Trump is Not the Main Problem

by Wayne Price via anarkismo

Many liberals and other Democrats see Trump as the main problem facing the U.S. Therefore their focus is on defeating him in the next election (or impeachment). They focus on the electoral system and hope for salvation through government action. I disagree. Trump is a major problem, but he is the culmination of years of political and economic development, and is related to similar politics in other countries. The fight against Trumpism requires a non-electoral and militant program.


Trump is Not the Main Problem


Democrats, Trump, and the Upcoming Elections: How Should Anarchists See Them?

To many liberals, progressives, unionists, activists of various just causes, Democrats of all stripes, democratic socialists, and concerned citizens, the problem the U.S. is facing is essentially that Donald J. Trump is president, and is backed by the Republican Party. I disagree with this widespread belief.

It is likely that Trump will be removed from office in the next two years, whether by impeachment (unlikely due to the Senate Republicans) or by national elections (probably but not certainly). Liberals, progressives, etc., look forward to this as a glorious day. The sun will come out from behind the darkling clouds, little birds will sing again, the miasma of evil and stupidity will lift from the land, and all will be well again. Things will finally go back to “normal.”

Alas, I do not think that things will be “normal” ever again. I too long to see the vile Trump gone. I am not cynical and have hopes for the future. Yet I do not see the replacement of Trump by a Democrat or other establishment politician as the coming of a glorious new day.

But first I should make clear my views on Trump. As a revolutionary anarchist-socialist, I have never liked any of the presidents of my lifetime. But I have particularly hated a few, starting with the Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson, because of the U.S. war on Vietnam. (We chanted, “Hey, hey, LBJ! How many kids did you kill today!?”) And I especially hated the Republicans Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush. They were the cutting edge of the ruling class’ attacks on working people of the U.S. and the world.

But I have never hated any politician as much as I hate the despicable Trump. Personally he is utterly devoid of conscience or of empathy for others. Mean and cruel, he is completely self-centered. Devoid of honor, he breaks laws and ethical norms, big and little, and sells out friends and associates (and ”his” country) without a qualm. He sees women as things to be used. He is a racist. He cannot keep from lying on matters important and unimportant. While he has a certain sly cunning, Trump is ignorant, incurious, and stupid. He makes stupid decisions—not just from my standpoint but from that of U.S. imperialism.

Politically, he holds some bizarre views which are unusual even among the corporate rich and the right wing Republican establishment: his attachment to the Russian state and Putin, his unwillingness to condemn Nazis, his reckless use of tariffs, his commitment to building a wall on the Mexican border, his quarrels with U.S. allies, etc. While most Republican politicians have bowed to anti-immigrant fervor, Trump really believes in the “threat” of immigrants. He is not a fascist but neither is he a non-fascist.

As a result of all this, Trump is a very unpopular president (according to the polls). This is so even in spite of a relative (if shallow and uneven) prosperity (which raises the question of how voters would react if the next downturn takes place before the national election). Why do the Republican politicos still support him? Mitch McConnell, leader of the Senate Republicans, is an intelligent man, if totally cynical. Why does he back Trump, considering what he must think of him? There are two pro-Trump forces pressing on the Republicans, one from above and one from below.

From above: Most of the capitalist class did not support Trump in the last election and would prefer someone else even now. But they love the enormous tax cuts for the rich which the Republicans passed, with his strong support. They like his and his party’s attacks on Obamacare. They love the deregulation which he has pushed through all parts of the executive branch. They are delighted with the conservative, pro-business, judges whom he has appointed—to the Supreme Court and throughout the federal judiciary. And so on. They do not want to kill the goose which is laying the golden eggs, even if the goose is otherwise nuts.

From below: Around 40 per cent, more or less, of the population supports Trump solidly and fervently. This is the base of the current Republican Party. Republican politicians fear being voted out in primaries if they oppose Trump. This grouping ranges from crazed fascists (who identify with the Nazis and Klan) to some who voted for Obama in previous elections (the loosest part of this base). These people have been lied to and miseducated in a conscious effort by right-wing forces. They are fed a steady diet of Fox “News,” talk radio, and Internet blogs which put them in a delusional bubble. Their sexual fears are whipped up, over homosexuality and abortion rights, by their church leaders. Many are strongly racist and vote for Trump for that reason; others vote for him for other reasons but are not turned off by his racism.

A large section of these people do have real grievances: after eight years of Obama, including a brittle “recovery,” much of the country was still poor, stagnant, and lacking good jobs. This included many rural and semi-rural areas, in and out of the “Rust Belt.” The white workers and middle class residents of these regions rejected Hillary Clinton as an establishment politician. They expected (correctly) that she would continue the policies which had not helped them (but many also rejected her because she was a woman). Unfortunately, turning to Trump was no answer to their problems.

