US Presidential election 2016

[Martino Quackavelli]

A lot of the emotions I imagine US citizens are going through I feel a fair few of us Brits went through back in June. After the referendum I felt like the country I knew and love, and looked back on fondly when abroad, was but a figment of my imagination. That the image I built up didn't match the reality of a country that voted for separation; that voted for an end to multiculturalism. I feel that our situation and theirs are eminently comparable. I see them less as a vote of hatred, of xenophobia, and more as a purely protest vote. People didn't vote in Brexit and didn't vote yesterday due to racist reasons. They voted for Brexit (and Trump) as a protest vote. I feel that in both instances it was an awful, awful choice, but I feel understanding the reasons why and not dismissing them as a basket of deplorables or as a purely stupid minority is important in coming to terms with the issues and reasons behind the rise of such movements.

fwiw when i first posted this on fb i got 30 likes and 2 shares. nice theft though BRO

 

[Jockney]

This post is so absurd that I want to pick it apart simply to see what I come up with. I've never seen anyone argue this line in my life, ever. Probably for good reason.

This is technically correct. However, if all the bigots agree with you and the person you're voting for is also a bigot, you're probably in the wrong.


This is also mostly correct, although it's ignoring that the american economy is in a transition and that it works very well for lots of people, so I'd refrain from the phrase "the current system isn't working for people, it can be argued it's destroying them". It sounds very, well, Trump.


This is the best part of your post, far and away. Short term, anyone can achieve almost anything and that's what frightens me the most about Trump. He'd probably love short term results then blame everything that comes after on his successor.


Well, it's changed slightly since people realized you shouldn't be open about hating people for their skin colour. Nowadays you see everything but skin colour; religion, nationality etc. A good example of today's racism would be saying something ridiculous such as "mexicans are rapists". Don't know why that came to mind.


Now this is gold, absolute gold. Because it's so ignorant it's frightening, aside from being almost entirely incorrect. But you did say you didn't put too much thought into this post, so consider this from me to you so that you don't have to.

America is the country with the most frightening, challenging and tangible structural racism in the world since they abandoned slavery. And that's not exclusive for blacks, it goes for all minorities. You mention some of the problems trying to make some sort of point that this is due to previous administrations. It's broad and in fact, incorrect. Yes, there are bills such as three strikes and you're out that Clinton passed, the ridiculous war on drugs Nixon and Reagan tried, but the fact is this: America has since the 50's made huge strides for minorities, bigger than anyone in the world.

So when you're pointing out these problems, well they're the ones that remain and the ones that the progressive part of the American political system still want to change. You can argue that Clinton was the wrong person to represent this change, but Trump is the downright opposite. His political theory is essentially to make people believe that he can turn back time, and turning back time in America literally equals more racism. And this isn't stuff I'm making up to have you look dumb, if you actually took some time and read about the history of american politics I wouldn't have to tell you. I recommended a book called The authoritarian dynamic in my previous post, you really should read it. If you can't be bothered, watch "13th" on Netflix. But then again, if your political interest stops before reading a book, perhaps you should refrain from trying to call the guys trying to fight racism racists because blatantly, you have no idea what the hell you're on about. You wrote specifically "You've been involved in multiple administrations that have presided over those issues". Jesus christ, as if they're at fault for them. Nobody believes that, nobody argues that so just stop.

The part about Jay-Z and Beyonce was also embarrassing, but it has little to do with this thread so I'll leave it.

The Jay-Z stuff is bizarre and ignorant, and I'm not keen on the trivialisation of Trump's racist demagoguery at all, but his post has more an element of truth to it. Black and Latinx people have suffered disproportionately under neo-liberal economic policies. This linear notion of social progress for black people is also a complete myth. Jim Crow became untenable because black people mobilised and made it an untenable position. Reagan did everything he could to reverse those gains and subsequent administrations have done little to repair the malaise.

Besides, racism is here to stay so long as capitalism does.

 

[Bilo]

This linear notion of social progress for black people is also a complete myth

On the phone so can't give you the response you deserve, but you're right about this. However, I did mention Reagan, Nixon and Clinton, all of whom damaged the progress made for minorities in America. Only one of them apologized and owned up to it.

Progress isn't linear and there will always be those who try to stop it. I'm pointing out that Trump is here to stop it.

