Well, you would think I would not need to write about Trump and anarchism. After all, he clearly has authoritarian tendencies and is the head of a State. However, many American commentators – even the best amongst them – have difficulty recognising the obvious.
Well, you would think I would not need to write about Trump and anarchism. After all, he clearly has authoritarian tendencies and is the head of a State. However, many American commentators – even the best amongst them – have difficulty recognising the obvious. Which means we get subject to an opinion piece by Helaine Olen in the Washington Post entitled “Donald Trump is the real anarchist”.
The author does not define anarchist at all, which makes saying whether Trump is one hard (well, not that hard – he definitely is not). It becomes clear, though, that Olen has no notion of what it means – as suggested by the title of the piece. It seems that what an anarchist is can be taken for granted (selfish arsehole?) and instead we get this:
when the person in charge has no stated beliefs other than his self-interest, and little agenda other than tearing down the accomplishments of others.
The “person in charge” here is the head of the State, the head of a government. Anarchists are renown for being against both. We are also opposed to State-like structures like the capitalist companies and patriarchal marriage. As such, being opposed to hierarchy, we are also against “the person in charge” in the sense of an individual (or group) given power to rule others. Which means being “the person in charge” and being an anarchist are in contradiction. This does not mean anarchists are opposed to organisation and the delegation of work to groups and individuals, it simply means we oppose the delegation of power into the hands of a few – as Trump shows, we have a point when we argue power corrupts and is ripe for abuse.
Then there is the suggestion that an anarchist has “no stated beliefs other than his self-interest”. Anarchists have written and spoken of their stated beliefs since 1840 (and long before that people raised anarchistic ideas). It is a well-defined socio-economic theory with a long history of organising and struggle. The intellectual culture of our times is staggeringly ill-informed.
Still, there is an element of truth in this statement. We do believe that it is in our “self-interest” (as individuals, as part of the working class, as a society, as a species) to abolish hierarchy and to co-operate as equals, sharing the world and working together to give everyone a creative and fulfilling life worth living, rather than the majority simply surviving under the rule of politicians like Trump and bosses like, well, Trump… and I’m not aware of Trump ever suggesting that we should abolish the hierarchical, top-down structures that have served him and his class so well.
In terms of “tearing down the accomplishments of others”, well, anarchists want to expropriate the wealth monopolised by the capitalist class — people like Trump. This wealth, we argue, is based on the exploited labour of others, us, the working class. Every dollar Trump has exists because his wage-slaves were not paid the full value of their labour. In short, he owns "the accomplishments of others" and — by use of the State — excludes others from using them (unless they work under his orders and enrich him). We want the wealth we created but do not have access to. This means we do not want to "tear down" anything, we want to expropriate our common heritage from those who have appropriated it. I’m not aware of Trump ever suggesting that we should expropriate his and his fellow capitalists’ wealth, socialise it and place it under the control of those who use it.
Anarchism, in short, is hardly in Trump’s “self-interest” even if it is in ours.
Then we have this gem:
The main interest Trump shows in the workings of government is in how government can be used to enrich and protect himself.
Anarchists aim, amongst other things, to abolish the State and government – indeed, that is often considered the minimal definition of an anarchist (it is not, we also want to abolish capitalism as well along with all other hierarchical structures and institutions). Being an anarchist and using the government to bolster your wealth and power is an obvious contradiction.
She continues:
In the wake of the protests and looting that occurred in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death at the hands of Minneapolis police, Trump echoed the segregationist language of the 1960s, claiming, "When the looting starts, the shooting starts.” He subsequently threatened people with “ominous weapons” and “vicious dogs.” Peaceful protesters were tear-gassed Monday night so he could stage a photo op, holding a Bible in front of Washington’s historic St. John’s Episcopal Church.
Being an Anarchist does not mean, by definition, being the head of a government which urges and uses the forces of the State to attack – potentially with lethal force – protesters.
In the guise of promoting what he calls “law and order,” Trump instead promotes violence, chaos and anarchy.
