‘Make America Great Again’ – the slogan oozes with nostalgia. Its central motif is not “back to the future” but, rather, “forward to the past”. But, this leaves the suspended question of: whatever happened to the (‘our’ / ‘anyones’ / ‘everyones’) future?

If the capitalist system (mode of production) was thriving, then year-on-year Money (M) would be turning into Money Plus (M+), with the extra value produced (the Plus) being easily reinvested into more money-making schemes. The general notion is expressed in a rapidly ‘growing economy’, measured by economists since 1934 in the crucial metric of rising Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

Within this ideal socio-economic context, the political representatives of the capitalist class, whether on the Left or Right (i.e., socialists or nationalists, libertarians or conservatives) should be able to provide the population (within and beyond their state’s boundaries; so at a universal level) with a modernist myth of ‘progression’. In other words, they should be narrating and conducting an inspiring vision of the ‘future’ and how it will be glorious for all! And here I always think of Harold Wilson’s “white heat of technology” and how the UK would burn its way into a new cosmos!

Certainly, this kind of modernist myth-making is possible when “opulence” (as Adam Smith, 1776, puts it) reaches down to even the “lowest ranks” of the people. As the nation, overall, gets wealthier – as the pie grows – then even the wretches at the bottom of the social pile may ease their ‘naturally’ or ‘Godly’ imposed burdens. Eating from the sweat of their brow may require slightly less sweat. And whilst the share of national wealth that the wretches actually obtain may decline (in percentage terms), nevertheless, the absolute amount of goods that small % share represents can, crucially, ‘grow’ (in real terms) since the pie their slice is taken from is so much bigger.

It is, therefore, not hard to understand why the elected or co-opted representatives (rulers) of the capitalist class and State prefer times of ‘bread and circuses’ – a growing pie! Under such conditions, they can spin tales about the entire nation, and even other nations, moving forward together, as one; of all boats, no matter how insignificant, rising on a tide of (technologically-determined) progress.

Of course, by Autumn 2025, so factually, such economic conditions haven’t been witnessed (in the ‘developed’ G7 countries) for almost 2 decades, since the Financial Crunch of 2008. ‘Our times’ have been ones of austerity, breakdown in international agreement (e.g., Brexit), shifts in economic power (towards China), rising debt, fiscal crises, unsustainable government deficits, speculative use of ‘fiat’ or fictitious money, and inflationary ‘cost of living’ tragedies on the back of pandemic and war).

What little economic ‘growth’ there has been was concentrated (squandered) on benefitting a minority of the powerful and wealthy, consequently producing the highest levels of social inequality ever seen – with the obvious proviso that either or both the poorest and the middle-classes are worse-off (placed in ‘declining’ positions of what has been referred to as ‘negative growth’).

Unsurprisingly, globalist unifying visions (such as the one that inspired G. W. Bush and Blair to invade Iraq as bearers of the light of ‘liberal democracy’) have been replaced by the reverse gear of ‘nostalgia’. The nationalism (socially-exclusionary, but therein ‘socialism’ for the chosen citizenry) of Trump, Putin, Xi, Orban, and Modi, plus many other ‘il-liberals’, have taken over in times of “work and prayer”. And, of course, it is not just a case of America First (a slogan taken from a US interwar movement), but Russia First, Europe First, India First, China First, even the Taliban First. And it also means that a Right-wingers’ primary enemies include not just Left-wing ‘reds under the bed’, but any other nationalist conservatives. As such, the ‘future’ oriented narratives (plural, of course) are all about a specific trajectory of just ‘one’ people (who, of course, must dominate to survive).

And yet, Trump is also picking up on another legacy of the America First movement from the days of Roosevelt, which is its anti-war / anti-interventionist approach to foreign policy. Trump, as the business man he claims to be, wants to ‘deal’ his way out of the ‘crisis’ situation capitalists of America find themselves in.

On James Steuart’s Principles of Political Economy

Published in 1767, nine years before Smith’s Wealth of Nations, Sir James Steuart’s opus is typically viewed as the last, great intellectual achievement of the Mercantilist School. Whilst Mercantilism, as a philosophy for policy-makers, would hang around for another 80 years (until the abolition of the Corn Laws in 1847), in terms of scientific contributions to the history of political economy, Smith’s surpassing of Steuart’s conceptual grasp of economic categories would quickly eclipse the latter’s work. Where Smith saw the centrality of ‘work’ (industry) in the production of profit, Stewart’s analysis never moved beyond the realm of exchange (market trader relations) in which profit was seen to arise out of commodity ‘circulation’.

Nonetheless, Steuart’s work appears at the very beginning of Marx’s 2,500 pages of ‘notes’ (1861-63) on the theoretical history of political economy, published as Theories of Surplus Value (1904). Marx’s coverage of Steuart only lasts 3 pages, but what Marx focuses upon is Stewart’s awareness that a trader can make money (profit) via two different kinds of relationship. These are ones of ‘Positive Profit’ and ‘Relative Profit’.

Positive Profit refers to the ‘ideal’ trader situation – a deal where both parties come out having made a gain (profit). Of course, Stewart is unable to explain (from the realm of exchange or circulation) ‘how’ both can make a profit. That is, how can both the metropolitan merchant and the colonial trader make profits when the system is skewed towards the mother-country merchant having a politically-controlled monopoly through which they determine prices? But, in practice, it was clearly possible, and Steuart must have observed the outcome despite an inability to explain the phenomenon. Anyhow, positive profit is what we, today, would call a “Positive Sum” result in Game Theory. It is preferable or ideal because it means there are no ‘losers’.

In contrast, by Relative Profit Steuart means a “Zero Sum” outcome – one of the merchants / traders must “lose”, and the profit of the winner rests on taking something from the loser. Mercantilists traders, theorists and politicians (policymakers) were all too aware of this type of relationship; not least because they constructed both a colonial Empire and legal framework to guarantee such an outcome for the chosen few (the 5% of people who controlled the political and legal system on Steuart’s and Smith’s day).

A Fascination with Yesterday’s Game

Made aware of these concepts, forged in pre-Smithian political economy (the Mercantilist era), it is arguable that Trump’s fascination with the raising of taxes through “tariffs” is a reversion or collapse into the dirty wars of the Zero Sum trader game. Crucially, it is not a sign of strength (the existence of capital accumulations ‘ideal’ situation) but of weakness – Trump the capitalist cannibal is aiming to devour the very people who keep shifting the Overton window in the same direction that he has.

Interestingly, Trump wants to reduce internal government taxes on “Americans” (workers as well as capitalists) where his “liberal” predecessors wanted to shift the taxation burden off (any) capitalist (American or not) onto the American poor (getting workers to pay for their own and each others’ welfare). A part of this strategy is to redefine who is “American”. Some Americans are to become “foreigners” – expelled and dispossessed. They are one element of the ‘losers’ from which others will make a gain. At the same time, American merchants reliant on overseas workers (so, also, not “American”) will be taxed higher than those aiming for autarky – the very kind of economy Putin appears to already have achieved.

And this, should, all sound ominous given what we, collectively, know about history. Trump is playing poker with a deck of cards dealt in the 1930s.