The US is the world's richest, most technologically advanced, most powerful country. In just four surreal years of idiocy and moronic behaviour, Trump has given it the appearance of a Banana Republic, now complete with a pathetic attempt by his supporters to storm the citadel. Mussolini's March on Rome, or even Hitler's Munich Beer Hall Putsch this wasn't. Its more like the comic opera of the Falangists trying to hold up the Cortes in Spain in 1981. Even that is to give it more importance than it deserves, because that attempt was made, at least by sections of the state apparatus itself.
That Trump would try to mobilise his supporters in some kind of dramatic performance was inevitable, as I have been saying for months, because he is preparing the ground for running in 2024, though it may well be one of the Trump family rather than Trump himself put in that position. The numbers mobilised on the streets were sizeable but not overwhelming. They are tiny compared to the numbers that the Left has mobilised, in the past, in support of BLM, or other civil rights protests. Nor had there been the kind of preparatory mobilisations of force that would be required for any serious coup attempt, and indeed, which I anticipated that Trump's supporters, most of whom are armed, would have undertaken during the election period itself. There was no possibility that this was going to be anything other than a piece of political drama.
The fact that some of this mob got into the Capitol building itself should not be overstated. Looking at many of them having got into the rotunda, they even filed through in order, remaining inside the rope guides provided to shepherd visitors. They seemed more concerned to be taking pictures of the busts and other artwork inside it. That is not to discount the fact that there were hard core fascists involved who were intent on causing damage and injury if they had the chance. But not even that represented any real threat to US democracy. The far bigger threat to US democracy comes from its own nature as a sham, more like the condition of the rotten boroughs in Britain prior to the 1832 Reform Act, where politicians were able to openly buy votes, and seats in parliament.
What happened as far as that actual invasion into the Capitol building? Well, as many have pointed out, there were far fewer police on duty than there has been, for example, when BLM demonstrations took place in Washington. Was this an indication that the state, or elements of it, are really itching to back a fascist coup? Well, there are certainly elements of police forces that are sympathetic to fascists. That is common amongst all police forces. They see Trump and his supporters as allies against BLM, and others, who themselves have been mobilised as a result of racist cops murdering black people. There are always elements of the military that are attracted to fascism too. You need look no further than in the British military to see organised support for the BNP, and other fascist outfits. But, this kind of support for fascism is almost always restricted, during normal times, to the plebeian layers, and given the strictly hierarchical nature of these bodies of armed men, what is decisive is the position of the generals and upper ranks. A look at the position of those upper ranks of the military in the US, shows almost unanimous opposition to Trump, even from some of those that Trump himself appointed to senior positions in the state.
Did the Washington National Guard fail to mobilise in support of the Metro Police, because they come under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defence, and of Trump as Commander in Chief? Possibly, though they deny that. What seems more likely to me is that the state probably anticipated a large counter-mobilisation by the Left. In those conditions, the fascists would have been more tied up in running battles with those activists. As it turns out, the Left was wise to have stayed away. It left no doubt to anyone watching the events who was responsible for the violence. There was no chance, here, for Trump, or his acolytes, to blame Antifa, the Left, BLM, or anyone else for what happened, or to attempt to be seen as apportioning blame even-handedly.
In fact, initial light policing was also beneficial from that perspective. There is a recognisable difference between violent or noisy clashes in the streets, with the fact that Trump's supporters, with his direct encouragement, attempted to prevent, violently, the will of the people, in the election, being exercised, by an actual invasion of the Capitol building. In fact, even once inside, the limit of what they could do was quickly constrained, and the available force from the state resulted in the death of four of those invading fascists. That has done irreparable damage to Trump and his supporters. It is enough to have some Republicans even demanding that Trump be removed immediately from office, and was enough to have those Republican Senators that had proposed objecting to the certification of votes, withdrawing their objections. In fact, Biden and Harris wee certified in less time than otherwise might have been the case.