The Historical Pattern of Presidents

Does this mean that kicking Donald Trump out of the White House will bring things back to “normal”? Even though big business will still push for its program of tax cuts and deregulation and even though a big minority continues to support right wing politics? Can these forces be defeated through elections?

It is worth going over some history here. The Democrat Lyndon Johnson, who had betrayed liberals’ hopes by his war on Vietnam, was followed by Richard Nixon. Hated by the Left, and caught up in the Watergate Scandal, he was forced to resign. Then his hand-picked successor was beaten in an election by Jimmy Carter. To liberals, progressives, etc., these were indeed glorious developments. A new day dawned! Yet Carter, after one term, was defeated by Ronald Reagan, a far-right “conservative” (which is what reactionaries are called in the U.S.). He won two terms, plus one presidential term for his vice president, George H. W. Bush. But Bush was then defeated by Bill Clinton. Clinton could play the saxophone and appeared to get along well with African-Americans. Again, a glorious new day finally seemed to have dawned! But after two terms of Clintonian Democracy, the people voted down his vice president, Al Gore, and elected George W. Bush. (Actually Gore probably won the popular vote, by a hair’s width, but the Supreme Court majority put Bush in.) Bush was terrible and stupid, said the liberals, progressives, etc., gnashing their teeth. He won a second term (probably fairly).

Then Barack Obama was elected, an African-American president! Liberals were ecstatic. Pete Seeger sang at the inauguration with Bruce Springsteen. Naturally, African-Americans were particularly pleased, although few of them believed claims that the U.S. was now a “post-racial” society. Sure enough, the history-making Obama was then followed by…Donald Trump. (Actually Trump lost the popular vote by a few percentage points, but the archaic Electoral College put him in.) I am not going to discuss voting suppression by the Republicans, and various shenanigans by Comey of the FBI, the Russians, etc., which undermined Hillary Clinton. The U.S. state has intervened in other countries’ politics at least as much as Russia has.

This little history does not mention the effects of mid-term elections, which often empowered the reactionary opposition to bind Democratic presidents from carrying out their more-or-less progressive agendas (as in Obama’s last six years). Nor am I discussing just how limited these “progressive” agendas turned out to be, time after time—much to the surprise and dismay of the liberals, progressives, etc. (as in Obama’s first two years). My point here is the obvious one that the repeated defeats of reactionary presidents and presidential candidates has not ushered in the dawn of a glorious new day. Instead, the more-or-less progressive presidents have repeatedly been followed by another reactionary president. Over time the Republicans have gotten more reactionary and the Democrats have occupied the space once taken by the Republicans—until we have reached the current president, a new low in U.S. history.

Why is this? Partially the reason is the two-party system. Unlike many other countries, U.S. laws make it very difficult to form effective third parties. (There has not been a new major party since Lincoln’s Republicans replaced the Whigs.) So if people get fed up with one party, they have little choice but to turn to the other. The range of political discourse is very limited, generally from mildly liberal to extremely reactionary (but not usually fascist). The newspapers and television play this up, mostly analyzing elections as “horse races” and ignoring programs. Citizens are taught to look at the personality of the individual running rather than at what programs they might implement.

However it would be a mistake to focus too much on U.S. factors. The growth of right-wing, nationalist, “populism” is world-wide. Other countries, with leaders with personalities quite different from Trump’s, and with electoral systems quite different from the U.S. constitution, have developed their own forms of reactionary “populism.” There is Britain with its “Brexit,” authoritarian right-wing leaders in Hungary, Poland, Italy, and Brazil, the rise of the far-right LePen in France, Netanyahu in Israel, Modi in India, Duerte in the Phillipines, and other examples. There are also authoritarian regimes which do not bother with elections but have similar politics—Putin’s Russia being somewhere in-between these types.

So, on the one hand, there has been a pattern of increasingly bad presidents, racheting down, through waves of “moderate” Democrats and reactionary Republicans. On the other hand, there is a world-wide growth of far-right, authoritarian, regimes. These developments demonstrate that the problem is bigger than just Trump.

Something New is Happening

For decades after World War II, U.S. politics swung back and forth between the Democrats and the Republicans. There was little difference between the two. It was a platitude of U.S. “political science” that this was a strength of U.S. politics, providing stability and consensus. This changed about the time that the post-World War II prosperity came to an end (in the 1970s). The economy stagnated, and the making of profits became more difficult. Big business declared war on the working class (and the environment) in open and covert ways. The Republicans became the leaders of that attack. Today many look back on the era of political consensus with sighs of regret. The bitter partisanship of the two parties is dismaying to many politicians, political “scientists,” and ordinary voters. The Republicans have moved to the far-right, and the Democrats have stayed just behind them.