While Anarchists do aim for anarchy (a free society based on the free association of free and equal individuals) we do not aim for chaos which would ensure that such a system could not work. So there is a difference between anarchy and chaos, something our writer implicitly acknowledges when writing of “chaos and anarchy”.
As for “violence”, well “law and order” is based on violence. If you do not respect the law, armed forces of the State will compel you to do so. If violence is wrong, then our writer has to oppose “law and order” — still, we can assume that “unlawful” violence is meant here and so the writer is begging the question. After all, how else than violence could Trump use government “to enrich and protect himself”?
Do anarchists “promote” violence? Hardly, we aim to create a society where violence (direct or indirect, specific or systemic) is minimised. However, we do recognise that violence is often needed to defend yourself against (or free yourself from) those who would use violence to enforce their wills on you. If agents of the State murder unarmed black people, then people need to defend themselves. If agents of the State act “to enrich and protect” the capitalist class then those subject to that regime need to defend themselves from such exploitation and oppression.
In short, if there is oppression and exploitation then there will be violence needed to ensure and enforce both and, by the nature of things, there will be resistance and conflict. If our writer was seriously opposed to violence (rather than non-authority approved violence) then they should embrace anarchism. However, that would mean learning something about it…
As I’m talking about Trump, I should mention the embrace of fringe right-wing conspiracy theories as discussed in The Guardian:
So what is QAnon?
“QAnon” is a baseless internet conspiracy theory whose followers believe that a cabal of Satan-worshipping Democrats, Hollywood celebrities and billionaires runs the world while engaging in pedophilia, human trafficking and the harvesting of a supposedly life-extending chemical from the blood of abused children. QAnon followers believe that Donald Trump is waging a secret battle against this cabal and its “deep state” collaborators to expose the malefactors and send them all to Guantánamo Bay.
There is one very obvious flaw with this theory, namely, the notion that Trump is actually doing anything bar play golf and tweeting on the toilet… But, as the rest of the conspiracy theory shows, clearly the QAnon people will believe anything – even that Trump actually works!
Still, this nonsense is dangerous as there is a risk of someone being assassinated over this nonsense – after all, someone did go armed to the restaurant in the Pizzagate nonsense. Which does raise questions – why is such clear rubbish bubblingly up and why is a “mainstream” party embracing it? I would suggest that, as the right has no ideas, there is nowhere to go other than embracing cranks. Likewise, Trump has nothing positive to campaign on (the list of broken promises is long) and most of what he has done has harmed, or wants to do will harm, the general population. So, no ideas and nothing positive to run on or be honest about. In short, they have nowhere else to go – as shown by their recent Convention.
The neoliberal hollowing out of society in favour of the 1% has resulted in a hollowing out its defenders. Sadly, there is still the possibility that Trump will lose the popular vote by an even greater margin but still remain in power – and if the last four years are anything to go by, “the resistance” will let him do what he likes because it will limit itself to verbal and symbolic protests rather than strikes, occupations and other forms of direct action which cannot be ignored. That movement is the one that needs to be built and we need to work with everyone who sees its need, regardless if they decide to vote or not.
Talking of which, it would be remiss of me not to mention a Biden victory. Yes, it would check the immediate threat but it may – will? – convince many people that even symbolic resistance is no longer needed as a fascistic psychopath is no longer in office. And that is a danger – it is what I warned might happen under Obama, and it did. Obama was better than Bush, but without popular protest and resistance he adjusted to the institutional pressures and the lack of significant reform meant the door was open for Trump in 2016. Ultimately, Trump is a symptom rather than the cause and we need to address the causes – and the Democrats will not do this as the cause is the capitalist system which, as a capitalist party, it supports (they can be considered as representing the sane section of the master class). They will only act to address some of the many problems we face when popular movements pressurise them from below and, much better, such movements can address the causes directly and help produce the self-liberation of the working class.
Will Americans repeat the same mistakes again? It is the job of real anarchists (rather than those invented by ignorant opinion piece writers) to build a social movement which can learn from the past and work for the future. This is a much harder task than voting every four years and letting politicians do what they like in between but it does not make it any less necessary.
Until I blog again, be seeing you…