Sixty years ago blacks couldn't sit on the same side of the bus as whites and now he's saying "make America great again". Jesus Christ I wonder what that means.

Progress isn't linear but it has been made, more so than in any other country considering where they started. What annoyed me was that Abertawe somehow tried to blame or at least insinuate that today's problems are because of the political elite, while the truth is that it's thanks to many of them things are better although more could've been done. Trump is here to be among the Reagans and Nixons but worse, saying otherwise is ridiculous.

 

[Jockney]

Progress isn't linear but it has been made, more so than in any other country considering where they started. What annoyed me was that Abertawe somehow tried to blame or at least insinuate that today's problems are because of the political elite, while the truth is that it's thanks to many of them things are better although more could've been done. Trump is here to be among the Reagans and Nixons but worse, saying otherwise is ridiculous.

I just don't agree with this paradigm of progress at all. Political elites in a capitalist system (and, really in any system that produces elites of any character) react to changes. They can expedite or they can roadblock. Any social progress made in the post-Fordist period can be attributed to an increasingly deregulated market adapting to social changes that were conceived of in popular movements, and within that crucible they are robbed of their genuinely radical-progressive element. What emerges is a sort of hyper-individualisation; a discourse that asserts that social inequality is fundamentally the fault of the individual and their refusal to self-emancipate via the market, a moral failing, rather than a failure of the system which actively oppresses them.

It's this sort of confusion that has people conflating cultural commodification and liberal identity politics with a genuinely intersectional class-based project. Radical identity politics, if allowed to fucking breathe, could save us all. Yes, even the socially-dysfunctional basement-dwellers and maybe even Alty.

[Again, the problem is with capitalism itself, and in particular the acceleration of capitalism in a short period.]

 

[Renegade]

I think the value-free information age tendency to reduce every bit of discourse down to tropes, there to be pulled apart by some fantastical notion of universal rationality, is probably more worrying. It's very easy to be dismissive when you're comfortable, as we all currently are to a relative degree.

I accept some of the parallels with the rise of Donald Trump and the rise of National Socialism, I see a politician tapping into the fears of the disenfranchised and peddling populist rhetoric. He's promising a brighter future based on little (if any) substance, he will make a once great nation great again, etc, etc. A bunch of leaders have seized control of their countries this way, I don't think this is unique to Hitler, but I completely accept why people are worried about this pattern repeating itself.

However, I take exception to those (this is my news feed, yours I hope is a little more sophisticated) that claim that Donald Trump is practically Hitler, many even think he could be worse than Hitler. I saw someone earlier claim that a "Fourth Reich" is upon us. Seriously. I think this is doing an incredible disservice to the people who suffered at the hands of the Nazi Party and is actually incredibly unfair to Donald Trump, a pretty deplorable human being in his own right.

As bad as Trump is, he has some basic values that Adolf Hitler did not. He believes in democracy, free speech (unless you are Rosie O'Donell or a few critical reporters that got under his skin I guess), in the rights of the individual. He has expressed no specific hatred for an ethnic group, let alone blamed a particular ethnic group for everything that is wrong in the USA. He has blamed illegal immigrants for the problems in America, he has advocated for the ban of Muslims until the world gets jihadi terrorism/extremism under control. Both of these things are downright irresponsible, but he does not hate Muslims as people, he does not hate Mexicans as people. If he saw no issues with Islam and terrorism, he would not have any qualms with Islam. If there were no Mexicans illegal immigrants, he would have no problem with Mexicans. People often cite that he called Mexicans criminals and rapists, but he clearly is being taken out of context. He said that many of the illegal immigrants coming from Mexico are rapists, many are criminals and some are good people. The media ran with this and portrayed him as believing "Mexicans = rapists". It a fucking stupid thing to come out with, he has his foot stuck in his mouth, but he was trying to make a point that the USA isn't importing immigrants that are contributing positively to society. I'm a huge advocate of immigration and his immigration policy is protectionist, but nothing he said or believes here is directly comparable to Hitler. It just sounds standard Republican. I of course accept that his rhetoric is damaging and will be pounced upon and used by actual racists.

Hitler hated the Jews and anyone who wasn't of pure blood, he used this hatred and a far worse economic situation to fuel a movement that led to: the attempted creation of a master race, a hawkish foreign policy, Lebensraum required to sustain his master race, WW2, forced labour/slavery of conquered troops during the war, concentration camps, eugenics, the mass murder of over six million people (including Jews, gays, the disabled with many being children).

