Tag Archives: Donald Trump

Left for Dead

It’s been a while. My original plan for “coming back” was to wait until immediately after the election, so I could write according to the outcome. But that didn’t work, because as I tried to write, more and more shit kept happening. Now, it would take a novel for me to give my thoughts on everything that has happened since my last entry. What I can do is give a run-down of events and try to find the thread I want to pluck that runs through it all.

First things first, we elected the fascist. Well, “we” didn’t, the bourgeoisie did. Well, maybe not even that, since it seems that big chunks of the bourgeoisie didn’t want him. What appears to have happened is, the Democrats failed miserably, so the other guy took the win. Because liberalism has never been capable of combating fascism properly.

Secondly, the “reasonable Left” immediately decided to bow down to and open their arms for the new administration. Even the “radical” Bernie Sanders has followed the Democrat establishment’s lead in this. This isn’t a surprise to the (actual) radical Left, as liberals have historically tried to work with fascists, especially when it came to putting down revolutionary movements, which have been growing here in the US. But it did come as a surprise to many liberal voters, who are now seeing the weakness in their once-beloved party. The amount of questions and comments I’ve received regarding Marxism over the past 2 weeks has been staggering.

Next, Trump began to pick out his cabinet. Judging from the words of most news outlets, many in this country are “shocked” that the fascist is doing fascist-y things, like appointing a white nationalist to be his chief strategist. But after the initial shock began to wear off, the media and the liberal leaders started the process of normalizing this behavior. Fascists aren’t called fascists, they’re the “alt-right,” in the same way a billionaire isn’t a billionaire, he’s an “outsider.”

I want to emphasize that I am not trying to be an alarmist. Yes, this should all be taken very seriously, but we can’t panic. We must prepare. Taking advice I and others have received from comrades abroad, who are currently dealing with fascist regimes in their respective countries, we need to keep our heads cool and our eyes wide open. We have to see how the various groups of people react, how they handle themselves. We need to build alliances with those groups which show that they are willing to pull their weight in the struggle and adapt to these new circumstances.

We need to separate the wheat from the chaff. By this I mean, there will be some on the Left who will be all too willing to play by bourgeois rules. The majority of liberals will show their true colors–they will, once again, prove themselves to be agents of the bourgeoisie. As I mentioned above, many will turn further Left after witnessing the failures of their former leaders to properly represent the people. But most will stick to the most reactionary tenants of modern liberal ideology: pacifism, rejection of class struggle, divisiveness, chauvinism, ultra-reformism.

Pacifism is nothing short of kneeling while the ruling powers oppress everyone around you. The rejection of class struggle is ultimately just unquestioning loyalty to bourgeois rule. Divisiveness is a by-product of the rejection of class struggle–rather than organizing along class lines and bringing the workers together, the liberals further divide the working class by organizing along racialist lines, or some other bourgeois concept of “otherness.” (You know, the same things right-wingers and white nationalists actively condone). Chauvinism is displayed in their mistrust of the average worker to be capable of accomplishing anything without the Democrats or liberal academics. And the proponents of reformism tell us to simply wait another 2 years, because surely the Democrats will make a comeback in the midterms (ignore the fact that their track record for “taking back control” in recent elections hasn’t been great, and even if they did succeed, there is no way for them to make sure that their control will last).

The aftermath of election day has been heavy (and, sadly, it’s only a taste of things to come), but there has been an effect that I didn’t consider before–the chaff is separating from the wheat all on its own. It is becoming clearer every day who is genuinely concerned with the liberation of the oppressed, and who is more attached to abstract, immaterial principles that all boil down to an attempted justification of the dictatorship of capital, imperialism, and bourgeois rule. The latter group has not been subtle in their disapproval of everything that runs contrary to their ideals. Judging from what I’ve heard and witnessed, they’ll storm out of meetings when they don’t get their way, they’ll shut down conversations if it seems to be veering outside of liberal dogma, they’ll even aid the police in arresting the more “rowdy” protesters.

