What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Sheilbh]

In part it's how they were formed. There had been fears of a fascist coup earlier in the 30s (with some reason) - this prompted France's very fractious (not unique to France) left to start working to unite against the greater threat. So the socialist and communist unions started to cooperate on one day general strikes against fascist provocation, the Communist and Socialist parties held separate counter-demonstrations, but the participants ended up merging and protesting for a common front against the fascists. Thorez and Blum were leading separate marches of hundreds of thousands who merged and started chanting "unity! unity!". I think estimates were that up to 5-6 million people joined the strike or the demonstrations on all sides pushing for a united anti-fascist front.

I believe it also had an effect on the Radicals who are the more liberal wing of French politics in that era - they had traditionally propped up the right against the dangers of the radical left. I think following what was perceived as an attempted fascist coup (or cover for one) they also swung to being willing to work with the Communists and Socialists. Again my understanding is that came from below (it didn't last - they swung away from Blum to right-wing coalitionists over support for the Spanish Republic and to get the Premiership for Daladier, not sure it was the best decision in the long run).

Obviously in the 1930s the change in Comintern policy from treating socialists and social democrats as "social fascists" to forming anti-fascist fronts was also crucial. But I think in France it's not clear that was absolutely essential - or, to put it another way, that the leadership of the Communists or communist unions could resist the popular demand from below for a united front.

FWIW it's partly why I'm very unsure what happens if the RN actually win in France. I think in the run up to the snap legislative election the New Popular Front rallied hundreds of thousands in advance of voting day and the Popular Front came first in seats (although some of the machinations of when each party would withdraw from the second round was an issue there - Macron as Daladier did not necessarily swing behind a Popular Front).

Edit: I could be wrong but my understanding is those counter-demonstrations are as much a part of the mythology of the French left as the Battle of Cable Street is for the British left.

[Admiral Yi]

I appreciate the answer, but it doesn't really answer my question.  It reads more like an argument for the benefits of unity, which are apparent to me. 

Maybe a different way to ask the question is what do you mean by mobilization, and what good does it do?

[Sheilbh]

I appreciate the answer, but it doesn't really answer my question.  It reads more like an argument for the benefits of unity, which are apparent to me. 

Maybe a different way to ask the question is what do you mean by mobilization, and what good does it do?

My argument is that the unity was driven by the mobilisation of the mass of supporters, activists, sympathisers on the left for previously fractious factions - the Socialists, Communists and Radicals. This is not to discount the importance of Stalin's shift but I'd suggest that the Communist leadership in France may not have been able to resist the demands from below because of that mobilisation (and the Socialists and Radicals certainly couldn't).

So I think the unity happens because hundreds of thousands of people on the streets spontaneously demand it and break down the barriers of their separate marches and strikes, rather than coming from the leaders of those movements who had set up separate rallies and strikes.

I'd add that if the attempted coup had been met with a sanguine, unmobilised response the fascists would quite possibly have tried again (especially when they see the same thing happen in Spain). Instead it is clear there is opposition from an enormous chunk of the French population that is not just demonstrating but putting pressure on their leaders to unite and form a political bloc capable of stopping the right.

Edit: In a similar way as in the UK the Battle of Cable Street is the most famous but it's a run of similar events - the BUF intending to march through a Jewish neighbourhood and at a local level Jewish groups, Communists, trade unionists and the radical wing of the Labour Party organising counter-demonstrations to block the BUF from getting in. You can overstate it but I do think it's striking that this is something that is a bit of a drumbeat through the early thirties at exactly the same time as the trade union movement decide they need to get rid of the pacifist leader of Labour in favour of someone who supports re-armament.

[Admiral Yi]

OK.  Spontaneous unity.  I'm all for it.

[Admiral Yi]

I would like to point out however that a spontaneously unified Democrat party is still outnumbered by Republicans.

[Zoupa]

Outnumbered how? Registered members?

[Sheilbh]

Yeah - and perhaps mobilisation is a way of reaching beyond the people who already back you/are registered. The clue is in the name, no?

[Admiral Yi]

Outnumbered how? Registered members?

Votes cast in the last election.

[Admiral Yi]

Yeah - and perhaps mobilisation is a way of reaching beyond the people who already back you/are registered. The clue is in the name, no?

Sure, I'm familiar with that concept under the less sexy description of voter turnout.

[Valmy]

I would like to point out however that a spontaneously unified Democrat party is still outnumbered by Republicans.

We lose an election by 1.5% and suddenly their vast numbers are insurmountable. Anyway,independents also exist. When the Democrats have a strong message they can be won over...or more realistically whenever the Republicans fuck up they will settle for the Democrats.

[HVC]

I would like to point out however that a spontaneously unified Democrat party is still outnumbered by Republicans.

We lose an election by 1.5% and suddenly their vast numbers are insurmountable. Anyway,independents also exist. When the Democrats have a strong message they can be won over...or more realistically whenever the Republicans fuck up they will settle for the Democrats.

When trump is the opposition independents are just people too uncomfortable with calling themselves republicans.

[Admiral Yi]

My bad.  I misread your post Shelf. 

I have been arguing from the get go that the only way we "win" this thing is get enough voters to switch.  Will mobilization i.e. spontaneous unity do that?

[Admiral Yi]

We lose an election by 1.5% and suddenly their vast numbers are insurmountable. Anyway,independents also exist. When the Democrats have a strong message they can be won over...or more realistically whenever the Republicans fuck up they will settle for the Democrats.

I am utterly baffled by the constant use of straw men and false dichotomies on Languish.

[Sheilbh]

My bad.  I misread your post Shelf. 

I have been arguing from the get go that the only way we "win" this thing is get enough voters to switch.  Will mobilization i.e. spontaneous unity do that?

So I think this is to Oex's point of politics not being purely what happens in an electoral cycle or mobilisation purely being an on/off switch of supporters at election time.

In the case of the Popular Front those counter-demonstrations and strikes were in 1934, the Popular Front formed later that year and grew the following year or two to the election of 1936.

But in all honestly I actually think the best example of mobilisation in recent years is Donald Trump. I've said before that I think his rallies really matter and part of that is that I think he's like a stand up comedian working on his material before a crowd (the opposite, I'd suggest to the more "traditional" approach of focus groups and consultants and micro-targeting). But I also think it keeps his base active, caring, engaged - or mobilised in other words. He didn't either as President or out of office view it as a tool purely for the election cycle. (Separately, it's why I'm less sure on the role of social media - I think it's more that it has destroyed/undermined a previous mode of political discourse, just as TV did radio than anything else.)

[Admiral Yi]

So I think this is to Oex's point of politics not being purely what happens in an electoral cycle or mobilisation purely being an on/off switch of supporters at election time.

In the case of the Popular Front those counter-demonstrations and strikes were in 1934, the Popular Front formed later that year and grew the following year or two to the election of 1936.

But in all honestly I actually think the best example of mobilisation in recent years is Donald Trump. I've said before that I think his rallies really matter and part of that is that I think he's like a stand up comedian working on his material before a crowd (the opposite, I'd suggest to the more "traditional" approach of focus groups and consultants and micro-targeting). But I also think it keeps his base active, caring, engaged - or mobilised in other words. He didn't either as President or out of office view it as a tool purely for the election cycle. (Separately, it's why I'm less sure on the role of social media - I think it's more that it has destroyed/undermined a previous mode of political discourse, just as TV did radio than anything else.)

So sort of like Trump has been throwing a non stop party and we need to do the same to show how fun it is to be a Democrat?