It's just not a fair direct comparison, it's arguably an irresponsible one and it only serves to drive voters further apart. Good, honest, hard working Americans who voted for Trump are sick of being call racist, misogynistic, jingoistic, bombastic morons. When people are told the man they voted for (mostly out of a protest) is practically Hitler when he clearly isn't, it's just not helpful in any way.

I'm aware that you probably thought I was outright dismissing any parallels between the rise of Trump and the rise of Hitler. I'm not. I just have a real issue with a shit tonne of my friends directly equating the two.

 

[Jockney]

I accept some of the parallels with the rise of Donald Trump and the rise of National Socialism, I see a politician tapping into the fears of the disenfranchised and peddling populist rhetoric. He's promising a brighter future based on little (if any) substance, he will make a once great nation great again, etc, etc. A bunch of leaders have seized control of their countries this way, I don't think this is unique to Hitler, but I completely accept why people are worried about this pattern repeating itself.

However, I take exception to those (this is my news feed, yours I hope is a little more sophisticated) that claim that Donald Trump is practically Hitler, many even think he could be worse than Hitler. I saw someone earlier claim that a "Fourth Reich" is upon us. Seriously. I think this is doing an incredible disservice to the people who suffered at the hands of the Nazi Party and is actually incredibly unfair to Donald Trump, a pretty deplorable human being in his own right.

Equivalence of the two is useful in some senses. Certainly, trying to configure Trump's brand of authoritarianism into an exact plaster cast of Nazism isn't just unhelpful, it's also impossible given that the genesis of Nazism was complex and contingent on other phenomena that no longer exist in that form (colonial empire, for example). I think equivalence of social/political/economic/cultural conditions, and how they cohere to create a fascist moment or the transition into one, however, are not only useful but pretty much vital to any sort of mobilisation effort against these symptoms (fascism doesn't wear jackboots to the rehearsal dinner, it comes wearing a suit and tie, etc).

As bad as Trump is, he has some basic values that Adolf Hitler did not. He believes in democracy, free speech (unless you are Rosie O'Donell or a few critical reporters that got under his skin I guess), in the rights of the individual.

Well, we don't have democracy and his conception of democracy is even narrower than what we've had up to this point, so I don't buy that at all. I don't think a person who regularly incites crowds to violence values free speech all that highly and Trump's vision for individual rights, or personal liberty, extend only so far as they allow him to do certain things that he wouldn't otherwise get away with. He certainly doesn't value women's individual rights, nor Muslims'.

He has expressed no specific hatred for an ethnic group, let alone blamed a particular ethnic group for everything that is wrong in the USA. He has blamed illegal immigrants for the problems in America, he has advocated for the ban of Muslims until the world gets jihadi terrorism/extremism under control. Both of these things are downright irresponsible, but he does not hate Muslims as people, he does not hate Mexicans as people. If he saw no issues with Islam and terrorism, he would not have any qualms with Islam. If there were no Mexicans illegal immigrants, he would have no problem with Mexicans. People often cite that he called Mexicans criminals and rapists, but he clearly is being taken out of context. He said that many of the illegal immigrants coming from Mexico are rapists, many are criminals and some are good people. The media ran with this and portrayed him as believing "Mexicans = rapists". It a fucking stupid thing to come out with, he has his foot stuck in his mouth, but he was trying to make a point that the USA isn't importing immigrants that are contributing positively to society. I'm a huge advocate of immigration and his immigration policy is protectionist, but nothing he said or believes here is directly comparable to Hitler. It just sounds standard Republican. I of course accept that his rhetoric is damaging and will be pounced upon and used by actual racists.

I really don't know what to make of this Ren. All of this is so incredibly disappointing and, honestly, downright scary. You can't honestly believe any of this, truly? His racism is not even subtextual by this point.

 

[Alty]

I really don't know what to make of this Ren. All of this is so incredibly disappointing and, honestly, downright scary. You can't honestly believe any of this, truly? His racism is not even subtextual by this point.

I'll let Ren speak for himself, but what I assume he meant is that while Trump's use of language is reckless, there's no concerted effort to target a particular group with the intention of 'cleansing' the country of them.