These are the bearers of the liberal banner, and they are losing credibility to their own followers. Prior to the election, liberals talked a lot about the impending destruction of the GOP (and for good reason, it really did appear that the Republicans were imploding), but now it is the Democrats who are scrambling to keep their establishment together. Their tactics in doing so are only further alienating them from what used to be their base. In their eagerness to be “pragmatic” and cater to the new regime, they’re turning their backs on those who will be most oppressed in the coming years. The liberal activist groups are now losing ground as well, from what I can tell.

They may be desperate, but liberalism still controls Leftist dialogue and action, even after it blatantly revealed its bourgeois nature post-election. In fact, it is a heavier yoke now than it ever was. Desperate times, desperate measures.

The election fallout is not the only example of liberal treachery, though. The event that drove me to write this was the death of Comrade Fidel. The liberal reaction to this may be even more obvious than their reaction to a fascist coming to power. Pro-imperialist, chauvinistic, and reactionary.

You see, these liberals don’t come out and say “I support the US in its attempts to overthrow popular, democratically elected governments in Latin America.” What they do is use the proper American Leftist language to mask these imperialistic stances. Over the past 2 days, the trendy way of talking about Fidel Castro is for white American liberals to say “Listen to the Cubans,” which sounds fine and dandy (if you want to ignore the very racial undertones and the implication that all Cubans think alike), but it quickly became clear that the white liberals really mean “Listen to the few hundred Cubans celebrating in Miami, not the millions mourning in Cuba.”

The defense of this line comes in the form of claiming that those of us who are fond of Fidel Castro and Revolutionary Cuba are “silencing” the voices of Cuban immigrants. This defense of imperialism portrays itself as considerate and caring, while it silences the voices of an entire country. It is doing the very thing it claims to be opposing, and on a larger scale.

Another fallacy of this line is that it is just as weak as a racist saying that they have a Black friend. The white liberals might know a Cuban person, so they believe that this one person’s stance is the correct one and it cannot be questioned. Well, I know a few people from the island as well, and they don’t have a negative word to say about Fidel. Are you going to silence them, or try to de-legitimize their experiences?

cuba-mourns

Cubans mourning the death of Fidel Castro

I may be getting off track by now, but the point is that this is an example of liberal treachery. Masking pro-imperialist stances in Left-sounding lingo. They say they want to listen to “Cuban voices,” but only those voices which are already in agreement with the pre-constructed liberal ideas and stances. How convenient. When all is said and done, the current liberal stance on the issue of Cuba is that it was wrong for Cuba to gain independence, and things were “better off” when the US puppet regime was still in power in that country. It all boils down to the belief that the Cuban people only deserve a voice if they’re saying things that paint US imperialism in a good light. The entire country rose up and made their voices heard in 1959, but the American liberals have refused to listen.

This is the cancerous thread that runs through the Left: liberalism. To be clear, there are those who claim to be liberals who actually do fight for the people with all their strength, however misguided. I have worked and will continue to work with them, out of necessity. But that does not mean liberalism is not dangerous, and those who push for its control of the Left are continuously proving themselves to be traitors to the people. Traitors to the Left itself. They’ll concede to the most vile reactionaries, they’ll stomp on the images of those who risked their lives fighting US imperialism (often while claiming to be anti-imperialist), they’ll trade in the well-being of the people in favor of ensuring the continuance of bourgeois rule.

It is important to note that liberalism is not a line exclusive to members and supporters of the Democratic Party. Many self-proclaimed revolutionaries hold these traits just as closely as the mainstream liberals do. The traits of liberalism are found in the claim that “socialism has never existed.” Liberalism is present in anti-communist propaganda being accepted in “communist” groups. It is present in Utopianism and in holding every revolution to impossible standards, resulting in the liberal condemnation of every successful revolution. It is Right-deviationism and the Putinite trend.

How do we fight it? Well, I’m no theoretician, and I think that is obvious. There are thousands of others who have lived and fought and explained this all better than I ever could. The simplest way I can put it is: We need to engage with those willing to work through disagreements, because these are dangerous times we are entering. Those who are not willing are literally and figuratively walking out the door. However, working alongside those who disagree with the theories of Marxism-Leninism does not mean we need to be quiet. Some will try to silence us, but we will not let that happen.

