Inter-Bourgeois Disputes Are Sharpening: The Case of Trump
Just days before the Republican National Convention in the United States of America, the now Republican presidential candidate, Donald J. Trump, was the victim of an attempted assassination by a 20-year-old young man, identified as Thomas Matthew Crooks, originally from Pennsylvania and a Republican supporter; in addition, there was one fatality and 2 people injured due to a series of missed shots.
Following the incident, investigations, statements and accusations were not long in coming. Many people began to believe that, although the FBI had announced that the shooter was a lone actor, it was actually a plot by Democrats or the CIA; others believed that it could have been an attack orchestrated by Russia, Iran and even the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea; while still others considered the possibility that it was a strategy by the former US president to gain more electoral support.
In addition to the hypotheses that began to spread, different people in the political world quickly spoke out about the attack. Among these statements, we can highlight the following: the president of the United States, Joe Biden, said that electoral violence should not be used, but he hinted at the involvement of foreign countries in the act; Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping condemned the attack, but used this situation to reinforce their critical discourse towards the American security system, assuring that their systems are “superior”; in Europe, Pedro Sánchez and Emmanuel Macron condemned the attack and considered it to be a direct attack against liberal democracies and human dignity, but they do not seem to consider the precarious working conditions of their workers to be human dignity; in Latin America, similarly to the Europeans, López Obrador and Gabriel Boric accused the fact of being an attack against democracy as has happened in other cases, citing Luis Donaldo Colosio and Martin Luther King as examples; Javier Milei and other reactionary representatives of the bourgeoisie took advantage of the situation to accuse the “international left” of being desperate, even though there is no basis for such accusations. Finally, the most curious case is that of the Prime Minister of the State of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, who, in addition to condemning the attack, began to consider the possibility that he could suffer a similar attack, thus demonstrating that he is not only aware of his actions, but that he uses a discourse of double standards.
From these accusations, little can be drawn from an abstract analysis. However, if we consider each of the economic interest sectors of the heads of state who spoke out about the incident, we can draw several conclusions: throughout the Western world, the act was condemned as a democratic anomaly and contrary to morality and human dignity, but everyone sought to blame their political rivals and minimize how these disputes could harm the working class; within the United States, bourgeois disputes have intensified over the country’s militaristic and imperialist role, as many people, including politicians in the US government itself, consider it unviable to continue supporting Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan militarily and economically; for Russia, it is in the interest of the Republican candidate to win the electoral contest, because if Trump is reelected and fulfills his promises to stop logistically supporting Ukraine, its intervention in that country could be significantly facilitated; The current US president declared the intervention of foreign countries in the assassination attempt, which reveals that it is in their interest to increase global tensions between the various imperialist sectors; the rest of the nations of the imperialist center, although they condemned the attack, swept under the rug and defended their respective interests.
Bearing this in mind, we can affirm what the title of this article says: inter-bourgeois conflicts are sharpening, and with it, the class struggle is also sharpening. This event shows that the bourgeoisie is not homogeneous, unlike what they want to appear, since each business sector seeks to continue increasing its profits depending on its interests and partners, even if this means supporting war conflicts that are leaving thousands dead – this knowing that the arms industries have positioned themselves in favor of those who seek to continue the genocide in Palestine, while a considerable part of the big bourgeoisie has closed ranks with Trump.
In addition to the hypotheses that began to spread, different people in the political world quickly spoke out about the attack. Among these statements, we can highlight the following: the president of the United States, Joe Biden, said that electoral violence should not be used, but he hinted at the involvement of foreign countries in the act; Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping condemned the attack, but used this situation to reinforce their critical discourse towards the American security system, assuring that their systems are “superior”; in Europe, Pedro Sánchez and Emmanuel Macron condemned the attack and considered it to be a direct attack against liberal democracies and human dignity, but they do not seem to consider the precarious working conditions of their workers to be human dignity; in Latin America, similarly to the Europeans, López Obrador and Gabriel Boric accused the fact of being an attack against democracy as has happened in other cases, citing Luis Donaldo Colosio and Martin Luther King as examples; Javier Milei and other reactionary representatives of the bourgeoisie took advantage of the situation to accuse the “international left” of being desperate, even though there is no basis for such accusations. Finally, the most curious case is that of the Prime Minister of the State of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, who, in addition to condemning the attack, began to consider the possibility that he could suffer a similar attack, thus demonstrating that he is not only aware of his actions, but that he uses a discourse of double standards.
From these accusations, little can be drawn from an abstract analysis. However, if we consider each of the economic interest sectors of the heads of state who spoke out about the incident, we can draw several conclusions: throughout the Western world, the act was condemned as a democratic anomaly and contrary to morality and human dignity, but everyone sought to blame their political rivals and minimize how these disputes could harm the working class; within the United States, bourgeois disputes have intensified over the country’s militaristic and imperialist role, as many people, including politicians in the US government itself, consider it unviable to continue supporting Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan militarily and economically; for Russia, it is in the interest of the Republican candidate to win the electoral contest, because if Trump is reelected and fulfills his promises to stop logistically supporting Ukraine, its intervention in that country could be significantly facilitated; The current US president declared the intervention of foreign countries in the assassination attempt, which reveals that it is in their interest to increase global tensions between the various imperialist sectors; the rest of the nations of the imperialist center, although they condemned the attack, swept under the rug and defended their respective interests.
Bearing this in mind, we can affirm what the title of this article says: inter-bourgeois conflicts are sharpening, and with it, the class struggle is also sharpening. This event shows that the bourgeoisie is not homogeneous, unlike what they want to appear, since each business sector seeks to continue increasing its profits depending on its interests and partners, even if this means supporting war conflicts that are leaving thousands dead – this knowing that the arms industries have positioned themselves in favor of those who seek to continue the genocide in Palestine, while a considerable part of the big bourgeoisie has closed ranks with Trump.
With this scenario before us, workers, students and communists must not defend either the most cosmopolitan – or progressive – sectors of the bourgeoisie, nor the most chauvinistic bourgeoisie of our respective countries, but we must continue to build our political and class independence to establish ourselves as the vanguard of a new world.
Published in El Machete