Aside from the most obvious impediment to rational argument, i.e. Trump being an inarticulate oaf, there's also the rather weird absence of any distinction between legal and illegal immigration when this subject is debated in the US (I know you probably wouldn't recognise this distinction, but most people in the rest of the developed world do). The left (not a useful term, I'm sure you'll agree, but you know what I'm talking about) in the US have been incredibly blasé about millions and millions of illegal immigrants entering or overstaying, citing their willingness to do jobs Americans won't or the fact their US-born kids, who are automatically granted citizenship, should not be deported and therefore neither should they. I think a lot of Americans see this situation as plain bonkers, but can't raise objections without being derided and called racist. The concept of anchor babies was not invented by a mad off-shoot of the Republican Party. It's a real thing. But saying as much causes you an awful lot of grief.

I think Trump is a dreadful man but, as I think I said in this thread way back, he's probably less dangerous than a Santorum or a Cruz. A lot of people are fed up of political correctness and, as Jacob Weisberg put it, preferred the days of America being a culturally more homogeneous and economically less unequal country. These people may not be sophisticated but I don't think they're looking for America's answer to Hitler. They just want to feel a bit less insecure in their own country. Whether Trump can deliver is another question entirely, of course...

 

[Jockney]

I'll let Ren speak for himself, but what I assume he meant is that while Trump's use of language is reckless, there's no concerted effort to target a particular group with the intention of 'cleansing' the country of them.

There's no ideological cohesion in anything Trump has said. I don't think Trump is the Hitler analogue, but then I don't think fascism, if it comes, will reproduce itself along the same lines as post-Weimar Germany.

I also think what Trump said on the campaign trail came as close to genocidal language as he could get away with without compromising his candidacy for executive office of an ostensibly free, democratic country.

Aside from the most obvious impediment to rational argument, i.e. Trump being an inarticulate oaf, there's also the rather weird absence of any distinction between legal and illegal immigration when this subject is debated in the US (I know you probably wouldn't recognise this distinction, but most people in the rest of the developed world do).

Yeah, well material development doesn't always translate very well to lateral social progress, especially when those material gains have only been made possible through various forms of imperialism, but yeah you know me on all this.

I think a lot of Americans see this situation as plain bonkers, but can't raise objections without being derided and called racist. The concept of anchor babies was not invented by a mad off-shoot of the Republican Party. It's a real thing. But saying as much causes you an awful lot of grief.

Um, what? The GOP engages in that discourse wholeheartedly. Couldn't be a lack of a safety net or structural inequality that is driving everyone to suicide; the administration of country with a big enough GDP to put up every working class person in a mansion if they wanted. Couldn't be a legacy of white supremacy that still hasn't been challenged. Must be immigration. How many of Trump's voters were white middle-class again?

I think Trump is a dreadful man but, as I think I said in this thread way back, he's probably less dangerous than a Santorum or a Cruz.

On a global and domestic scale, emboldening far-right nationalists is a completely different ballpark. Looney evangelicals are awful and terrifying, but it's a relatively stable lunacy. These people have mortgages, 401ks, they play golf, they don't want shit to change too fundamentally. Whether Trump delivers or not, those people who voted for his policy platform expect him to deliver and if he doesn't they will find someone else or take to the streets.

A lot of people are fed up of political correctness and, as Jacob Weisberg put it, preferred the days of America being a culturally more homogeneous and economically less unequal country. These people may not be sophisticated but I don't think they're looking for America's answer to Hitler. They just want to feel a bit less insecure in their own country. Whether Trump can deliver is another question entirely, of course...

Of course they bloody aren't looking for Hitler, but how many Germans really thought they were voting for the Final Solution? You don't impose that moment, that moment becomes normalised, you transition into it. Social democracy is dead, you do understand? You aren't getting your Fukuyaman future back. Capitalism isn't stable enough to keep their ideological approach to immigration at equilibrium. We either think beyond the Other, or we end up genocidal.

 

[Renegade]

Equivalence of the two is useful in some senses. Certainly, trying to configure Trump's brand of authoritarianism into an exact plaster cast of Nazism isn't just unhelpful, it's also impossible given that the genesis of Nazism was complex and contingent on other phenomena that no longer exist in that form (colonial empire, for example). I think equivalence of social/political/economic/cultural conditions, and how they cohere to create a fascist moment or the transition into one, however, are not only useful but pretty much vital to any sort of mobilisation effort against these symptoms (fascism doesn't wear jackboots to the rehearsal dinner, it comes wearing a suit and tie, etc).