The heart of liberalism is the defense of capital–that is what it has always been. Liberals will not hesitate to leave us for dead, whether they be pro-US anti-communists, or Putinite ultra-revisionists; capitalism-imperialism is the side they have chosen. This is an ideological battle we must fight, while also remaining practical in the bigger fight against fascism.

We will march with them against the rise of fascism, but we will not put down the banner of Marxism-Leninism. We must prove to all that we are more than willing to dive onto the frontlines of this struggle. We will risk our necks for the people. Fear is natural, but it is also a reminder of why this fight is necessary. Fascism cannot remain in power, and we must expose the fact that, at the end of the day, liberalism cannot save us. It never has.

“Liberalism stems from petty-bourgeois selfishness, it places personal interests first and the interests of the revolution second, and this gives rise to ideological, political and organizational liberalism.

People who are liberals look upon the principles of Marxism as abstract dogma. They approve of Marxism, but are not prepared to practice it or to practice it in full; they are not prepared to replace their liberalism by Marxism. These people have their Marxism, but they have their liberalism as well–they talk Marxism but practice liberalism; they apply Marxism to others but liberalism to themselves. They keep both kinds of goods in stock and find a use for each. This is how the minds of certain people work.

Liberalism is a manifestation of opportunism and conflicts fundamentally with Marxism. It is negative and objectively has the effect of helping the enemy; that is why the enemy welcomes its preservation in our midst. Such being its nature, there should be no place for it in the ranks of the revolution.

We must use Marxism, which is positive in spirit, to overcome liberalism, which is negative. A Communist should have largeness of mind and he should be staunch and active, looking upon the interests of the revolution as his very life and subordinating his personal interests to those of the revolution; always and everywhere he should adhere to principle and wage a tireless struggle against all incorrect ideas and actions, so as to consolidate the collective life of the Party and strengthen the ties between the Party and the masses; he should be more concerned about the Party and the masses than about any private person, and more concerned about others than about himself. Only thus can he be considered a Communist.

All loyal, honest, active and upright Communists must unite to oppose the liberal tendencies shown by certain people among us, and set them on the right path. This is one of the tasks on our ideological front.” -Mao Tse-Tung, Combat Liberalism

Advertisements

Fascism and the State of the Left

I have been wanting to write this piece for a while, but wanted to wait to see what more could be dug up, what more could happen in the days or weeks since I originally thought about it. After the events that took place in Chicago last night, I figured the time had come.

In my previous post, I briefly mentioned how “fascism” or “fascist” is one of the most over-used terms people use in political discussions and debates. It has gotten to the point that the word is used almost always outside of its historically recognized context. I mentioned how anything from classical conservatism to Marxism-Leninism has been labeled as “fascism” without any explanation of how those things are connected to the very real fascist movements and regimes of history, and the ones that exist today. This has to stop because fascism is not something to be taken lightly. It is a real issue and a real threat, and it should not be confused with things that it is not, so we don’t lose sight of this threat and what it could entail.

But there are movements and people who could be called fascist, without us needing to part from historical reality. And we are watching one such movement gain strength here in the US.

I’m sure you know what I am talking about, and who is at the forefront of this ultra-reactionary movement. No, I am not being hyperbolic, and no, this isn’t a case of me and other Leftists simply not liking Trump and his supporters. There are very legitimate reasons for the Trumpites to be labeled as such. Let’s get into those reasons.

FASCISM IN THE USA

image

Worth a thousand words. From: the Chicago Tribune

First of all, I would like to direct you to this piece from the Red Phoenix which goes into a good bit of detail regarding the history of fascism and its ideological staples. I am not going to talk much history here. I am focused on the characteristics of fascism and how they match up to the current Trumpite movement.