Even this development has been shaken up in recent years. On the right, there has grown white-supremacist, fascist, violent, forces. (By “fascist” I do not mean people who are simply very conservative, but people who wish to overturn the representative bourgeois democracy of the U.S. and replace it with a dictatorship.) They have been encouraged by Trump and have encouraged him, even if he himself is not a fascist.

Perhaps even more surprising is the growth of a socialist movement. Polls have found thirty to forty percent of the population—especially young adults—with a positive view of “socialism.” Many have become disillusioned with capitalism. The presidential runs of Bernie Sanders built on this sentiment and encouraged it. The Democratic Socialists of America rapidly expanded, attracting people of varying views (even anarchists joined, to form a Libertarian Socialist Caucus). Socialists were elected to local and national office, the most well-known, besides Sanders, being Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

These socialists are not very “socialist.” They do not advocate taking away the wealth of what Sanders has called “the billionaire class.” They do not propose socializing the major corporations—not even the oil producers and the rest of the energy sector. By “socializing” I mean anything from national government ownership to municipal ownership to worker management to consumer cooperatives. (As an anarchist-socialist, I am for the last two.) Their model is usually an idealized version of the New Deal of Franklyn Roosevelt. This was an effort to save capitalism from its own failures in the Great Depression—to save capitalism from itself. That is, they hope to use the existing capitalist state to manage the market economy in a more efficient, more benevolent, fashion, supposedly in the interests of the working population. As such their program is not particularly different from that of liberals, such as Elizabeth Warren. This should not be surprising given the semi-liberal programs of European social-democratic parties, such as in the Nordic (Scandinavian) countries, the UK, France, or Germany. Although far from Stalinist totalitarianism, liberals and democratic socialists have an unjustified faith in the effectiveness of the state to solve social problems.

The Democrats?

As I am writing there a year and some months to go before the election. The Democrats still enjoy over 20 candidates for their presidential nomination. They are struggling over how “left” their rhetoric should be and how generous their proposals should sound (so far, not one has called for big cuts in the military budget). If they sound “too left,” they may seem to threaten the capitalist system. This could drive off the big donors who otherwise would support them against Trump. And it might (or might not) drive off the moderate base of the Democrats (as opposed to educating them). But if they are not “left” enough, they will not really challenge Trump, his Republicans, and his corporate backers. Nor will they motivate their liberal base. What to do?

Liberals often complain about how wishy-washy and spineless the Democrats are in the face of right-wing attacks. This is in contrast to the Republicans who are “principled” and even fanatical about their goals. There is a reason for this difference. If the Republicans stir up their white, relatively privileged, racist, middle class base into hysterical frenzies, this might result in the nomination of a Trump or, at worst, an attack on bourgeois democracy—but not on capitalism. But if the Democrats were to rile up their base, to excite the African-American community and blue collar workers, to mobilize unions and to organize mass action by youth—this could threaten capitalism. Unlimited demands by workers, People of Color, people threatened by climate change, etc., would go past the limits of the capitalist economy. This the Democrats cannot allow and will not permit.

As far as I am concerned, the Democratic candidates are vying to be the top manager of the most dangerous institution in the world today, This is the U.S. national military-state and its capitalist economy. I am not sympathetic to this goal. (The U.S. has a military force larger than the next eight national states. It is a key part of the life-threatening, climate-destroying, system of national states and the capitalist world market.)

Some liberals, progressives, etc., are impressed with the current flock of Democratic candidates. This requires taking their words at face value, ignoring what they do not say (about foreign policy or military spending, for example). And a focus on individuals, rather than the history of the party. Others, more realistic, argue that the Democrats are the “lesser evil.” This is to admit that they are evil, even if lesser. I would not deny that, especially in comparison to Trump and his minions.

But here is my question: Who has a program which is adequate to solve the deep problems of the U.S. and world? That is, global warming and other ecological catastrophes, the danger of nuclear war, the probability of a collapse of the capitalist economy—as well as “lesser” problems such as continuing racism, gender oppression, LGBTQ repression, economic inequality, stagnation,”small” wars, political authoritarianism, and so on. The very survival of industrial civilization, and perhaps of humanity and our fellow creatures, is at stake. Whether the Democrats mean well or are hypocrites and liars, their programs are simply inadequate for the crises we face. Can it be claimed, by any knowledgable person, that any Democrat has such a needed program?

