How about this then? Marx, in this passage, was trying to understand how the French peasantry came to play their unlikely, but essential role in Bonaparte’s rise. It reads as an eerily prescient characterization of the MAGA movement as the seemingly unshakable center of support for the present regime, along with their dangerous susceptibility to its incessant demagoguery:
Insofar as millions of families live under conditions of existence that separate their mode of life, their interests, and their culture from those of the other classes, and put them in hostile opposition to the latter, they form a class. Insofar as there is merely a local interconnection among these [people], and the identity of their interests forms no community, no national bond, and no political organization among them, they do not constitute a class. They are therefore incapable of asserting their class interest in their own name, whether through a parliament or a convention. They cannot represent themselves, they must be represented. Their representative must at the same time appear as their master, as an authority over them, an unlimited governmental power which protects them from the other classes [for which we might, of course, read dangerous and unworthy "others," about which, more in a moment] and sends them rain and sunshine from above. The political influence of the [MAGAlites], therefore, finds its final expression in the executive power which subordinates society to itself.
And what about the putative institutional checks and balances on executive power? Here, too, we can find startlingly apt observations that precisely forecast our day-to-day headlines:
By repulsing the army… and so surrendering the army [military] irrevocably to the President, the party of Order [i.e., the Congressional branch along with its war powers] declares that the bourgeoisie has forfeited its vocation to rule. A parliamentary ministry no longer existed. Having now indeed lost its grip on the army and the National Guard, what forcible means remained to it [the Congress] with which simultaneously to maintain the usurped authority of parliament over the people and its constitutional authority against the President? None. Only the appeal to impotent principles remained to it now [or sternly worded letters of concern], to principles that it had itself always interpreted merely as general rules, which one prescribes for others in order to be able to move all the more freely oneself.
So what does all this (and so much more that could be quoted) add up to in terms of insights for coming to grips with the myriad dilemmas we face currently? If we are to follow Marx’s advice, our inquiry should not focus on the peculiarities and idiosyncrasies of our own “grotesque mediocrity,” but rather on the circumstances and relationships that have allowed him to “play a hero’s part.”
For that, I think it is instructive to return to a particular element of the 2016 presidential primaries and campaigns. It became clear to many observers as these wore on that the vast majority of the electorate, no matter their position on the political spectrum, were avid for change from the then-prevailing status quo. For better or worse, quite literally, the two candidates that eventually emerged as the most likely embodiments of such change were Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. The most unlikely were the virtual clones on the Republican stage, and Hillary Clinton on the Democratic side. Although Sanders was shunted aside by the party establishment, I think it is still worth comparing his narrative (then and now) with Trump’s (then and now as well) in order to understand the constellation of factors (including, as Marx observed, unlikely alliances), that have produced the present moment.
I begin with what Marx began with in his assessment (both in this pamphlet and almost all of his other works): peoples’ material conditions on the ground. This is also where both Sanders and Trump located their campaigns, and both recognized that their potential supporters had quite legitimate grievances about essential elements of their lives. Beyond this fundamental agreement, however, the stories diverge immediately and wildly.
For Sanders (and, of course, this is a central part of the ongoing anti-oligarchy campaign), the very real problems that people encounter stem from a system that pits the 1% against the rest. And while this diagnosis might resonate with people with quite divergent ideological positions (as Sanders continues to demonstrate in both red and blue precincts), the remedies either are, or more realistically are made to appear as, nearly impossible: i.e., fundamental, systemic change. And on top of that, Sanders had and has to contend with the knee-jerk reactions (either existential dread or trivialized utopianism) to his self-declared, though hardly radical, democratic socialism. Returning briefly to the 18th Brumaire, this burden also has a lengthy history:
Whatever amount of passion and declamation might be employed… speech remained… monosyllabic… As monosyllabic on the platform as in the press. Flat as a riddle whose answer is known in advance. Whether it was a question of the right of petition or the tax on wine, freedom of the press or free trade, the clubs or the municipal charter, protection of personal liberty or regulation of the state budget, the watchword constantly recurs, the theme remains always the same, the verdict is ever ready and invariably reads: “Socialism!” Even bourgeois liberalism is declared socialistic, bourgeois enlightenment socialistic, bourgeois financial reform socialistic. It was socialistic to build a railway where a canal already existed, and it was socialistic to defend oneself with a cane when one was attacked with a rapier.
