Re: Trump organizing legal version of January 6th

--4fZWxNMazXSgL74le1ov
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Subject: Re: Trump organizing a legal January 6th=E2=80=94the premise Reima=
nn and Gandall share
Some time ago, Michael Kowalski asked John Reimann what he thinks we should=
 do, but John never responded. The way the debate is structured makes it ha=
rd to reach an answer. John and Marv are debating numbers, but numbers alon=
e can't resolve a strategic question.
Marv has mentioned in other conversations with me and others that he has th=
ought a lot about Bonapartism. I want to get right to where I think the dis=
cussion has gone off track, and it's not just one person's responsibility.
Both John and Marv treat government independence as something you can measu=
re, as if either the capitalist class or the Bonapartes control it. John sa=
ys that "under Bonapartism, the capitalist class loses its control over the=
 Bonapartist," that we aren't "all the way there yet," and that overturning=
 November would be a big step in that direction. Marv responds that the Sup=
reme Court "remains firmly under the control of the capitalist class" and p=
oints to its rulings against DEI hiring, the NLRB and OSHA, dues check-off,=
 workplace access, and its approval of DOGE's mass firings and union liabil=
ity for strike damage. Marv=E2=80=99s evidence is strong and well organized=
. However, it doesn't really prove his point, because it answers a question=
 John shouldn't have asked in the first place.
Relative autonomy is not about how much capital has lost. It is a structura=
l feature of the capitalist state, which lets the state serve capital as a =
whole by not answering to specific capitalists. A state that is fully contr=
olled by one group is actually a weaker tool for class rule, not a stronger=
 one. So, the fact that the Court's decisions benefit employers does not te=
ll us anything about the type of rule behind those decisions. Marx's Bonapa=
rte protected bourgeois property while taking political power from the bour=
geoisie; that was the point of the Eighteenth Brumaire, not a flaw in it. M=
arx's examples fit with Bonapartist consolidation. Counting who benefits ca=
nnot tell us whether a state serves capital through parliament or by decree=
.
John's mistake is similar, and for this discussion, it matters even more. H=
e bases his argument on a single future event. If Bonapartism is a way of r=
uling, not just a line to cross, then November is not what would make it ha=
ppen. Rule by executive order, replacing legal rules with personal loyalty =
in the officer corps and the DOJ, and turning pardons and prosecutions into=
 tools for favors and punishment are already happening. John has been gathe=
ring the right facts but putting them under a label that delays their meani=
ng until election night. That delay is a kind of passivity, which is strang=
e in a post that criticizes others for being passive.
Here is what both sides miss. John points out "the tens of millions of doll=
ars the capitalist class has been forced to pay Trump=E2=80=94pure extortio=
n" and sees it as proof that capital has lost control. Marv dismisses it as=
 business within the class, already covered by the press. Both miss the rea=
l issue. Tribute is not simply a scandal or a symptom; it denotes a change =
in how the system works. The office becomes personal property, bureaucracy =
starts to look like household staff, and appointments and prosecutions are =
handed out as personal favors instead of official duties. This is a Weberia=
n idea that is separate from the autonomy question, and it shows why asking=
 "how much control does capital retain" cannot answer everything. The syste=
m can be more useful to capital in what it does, but less bourgeois in its =
structure. The extortion works because the office has become something a pe=
rson can sell.
Marv=E2=80=99s strongest point is that we still use the term "Bonapartism" =
only because Marx did not live long enough to describe modern fascism. But =
that idea needs a real argument, not just a mention. What makes fascism dif=
ferent is not just its extremism, but how it creates a fighting force outsi=
de the state=E2=80=94a mobilized petty-bourgeois group that is organized se=
parately and then brought into the state, destroying the workers=E2=80=99 m=
ovement first. Trumpism is focused on winning votes, but it does not do tha=
t. It works through the current government and a party it controls, not by =
building a separate force. This is not meant to be reassuring. It is an imp=
ortant difference that determines strategy, which is the main reason to dis=
cuss it: a regime that rules through the state and elections is vulnerable =
in different ways than one that has already destroyed our organizations in =
the streets. The DSA could be important if it gets past the ultra-left and =
union leaders. Marv ends by supporting Democrats unless there=E2=80=99s a b=
etter left option and sees socialists as part of the DSA. So the pessimist =
and the skeptic both land in the same spot. Joseph Green=E2=80=99s claim of=
 "complacency to the hilt" is about their analysis, not what they actually =
do, because their actions are basically the same. That=E2=80=99s why six po=
sts arguing about chances haven=E2=80=99t answered Kowalski=E2=80=99s quest=
ion.
The real issue in this debate is how Marv frames it: either you support the=
 Democrats, or you are basically not involved in politics. Charles cites th=
e KKE as an example, but it does not really fit=E2=80=94a party with five p=
ercent that refuses to join a united front is not a great model. Still, Mar=
v=E2=80=99s framing is wrong, and not because of whether we run candidates.=
 Independent working-class politics is not the same as abstaining. It means=
 building organizations that can act no matter who is in charge: workplace =
groups that can stop production, tenant and immigrant groups that can block=
 enforcement, and a political voice that answers to these groups, not just =
to a ballot line borrowed from another class.
This is also the answer to Kowalski, and it shows why the diagnosis matters=
. If stopping authoritarianism depends on the court, the officer corps, or =
a democratic House, then all we can do is hope, vote, and talk about the od=
ds. But none of those will actually stop it. Lawsuits will not stop the ICE=
 presence at polling places that John mentions; it will only be stopped, if=
 at all, by people who are organized in their communities and ready to act.=
 That work does not depend on what happens in November, which is exactly wh=
y we should not wait.
Comrades