Though, as I have said above, fascism has a historically recognized meaning, it never comes to power in the same way twice, and there were quite a lot of differences between the various fascist regimes. This is due to fascism’s ultra-nationalist character–the method used in one nation won’t necessarily work in another, as it is bound up in the most reactionary elements of each nation it takes a hold of. However, there are enough similarities between each of these movements that we can say that fascism is an ideology in and of itself, and not just pure, mob-like populism.

These similarities include:

-A strong emphasis on nationhood and unquestioning patriotism.
-Violent and repressive anti-Communism and anti-liberalism.
-A hatred of immigrants, including calls for mass deportation.
-A romanticized idea of the “Great Nation”, often exaggerated to mythical proportions.
-Highly institutionalized misogyny and repression of women.
-Unquestioning loyalty to the nation’s charismatic leader, who is seen as the personification of the “Great Nation”.
-Using religious and/or racial minorities as scapegoats.
-The rejection of class struggle, replacing it with a veil of collaborationism in the form of nationalism.
-Romanticization of conflict, imperialist and expansionist adventures, militarism, and “direct action” through the use of violence.
-An emphasis on vitalism, national energy, youth, and nationalist heroism.
-A rejection of rationalism in favor of irrationalism and romanticism.
-The promotion of a “Third Way” that is supposed to be above both capitalism and communism.

Now, one might say that the US already has many, if not all, of these characteristics, but that is false. While these characteristics are present, they are on a relatively small scale compared to the fascist regimes of history. I am allowed to run this blog, criticism of the nation’s leader is still held as a protected right, etc. etc.

However, since fascism is the most reactionary and violent form of bourgeois rule, it is possible for it to rise up from within the bourgeois state (which is exactly how Hitler came to power). And I believe that is what we are witnessing right now.

Trump’s supporters might point out that he isn’t calling for mass genocide and he doesn’t label himself as a fascist, so there’s no way he is anything like Hitler. What they fail to realize is, Hitler didn’t talk about murdering millions of people during his rise. What he did call for was a cleansing that involved the deportation of the “undesirable” people living in Germany(see: the Madagascar Plan). Secondly, of course Trump isn’t going to call himself a fascist–like I said, fascism takes a different form depending on the nation the fascists are trying to control, and it would only hinder Trump’s nationalist goals if he labeled himself after the regimes the US fought in World War II. Whatever he calls himself does not matter–his actions and promises do.

I don’t think I need to say much about Trump’s obvious romantic nationalism–his campaign slogan already says everything that needs to be said on that subject. “Make America Great Again”. Again, as in, “let’s go back to the days of segregation, traditional values, when the patriarchy was at its strongest.” He, like every fascist leader of the past, plays off of a romantic view of national history. He stands firmly on the foundation of a mythical idea of Americanism.

Then there are the other characteristics of fascism that he holds to. Scapegoating religious minorities? Check. Hatred of immigrants? Check. Demanding unquestioning loyalty to him? Check. Romanticization of violence? Check. Calling for imperialist war? Double check. A misogynistic view of women? Check. Anti-Communism coupled with anti-liberalism? Check. I would go on, but I really don’t think I need to.

And then there is apparent fondness for openly self-proclaimed fascists, like when he retweeted a post from a white-supremacist neo-Nazi twitter account, or when he tweeted a quote attributed to Mussolini, or when he refused to condemn the fucking KKK, claiming that he “doesn’t know enough about them”(I think it’s safe to say that if he doesn’t know enough about the Klan, he doesn’t know enough about US history to be allowed into the Oval Office).

Then there is his terrifying charisma and rhetoric, which has lead to his followers committing acts of violence, both during his rallies and outside of them. It doesn’t matter if the anti-Trump protesters are loud and harsh or quiet and peaceful–if you have any objection to the potential rule of Il Duce 2.0, you are a target. Mussolini had his blackshirts, Hitler had his brownshirts. Trump’s supporters might not have an official uniform, but their actions are the same–mobs of reactionary thugs terrorizing anyone who dares to question their leader.

And he doesn’t just get support from fascists and neo-Nazis here in the US. Far-right reactionaries around the world are applauding his campaign, including both Vladimir Putin and the creator of the fascist “Fourth Way” ideology, Alexander Dugin.

