by Noel Ignatiev
- Trump represents a greater danger to the domination of neoliberal global capital than Sanders did, and its representatives are coming to appreciate that.
- Notwithstanding the sentiments of many participants, the “Women’s March” and the subsequent demonstrations against Trump’s executive order barring green-card holders from returning are not the start of a mass popular upsurge against reaction but an effort of neoliberals to overturn the last election and regain what they lost, by moving from the ballot box to the streets.
- Trump’s executive order was a maneuver to solidify his base and test which sectors of the state and civil society he can rely on for support. His partial retreat following the federal judge’s ruling was not a victory for the “resistance” but part of the maneuver.
- Trump’s adding Bannon to the National Security Council and removing military and security personnel was aimed at preventing a possible coup against him.
1. Perhaps, but rightwing populism is quite different, and more unstable, from Bernie’s social democracy
2. All elemental upsurges of a multiclass character feature at least two paths in contention. Which will wuin out remains to be seen, and to some degree, depends on us.
3. Both/and not either-ro
4. I doubt it. Pence is his anti-coup insurance.
This “analysis” is really only half of the story. The part that is apparent, that only examines the maneuvering of the neo-liberal “left” wing of the capitalist class. Women marched, not the bourgeoisie. Immigrants, Blacks, women, and others have demonstrated against Trump’s “testing of the waters” and, yes, in many respects supported by the neo-liberal, well, liberals. The important part is that masses of people have chosen this opportunity to register their opposition. What should revolutionaries do? Denounce the marches, the actions? “Analyze” them from the sidelines?
Telling “hard” truths should not spur us into inaction. Doing so only indicates our inertia to “stay put” until when? Until there is a “genuine” upsurge? “Led” by “true revolutionaries”? Wouldn’t such things actually have to happen only if revolutionaries get into this “maneuvering” to “overturn the last election”? That is what the liberals wish to do, with hundreds of thousands out there beginning to feel like they need to engage. The question remains is what will WE do? At worst, inertia becomes cowardice. In this case, the unwillingness to embrace any show of motion on the part of large numbers for whatever reason seeing that they must “do something”. Supporting such action doesn’t mean we have illusions in the neo-liberal wing of the capitalists or “quick fixes” (read, organize for 4 years to “overturn the election”). We have to take every opportunity to “do something” and help those just beginning find a way to engage to understand what it will actually take. No, we are unlikely to “create” a new radicalization. But when one actually begins to take shape, we won’t help it toward revolutionary ends by sitting on. . .our thumbs… “analyzing” how the masses aren’t yet “ready”.
Most of those who reacted against what I wrote focused on my point 2. Carl Davidson has read Hegel and Gramsci and knows that there are two paths present in every multi-class (and only multi-class?) movement; but knowing that is no substitute for analyzing the actual movement. I think I was essentially right about the Women’s March: permits secured, speakers lined up, slogans, placards and hats provided; most of the participants marched for what they had voted for, the status quo. It is true that they marched in the streets rather than to the ballot box, but it was ritual (like the one-day general strikes called by left-wing parties and unions in Europe, outlets for people to blow off steam harmlessly). As for the airport demonstrations, I was one-sided in ignoring their spontaneity, enthusiasm and militancy. However, the ease with which Warren, DeBlasio et al were able to place themselves at the head of the movement is a sign that the break was not deep. While I am usually on the side of those who see the positive in the negative, I think what is needed these days is a cold, hard look at reality.
One commenter said, “Trump and the neoliberal capitalists will figure something out—after all, they both work for the same reason—maximum profit.” Maybe so, but reconciliation is not inevitable. Although he employs right-wing tropes (e.g. anti-abortion), Trump is not a classic rightwinger. The gulf between the globalists and the economic nationalists is greater than that between the globalists and a social-democrat like Sanders. (Thomas Friedman made a pathetic appeal to “business leaders” to save the country from Trump—NY Times Feb. 1.) Adam Sabra may be right that the Trump team is setting up a parallel government—Bannon has said he is a Leninist—rather than seeking to forestall a coup; either way, they are playing hardball. If the forces of neoliberalism in the military and intelligence were to oust Trump by a coup and install a “caretaker” regime with “emergency” powers headed by a popular figure they can rely on who is not tainted by the sordid details of politics and government—someone like Bill Gates or Michelle Obama—is there any doubt that those on the Women’s March and even most of those at the airports would cheer? And there’s the problem.
Louis Proyect calls my post “utterly foolish,” but the article he linked to doesn’t prove it; Trump and his friends may be corrupt and self-serving, but this clash is not about that. Trotsky showed amazing foresight on fascism, but he did not foresee Hitler’s over-riding the law of value by diktat. Given Trump’s erraticism and the various forces operating on him, I am reluctant to predict what he will do, but I do not regard his infrastructure program as doomed nor do I think it inevitable that he will launch a general assault on popular living standards. Once he cranks up the printing presses, who knows where it will go? Of course, doing that would undermined the U.S. position in the world economy, and the global capitalists would not be happy—but how many divisions do they have and how reliable are they? More than Trump’s failure, I fear his “success.”