#assassinatetrump: “What’s Left?” January 2018, MRR #416

Assassinate the President!

GG Allin, crooner

It was spring, 1980. We were organizing a Students for Peace benefit at the Spirit Club. The Spirit Club was a dive bar’s dive bar in San Diego. SfP started at UCSD soon after Jimmy Carter reinstated draft registration in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

We booked the club for an evening early in the week and agreed to pay the bar’s minimum for the night. As I recall, we had four bands play and barely broke even. A competent ska/2-tone quartet named Fire opened with danceable beats and solid political lyrics. We’d heard they were affiliated with the ultra-Maoist Revolutionary Communist Party, more specifically its youth auxiliary, the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade. The RCP had a long history of—and an interest in—youth organizing, and they used the RCYB to cultivate young recruits as well as a street presence. It was early in the evening, the attendance was sparse, so we had time to chat with the band.

Except for the drummer, they were all working musicians with experience and again, except for the drummer, they all seemed a little too old to be called “youth.” Originally called Prairie Fire, they had played aggressive punk rock up until becoming a ska band. It was clear that both the name change and change in musical style were not due solely to personal tastes or wanting to be more commercial. Their political milieu had dictated it. Someone in SfP who had heard them before asked about a song, “Overthrow The Government,” they did in their punk incarnation. The band demurred, said they no longer played the song, and inferred that it was not in their repertoire because it was not politically correct per the RCP. We kept pestering them, shouting requests for the song between numbers, demanding they play it. After some hesitation, they relented and played a hardcore “Overthrow The Government.”

The First Amendment to the Constitution prevents government from passing laws that prohibit free speech, but no such prohibition applies to a private club, service organization, capitalist business, Leninist vanguard party, what have you. Clearly, the “right” to free speech can be limited or curtailed by the vanguard party you belong to, but no more so than if you work for your typical capitalist corporation in these United States. I remember telling an old school San Diego Leftie that our mutual friend—a member of the Maoist Communist Party, M-L, formerly called the October League—had been reassigned to a party cadre on the east coast. His take was that our mutual friend displayed party discipline and a commitment to both party building and mass organizing in making the move. I considered that our mutual friend was involved in a job relocation, an employee transfer between branch offices of a corporation, and was making a lateral career move.

And corporations can legally deny you your “right” to free speech with impunity. They can fire your ass for what you say on or off the job, make you sign non-disclosure agreements, confidentiality contracts, and codes of conduct in order to keep your ass employed, and regulate the content, manner, and timing of your speech while your ass is on the job. According to court judgments regarding labor laws, employees can legally discuss wages, hours, and working conditions, but not much else. Private workplaces are miniature totalitarian states, and the situation is little better for public employees working for the government. When speaking as private citizens, government workers may be protected so long as they are speaking out about a public concern, and speaking out doesn’t interfere with doing their job. Otherwise, no “right” to free speech. But what if the public employee is also an elected public official, or is a public employee by virtue of being elected to public office?

I hope Trump is assassinated.

Maria Chappelle-Nadal, politician

Maria Chappelle-Nadal was heavily criticized for her remarks on her Facebook post. The Secret Service investigated the Missouri Democratic State Senator, and demands were raised that she resign. The Democratic senator apologized but remained adamant and refused to resign, so the Republican-controlled Missouri Senate censured her. The vote was just shy of the two-thirds needed to remove the senator from office. Compare this to what happened to Michigan truck driver James Anthony Jackson when he said of Trump: “I am going to blow white brains out the fuck out his motherfucking head.” He was investigated by the Secret Service, who then arrested and charged Jackson for threatening to assassinate the president of the United States, which is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.

Congress may be prohibited from making any law abridging freedom of speech, but the government can certainly define what “freedom of speech” legally means. Credible threats are not considered freedom of speech, with federal, state, and local governments universally defining the use of threats of violence as the assault part of “assault and battery” laws. Similarly disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, and breach of public order are all considered crimes, not free speech. So government does have the legal right to prohibit the content of speech if it is deemed threatening and the manner of speech if it is deemed disruptive.

Even with genuine free speech, the US Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that local, state, and federal governments can reasonably regulate the time, place, and manner of individual expression. Time, place, and manner restrictions “accommodate public convenience and promote order by regulating traffic flow, preserving property interests, conserving the environment, and protecting the administration of justice,” [West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, 2nd ed.] and therefore are not considered an abridgment of freedom of speech.

#assassinatetrump

hashtag

In a time of social media and instant global digital communication however—when alt.right idiots threaten anti-fascists with “helicopter rides” and conspiracy wingnuts threaten victims of mass shootings with mayhem, rape, and murder for being “false flag” crisis actors—all of this seems moot. In fact, the “right” to free speech is not guaranteed by god, natural law, the constitution, legislation, custom, morality, or our sense of fairness. That right, any right, is guaranteed solely by our individual and collective power to deny or enforce it. Even then, the “right” to free speech doesn’t mean that anyone else has to listen to your bullshit, or host you while you share it, or shield you from criticism or consequences, or prevent you from being boycotted, your events cancelled, or banned from some internet community (to quote a popular XKCD comic). This has little to do with Karl Popper’s so-called “tolerance paradox.” The “right” to free speech is a fight for power, pure and simple.

