civilization, if it continues pressing its political and military agendas on the rest of the world, may well bring about humanity’s self-destruction, foreclosing the transition to a higher, more conscious form—the Human, or Humanoid - the Homo Universalis. (see Nikolai  Fyodorov, Alexander Scriabin, Vladimir Solovyov, Nicholas Roerich, Helena Blavatsky, Nikolai Berdyaev, Pyotr Uspensky, Nikolai Gavryushin, Fyodor Girenok Nikolai Kibalchich, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, Alexander Bogdanov, Vladimir Vernadsky,  Alexander Chizhevsky, Ivan Yefremov,  Nikolai Kozyrev, Ivan Neumyvakin)

       In my work, What Russia Could Become Today? A Philosophical Manifesto (November 13, 2023), I shared with readers the essential ideas of Russian Cosmism as envisioned by Vladimir Vernadsky, who set forth 12 conditions for humanity’s future “noosphere”:

1. The settlement of all areas of Earth by humans.
2. Radical transformations in communication and exchange among nations.
3. Strengthened political and other connections among Earth’s states.
4. Humanity’s geologic influence surpassing other natural processes in the biosphere.
5. Expanding the boundaries of the biosphere and venturing into space.
6. Discovering new sources of energy.
7. Equality among all races and religions.
8. Increasing the role of the masses in decision-making and domestic policy.
9. Freedom of scientific thought, liberated from religious, philosophical, and political pressures, with systems that foster intellectual freedom.
10. Enhanced well-being for the working population and efforts to eradicate hunger, poverty, and disease.
11. Thoughtful transformations of Earth’s primary nature to meet the material, aesthetic, and spiritual needs of a growing population.
12. Elimination of war from human society.

       We have an enormous task ahead of us to rethink democracy and its principles. Humanity is indeed on a path from ape to Humanoid—the final, intelligent and ethical evolution beyond Darwin’s ape.