Do you really mean this?

2 posts / 0 new
Last post
Do you really mean this?
Printer-friendly version

In the last report, it is said:

> Secondly, Trump's election result shows that about half of the population shares his ideas and in particular his aversion to political elites.

Do you really mean this when you say it, or is just that the bourgeoise press hammering this kind of "deductions" day and night are succeeding?

First of all, only 239 million were eligible to vote, from a population of 328. That's 72.87% of the population. The turnover was 66.1%, which means only a 48% of the population voted. And from those, a 46.8% voted for Trump. Which brings us to a 22.46% of the population having voted for Trump, a far cry from "about half".

Second, and much more importantly, since when are democratic elections a faithful reflection of "what the population thinks"? Even many democracy apologists know very well that that's utterly false, and that there are many factors in play other than "sharing ideas", which likely is far from the main factor.

Can election results give an idea of current tendencies? Yes, that can't be objected to. Do election results show "the ideas of the population"? Only in the minds of the naive... And in propaganda.

It's in bourgeoise propaganda where I have met this idea once and again, very particularly in this case of "oh noes, half the US population agrees with Trump". Has this slogan inadvertently gotten into the article? Or the ICC really means what it's saying there?

As an aside, I would also like to know what those ideas are supposed to be, because apart from the hatred towards a certain specific wing of the bourgeoise (the "elites"), protectionism and blunt nationalism (as opposed to the more refined nationalism of his opponents), I don't see many ideological differences that would make worse if "half the population" supported his ideas instead of his opponents'. Yes, the attitude and ways of talking are very different, but the rest? Not so much. The famous wall was already started in the Obama era, the "kids in cages" about which the democratic party used to shed their crocodile tears six months ago are still there, and the most substantial differences are in exterior policy (that is, they differ in what they do to try ensure the preservation of US supremacy).

I just don't really understand why this specific bourgeoise leader would deserve constant extra condemnation, and I think that's playing right into the hands of leftist and not-even-leftist propaganda.

Compare that reasoning about

Compare that reasoning about elections showing what "the population" (most of them, workers) thinks with this article from four years ago:


May 1968, the largest strike since the Second World War, was followed a month later by the greatest ever electoral victory for the right in France. The reason for this discrepancy resides in the fact that the election of a deputy exists in a totally different sphere from that of the class struggle. The latter is a collective action of solidarity, where the worker is alongside other workers, where the hesitations of one are swept up by the resolution of the others, where the interests in question are not particular, but those of a class. In contrast, the vote calls on a totally abstract notion, quite outside of the reality of a permanent relation of force between two social classes with diametrically opposed interests: the notion of the “citizen”, who finds himself alone in the voting booth faced with a choice for something outside his daily life. It is the ideal terrain for the bourgeoisie, where the worker’s militancy has no possibility to really show itself. It is no accident that the bourgeoisie makes such efforts to get us to vote. The electoral results are precisely the terrain where the combativity of the mass of workers cannot be expressed at all.

To me, it's quite evident that the unfortunate phrase about the US election results and what that reasoning implies is in contradiction with what the ICC says and has always said about democracy. That's why, if that's how it is, I think it's very important to know how and why did that piece of bourgeoise propaganda end up there, in a report that is (very likely) a collective effort.