In conversation with him a few weeks ago, Noam Chomsky predicted 1) that it was quite likely that we would have a Trump presidency and 2) “the left” would play a small but significant role in making it happen.
If it does materialize, these remarks from economist Michael Hudson will be seen as indicative of the kinds of attitudes which were decisive in bringing it about.
“So this is really the class war. And it’s the class war of Wall Street and the corporate sector of the Democratic side against Trump on the populist side. And who knows whether he really means what he says when he says he’s for the workers and he wants to rebuild the cities, put labor back to work. And when he says he’s for the blacks and Hispanics have to get jobs just like white people, maybe he’s telling the truth, because that certainly is the way that the country can be rebuilt in a positive way.”
Hudson forgot to mention that Trump will make the trains run on time. Also his commitment to “safeguard(ing) the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe.” (Irony impaired individuals are requested to please click here.)
Given this likelihood, it’s reasonable to start thinking about the kinds of challenges we will face under a Trump administration in continuing to build the left insurgency which the Sanders campaign provided the foundation for.
But I won’t have anything to say about these except to note that they will almost certainly be extreme.
Rather, the point I want to make is that many of those who take Hudson’s line won’t care. That’s because they were hostile to the Sanders campaign from the beginning loudly demanding that the left refuse to support it in any way.
So it stands to reason that they would welcome a Trump administration as it would constitute an obstacle to the post Sanders mobilization getting its footing. The most deluded of them see its failure as clearing the field for the eventual triumph of their own preferred sect, whether it is the Greens, the ISO or some other equally obscure post-Marxist formation.
It hardly needs to be mentioned that if hell does freeze over, and some ultra left forces manage to become even marginally effective, Trump will very quickly crush them with as much force as he will apply to remnants of the Sanders’s campaign.
But given that their contact with reality is at best sporadic and at worst non-existent, the ultra-left can blissfully inhabit a fantasy world where Sanders’s loss is their gain.
And they can join Hudson in reveling in a Trump victory along with “a reversal of the traditional Republican fiscal responsibility austerity policy. . . (a) policy to employ American labor and put it back to work on infrastructure. . . . to reinstate Glass-Steagall, whereas the Clintons were the people that got rid of it. And he can now fight for the population fighting against Wall Street, just as he’s been able to stiff the banks.”
For Hudson and his lunatic followers (which now includes McKinsey alumna Yves Smith of the Naked Capitalism blog), it will be “almost hilarious to see what happens.”