Views in brief

Is Trump like Le Pen?

IN RESPONSE to "Fear and loathing on the Trump trail," I appreciate Nicole Colson's measured approach to the idea that Trump's campaign should be labeled fascist. Segments of the left in this country often bandy about that term casually and irresponsibly.

I do think, however, that there may be certain similarities between the Trump phenomenon and the rise of the nativist right in parts of Europe, which are at least worthy of exploration.

Do Trump supporters form the social base of something analogous to the UK Independent Party in Britain, the National Front in France or, even more ominously, Golden Dawn in Greece? While Trump may not be classically fascist, his candidacy may represent the embryo of a political tendency that has little use for traditional (bourgeois) forms of democratic rule. Trump's campaign may not be something we can dismiss as business as usual.

On a more positive note, does the Sanders campaign represent the social base for a left-wing form of social democracy? While I realize the ISO doesn't support Sanders, his campaign shows that for a number of folks, especially among the young, capitalism is no longer accepted as a given.

There appears to be a real hunger for a fighting left. This could mean that the social base for authoritarian nativism represented by Trump will not go unchallenged. This election shows that political divisions are sharpening and breaking out of the confines of consensus politics.
Adam Minsky, Brookline, Massachusetts

What kind of infestation is it?

"HE'S A fascist." It feels so good to say it. We feel a sense of cathartic release when we proclaim it to the world. It's like a midnight call to the Orkin man: "My house is infected with bugs, BUGS, do you hear me?"

But to rid your house or apartment of an infestation, you need to be more specific. Is it ants? Is it roaches? Is it termites? All bad, all "bugs," but each with a different pathology and each calling for a different solution.

Donald Trump and his followers are a curse upon the land, but a long way from being fascists. All fascists are thugs, but not all thugs are fascists.

Fascism, by my definition, begins with an organized appeal outside the electoral process. It shows nothing but disdain for the voting booth. It seeks to train and mobilize gangs in the streets to confront mass movements and an insurgent labor movement--neither of which exists at the present in the United States--in physical confrontations. No strike, no Black Lives Matter demonstration would be safe from this criminal element.

On this score, Donald Trump and his Trumpeteers have more in common with George Wallace or Silvio Berlusconi, mixed with a sprinkling of Huey Long, than with Ernst Rohm or Benito Mussolini.
Guy Miller, Chicago

The IWW and elections

IN response to "Can America go socialist?" I need to correct a few inaccuracies.

First of all, Eugene V Debs was one of the cofounders of the International Workers of the World (IWW). He was at the initial convention, and he was a supporter of the formation of the IWW, at least for the first few years of its existence.

Also, the IWW was not opposed to participation in elections, though it opted not to endorse candidates or support any specific political party.

As for taking a position on voting in elections (or not), while it's true that some of the IWW's songwriters and graphic artists poked fun at voting in presidential (and other) elections--most notably, Ernest Riebe's "Mr. Block" comic strip, which was later referenced by Joe Hill in the song about Mr. Block (specifically the verse that begins, "election day, he [Block] shouted, 'a socialist for mayor!'" etc.)--this was not the IWW's official position.

It should be noted that the IWW's tendency to be dismissive of elections had more to do with the fact that a sizable majority of the Wobblies' membership consisted of recent immigrants, most of whom were ineligible to vote in American elections. So electorialism was simply not an option for those members, whether or not they supported voting in elections as a strategy.

We can debate about the merits of the IWW versus Leninism, etc., certainly, but let's at least be historically accurate, okay? Thanks.
Steve Ongerth, Richmond, California

Why did we win in the 1960s?

In response to "Why the Democrats don't deserve your support," an article by Sarah Grey written for The Establishment website and republished in SW's Critical Reading column: A great piece, but the author also leaves a critical piece out of the picture. She writes:

Nixon wasn't a progressive. But his presidency, which stretched from 1969 to his resignation in 1974, took place during an era of mass social movements that affected every aspect of U.S. life. The women's movement, Black Power, Chicano Power, the Gay Liberation Front, the American Indian Movement, Students for a Democratic Society--oppressed groups of all kinds were organizing. The environmental movement and the labor movement were fermenting. Cities all over the U.S. saw urban uprisings as people took to the streets.

It's not simply that these 1960s social movements were able to make important gains, but that they did so during the "postwar boom," a period building on FDR's New Deal, during which certain kinds of social spending and labor gains--i.e., Keynesian economics--were made possible by returns on Western (and particularly U.S.) capital's investments in the reconstruction of Europe and Japan. In turn, this constituted the material basis for ruling class hegemony articulated through the Democratic Party as the so-called "Liberal-Labor (later, adding "Negro") Alliance."

When the boom petered out, we saw bourgeois ideologues call for (and obtain) an "end to excessive expectations" on the part of working and oppressed people, and the resurgence of "one-sided class war" (then-United Auto Workers head Douglas Fraser's words) and the neoliberal juggernaut.

Within a few years, this was accompanied by the realignment of the Democratic Party from an apparatus for orchestrating hegemony to an openly pro-corporate entity, selling candidates to the highest bidders, and delivering chunks of electorate top them via marketing (the birth of the Democratic Leadership Council).

The implications of this author's oversight are tremendous. Simply put, the current struggles and those of the 1960s do not take place on the same terrain. The current struggles are infinitely more difficult and the stakes are much higher, because the simplest demands of the 1960s represent existential threats to the bourgeoisie (which is why Nixon could propose a universal income, etc.).

In fact, in a way that the existence of the hegemonic "bloc" (Labor-Liberal alliance) precluded in the 1940s through 1970s, many of these demands put the question of state power on the table, and the rulers are terrified, as the Democratic Party hierarchy's response to Sanders shows.
Mike, St. Johns, Antigua