Tony
--
Tony


-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#42743): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/42743
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/120549500/6024700
-=3D-=3D-
POSTING RULES & NOTES
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
#4 Do not exceed five posts a day.
-=3D-=3D-
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/10173629/6024700/1441833971=
/xyzzy [[email protected]]
-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-



--4fZWxNMazXSgL74le1ov
Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div>
<div style=3D"text-align: left; margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><=
span style=3D"font-weight: bold;">Subject: Re: Trump organizing a legal Jan=
uary 6th&mdash;the premise Reimann and Gandall share</span></div>
<div style=3D"text-align: left; margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><=
span>Some time ago, Michael Kowalski asked John Reimann what he thinks we s=
hould do, but John never responded. The way the debate is structured makes =
it hard to reach an answer. John and Marv are debating numbers, but numbers=
 alone can't resolve a strategic question.</span></div>
<div style=3D"text-align: left; margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><=
span>Marv has mentioned in other conversations with me and others that he h=
as thought a lot about Bonapartism. I want to get right to where I think th=
e discussion has gone off track, and it's not just one person's responsibil=
ity.</span></div>
<div style=3D"text-align: left; margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><=
span>Both John and Marv treat government independence as something you can =
measure, as if either the capitalist class or the Bonapartes control it. Jo=
hn says that "under Bonapartism, the capitalist class loses its control ove=
r the Bonapartist," that we aren't "all the way there yet," and that overtu=
rning November would be a big step in that direction. Marv responds that th=
e Supreme Court "remains firmly under the control of the capitalist class" =
and points to its rulings against DEI hiring, the NLRB and OSHA, dues check=
-off, workplace access, and its approval of DOGE's mass firings and union l=
iability for strike damage. Marv&rsquo;s evidence is strong and well organi=
zed. However, it doesn't really prove his point, because it answers a quest=
ion John shouldn't have asked in the first place.</span></div>
<div style=3D"text-align: left; margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><=
span>Relative autonomy is not about how much capital has lost. It is a stru=
ctural feature of the capitalist state, which lets the state serve capital =
as a whole by not answering to specific capitalists. A state that is fully =
controlled by one group is actually a weaker tool for class rule, not a str=
onger one. So, the fact that the Court's decisions benefit employers does n=
ot tell us anything about the type of rule behind those decisions. Marx's B=
onaparte protected bourgeois property while taking political power from the=
 bourgeoisie; that was the point of the Eighteenth Brumaire, not a flaw in =
it. Marx's examples fit with Bonapartist consolidation. Counting who benefi=
ts cannot tell us whether a state serves capital through parliament or by d=
ecree.</span></div>
<div style=3D"text-align: left; margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><=
span>John's mistake is similar, and for this discussion, it matters even mo=
re. He bases his argument on a single future event. If Bonapartism is a way=
 of ruling, not just a line to cross, then November is not what would make =
it happen. Rule by executive order, replacing legal rules with personal loy=
alty in the officer corps and the DOJ, and turning pardons and prosecutions=
 into tools for favors and punishment are already happening. John has been =
gathering the right facts but putting them under a label that delays their =
meaning until election night. That delay is a kind of passivity, which is s=
trange in a post that criticizes others for being passive.</span></div>
<div style=3D"text-align: left; margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><=
span>Here is what both sides miss. John points out "the tens of millions of=
 dollars the capitalist class has been forced to pay Trump&mdash;pure extor=
tion" and sees it as proof that capital has lost control. Marv dismisses it=
 as business within the class, already covered by the press. Both miss the =
real issue. Tribute is not simply a scandal or a symptom; it denotes a chan=
ge in how the system works. The office becomes personal property, bureaucra=
cy starts to look like household staff, and appointments and prosecutions a=
re handed out as personal favors instead of official duties. This is a Webe=
rian idea that is separate from the autonomy question, and it shows why ask=
ing "how much control does capital retain" cannot answer everything. The sy=
stem can be more useful to capital in what it does, but less bourgeois in i=
ts structure. The extortion works because the office has become something a=
 person can sell.</span></div>
<div style=3D"text-align: left; margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><=
span>Marv&rsquo;s strongest point is that we still use the term "Bonapartis=
m" only because Marx did not live long enough to describe modern fascism. B=
ut that idea needs a real argument, not just a mention. What makes fascism =
different is not just its extremism, but how it creates a fighting force ou=
tside the state&mdash;a mobilized petty-bourgeois group that is organized s=
eparately and then brought into the state, destroying the workers&rsquo; mo=
vement first. Trumpism is focused on winning votes, but it does not do that=
. It works through the current government and a party it controls, not by b=
uilding a separate force. This is not meant to be reassuring. It is an impo=
rtant difference that determines strategy, which is the main reason to disc=
uss it: a regime that rules through the state and elections is vulnerable i=
n different ways than one that has already destroyed our organizations in t=
he streets. The DSA could be important if it gets past the ultra-left and u=
nion leaders. Marv ends by supporting Democrats unless there&rsquo;s a bett=
er left option and sees socialists as part of the DSA. So the pessimist and=
 the skeptic both land in the same spot. Joseph Green&rsquo;s claim of "com=
placency to the hilt" is about their analysis, not what they actually do, b=
ecause their actions are basically the same. That&rsquo;s why six posts arg=
uing about chances haven&rsquo;t answered Kowalski&rsquo;s question.</span>=
</div>
<div style=3D"text-align: left; margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><=
span>The real issue in this debate is how Marv frames it: either you suppor=
t the Democrats, or you are basically not involved in politics. Charles cit=
es the KKE as an example, but it does not really fit&mdash;a party with fiv=
e percent that refuses to join a united front is not a great model. Still, =
Marv&rsquo;s framing is wrong, and not because of whether we run candidates=
. Independent working-class politics is not the same as abstaining. It mean=
s building organizations that can act no matter who is in charge: workplace=
 groups that can stop production, tenant and immigrant groups that can bloc=
k enforcement, and a political voice that answers to these groups, not just=
 to a ballot line borrowed from another class.</span></div>
<div style=3D"text-align: left; margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><=
span>This is also the answer to Kowalski, and it shows why the diagnosis ma=
tters. If stopping authoritarianism depends on the court, the officer corps=
, or a democratic House, then all we can do is hope, vote, and talk about t=
he odds. But none of those will actually stop it. Lawsuits will not stop th=
e ICE presence at polling places that John mentions; it will only be stoppe=
d, if at all, by people who are organized in their communities and ready to=
 act. That work does not depend on what happens in November, which is exact=
ly why we should not wait.</span></div>
<div style=3D"text-align: left; margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><=
span>Comrades</span><br /><br /><span>Tony</span></div>
</div>
<div>--</div>
<div>Tony</div>


