8 November 2024.
The election is over, and Donald John Trump will be President of the United States. Whilst I generally avoid elections and their coverage (outside of producing sentence-by-sentence summaries of town-halls and debates), I feel obligated to say something. After all, will not the election of Trump have any impact on the policies of Gladsnost and Politstroika? Indeed they shall, not for or by Trump, but for or by the factions of the Left (recall that factions are a step above schools, comprising multiple, but below oppositions, which is the proto-tendency stage, leading into tendencies proper).
In this article, we will talk about multiple things: how Trump won, what Trump's policies may look like, what we might hope for from him, how the Left at large will react to his winning, and what it means for the Left after the fact.
Let me say that I am not very concerned about Donald Trump as President. But we will have to return to this later. So what are some contributing factors to Trump's victory, how strong was he, and why was that? My analysis was actually that Trump was rather weakened in this race, and I expected a very close Harris victory (within one-three per cent). In the catch-phrase of one Tucker Carlson 'why is that?'?
Initially, I heard grumbling in the Trump tent that he had betrayed his populist campaign promises, that he turned out to be a double-crossing traitor, just another parasite (sorry, ,,politician''). There was a desire for peace, which was surprising, specially directed at Israel. Obviously, the JuSA caucus is heavily on the Internetwork, and certainly wants 'peace on Jews' in the perverse sense, so one must have a care about interpreting the seriousness of any part of the Trump tent. Then, amongst less ideological voters, I suspected Trump's somewhat bizarre antics this election round to have a negative impact. The microphone-job, the McDonalds fries oddity, Arnold Taylor's MASSIVE which rivals the length of The LongMan's, the women weirdness, and the socially awkward J D Vance. Looking at his (erratic?) behaviour, it seems that Trump is slated to join Grandpa Joe in a nursing home. Trump, I must say, appears to not have taken this election as seriously as he had last time, and has made a far less satisfying presentation of his qualities. Where I could see many, including Leftists, voting for Trump before, I did not think he would do as well now.
Anyone who has ever read the Thoughts of a Comrade Netlog knows that I do not support Harris, or any Democrat (it was begun a year after Sanders had sold out). I knew AOC was a corrupt managerial-politician riding the Sanders waggon opportunistically. I was hailed as a puritan with nails, given the ald 'evil Stalinist Tankie Red-Brown Fascist, you just hate hard-working comrade-women!' or whatever. One particular comrade who did this has since apologised for the hailstorm of slander wrought against me, and another I strongly suspect to have abandoned the Left altogether (they are nay longer involved in the DSA, and they have ghosted a mutual comrade and myself). I was right by being Left.
To Harris: in my article entitled The Cackling Capitalist: A Monster's Reflexion is a Monstrous Inflexion (Advancing the Estate of the Whole People) (here), I made the simple argument that Harris was not a friend to the Folk-classes (the Third Estate of the Whole People), but merely a class-reflexion of capitalism, the actual monster behind the mirror. I stand by my imagination of what Harris truly is. And now, thanks to her losing the election, I may point to this fact as proving the strength of my analysis. But I have just said that my estimation of Trump's chances to win were generally abysmal, so how did Harris lose?
Harris lost by a dozen single cracks. The policy of more or less continual appeasement of Israel and Nutter-yahoo was probably one of the biggest hurts to her voter turn-out. Norman Finkelstein, if I am not mistaken, refused to support her. I sensed that Doug Lain at Sublation Media was also not afeared of a Trump victory, and seemed weary of the Harris tent's constant ad Hitlerum. Two sides of Leftism that were tired of Harris, and she still did not fully unleash the Bernie card. I doubt that the Arabs were very enthusiastic for the same reasons. Then, there was the want of 'Harris': her campaign in the beginning was relying on two things, not being Trump, nor being senile. Aside from not having dementia, there was little in the way of major departure from the Biden But Better brand. Harris did play the race and woman card, but not nearly to the extent that Obama and Clinton did, with the woman card actually having pertinence to policy discussion this time. Harris was handicapped by the late switch, the lack of primary (plus the previous primary's bad performance), and the DNC's ludicrous Party-Line that Biden was in his mental prime. I will also say, I think the ,,Russia, Russia, Russia!'' line was not nearly as successful as the DNC and Harris were hoping it would be; it may in fact have negatively impacted her turn-out. If Vladimir Vladimirovich is already President of the United Federation, then what is the point of voting against Trump?
All of this summarises my thought that on paper, Harris might have won, but due to realities, she did not have a staying power equivalent to Trump. The DNC (the Central Committee) utterly failed in its strategy and its analysis, contributing to the real result's discrepancy with the paper weight. Their propaganda arms in the media spent so much time and public trust attempting to prop up a clearly stale candidate, and worse for their image, a poor elderly man seemingly being (ab)used for the crony rulers' political gain. Should Harris have had a more 'equitable' start, Trump's care-free sloppiness could have proved a much larger obstacle for him. But all Leftists know that the DNC loves to lose, so that in itself is not at all surprising. The populist Right has as well been offered far more concessions policy- and position-wise than the Left, increasing the apathy both of the populists and those who support populist propositions.
Notice that I am not a pollster or an election analyst; anything which I have written above is, like my political theory from this point onward, speculative and personally-observed. I could well be be mistaken about a great many things, and I apologise if this should be the case. Elections do not interest me, but I had some insights to share.
