Socialists Need a Distinct Anti-Hegemonic Foreign Policy Different from Both MAGA and Liberal Imperialism
Source: Max B. Sawicky. "Socialists Need Our Own Foreign Policy Agenda." October 30, 2026. jacobin.com
The Gist
The author argues that socialists in Congress should develop their own foreign policy instead of settling for either Trump-style aggression or liberals' softer version of the same thing. In his view, the US has pursued global dominance since World War II and dresses it up with excuses, so socialists should start from skepticism of military action and require a very high justification for any intervention.
Conclusion
As socialists gain power in the US, they need to articulate a distinctive foreign policy agenda, grounded in national self-determination, peace, and international working-class solidarity. This agenda should set a high bar for military intervention and reject both MAGA's wanton imperialism and liberals' feckless imperialism.
Premises
- US foreign policy since World War II has been driven overwhelmingly by the pursuit of world hegemony (the Kennan 'X Article' framework), which has superseded narrower economic motives, and the national security institutions are quasi-autonomous and largely unaccountable to democratic oversight.
- Mainstream liberals share the hegemonic imperative (e.g., Albright's 'indispensable nation,' Samantha Power's response to Gaza, Biden's handling of Iran and Gaza), so their critiques of interventions are thin and focus on competence, process, or lack of a plan rather than underlying motives.
- Justifications for great-power interventions are historically spurious, relying on claimed prior injuries or humanitarian purposes, and powerful states can also commit aggression non-militarily through debt, sanctions, and tariffs.
- Simple economic explanations of US aggression (oil, dollar reserve status, resource grabs) are exaggerated or insufficient, though commercial interests exist; the politics of hegemony, backed by the broad interests of capital, is the overarching driver.
- This analytical framework (hegemony over narrow economic reductionism, and rejection of liberal excuses) distinguishes socialists from liberals and justifies a default posture of anti-interventionism with a high bar for exceptions.
Assumptions
- A capitalist state's interventions will inevitably be shaped by hegemonic or self-interested motives rather than beneficent ones.
- Socialists will gain enough governing power in Congress and elsewhere to influence foreign policy.
- Distinguishing socialist from liberal positions is strategically valuable and not merely a matter of rhetoric.
- Past patterns of pretextual intervention are a reliable guide to future justifications.
- Principles of national self-determination, peace, and working-class solidarity are coherent and can be translated into concrete policy.
- Exceptions to anti-interventionism (such as Ukraine) can be handled without undermining the overall framework.