Sympathy for the Devil in China, America and Russia

Contra Trump

Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name
But what’s puzzling you
Is the nature of my game

‘法西斯 — Fascists!’ — it was a one-word curse and accusation shouted in shock, anger and outrage that was first heard as the Chinese military moved against protesters at Muxidi, Beijing, late on the night of 3 June 1989. It was soon taken up at Liubukou near Communist Party headquarters as shock troops advanced in armoured vehicles and on foot. Then it was chanted in Tiananmen Square itself as the tail end of the mass protest movement that had upended life in China’s capital since mid April was quelled by the unforgiving force of martial law. Later on 4 June, during a radio interview with the BBC, Yang Xianyi, a celebrated translator who had lived under the increasingly authoritarian rule of the Nationalist Party in the 1940s, declared unequivocally that the Communist Party were indeed fascists. He said, If I had done nothing but remain silent, I would feel ashamed.’

[Note: See Stephen McDonell, Tiananmen: Australia’s Witnesses, ABC, 3 June 2014.]

June Fourth was the bloody denouement of a remarkable decade in modern Chinese history, one during which economic reform had unleashed the kind of social forces that the Communists had worked hard to repress repeatedly from the 1950s. Deng Xiaoping was one of the authors of that decades-old repression and, along with his fellow gerontocrats in 1989, he authored a massacre of unarmed civilians the shadow of which stretches over contemporary China even as its memory has been effectively repressed for over three decades.

In 1986, we had used A Spectre Prowls Our Land, a poem by Sun Jingxuan written in 1980, in Seeds of Fire: Chinese Voices of Conscience that focussed on the abiding authoritarian strain that continued to ensnare the nation. ‘A loathsome spectre/ Prowls the desolation of your land…’, Sun wrote:

Have you seen
The Spectre prowling our land?
You may not recognise him,
though he stands before your eyes,
For like a conjurer,
master of a never-ending transforming,
One moment in a dragon-robe of gold brocade
He clasps the dragon-headed sceptre,
The next in courtier’s gown
He swaggers through the palace halls;
And now — behold — a fresh veneer!
The latest fashion! And yet
No mask, no costume, no disguise
Can hide the coiled dragon
branded on his naked rump…

— 孫靜軒，《一個幽靈在中國大地遊蕩》

***

On 31 May 2025, we marked June Fourth with the words of Xu Zhangrun, formerly a professor of jurisprudence at Tsinghua University in Beijing who was purged for his outspoken criticism of the revival of the Party Empire under Xi Jinping. Professor Xu described the Chinese party-state as ‘Legalistic-Fascist-Stalinism’ 法日斯 fǎ rì sī, a form of government that draws upon elements of Chinese Legalist thought (法 fǎ ), the ‘Germano-Aryan’ form of fascism (日 rì) and the Leninist-Stalinist interpretation of Marxism (斯 sī).

‘Fascism’ has repeatedly featured in Chinese political discussions since 1989, albeit sotto voce. The term resurfaced during the debates over Statism in the early 2010s and it made a clamorous impression in The Fat Years, a novel by the Beijing-based writer Chan Koon-chung:

There are people who are probably thinking now that China has risen and entered into an Age of Prosperity, we can bring an end to one Party dictatorship! Twenty years ago, He Dongsheng himself had also thought that. He would probably have joined a faction in the Party that advocated democratic reform and even gone so far as to have supported a Chinese Gorbachev. But by now He Dongsheng had lost any faith he might have had in Western-style democratic systems. More importantly, he knew that after 4 June 1989, there were no idealists left in the Communist Party. As the group with a monopoly on political power in China, the Communist Party exercised power in order to protect itself—people became officials in order to profit from their position and there was absolutely no chance of a Gorbachev-like figure emerging.

He Dongsheng not only had lost his passion for political reform, he cynically now believed that not only shouldn’t reform be carried out but that it cannot be carried out, that reform could only lead to chaos. He said: ‘Let’s just keep the situation as is; after another twenty years of stable development we can reopen the discussion about reform. For the moment, at most, we could try to reform a few things here and there, as part of a gradual move towards benevolent government.’ He could not imagine what a post-communist democratic China might be like. He said, and not without sarcasm: ‘Political reform? Is it that simple? In the end, you’ll emerge from the transition, not with the commonwealth you desire, not the European style of social democracy or the American style of a free, democratic constitutional government, but rather a Chinese-style fascist dictatorship that’s a compendium of nationalism, cultural traditionalism, patriotism and national racial purity.’

Xiao Xi retorted: ‘You’re fascists already, don’t tell me you need a transition?’

There was no anger in He Dongsheng’s reply: ‘So, we’re fascist. This is still only the first stage. You have yet to taste what true fascist tyranny is like. Listening to the way all of you speak I know that you lack imagination when it comes to evil.’ Just then, the faces of several fascist opportunists within the Party came into He Dongsheng’s head. If these people took over, he thought, not just China but the whole world would really have something coming. He felt a sense of mission—it was his responsibility to prevent them from coming to power.

