Note: We are
reprinting below a question we received from Thomas Cain to our post “Vote for Nobody”.
The comment is
followed by a response from Frank Brenner.
|
Alex,
This post expresses most of my own feelings on bourgeois elections in general, though I admit that I have never bothered to even register to vote. But despite your assertion that there will be a great opportunity for revolutionary socialism, I feel a sort of despair emanating from your piece, or maybe I'm only projecting. Trump's election, contrary to our expectations, raises questions that I can't find the answers to: Should we re-evaluate our assessment of events thus far? Should we have a discussion on Fromm and Reich (not that I'm an expert on either)? And most of all, what should we do now? I know that we're just individuals and that we can't wage the revolution or just wish a party into existence.
This post expresses most of my own feelings on bourgeois elections in general, though I admit that I have never bothered to even register to vote. But despite your assertion that there will be a great opportunity for revolutionary socialism, I feel a sort of despair emanating from your piece, or maybe I'm only projecting. Trump's election, contrary to our expectations, raises questions that I can't find the answers to: Should we re-evaluate our assessment of events thus far? Should we have a discussion on Fromm and Reich (not that I'm an expert on either)? And most of all, what should we do now? I know that we're just individuals and that we can't wage the revolution or just wish a party into existence.
Thousands protest in front of Trump headquarters in New York |
Thomas:
It's
understandable to feel down at this moment. Only sectarian idiots have no
doubts. But ask yourself this: would you be just as nonplussed if Clinton had
won? And if not, why not? Is there not in this let-down feeling a little
hankering for things to go back to being normal? It's a conservative feeling,
and one that ought to be resisted. Reality has thrown up something radically
new, we need a theory that can be as radical as reality.
Of course
Freud and Reich are relevant, but not in a mechanical way. They can help
elucidate the attraction of a figure like Trump, the charisma of the
authoritarian leader. To liberals Trump seemed a buffoon, as did Hitler back in
the day. But to fearful, angry middle class and working class people, he seemed
very different, the man who would straighten out the mess in Washington and in
the country. His role on reality TV created this image, and Fox News constantly
pushed it. Trump's main mentor, besides his father, was Roy Cohn, who taught
him the basics of a demagogue: Lie, lie, lie, deny, deny, deny. So Trump's
political lineage is from Cohn to McCarthy and thence back to the fascism of
the 1930s.
But the
analogy to Hitler is a limited one: Trump is - or rather aspires to be - a
Bonapartist. This is not yet fascism. The distinction is especially important
now, to avoid confusion and even despair. All that's happened is an election.
The country is split but the winners haven't been mobilized - yet - into a
fascist force and the losers haven't been crushed. The worst thing about
throwing up one's hands is that you become a party to your own victimization.
Demagogues like Trump depend on that. Here we need to be guided by Marx and
Trotsky as well as by Freud, and not allow ourselves to become overly impressed
by power. Which isn't to deny there are big dangers in this situation, it's
rather to insist that our enemies aren't omnipotent, though they would very
much like us to believe they are.
The rise of
Trump means the end of the old norms of bourgeois democracy. The 2000 election
and the aftermath of 9/11 already foreshadowed this. Obama, as it turns out,
was just a passing interlude. The fate of Obama's 'legacy' – which Trump and
the Republicans are set to wipe out in their first months in office – is in
striking contrast to Roosevelt's New Deal, which survived largely intact for
half a century, until Reagan. Along with Clinton's defeat – despite her
overwhelming support from the establishment – this shows that liberalism is at
a complete impasse. The next time some 'pragmatic' political hack starts
talking about 'electability' – who's going to believe her/him? From the
standpoint of socialist politics, this is all to the good. And so, by the way,
will be the repeal of Obamacare – a ridiculous patchwork made to order for
private insurers and big pharma. Trump and his minions can't make the need for
medical care go away: they will reap a whirlwind of anger that will stoke a
movement for free Medicare for all.
There have
already been demonstrations against Trump. This will only grow as he and the
Republicans take over and start wreaking havoc. The big question is: who will
dominate this movement? Will it be the Democrats, who will inevitably destroy
it? Or the anarchists and identity politics crowd, who will inevitably
disorient and fragment it? One thing is sure: left-wing voices will have a
chance to be heard – assuming they have something relevant to say.
Frank
Brenner
No comments:
Post a Comment