So, consider the hashtag #assassinatetrump. Social media forces its users to participate in a bit of compulsory free speech through the system of hashtags to flag posts and tweets as part of a single meta-conversation. By using #assassinatetrump, people for or against the assassination of Trump, or people just making a point or a joke, are engaged in a de facto free speech fight. No doubt the FBI has ‘bots applying internet algorithms to search out the content behind any and all #assassinatetrump hashtags to determine whether or not they pose a threat. And be prepared for when the Secret Service breaks down the door of someone using the hashtag to actually threaten to assassinate Trump, violating all sorts of other rights and freedoms in the process. But the hashtag #assassinatetrump is a statement all by itself, simultaneously an assertion of free speech and a battle over it.

Use #assassinatetrump at your own risk.

Advertisements

Going “Full Lenin” on Free Speech: “What’s Left?” August 2016, MRR #399

Full Lenin

Poor Mexico, so far from God, so close to the United States.

Porfirio Diaz, president of Mexico

America’s founding myth is that we rose up against tyranny and oppression, fought a justified revolution for our freedoms, built a vibrant entrepreneurial economy, and established a democratic republic based on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to become a light unto humanity, a beacon of hope for the world. To use the crude vernacular, “we pulled ourselves up by our own bootstraps.” But that’s not such a grand accomplishment in the 18th century, what with muzzle-loading flintlock musket technologies on a continent isolated by nearly four thousand miles of ocean and up to three months of travel from far more powerful nations in Europe. When the historical facts about the origins of the United States are transformed into ahistorical truisms, we have a problem.

The idea that marginal English colonists—in a hemisphere substantially depopulated of natives by disease, on the periphery of a mercantilist empire transitioning from absolutism to parliamentarianism, subject to benign neglect for decades—would succeed in forming a frontier republic based on a footnote to British liberal Enlightenment politics is not surprising. What is surprising is that such a one-off political experiment could be replicated anywhere else in the world. And, in fact, it hasn’t. Even when the Allies defeated the Axis powers, reduced Germany, Japan and Italy to rubble, and forcefully remolded those nations into Western liberal democracies, they remained substantially different from the American ideal—still very traditional with far fewer freedoms and far more governmental regulation. So if the US experience cannot be repeated within the rubric of Western liberalism, what makes anybody think it can be reproduced outside that context?

Various neocon war criminals for one, but more generally the American political punditry. All of these “talking heads” believed that a country like Iraq for instance could pull itself up by its bootstraps to emulate Western liberal democracies steeped in Enlightenment values after decades of war and civil war, scores of despotic tyranny, and centuries of colonial imperialism. A quixotic pipe dream at best, and cynical bullshit at worst. The measures taken by the US—no-fly-zones, blockades, embargoes—to affect regime change against Saddam Hussein and bring about some sort of military coup or “peoples power” uprising ultimately failed, requiring the American military invasion the consequences of which we are still living with today. We’re well aware how the Iraqi effort to pull itself up by its bootstraps worked out, aren’t we. Can you say Islamic State? I knew you could.

Historically, similar sanctions regimes have rarely, if ever, succeeded in democratizing or Americanizing their intended targets. As one recent NYT headline puts it, Venezuela would rather experience “hunger, blackouts and government shutdowns” than kowtow to Yanqui imperialism. Iran remained defiant against US/UN sanctions for over 35 years until sanctions relief in 2016. Cuba held out for over 50 years against the US economic embargo before the Obama administration began normalizing diplomatic relations with the island nation. Sanctions put in place by the Nixon administration against Allende’s Chile succeeded not in democratizing that country but in fomenting a fascist coup under Pinochet. By themselves, sanctions have failed time and again to achieve their stated goals of democratic regime change, leaving intact their implied goals of disrupting, destabilizing and destroying their targets however.

Go back to the OG sanctions regime, the French cordon sanitaire. Lieutenant Commander Stanley F. Gilchrist wrote in his essay “The Cordon Sanitaire—Is It Useful? Is It Practical?”: As early as the 17th century, the French term, cordon sanitaire (sanitary zone), was used to describe the establishment of a perimeter around an area infected with contagious disease to effect a quarantine. Gradually its usage spread to connote military perimeters enclosing safe areas. Later, the system of alliances instituted by France in post-World War I Europe that stretched from Finland to the Balkans was also referred to as a cordon sanitaire. It completely ringed Germany and sealed off Russia from Western Europe, thereby isolating the two politically “diseased” nations of Europe. Germany saw the rise of Hitler and National Socialism, initiating the second World War in Europe despite the cordon sanitaire. And Russia remained Bolshevik for nearly 75 years, expanding into an international Communist bloc that ruled 1/5 of the world’s land surface and 1/3 of the world’s population despite various sanctions regimes to contain it.