— translated by Linda Jaivin in Yawning Heights: Chan Koon-chung’s Harmonious China, China Heritage Quarterly, No.22, June 2010

***

On 4 June 2025, we mark the anniversary of the bloody denouement of the Protest Movement and the Beijing Massacre in our series Contra Trump by noting that the ‘fascist dictatorship’ envisaged here, with its compendium of nationalism, cultural traditionalism, patriotism and national racial purity is not only the vision of Xi Jinping’s China Renaissance, but also that of Russian Putinism and Donald Trump’s ‘Christian Nationalist’ regime.

[Here Reader #1 notes, however, that:

Trump is neither a Christian nor a nationalist, of course. “Christian Nationalist” is just the cleaned-up term for “white racist” that has been adopted by most of the legacy media as part of their “sane-washing” of Trump and MAGA. What Trump’s administration — his rule — is cannot be captured in a pithy one- or two-word descriptor. Unless one chooses “Evil,” full strength. The reality is unwieldy: a technofascist-racist-corruptly oligarchic-traitorous kakistocracy.]

On this day we also note the topsy-turvy vision of the Trumpistas. For example, Secretary of State Marco Rubio — an odious regime lickspittle and vociferous election denier — castigated Beijing for its decades-long lies about June Fourth even as he offers a full-throated endorsement of a White House buoyed by egregious fabrications, calumnies and historical absurdities. Well may Rubio et al talk about the Tiananmen murders in 1989, but still they give material support to the obscene slaughter in Gaza and do not resile from the death of innocents caused by the dismantling of USAID by DOGE. But, then, Donald Trump long ago stated his admiration for heavy handed autocrats, notably telling Playboy magazine in 1990 that:

When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak.

As we have previously observed,

Given the haunting parallels between Trump’s USA and Xi Jinping’s Chinese Republic, we believe that it is time for a new academic and journalistic analytical approach to the Sino-American conundrum. We’ll call it ‘Whataboutism Studies’, a somewhat different form of ‘Both-Sidesism’, and it explores how the Horseshoe Theory might offer a useful perspective on the bilateral apache dance. The theory suggests that the extreme right — in this case ‘American Fascism’ — and extreme left — China’s state socialism bend toward each other like the ends of a horseshoe.

***

Here we remember a decisive moment in modern Chinese history — a rejection of political possibility and a reaffirmation of authoritarianism — a moment that proved to be a turning point in world history itself, one that has contributed to the rise of the Three Hegemons — Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. We do so to the words and music of Sympathy for the Devil, a song written by Mick Jagger in 1968 that was inspired by The Master and Margarita, a novel by the Soviet-era writer Mikhail Bulgakov.

The song offers an account of historical moments — the crucifixion of Christ, the French Revolution, and the murders of the Kennedys — highlighting in the process ever-present evil. It declares that the Devil is humanity’s constant companion. Sympathy for the Devil featured repeatedly in Hunter S. Thompson’s Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and today it resonates anew when the Zeitgeist appears to be that of devilry. The Devil’s taunt — ‘Pleased to meet you, Hope you guess my name’ — is also a challenge for people to recognise the duality of human existence.

We conclude with an essay by Jeffrey R. Wilson, a Shakespeare scholar at Harvard University, titled Trump is Satan. Written during T1, Wilson’s essay ends on a note of hope. We did not share his optimism even then. See also Shakespeare and Trump, Harvard University Press, 2020.

***

Our series Contra Trump — America’s Empire of Tedium was launched in November 2024, following Donald Trump’s second electoral victory. In it, we refer both to Xi Jinping’s China and to Trump’s America as ‘empires of tedium’. That is to say, regardless of their formidable strengths, be they overlapping or contrasting, the People’s Republic of China and the United States of America are in a circuit of history from which they both may, eventually, grow out of or escape from. To achieve the velocity of positive change, however, requires the painstaking and tiresome work of facing the tedious history of the past as well as the crippling realities of the present. For those mindful of American and Chinese socio-political change over the past sixty years, the recidivism of the 2020s is tedious, troubling and tenebrous. In both cases, the inevitable biological attrition that faces their respective ‘Great Men’ may promise a brighter future. Or not.

Trump is Satan
Paradise Lost in Washington, DC

Jeffrey R. Wilson

Harvard University

Donald Trump is Satan. The Satan in question is perhaps the greatest literary character in the finest epic poem in the English language, John Milton’s Paradise Lost. That makes Washington Republicans the other fallen angels.

In 2016, Republicans made a deal with the devil. Like Dr Faustus, they sold their souls for power. Now they stifle their consciences, never speak ill of President Trump, hug him closely, fearing the wrath of his base. The same Lindsey Graham who in 2016 wrote, ‘If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed … and we will deserve it,’ recently said, ‘To every Republican, if you don’t stand behind this president, we’re not going to stand behind you.’ Meanwhile, Trump skulks in the White House, mired in ‘the swamp.’

