The Eighteenth Brumaire Of Donald Trump:
If you haven’t read Marx’s “18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte,” now is the time! The full text is available here: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/index.htm
Donald Trump looks certain to get the Republican nomination for president, and there is a great deal to learn about this current moment in our politics through Marx’s analysis of the French political situation in 1851-1852. This is due not so much because of a parallel resemblance in events then and now so much as how the deeper analysis of forces undertaken by Marx applies in important ways to the dynamics of the United States in 2016. See, for example, this incredible closing section to the piece:
“Driven by the contradictory demands of his situation, and being at the same time, like a juggler, under the necessity of keeping the public gaze on himself, as Napoleon’s successor, by springing constant surprises – that is to say, under the necessity of arranging a coup d’état in miniature every day – Bonaparte throws the whole bourgeois economy into confusion, violates everything that seemed inviolable to the Revolution of 1848, makes some tolerant of revolution and makes others lust for it, and produces anarchy in the name of order, while at the same time stripping the entire state machinery of its halo, profaning it and making it at once loathsome and ridiculous.”
Now that is something that seems to apply basically word-for-word to Trump! Or, how about this passage from the first chapter:
“The constitution, the National Assembly, the dynastic parties, the blue and red republicans, the heroes of Africa, the thunder from the platform, the sheet lightning of the daily press, the entire literature, the political names and the intellectual reputations, the civil law and the penal code, liberté, egalité, fraternité, and the second Sunday in May, 1852 – all have vanished like a phantasmagoria before the spell of a man whom even his enemies do not make out to be a sorcerer. Universal suffrage seems to have survived only for the moment, so that with its own hand it may make its last will and testament before the eyes of all the world and declare in the name of the people itself: ‘All that exists deserves to perish.’”
Perhaps a bit dire in its outlook, but nonetheless this strikes to the heart of some of the larger issues surrounding the rise of Trump that are not so specific to the man. One could do worse than begin to understand the electoral contests for party power of the United States through the lens Marx provides us on mid-19th Century France in Chapter 2:
“After having founded a republic for the bourgeoisie, driven the revolutionary proletariat out of the field, and reduced the democratic petty bourgeoisie to silence for the time being, they are themselves thrust aside by the mass of the bourgeoisie, which justly impounds this republic as its property. This bourgeois mass was, however, royalist. One section of it, the large landowners, had ruled during the Restoration and was accordingly Legitimist. The other, the aristocrats of finance and big industrialists, had ruled during the July Monarchy and was consequently Orleanist. The high dignitaries of the army, the university, the church, the bar, the academy, and the press were to be found on either side, though in various proportions. Here, in the bourgeois republic, which bore neither the name Bourbon nor the name Orleans, but the name capital, they had found the form of state in which they could rule conjointly.”
And for those of us who, like myself, support Bernie Sanders and find ourselves in the semi-class Marx called the “petty bourgeoisie,” we might pay close attention to this passage from Chapter 3:
“The peculiar character of social-democracy is epitomized in the fact that democratic-republican institutions are demanded as a means, not of doing away with two extremes, capital and wage labor, but of weakening their antagonism and transforming it into harmony. However different the means proposed for the attainment of this end may be, however much it may be trimmed with more or less revolutionary notions, the content remains the same. This content is the transformation of society in a democratic way, but a transformation within the bounds of the petty bourgeoisie. Only one must not get the narrow-minded notion that the petty bourgeoisie, on principle, wishes to enforce an egoistic class interest. Rather, it believes that the special conditions of its emancipation are the general conditions within whose frame alone modern society can be saved and the class struggle avoided. Just as little must one imagine that the democratic representatives are indeed all shopkeepers or enthusiastic champions of shopkeepers. According to their education and their individual position they may be as far apart as heaven and earth. What makes them representatives of the petty bourgeoisie is the fact that in their minds they do not get beyond the limits which the latter do not get beyond in life, that they are consequently driven, theoretically, to the same problems and solutions to which material interest and social position drive the latter practically. This is, in general, the relationship between the political and literary representatives of a class and the class they represent.”
What about Trump’s supporters? Tens of thousands of think-pieces have fluttered over the internet and flickered on our retinas over the past nine months, but Marx’s description of Bonaparte’s base in Chapter 7 still resonates as long as the terms of his day are substituted for those of our own--with race absolutely crucial to the American historical context:
“Insofar as there is merely a local interconnection among these small-holding peasants, and the identity of their interests forms no community, no national bond, and no political organization among them, they do not constitute a class. They are therefore incapable of asserting their class interest in their own name, whether through a parliament or a convention. They cannot represent themselves, they must be represented. Their representative must at the same time appear as their master, as an authority over them, an unlimited governmental power which protects them from the other classes and sends them rain and sunshine from above. The political influence of the small-holding peasants, therefore, finds its final expression in the executive power which subordinates society to itself.”
And Trump’s own rhetoric certainly resonates with this depiction of Bonaparte:
“Bonaparte would like to appear as the patriarchal benefactor of all classes. But he cannot give to one without taking from another. Just as it was said of the Duke de Guise in the time of the Fronde that he was the most obliging man in France because he gave all his estates to his followers, with feudal obligations to him, so Bonaparte would like to be the most obliging man in France and turn all the property and all the labor of France into a personal obligation to himself. He would like to steal all of France in order to make a present of it to France, or rather in order to buy France anew with French money, for as the Chief of the Society of December 10 he must buy what ought to belong to him.”
Despite all of these resonances across 164 years, whereas Marx wrote that “[o]bviously the bourgeoisie now had no choice but to elect Bonaparte,” I would argue that this year obviously the bourgeoisie now has no choice but to elect Hillary Clinton--not Donald Trump. This, it would seem, is a significant difference between the dynamics of Marx’s day and our own, and we should probably think about why it would be Clinton who would be of greater value to the powers of the ruling class than Trump. And further consider why it is that the candidate preferred by the ruling class would also be one who seems to be clearly better for “us” than that quasi-fascist Donald Trump. I definitely prefer Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump, although it is very likely that I will support Jill Stein in the general election. Still, I’m not so sure that I’m willing to say that this is a result of “progress” so much as a fundamentally different constitution of global power requiring us to look beyond the borders of the United States in order to understand what’s really going on.