It would be delightful to get rid of Donald Trump, this pustule on the ass of humanity. But if the result is that we are still on the road to armageddon and the destruction of the world, then my joy is limited.

What Shall We Do?

This is not a discussion of whether any isolated individual should vote. I don’t really care. I doubt that the votes of a handful of anarchists—or even of all the conscious socialists and radicals in the country—would make a difference.

The issue is not what a few individuals should do. It is what we radicals should advocate that mass institutions and movements should do. This includes the unions, the African-American community, Latinx communities, LGBTQ groups, the ecological and environmental movement, feminist organizations, etc. These are the base of the Democratic Party. They donate a large amount of money, and human energy and time, to the Democrats’ electoral efforts. Yet their rewards have not been great. In recent elections, the Democrats have turned their backs on them, especially on the unions and the working class. Similarly, unlike the Republicans, the Democrats have admitted that there is a climate crisis. Yet they have done little about it and advocated limited programs. They have sought African-Americans votes but done little to improve their lives. And so on.

Errico Malatesta, the Italian revolutionary anarchist-socialist, was a co-worker with Bakunin and Kropotkin. He commented, “Electionists…compare what is done in the electoral struggle with what would happen if nothing were done; while instead they should compare the results obtained when other methods are followed and with what might be achieved if all effort used to send representatives to power…were [instead] employed in the fight to directly achieve what is desired.” (Malatesta 2019; 179)

There needs to be massive union organizing drives through the U.S. There should be city and regional general strikes to fight back against attacks on working people. There need to be massive and militant demonstrations, with civil disobedience, to fight against police brutality and other aspects of racism and poverty. Cities should be brought to a halt until steps are taken to limit global warming. Colleges should be occupied by their students. So factories and other workplaces.should be occupied by their workers, who should run them for the common good.

If a Democrat is elected president, with a Democratic Congress, we can expect liberals, progressives, and activists to be disappointed. The Democrats, whatever their motives, will stay within the limits of capitalism. Therefore they cannot stop climate change or improve the living conditions of working people—not under the current conditions of capitalist stagnation and decline. This disappointment will lead to greater opposition, I hope. Opposition should not be channeled into the Democratic Party (there to wither and die),nor into other electoral parties (that is, into other supports of the capitalist state). They should be directed to direct action and militant activities.

To save the humans, a different system is needed—one based on cooperation, equality, and freedom, with production for use not profit, and with radically-democratic self-management of the economy and all aspects of society. Only a few are for this now, but a radical left wing of the developing movements can be built to fight for this revolutionary goal. If we are not mesmerized by the flam-flam of the electoral system.

References

Malatesta, Errico (2019) (Davide Turcato, Ed.) (Paul Sharkey, Trans.). “Towards Anarchy”; Malatesta in America 1899—1900. The Complete Works of Errico Malatesta; Vol. IV. Chico CA: AK Press.

*written for www.Anarkismo.net

There are 69 Comments

There is nothing radical about advocating "production for use not profits".Production-industrialization-is the central problem. It is industrialization that is driving abrupt,irreversible global over heating which in turn acts as an accerlant to the Sixth Mass Extinction.Add to.all of this the Climate Paradox (see McPherson) and you have the motherlode of catastrophes.
How does Trump figure into any of this? He doesn't. He is little more than a celebrity capitalist who managed to manipulate the electoral system to his advantage. All of this should remind us of the irrelevance of electoral politics as a vehicle of social transformation.

That foos gonna join the 70s and 80s eco doom predictors in the bunk pile. Climate change is NOT leading to a sixth mass extinction, these things happen when a plant source goes away, see any of that happening? Look I'm not entirely anti-agw but there's a lot of shaled up bull shit in the popular academic assumptions.

I can't remember who and what thread but someone posted a great link showing how the climate change hysteria is really linked to changes in the nature of public funding at colleges and universities whoever you are please post it again. Eco ideology has a bad record with predictions, the end of civilization(I wish) and so-called 6th mass extinction will pad these sky is falling predictions. The future is likely to be precarious energy substitutional blade runner minus the flying cars and not quite as much Dubai like megalopia.

This narrative already looks a little stale. Rancourt appears to be mixing and matching disciplines a little too fast and furious. He's got his skepticism of media and power all muddled up with actual scientific observation. The more dramatic events like lethal heat waves, run away melting on a huge scale, record shattering fire seasons, etc. keep piling up, the less it matters whether people like Rancourt trust the establishment's narrative.

and the tide is high so I have empirical evidence of global warming and sea level rise, run to the hills!