The first epic simile in Paradise Lost introduces Satan awash in a swamp of his own, ‘prone on the Flood’, having fallen from heaven to hell. As massive as ‘that Seabeast Leviathan,’ Satan hulks so big from the sea that the pilot of ‘some small night-founder’d skiff’ might mistake him for an island, and seek to pass the night in safety ‘with fixed anchor in his scaly rind.’ It’s an old Norwegian seafarer’s fable. When the beast wakes, it dives into the depths of the ocean. The anchored skiff is dragged along. The sailor is pulled to his watery grave.

Similarly, Republicans who have anchored their boat to Trump, thinking he’s an island providing protection from the sea, risk being dragged down to their demise when, like a whale startled from sleep, he goes plunging.

Trump as Satan: you might think it’s absurdly over-the-top, or want to celebrate it as a (literally) epic takedown, but this is not a political statement hurling invective. It’s an analytical statement describing what is happening – what will happen – and why, aided by the Miltonic intervention. Great literature helps us understand the world. Both politicians and literary critics do their jobs best when they’re willing to use literature to think about life.

Published in London in 1667, Paradise Lost is a Christian humanist epic about the war in Heaven and the fall of humankind in the Garden of Eden. Though he’s the ‘author of evil,’ Satan is shockingly an attractive character. He charms us with his energy. When God the Father anoints his Son king over the other angels, Satan, ‘Great in power’, doesn’t think it’s fair. The system was rigged. Milton – one of the fathers of modern liberalism, active in the Puritan rebellion against the royal absolutism of Charles I – lent Satan his own freedom-loving, tyrant-hating language, the outraged angel mounting a rebellion ‘to cast off this Yoke.’ A powerful orator, but loose with the truth, Satan secures a base of support, ‘and with lyes drew after him the third part of Heav’ns Host.’ This third of the angels back Satan to the bitter end, no matter what.

Satan’s opponents see his rhetoric as ‘calumnious art of counterfeited truth’ and ‘argument blasphemous, false and proud.’ The first Never Satan-er to stand up is an angel named Abdiel, earning God’s admiration:

Servant of God, well done, well hast thou fought
The better fight, who single hast maintaind
Against revolted multitudes the Cause
Of Truth

War in Heaven erupts, angel against angel, the apostate against the faithful. After three days, God sends the Son to end it. The mere sight of the Son’s flaming chariot thundering toward them turns the apostate on their heels. They sprint away in retreat. The gates of Heaven open for them:

Headlong themselves they threw
Down from the verge of Heav’n, Eternal wrauth
Burnt after them to the bottomless pit.

Trump’s minions won’t fall so willingly. Resistance to Trump hardly thunders with God’s wrath. Republicans are more likely to fall like the stars in the Book of Revelation, Milton’s source: ‘His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth.’ That image of a falling Satan’s tail whipping out behind him, snagging the third of the angels that backed him, pulling them down, is what Milton invoked in the poem’s first epic simile. After crashing down in Hell, Satan lies belly-down in the swamp, a slumbering Leviathan.

The Leviathan is a massive sea monster from the Book of Job. But Leviathan was also the name of a 1651 book by Milton’s contemporary, the monarchist Thomas Hobbes. He argued a king is, like the Leviathan, a massive figure with limitless power, one to be feared and respected, or else. Milton opposed Hobbes in the debate about monarchy, insisting kings should be subject to laws.

Trump wants to be Hobbes’s Leviathan. Republicans will find he is Milton’s Leviathan. Paradise Lost doesn’t say what happens when the beast awakens. Milton leaves us in suspense. Similarly, Trump is still afloat, but he’s going down, and not just in his willingness to take a fight into the gutter. Whether through impeachment, resignation, or democratic vote, his time is short. And then he will go down as one of the worst presidents in history.

When he goes down, Trump will drag along those tethered to him. For decades, Americans will decline to forgive the Republicans of the Trump era. As sleeping pilots on a dangerously anchored boat, Washington Republicans have a choice. Wake up and cast off from Trump — speak your conscience, your faith, and your family values — or get dragged down into the abyss, never to be heard from again.

[Note: At the time this essay was written — during T1 — Jeffery R. Wilson was teaching in the Writing Program at Harvard University.]

***

Lucifer was being asked questions by his therapist, Linda, who inquires: “How did you actually torture Hitler in Hell? I mean, is his cell next to Idi Amin’s? Or Mussolini’s? Or is there kind of a tyrant wing in Hell?”

Lucifer responds, and eventually adds: “So, we can, you know, talk about Caligula, Stalin. Trump — I mean, I know he’s not dead, but he’s definitely going.”

— from Lucifer, Season Two Episode Eight

***

Contra Trump

Trump is Satan Paradise Lost in Washington, DC

Jeffrey R. Wilson

Harvard University

Trump is Satan
Paradise Lost in Washington, DC