And so what was and is Trump’s tale? As with Sanders, he begins with the presumption and continual public assertion (whether he believes it or not) that the grievances are genuine. The causes, however, do not stem from a system rigged by the rich and powerful, but rather are the result of unworthy “others” illegally and illegitimately impeding the prospects of those deemed deserving by the regime in power. And if that regime is willing to push aside the minimal protections afforded to these identified “others,” it is easy to see why the tangible and visible actionability of this approach is preferable to its supporters, to the vague hand-waving and -wringing of the Sanders’ prescriptions. The flip side of the so-called meritocratic “American Dream” mythology (work hard, play by the rules, you’ll make it) is that if you fail, it’s your own fault. In light of this, it is doubly appealing to be told, “No, it is not your fault; it’s ‘theirs,’" and then to see “them” humiliated, dehumanized, and disappeared one way or another.
It is also possible, in light of Marx’s assessment, to use this Trumpian narrative to help us understand what appears as an unlikely coalition (the circumstances and relationships) between big capital (finance and big tech in particular) and diverse elements of the working class (e.g., some segments of organized labor). It also serves to explain some of the apparently contradictory demographic shifts that we have seen recently occurring among various populations of color and in age-related cohorts. Referring to the Marx-MAGA quote above, many people are susceptible to demagogic claims of relief and salvation, and this is particularly the case in these fraught moments. When people are undeniably living in precarious circumstances it becomes much more appealing to hear that there is an “easy” remedy (eliminate “those people”) than to hear that fundamental systemic change is required before things improve.
As we move further toward governance through coercion (applied if one dares to dissent from current directions), we must be prepared to withdraw our consent to be governed by this regime.
So, what to do? I return once more, and finally, to the 18th Brumaire, and its most famous quote (amended for the present sensibilities): “[People] make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.” There are now just over 400 days until the 2026 midterm elections, if indeed, they take place. And this is a very big if, given that the regime is now trying every possible way (war with Venezuela, war with the cities, war on “the left," etc., etc.) to foment an actual or false “emergency” in order to declare martial law and cancel, rather than risk losing, the elections.
But if we have them, in these next 400 days, two paths to making history should be taken simultaneously and with the urgency that our predicament compels. The first is the electoral route and operates under the still valid (for now) presumption that the elections will take place. During this period, and as the effects of the current policies (especially the tariffs and the Big Ugly Bill) take hold and produce material effects in peoples’ everyday lives, every Democratic candidate or office holder should make it their top priority to follow Sanders’ lead and share with voters of all political persuasions: 1) precisely where their genuine pain is coming from; and 2) how, specifically, a Democratic controlled Congress would work programmatically to alleviate those burdens. Is this realistic? What is the alternative?
The other path that should be taken up is to challenge, in every way possible, the legitimacy of the current administration. As we move further toward governance through coercion (applied if one dares to dissent from current directions), we must be prepared to withdraw our consent to be governed by this regime. If we actually had the “organized left” feverishly conjured and imagined by the broletariat, we could be creatively producing withholdings of labor and consumption, developing 5-10 minute general strikes, and prevailing upon our allied elected officials to “put their bodies on the gears and wheels and levers of the odious machine and make it stop” or at least slow it to a crawl till we can take charge. In the absence of that coherent left (one of those circumstances transmitted from the past), we must take advantage of those cognate organizations that do exist or that can be created rapidly to implement such a strategy at every appropriate level. Is this realistic? What is the alternative?