<div width=3D"1" style=3D"color:white;clear:both">_._,_._,_</div>

<hr>


Groups.io Links:<p>


 =20
    You receive all messages sent to this group.
 =20
 =20


<p>
<a target=3D"_blank" href=3D"https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/42743">Vi=
ew/Reply Online (#42743)</a> |


  <a target=3D"_blank" href=3D"mailto:[email protected]?subject=3DRe:%20Re=
%3A%20%5Bmarxmail%5D%20Trump%20organizing%20legal%20version%20of%20January%=
206th">Reply to Group</a>
 =20
    | <a target=3D"_blank" href=3D"mailto:[email protected]?subject=
=3DPrivate:%20Re:%20Re%3A%20%5Bmarxmail%5D%20Trump%20organizing%20legal%20v=
ersion%20of%20January%206th">Reply to Sender</a>
 =20

|

  <a target=3D"_blank" href=3D"https://groups.io/mt/120549500/6024700">Mute=
 This Topic</a>


| <a href=3D"https://groups.io/g/marxmail/post">New Topic</a>

<br>


<hr style=3D"width:25%;margin-right:100%">POSTING RULES &amp; NOTES<br />
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.<br />
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly &amp; permanently archived.<br />
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.<br />
#4 Do not exceed five posts a day.<hr style=3D"width:25%;margin-right:100%"=
>

<a href=3D"https://groups.io/g/marxmail/editsub/6024700">Your Subscription<=
/a> |
<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">Contact Group Owner</a> |

<a href=3D"https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/10173629/6024700/1441833971/x=
yzzy">Unsubscribe</a>

 [[email protected]]<br>
<div width=3D"1" style=3D"color:white;clear:both">_._,_._,_</div>


--4fZWxNMazXSgL74le1ov--