Would you like a labcoat or something to dress this up a little? You and ziggles don't exactly make convincing scientific rationalists.

SE also doesn't believe in the immune system, if you're looking for convincing scientific evidence I wouldn't hold your breath

well I did read the article he linked. interesting to see a climate change denier apparently from the far left but it's probably being cynically deployed here as a "gotcha! he's on your team!" type of move. Thinks he's such a clever duck!

Right ziggles? I still remember when you were peddling anti-antifa hit pieces from a few years back! Remember the one about the kid who went to hardcore shows but he "believed in free markets" so his "comrades" all turned on him for not toeing the party line? But that one was set in the 90s so it's past its expiration date too. Here's a more contemporary slice of bullshit.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/gabriel-nadales-im-a-former-antifa-membe...

If only giving idiots a platform actually proved anything huh?

Pantifa is a symptom of decadent radicalism. It's the absurd view that intolerance must be matched by intolerance, there's a good piece in the greater site I link to that shows the problem of this. The simple reason to be against anti-fascism is that anti-authoritarianism is already a thing. Fascism is already covered. The reason why there needs to be a dedicated elective anti-fascist position-beyond contextual anti-paramilitary activity-is precisely what is wrong with it in that it is an umbrella ideology that anarchists have no business being associating with as it houses ideologies that when in power are every bit as bad as the fascists.

There is no false dichotomy niley, what I am speaking to is an FEATURE based flaw of cantifa not a bug. By having an unnecessary dedicated anti-elective to a specific form of authoritarian ideology is grounds for other leftarded authoritarian ideologies to crowd in WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS WITH THAT STUPID UMBRELLA IDEOLOGY.

We're not doing this. You admit you're just endlessly repeating the same crap. Not engaging.

He’s here from 4chan to redpill us.
Or maybe just another hanger-on like keating who supposedly dislikes @s yet spends a ton of time trying to ‘show them the light’

In case you haven't noticed, the time for full frontal denial is over so the schills have retreated to their last holdout where they'll keep throwing smoke bombs of skepticism until we all perish in flames or the oil companies quit signing the cheques.

There still are full frontal denialists of course(which Rancourt and the others are most certainly not) but it's either get with the elective consensus or be tagged a denialist. Gawd I'm glad the infowar nature of the internet has made this harder to push through then HIV/AIDS more then a generation ago which has had disastrous affects on human sexuality on the part of being FUCKING WRONG!

There's at least some push back here which I'm glad to see. When I'm board off my ass into some cybernetic hellhole as an older man I can at least look back and laugh at how wrong all you alarmist idiots were on this issue just like the last round of loser catastrophe prone ecologists from the late 20th century.

*rolls eyes so hard, levitates and floats away*

I ENTERTAIN something more plausible then the bullshit germ theory packaged immune system hypothesis that gives us retardation like HIV/AIDS theory. Here's a good alternative hypothesis to what an anti-pathogenic system actually is: https://www.morphostasis.org.uk/

And a little child shall lead them. I dreamed about high water recently like a tsunami so there may be something to this climate change business. I'll just get on board with it, I don't want to die.

I mean it's not as if rational models of prediction EVER get things wrong in the face of actual emergent developments(hint Rancourt gave an example where that did happen) It's not as if ecologists are no better then Alex Jones as far as their catastrophic predictions go. It's also not as if actual non-artificial living systems adapt and change in ways that a theoretical model cannot account for.

Quite frankly C02 sounds like the HIV trumped up cause of our day. There's another great post that throws a lot of shade on the theoretical efficacy of the greenhouse theory. https://culturalanalysis.net/2019/01/14/the-zeller-nikolov-climate-contr...

Between the article and some of the commenters the C02 reductionist hypothesis don't look so good.

When you think about it, Trump is a snowflake compared to the Bush/Cheney duo.

No, when you think about it, Trump is not a "snowflake compared to the Bush/Cheney duo." I doubt that Bush would have perpetrated the horrors at the US's southern border. Bush did start wars, although not quite as genocidal as the one in Yemen. He was no climate hero, but he did not work as hard as possible to increase global warming. And so on. Yes, he was pretty bad, but there has never been an administration as bad as this one, in every area.

So it turns out that Sir Einzige its a climate denier! That is, he has enlisted with the enemies of humanity and the earth. I may get around to reading the paper he recommends, but perhaps I will wait for his recommendation of a paper demonstrating that the earth is flat (and rests on the backs of four elephants who stand on a giant turtle).

