Politics at all levels, by all means
From Freedom News by Jonathan Eibisch
A fascist in the White House, and the ‘traffic lights’ go out in Germany
The promised turning point is clearly coming much louder than many would have expected. Why do anarchists care who is in government, one might ask. In fact, the ruling order remains the same precisely because of the replacement of its political decision-makers. One thing is clear: the neoliberal-technocratic model of government is being replaced by the protectionist-nationalist model in this phase. And ironically, both are still sides of the same coin.
Democrats need not be surprised why fascists are taking over the bastions of political power one after the other: social security has been systematically dismantled since the turn of the millennium, public infrastructure has been left to rot, corrupt super-rich people have not been kept in check, and political rights have been restricted. It is correct to say that the protectionist-nationalist model of government is not fascist in itself. However, as a counter-revolutionary avant-garde, fascism plays the role of an integrating element in the reactionary and aggressive project of securing power.
Meanwhile in the Federal Republic of Germany, since it was switched on, the ‘traffic lights government’ has been attacked by conservatives. What initially made some people want change increasingly seemed like an imposition for other parts of the population. Despite different population compositions and narratives, the core issues of the formation of camps in North America and Europe are the same: the lines of conflict run along economic models, the handling of migration and cultural issues. Even if state and federal politics are two different things, this applies to both levels. This is creating new constellations, while the camp of supporters of a socially equal, liberal democracy is becoming increasingly smaller and moving closer together.
The Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance would have liked to become a stepping stone for the future state government – but wanted to take on this role only on its own terms. As far as the federal government was concerned, the issue was ostensibly the insoluble controversy over economic policy, in which Christian Lindner stuck to the neoliberal dogma of not taking on any more national debt – as if the state were not sovereign over money itself. There were probably many other issues in the background. Above all, however, the FDP wanted to save its ass in order to distance itself from the red-green coalition before the regular election date next autumn. This strategy may also lead it to insignificance, but nothing ventured, nothing gained.
A lot of it was used in the USA too: enormous sums of money, overreaching campaigners’ involvement, celebrity appearances and propaganda battles on social media – which experience shows are not unaffected by some foreign interests. None of this helped Kamala Harris. Although it seemed like a smart move to bring her into the field when Uncle Biden mentally abdicated, the Democratic Party failed to appeal to those large sections of the population that were now miles away from them: white men with a low level of education. Nevertheless, Trump was elected in a wide variety of countries, by a wide variety of groups. The reasons for this are complex, or at least multiple. But you can only understand Trump’s voters and his electoral success if you understand a collective rationality in voting decisions when they occur en masse. This consists in the fact that the fronts should be clarified, prosperity defended and things finally get back to “normal”.
In all cases, a considerable number of citizens are clearly demanding that politics be made again. They are looking for points of friction, want to identify the enemy, strive for power and ultimately question the system. Where there is sawing, there are chips.
The political landscape continues to change rapidly – but what are the anarchists doing? First of all, they would do well not to allow themselves to be carried away by the political spectacle. It is precisely the superficiality of the bourgeois democrats that leads to their chronic misunderstanding of neo-fascism, as well as to the ignorance and suppression of social movements. But then it would be important to establish themselves as a conscious, active factor with a shared vision.
Broken down, this means that you need a toolbox for flexible, low-hierarchy, autonomous and federated groups, a common value base and culture, and a shared set of basic theoretical assumptions. This does not mean forcing all anarchists into a unified organisation with a clear program and leadership structures. In my opinion, it means organising in the first place.
Instead, in the broad left-wing scene you encounter an unconscious, comfortable bunch of scattered and insecure individuals who talk at the same time, do not think in the long term or in terms of goals that can be achieved. It is a pitiful game that I will address elsewhere. The political upheavals in particular should motivate reorganisation. Anyone who is still running around like a bunch of cackling chickens has not heard the shot.