It probably guarantees that Trump will now be indicted, a prediction I have made in my predictions for 2021 anyway. It will almost certainly result in further investigation and indictments against those in the wider movement of which he is a part, including people in Britain, again as I have predicted. The fact was, of course, that this farce never threatened the US state, much as, indeed, for all of his attempts to undermine it, over the last four years, Trump never posed any real threat to the US state, or the ruling class which it serves. It always had his measure, and would have moved against him decisively had it needed to. Coups are always undertaken by the state, or parts of the state against governments, not vice versa.
Coups occur when governments, the political regime, no longer acts in the interests of the ruling class, and rather puts at serious risk those interests. Trump represented a threat to the interests of the ruling class, with his nationalistic policies that acted against globalisation. As with the Brexiters in Britain, he represents the interests of the petty-bourgeoisie, as against the interests of large-scale capital. The ruling class can tolerate that within limits, indeed, in the 1980's, it allied with that petty-bourgeoisie in order to beat down the demands of the working-class, and its allies amongst the progressive middle-class, for a further rational development of social-democracy. But, today, the interests of that large-scale industrial capital are threatened not by the working-class, but by the petty-bourgeoisie and their political representatives amongst the ranks of the populists and right-wing nationalists that seek to turn the clock backwards.
Its necessary to make a distinction between fascism and Nazism, or National Socialism. The latter is a conservative ideology based on the preservation of the existing social relations founded upon the domination of large-scale socialised capital. It seeks to prevent either a move forward to Socialism, as the rational development of those existing social relations, or a move backwards to some less mature form of capitalism, based upon privately owned capital, and rampant free market competition. Fascism, however, is a political methodology, a means of achieving the goals set by a particular ideology. The two things may go together, but not necessarily. The reactionaries actually seeking a return to a less developed form of capitalism, or even essentially feudal relations can use fascism as a means of achieving it.
In essence, Trump is fascist, but he is not a Nazi. He is more like a Strasserite, i.e. that wing of the Nazi Party that was based upon the anti-capitalist wing, for which read, based upon the petty-bourgeoisie and lumpen proletariat whose “anti-capitalism” amounted to an opposition to large scale monopoly capitalism. The same political trend can be seen amongst the Brexiters. But, Hitler, who represented the interests of that same monopoly capitalism, and, in particular of the shareholders that drew their revenues from it, and exercised control over it, merely used the petty-bourgeoisie and lumpen elements as foot soldiers to achieve his goals, in seizing power. Once done, he liquidated the Strasserite elements. Boris Johnson has done something similar by using the petty-bourgeois, libertarian Brexiters in the Tory party, to put himself in Downing Street.
But, neither the British nor the US state sees any need to resort to either fascism or Nazism. The state has controlled Trump and his actions, just as it has controlled Johnson, and his actions, forcing him into the Brexit In Name Only Deal, that ensures that the interests of large scale industrial capital are not immediately put in jeopardy, by Brexit. For fascism to be required, or to be necessary, the state itself must need to act against the government, against the political regime, as was the case in the 1920's in Italy, and 1930's in Germany. That is not the case today, and it is why the petty-bourgeois forces behind Trump have been subdued by that state.
Of course, the problem remains that these forces of fascism, and of petty-bourgeois nationalism arose for very real, material reasons, arising from the failure of conservative social-democracy itself over the last 30 years. A look at the failure of those policies once more under Macron, shows the danger. The failure of conservative social democracy in France, saw support for Macron, which was slight and apathetic to begin with, collapse, whilst support for the Gilletes Jaunes, and other right-wing populists increased significantly. The adoption of the same conservative social-democratic politics by Starmer, by Biden and others will have the same consequence, fuelling support for petty-bourgeois nationalism, and right-wing populism, organised by politicians using increasingly fascistic methods. Biden and Starmer, today, with their inadequate politics represent nothing more than conduits to the fascist reaction of tomorrow.
We cannot oppose that fascism by reducing our politics to that of the failed politics of these conservative social-democrats, as Paul Mason has advised, purely in search of an ephemeral, short-term electoral success, because, as with every other Popular Front in history, the inadequate politics of such governments, always demobilises the working-class, and feeds support for the fascists. If the liberal and conservative social-democrats actually strike against the fascists, then we will support them, but we will not liquidate our own politics and organisation into a Popular Front with them, because all history shows that would be disastrous.
No comments:
Post a Comment