His buddy troll LeWay is also, but his absurdities were deleted along with a Dennis Miller standup Global Warming denial link which WASN'T funny, Sayin its volcanos and human deforestation and population, not fossil fuels and global warming, which is the problem.
There are some aspects to both their theories, but they neither admit compromise and crossover in data analysis.

my conspiracy theory is both leeway and sirmazinger are the same dude or disembodied demon or whatever they're called

The end of world and society civilization predictions are simply ridiculous and not taking into account that artificial systems and natural systems change and adapt. There's already some data out of Australia that parts of the Great Barrier Reef seem to be adapting to warming temperatures for instance. As you said there will be trade offs good and bad. One of the potentially good things that will come out of coastal flooding(and that all but will happen) is that rewilding those areas would be part of a natural strategy to stem flooding. Bad news for of means property owners good news for renewed habitat and HABITAT is would ecological movements should be centered on not this warming nonsense which is just part of 21st century tax and spend scheme quite frankly.

Things like pop reduction and non harmful consumption along with conservation and restoration are the perennial things that matter beyond the current noise. Redeveloping some non artificial surrogate activities would go a long way in helping things. I'm not interested in a world societal program that should clutters the world with machinological greenery(think dying birds and windmails). Wayne Price says that I'm with the enemies of humanity, but with friends like Wayne Price greater life doesn't need enemies.

It's interesting the recall that Charles Fourier apparently thought that polar melting would bring about a paradise for humanity. I'm not sure that he's right but we'll see if reality matches his mythology. The age of Aquarius is all but here and while it's not supposed to be paradise it will be challenging.

Good to know you foot soldier for that anthropocentric concept. I'd urge you to read the Rancourt link and make the connections for yourself(they're obvious if you're not retarded).

As for Douchebag Donald, Donald is more Berlusconi less Mussolini, he's not anything marginally worse then all the other post-Eisenhower presidents. Yes he's doing some horrendous domestic things(which if you were paying attention were already set in motion by Mulatto Prez) but on the foreign side of things it's a bit more interesting. There is nothing existential he's done that's on the same level as the patriot act for instance. He's also done things in criminal justice reform directions that I'm not convinced other dem presidents or would be presidents(like that Jamaican Bitch for whom I would rather a final 4 years of this fooh then 8 potential years of her) would have done. On the whole he's another murderous USian leviathan leader bad for brown migrants yes, but Obama was worse then Bush in that regard. He's not the Sauron that you and other hysterical leftist claim he is at least in comparison to typical US presidents. He just does things that offend certain fundamentalist 1968 values of which I am not one of the offended because I am a niche derivative of that age and I look at the bigger picture unlike the woke IDPol non radical clowns. As long as the porn and the drugs are still flowing or the fact that you can off grid anytime stop worrying about some senile president.

Sir Z. denies that climate change is coming or, at least, it won't be too bad, it's just "climate change hysteria" which " is really linked to changes in the nature of public funding at colleges and universities", and may even improve things. That's what he writes. One poster claims that Le Way also is a climate denier. In his response, Le Way does not bother to refute this odious charge but goes off on why my politics are bad.

Z does not think that Trump is particularly worse than previous presidents (including the "Mulattto Prez", an ugly expression). He does not see, as is obvious, that Trump is something new and different and that he represents a new and different level of decline in US industrial capitalism.

I knew you two held crackpot ideas and expressed them in gibberish, but this is really beyond all reasonable boundaries. You have chosen to stand with the destroyers of the biological world. Most of us on this site have chosen the other side.

Wow, that's a bit harsh on alternative views and diversity of choice. What type of anthropocentric uniformity do you have in mind Wayne?

I don't completely agree with everything these egoists say, but you make your cause sound like a socialist jihad in comparison to their informal deconstructed societal theories.

geez us sireinzige really comes off as a super duper ideologue sometimes.

I don’t do elective positions or proposed solutions. I don’t make a big deal about Trump the way an ideologue does and overall have a cynical don’t worry be happy approach to life.

Also those who want anarchy undiluted of elective noise are not ideologues.

A couple of posters wrote in that I was too harsh on Sir Einzige and Le Way. Thie issue for me is climate denial.

I am sure that there are anarchists who have been influenced by the insights of Stirner (which I don't deny) but do not deny that society is facing a climate-ecological catastrophe. Anti-civilizationist/ neo-primitivists are usually well-aware that such a disaster is facing society. My disagreement with them is over the causes and cures. Unlike the very first commenter on this string, I do not believe that ".Production-industrialization-is the central problem." On the contrary, the central problem is capitalism with its drive toward accumulation, unlimited growth, and expansion of profits--which causes it to develop and organize machines, tools, and industrialization in general in an anti-ecological, anti-human, fashion. But my point is that I disagree with these views but do not condemn their holders. Similarly, unlike some,I have never denied that those who share my anti-authoritarian goals are anarchists, even when I disagree with their programs.