The most that we can expect from Trump, and I very much doubt even that, is the end of direct US support in the slaughter of Palestine, likely motivated (if at all) by an 'America First, the One True™ Chosen People™' sentiment. On the eastern front, I am not sure that we can or need to expect anything. The proxy-war is nearing its end, methinks with a firm, stronk Russian/Donetsk/Lugansk victory. It is said that the ghost of Comrade Russell Bentley is still loading artillery shells of liberation from morning until eve, long into the night. Truly, Woden Lᴏʀᴅ is a Rußian... wait hwæt!? However, I will say that if Trump is President when the end comes, he may be quite helpful in pushing through the peace treaty, which the Deep Intel State might otherwise have tried to drag their feet on.
Let us hope that Trump starts nay wars of his own, with Iran or China, say. A wonderful outcome that is sure to follow the Trump Presidency is the long over-due independence of Europa. Perhaps without NATO support, Spain, Greece, Italy, and Portugal might get a small break from the harsh austerity measures of the European Union, or at least one can dream. Even better, perhaps the EU capitalists will have to wage a socio-economic war against 'TATO', leading to some restoration of ideological war-time social-democratic reforms?
Finally, let us hope that Trump deports all the Ukrackheads, all the Kyeivshites back to their Anglophobe shitehole. They destroyed my Townsends Colonial shoes (which were expencive!), the fucking halfwit naybrains did not even follow the instructions we gave them, and that were printed off as well. I should gladly unleash some good old Yankee wrath upon them. If I could get my hands on a puck... O by '76 I would commit freedom-liberties galore. The Ukranks would be ruined like the Hessians, and New England would at last be free of these despicable, racist and Anglophobic, war-criminals. Do it again General Donald, burn down the Kyinfederacy and drive these Maidixie forces into the Black Sea!
On the Democrats' side, I very much do not expect to see any gross changes. They might allow Sanders out more, but that is it, and he will still be given a tight leash to his 'acceptable' script. It will be intriguing to see whether the DNC goes with Harris again, and if they even bother running a primary, now that the precedent has been affirmed of not having to do that. If they do not hold a primary, hopefully they replace it with more reform promises, but the Democrats can hardly be relied upon to keep their word with electioneering matters as that. Another intriguing question will be how the Democrats deal with their new opponent— was J D Vance the secret Heinrich Himmler all along, loyally plotting with his Fäilur the entire time for this moment!? The DNC will be dumber than I've conceived if they do in fact call the next guy a fascist dictator. I am sure we will still hear how President Putin and President Xi are the most motivated activists in US elections (don't they know US elections are a sham that change nothing?). The Left ought to focus locally.
My analysis has ever been that Trump in himself is not the primary danger, not the source of fascism. There is a real fascist presence to be sure, but it is not to be found in the Trump leadership (Trump, Bolton, Giuliani, Gabbard, Kennedy, even Bannon). The actual fascists in the Trump tent are local leaders and those supporters closer to the ground. The burghers do not need a fascist vanguard at the moment; Sanders may have turned many to the Left, but he has played his part well in turning many more at least temporarily to Harris. In fact, I should argue that the last thing the burghers within and without the Trump campaign wish for right now is a fascist upsurge, right after their opponents have stated that this is the inauguration of fascism, and the death of ,,Democracy™'' (republicanism). The fascist forces will have to wait until Trump's term is over to make any serious power moves.
The only leader in the Trump campaign that I feel has the right (implicit) energy and an ideology close enough to the 'fascist crevice' of Right and Left, is J D Vance. Vance has already betrayed most of Patrick Deneen's cherished tenets, which is an important strategy for a Fäilur to learn. This is also why I am not as concerned about Haz al-Din being a fascist as I am Jackson Hinkle. From what I know of this Haz, admittedly paltry-much, he is too wedded to the conception of MAGA-Communism (and the ACP) to be an effective Fäilur, whereas Hinkle seems much more able to change views on a whim. Trump is certainly willing to raise and drop views and propaganda-images as free as the wind, but I think that he has constrained himself enough within the existing state- and party-machinery, along with building a perhaps too-large tent, to effectively launch a policy-coup of any significance outside of that agreed upon by the majority of his supporting organisations.
This is an important point to make, and one which the Left, or Liberals, wish to ignore and avoid; Trump's campaign is still a big-tent of competing Right-Wing interests and tendencies. The Left has sold itself on the lie of a monolithic Right, which suffers only from minute squabbles, of a tactical nature mostly. This notion is utterly incorrect, and precludes a strategy to split the Right apart. Patrick Deneen has been clear that his alliance with the Right is a thing of 'desperation', to say, for the Woke-Liberals are nay longer cogent to a class-based world-view. Some comrades might protest that the Left ought to have nothing to prove for someone like Deneen, but the problem is that Deneen is simply the public-intellectual expression of a genuinely felt movement. To dismiss Deneen is not to dismiss a Rightist intellectual, it is to dismiss a movement within the folk-masses, and that is damaging to do. The Left must unite, ya indeed, but it must also divide and colonise/administer those tendencies and schools of the Right made up of the proletariat and most compatible with Leftist policy. Therein pools the imperative of the ACP's mission.
I will end this article by asking the question that we began with, 'will not the election of Trump have any impact on the policies of Gladsnost and Politstroika?'? Indeed, but not in the way of influence insinuated. Trump will not have any impact, but the liberal-influenced Left certainly may. Gladsnost and Politstroika, like their predecessors Glasnost and Perestroika, might be sought by the liberal-Left as weapons to be brandished against the Left proper— and that must not be allowed to happen. I fear a formation of faction, even opposition, strife within the Left. The Reformists and the Radicals may be at the centre of a new, equally bitter split. If this should occur, then I consider it a distinct possibility that the DNC and the state machinery under its control could be utilised against us, as in the days of McCarthy. It is simply one of the reasons why I suggest the Left get involved as little as practical with national elections, that we may not cause the liberals to levy their forces upon us. Whatever may happen, let us maintain our construction of the Left for to-morrow's world.
Comments