Many still consider Trump’s campaign to be a joke, sometimes attending his rallies expecting to get a few laughs in, only to come to the realization that this is no joke after they witness the chaos firsthand. The man rarely says anything of substance–he, much like the fascist dictators of history, relies on repetition, fiery rhetoric, and irrationality coated with romanticism–but that doesn’t stop his followers from sticking to his words to the point of assaulting people, screaming for him to “get rid of” those who disagree with him once he becomes president, or basically worshipping him.

I used to think that he didn’t have a chance in hell of winning the election, but I am beginning to think otherwise. There is a very real possibility that we could see a Trump victory this November. There are several reasons why I think this, which I am about to get to. But we Leftists should be preparing for such an event. Not only because of the terror he will likely try to inflict against us as a movement, but also because of the danger he poses to so many people who are already oppressed and beaten down.

WHAT CAN THE LEFT DO?

image

Someone buy that person a beer.

First and foremost, it should be clear that this rise of the reactionaries is just that–a reaction. It is the bourgeois far-right’s reaction to escalating unrest among the oppressed masses. It is a reaction against the various people’s movements that have been sparked over the past few years(Black Lives Matter, the fight for a higher minimum wage, the fight for the rights of immigrants and refugees, the struggle to defend unions and the rights of the working class). The people are rising up and they are speaking out, taking to the streets, demanding justice.

Last night in Chicago, the comrades there forced Trump to cancel his rally. They stood up against the reaction and shut him down. The hammer and sickle was even flashed on live television, right behind a CNN reporter. I was ecstatic when I heard this news and I want to, again, congratulate those fighters in Chicago for their victory. That is something that needs to be emulated at every Trump event. Fascism deserves no platform, and it is up to us to make sure they don’t get one.

But then there are the golden-heart liberals who, any time a window is broken, cry for the people to “be peaceful”. Yes, be peaceful in the face of violent fascists. Be peaceful in the face of murderous police. Be peaceful towards a system that wants to oppress, exploit, and kill you if you disobey. Those who hold power can swing and take shots all they wish, but we are the ones who need to learn some respect. Sure.

The reasons given for this condemnation of the people is Trump’s “right” to free speech. If you weren’t paying attention before, it is obvious that Trump is parroting the fascist dictators of the past. What does this mean when it comes to free speech? It means they don’t have it. Let me explain.

Following WWII, at the Nuremberg Trials, it was decided that fascism, since it always went hand-in-hand with mass genocide and illegal wars, is not a legitimate political ideology, but, rather, a criminal movement. This means that it is the political equivalent to the mafia. Most of the sane world recognizes this–it is why Nazi symbolism is not allowed to be spread or shown in Germany, for instance. The proposals and rhetoric of fascism are just as protected under the banner of “free speech” as the mafia’s illegal business deals are protected by “free enterprise”. That is, it’s not.

To paraphrase something a comrade of mine heard from a lawyer and passed on: Freedom of speech is like the freedom to swing your arm–you can swing it all you like, but your freedom to do so ends at the tip of my nose.

The liberals and ultra-leftists who are whining about the freedom of fascists to have a platform so as to gain traction are spitting on the graves of the countless victims of fascism all around the world. They have apparently learned nothing from history, and seem to have no problem with risking the same thing all over again. Freedom of speech protected the Nazi Party, allowed it to gain a following, then to gain political power, because how dare we prevent genocidal war-mongers from spreading their hate far and wide? How dare we think about the very possible consequences of their actions? Luckily, Germany has at least some laws to prevent another fall back into that sort of state. Too bad some “Leftists” here in the States think such a movement should be protected from the people it wishes to fucking kill.

Hell, the man even brags about wanting to commit war-crimes. If someone makes a legitimate physical threat against another person, they are arrested, but you want to tell us that a politician doing the same thing–except he wants to kill thousands, including whole families–is protected because of “free speech”? No, he is not. Threatening to break international law and to commit atrocities does not fall under the umbrella of “free speech”.

Lenin said it best, in regards to “freedom of speech”:

Continue reading