But I draw some lines. For example, "anarcho-capitalists" or the so-called "national anarchists," that is, fascists. And while I have some things in common with libertarian Marxists, I have nothing in common with Stalinists (including orthodox Trotskyists).

None of these apply in this case, but I also draw the line at climate deniers. It has been estimated that the world faces about 12 years until global warming is irreversible. Not that this is necessarily the end of humans and our fellow creatures, but it certainly puts us on that road. I have no sympathy for so-called anarchists who openly deny that this is happening and tell us not to worry about it, They hold back the struggle. They discredit anarchism and socialism. They endanger humanity. So forgive me, but I feel strongly about this and speak harshly.

Hey Wayne, maybe it's worth mentioning that sirziggy has been misrepresenting what I said back at the beginning of this topic too. He's pretending (or confused) that I was talking about C02 and that I didn't understand Rancourt's point but in reality, I was merely making a point similar to yours in your last paragraph, if slightly less melodramatic.

We are currently late in the game, regardless of any other data about climate change: the fix was in, back in the 80s regarding the oil companies and their elaborate propaganda campaign that spanned the baby boomer's lifetime. They planned to deceive approximately 1 or 2 generations because they thought they might get away with it and now they're out of time. This was their plan! Do I have to bother sourcing those internal documents from BP back in the 80s? No. Everyone knows this shit by now if you've been paying attention.

SO! If you're still bickering about it at this stage of the game, you're only helping them get another 5 to 10 years out of The Big Lie.

Rancourt appears to be busily condemning how large scale information campaigns work and to that, I would say it's a different topic and unfortunately it doesn't fucking matter anymore. We have much bigger problems, those of us who will still be alive in 30 years.

Is primarily fueled(pun) by contemporary modern surrogate activities. Oil companies are simply doing what any self preserving market does. In regards to what will happen @2048 and beyond, who knows, I don't make a hard categorical claim either way. I have a hunch though that by the end of the 21st century, baring an energy contraction which is certainly possible, we will probably be in a cybernated civilization that manages whatever climate problems have come.

In terms of Rancourt's case it does make the science questionable due to the neo-liberal common colluding interests which are just as crude(ha) as the older capitalist modeled oil companies. Wayne is completely hooked on elective corrective science and humanist hubris to think about these things cynically or at least more critically.

Newbie here, it seems to me that this Wayne guy is in denial of the fact that the production of alternative energy infrastructure requires fossil fuels in its manufacture. Plastics, freight and tooling are all derivatives of petroleum.
As you say, civilizations will reach the point of managing climate, all is not doom and gloom.

It makes me think of that Kazcynski meme where he is frowning at the green machine energy pics and smiling at the rusted cars with wild green growth around them. What Wayne ascribes to captialism also applies to his leftist use value capital and his humanist civilized order as a whole.

The wilder card then climate is energy fuel depletion and the fact that THAT is not talked about on a mainstream level tells you all you need to know about the C02 scheme.

That's just another stupid strawman argument… "anon" who just so happened to stop by and comment in tandem with ziggles … painfully obvious dude.

psh, lol. i gotta back up senileoldtroll.
we can’t be bothered to call out this move everytime you do it, and i can’t check your ip or whatever to confirm, but the move is pretty obvious and everyone can see it from miles away

or am i senileoldtroll commenting as anon?

or some other paranoid thing, get creative ; )

Anon 02:37 here, I'm happy for thecollective to verify that I am not this Sir Einziege guy, I haven't actually seen everyone saying its obvious, and it probably is senileoldtroll i.e. you, who is also anon. Why wouls Sir Einziege be alone, there are many ppl who share his views.
Have you some personal axe to grind with this guy, you seem malicious and there are many trolls out there.

My problem is I've watched these astroturf campaigns for years now and BUT PLASTIC IS MADE FROM OIL!!! is one of the older, lamer examples of cheap rhetoric on display

JZ says plastic is made from oil. But what's that gotta do with Trump. If he messes with Iran, which he can't afford to, oil supplies will suffer, plastic production will decrease, global temperatures will become cooler.

Also, you gloom and doom evangelistic green neo-liberals with your Nostradammit "We're all gonna die in 30 years" prophecies break me up.

Actually I'm just excited about when the cops stop getting their paycheques, know what I mean? ;)

You know nobody is seriously arguing the sky will fall in 30 years, right? The real argument is that modern capitalism will have a harder and harder time maintaining any semblance of "normal" with climate change related disruptions to the food and transport systems. Those who get paid to protect the rich won't be lacking for work until the situation deteriorates like, a lot!