Pulling oneself up by one’s bootstraps doesn’t work, but sanctions that force one to Westernize don’t really work either. Something more subtle is required to turn recalcitrant nations onto the correct, American-approved path. Perhaps a little backroom US political or economic pressure, or maybe the market exigencies of the world capitalist economy, can “persuade” the country in question to become more open to American guidance and Western influence. Brazil’s left-wing government is in the midst of a right-wing, legalistic coup in all but name. The right has won election outright in Argentina hoping to regain access to international capital markets, appease foreign creditors, and solve the country’s debt default. Under American pressure, Japan is moving to the right as Prime Minister Abe reforms the country’s defense policy to allow greater Japanese military action abroad, even the acquisition of nuclear weapons, while engaging in historical revisionism regarding Japan’s role during the second World War. Even in Venezuela under American sanctions, where the Left still controls the presidency but has lost control of parliament, the US continues to encourage a deliberate, massive disruption of the economy by domestic right-wing forces.

So what’s a decent sovereign country supposed to do—“so far from God, so close to the United States?” Aside from greeting their American liberators with “sweets and flowers” that is. Most of those nations wishing to remain independent of the US and the West tend to be leftist in political orientation, although theocratic Iran and fascist Myanmar run counter to this.

Ian Welsh has written a provocative essay on his blog with the self-explanatory title “Seven Rules for Running a Real Left-Wing Government,” lessons that are applicable across the political spectrum. His section headers are equally clear and incendiary, and I’ve made notes in parentheses where appropriate. “It’s not you, it’s […] the world system.” “Don’t run your economy on resources.” “Your first act must be a media law” (to control the media). “Take control of the banking sector.” “Who is your administrative class” (and is it reliable)? “Take control of distribution and utilities.” “Reduce your vulnerability to the world trade system.” “Be satisfied with what you can grow and make.” “Obey the laws of purges” (as Machiavelli first described).

“Break your enemy’s power,” Welsh concludes. “If you’re any sort of left-winger worth your salt, you ethically do not believe in huge concentrations of power and money in the hands of a few people anyway. Act on your beliefs. And if they’ve committed a pile of crimes (and they almost always have), use those crimes against them. Then remember the world system is set up expressly to stop what you are doing. You’re tackling the dragon, and most people who do that get eaten. We tell the stories of the dragonslayers because they are so few. So, know the odds are against you, and be willing to do what is required to improve them. If you aren’t, stay home.”

The horror! The denial of free expression! The violation of human rights! The suppression of private property and profit!

When I first called myself an anarchist some forty-eight years ago, I believed that free expression was an absolute that could be scrupulously maintained while carrying out a spontaneous revolution for individual human liberation against the power of private property and profit. Nowadays, I think that the power of private property and profit needs to be severely curtailed if not communized, that the goal is social revolution based on organized social power, and that there’s no such things as absolute freedom of expression. Recently, a chuckle-headed free speech absolutist I sometimes ridicule in this column agreed with this in a back-handed way. He has cried censorship in the denial of free speech by government, corporate, social, even market forces, yet he himself draws the line on HIS facebook page where he reserves the right to censor free speech. As if declaring your power to censor your personal digital squat at the sufferance of Zuckerberg’s whims, FB’s changing rules and corporate ownership, and government oversight means shit. But by drawing even such a puny reverse line-in-the-sand he acknowledges that there are lines to be drawn and defended. And that freedom of speech is not absolute.

Free speech doesn’t really exist when you’re willing to engage in civilized debate with fascists, only to be stomped in an alley afterwards by the boneheads. And freedom of speech can’t really exist for right-wing opposition in leftist societies when the US Sixth Fleet is anchored offshore. I find no shame in defending yourself, your community, even your country from fascists, be they actual nazi skinheads or Yanqui imperialists. You know my opinions on fighting fascists. Don’t assume I’m going all Third World national liberation struggle on you now. I have no love for the nation-state, even in its revolutionary/leftist guise. But I no longer blithely repeat ultraleft platitudes about “no war but the class war” and the need for “world revolution” to dismiss the problematics of nationalism and uneven development. I take cautious inspiration from indications that the Left’s long deadlock and current crisis might be transcended. Independent political currents are emerging that are fostering a dialogue between anarchism and Marxism. Hybrid social experiments are coming to the fore in Chiapas and Rojava, with bright promise and deep imperfections. And efforts to constitute genuine social power are being attempted by partial, flawed insurrectionary and communizing tendencies.

I’m pessimistically optimistic about the future of the Left.

  • MAXIMUM ROCKNROLL

  • "Lefty" Hooligan-"What's Left?"
    My monthly column for Maximum Rocknroll.

  • MY BOOKS FOR SALE:

  • Free excerpts from 1% FREE

  • 1% FREE on sale now


    Copies of 1% FREE can be purchased from Barnes & Noble POD, and the ebook can be had at Barnes & Noble ebook. The physical book is $18.95 and the ebook is $4.99.

  • END TIME reprinted


    Downloads of END TIME can be purchased from SMASHWORDS.
  • CALENDAR

    November 2018
    M T W T F S S
    « Oct    
     1234
    567891011
    12131415161718
    19202122232425
    2627282930  
  • META