^This reply was directed at anon, not anon. Not be confused with "anon". Clear enough? Good.

Oh, so all those living above the Arctic circle are suddenly going to be able to frolic in pastureland and graze animals where before they were snowed in and using alot of fossil fuels to keep warm. Now they'll have extra expendable income to by motor vehicles and have bbqs and consume more commodities. Wow, this argument goes round and ròund because you and Wayne cannot grasp the main fact that 7 billion ppl all use about 20 kgs of oxygen everyday and expell 30 kgs of carbon dioxide everyday, AND THAT'S SITTING STILL AND JUST BREATHING. And that's not counting using vehicles and consumption of foods and commodities.
The eskimos are gonna love it.

Nobody said any of that. You're STILL just attacking a strawman … thecollective deleted my meaner reply here which is fine but you really don't deserve anything but mockery for this nonsense.

Anon 02:37 back yet again.
I'd moved on after deciding not to reply to your malicious comment and then, lo and behold, you're still at it, flogging a dead horse, your gloomy argument.
At least thecollective saw reason, it has given me some faith, and though I am a newbie, I may just stick around a bit longer.
----Anon 237

"The real argument is that modern capitalism will have a harder and harder time maintaining any semblance of "normal" with climate change related disruptions to the food and transport systems."

As long as there's lazy and greedy tech like cars, as well as the whole infrastructure to support it, capitalism still can pretend being the Nanny State of its sheeple of ignorant, brutish drug and cash addicts.As long as cars are running and the roads are in okay condition... they'll feel right about their own lives, separated from the natural environment. It's a bubble world. The question ain't what will bring it down, but rather burst its many bubbles.

The collapse won't happen. The rats will do anything in their power to keep that boat floating, as fleeing to space still ain't an option.

But you still COULD manage to burst their bubbles, I guess...

That's what I said. "As long as" being the operative portion of your ramble.

Sir Z: we will probably be in a cybernated civilization that manages whatever climate problems have come.
Newbie: civilizations will reach the point of managing climate, all is not doom and gloom.
Anon: you gloom and doom evangelistic green neo-liberals with your Nostradammit "We're all gonna die in 30 years" prophecies break me up.

This kind of ignorant stuff is the problem. No reasoned argument is made. Thanks to senileoldtroll for arguing for my point. The issue is what Luxemburg called "socialism or barbarism" or Bookchin's "anarchism or annihilation." It isn't a joke but the most serious thing in the world.

I use manic laughter to cope too! Up top!

*awkwardly awaits a high five forever*

The world isn't gonna end oldstupidtroll, you are, face it, all life ends, get over it and enjoy what you have here now, create joy, rather than introducing ressentiment into everything.

Is that the modern capitalism of today will adjust and change(perhaps into something else entirely)for tomorrow. Again, artificial systems change and adapt as do natural systems. This is the basic blow to their silly end of days argument. IF peak oil and resource depletion and structural systems collapse becomes a real thing then the climate may well become a complication(as will population which is currently under control) but that will be due primarily to the resource situation NOT climate change. They are basically making the same mistakes as the Malthusian population doom and gloomers in their analysis past.

They are really depressing to be stuck in a room with, make me wanna scream and kick chairs and tables over and make them cringe just to see some emotion from them, hah, but I'm not the tantrum throwing type like them activists, with their long faces, I'm a gentleman!

If it's the climate catastrophe that you keep projecting then my basic point against it is that artificial systems change and adapt and so do natural systems. It's really that simple. That doesn't mean that there won't be a collapsing or extinctual feedback loop but to be presumptuous that there will be is skyisfall talk.

We've been in barbarism for 10000 years, deal with it already and stop dreaming that your leftist humanist organized anarchist scheme will right the ship of civilization. Barbarism is a feature and not a bug. The best thing that could happen would be a catabolic contraction of modern soon-to-be cybernetic civilization toward a plurality of human contexts good and bad. Me, I'd like to see Mad Max like appropriated technology and machinology with percacultural forest horticultural greenery myself. There would be hierarchical hotzones but there would also be anarchic ones as well.

I will like more ocean living ppl, with the rising sealevel cleansing the coast of the toxic mercantile populations and their submerged infrastructure becoming thriving nursery grounds for marine life, I can see a renaissance of a Polynesian-esque nomadic and decentralized existence over a greater tropical coastal global environment.

Excellent essay, one to follow. Relieved to know that realists can still be heard and are trying to warn of the giant fraud being perpetrated by the plutocrats, and that we are not alone in exposing their false prophecies.

Add new comment