If someone invokes Godwin's law with a nuanced argument of how demagogues seize power and the potential birth of a despot, then I'm fine with that. That isn't what I'm seeing in the last couple of days, other than in this thread.

Well, we don't have democracy and his conception of democracy is even narrower than what we've had up to this point, so I don't buy that at all. I don't think a person who regularly incites crowds to violence values free speech all that highly and Trump's vision for individual rights, or personal liberty, extend only so far as they allow him to do certain things that he wouldn't otherwise get away with. He certainly doesn't value women's individual rights, nor Muslims'.

I accept your point on women's individual rights, but again, nothing I'm seeing from Trump here seems out of the sphere of traditional Republican values. This is probably just my ignorance, but for the legal practising Muslim in the USA, what individual Muslim rights is Donald Trump against?

I really don't know what to make of this Ren. All of this is so incredibly disappointing and, honestly, downright scary. You can't honestly believe any of this, truly? His racism is not even subtextual by this point.

Bear in mind I'm still evaluating Trump vs Hitler.

I've heard Trump say some racist things, he's a deplorable human-being, but I don't believe that he outright hates Muslims or Mexicans. Do you actually believe he hates these people? That he hates a specific ethnic or minority groups and believes that they are the cause of problems in the USA?

The things I cited are two of the major things he's running his campaign on - I don't believe that having a problem with illegal immigrants is racist. Nor do I believe that having a problem with an ideology that has birthed jihadi terrorism is racist. I don't believe that without the threat of terrorism that he would govern based on his hatred of Muslim people or without illegal immigration he would govern based on his hatred of Mexican people. Hitler hated the Jews, it dictated how he governed.

Trump's rhetoric is dangerous, it allows the racists and fascists to jump aboard his campaign and by failing to outright condemn them, his victory gives them a sense that their opinions are valid. It will probably lead to a wave of racial attacks in the short-term ala Brexit. I just don't believe he'll govern based on a racist outlook. Maybe I am naive.

I understand that a lot of that probably seemed contradictory, but again, bear in mind I'm still talking about the equivalence of Trump to Hitler. There are tiers of racism.

 

[Bilo]

I just don't agree with this paradigm of progress at all. Political elites in a capitalist system (and, really in any system that produces elites of any character) react to changes. They can expedite or they can roadblock. Any social progress made in the post-Fordist period can be attributed to an increasingly deregulated market adapting to social changes that were conceived of in popular movements, and within that crucible they are robbed of their genuinely radical-progressive element.

In before serious responses, this reminds me a bit of every artist being a sellout the second they made it according to their original fans, completely ignoring that becoming a sellout was the point from the beginning.

As for what you're saying, I see what you mean but I disagree. Of course there will always be opportunists, and I agree in capitalistic democratic systems they have a tendency to be quite common, but for almost every opportunist there's an idealist. Not only do idealists actively seek to change through democratic procedures, but they form opinions and movements which the opportunists, in turn, react to. A simple, contemporary example is of course Barrack Obama, whom I'd personally identify as an idealist rather than an opportunist. He essentially created the movement that got him elected, but it wasn't there to begin with, not in an organized, politically identifiable fashion anyway. And there are many examples just like him. Hillary Clinton, she's probably what you'd call on opportunist more than anything else. But just because this election was between an opportunist and a racist bigot, doesn't mean all of them have been nor that all will be. But nonetheless, the narrative you're presenting here is essentially built on politicians being exclusively opportunists, which is incorrect. It's just that any idealist who succeeds in their quest to create a movement for whichever question, will increasingly look like an opportunist in hindsight. Just like the sellout artist.

What emerges is a sort of hyper-individualisation; a discourse that asserts that social inequality is fundamentally the fault of the individual and their refusal to self-emancipate via the market, a moral failing, rather than a failure of the system which actively oppresses them.

This, in my opinion is a completely different question. But it's clear to see we as a society struggle with identifying and working against multiple forms of oppression at the same time. While feminism in its very nature ignores class, class tends to ignore gender and so on so forth. What you call hyper-individualisation I call underdeveloped world views, with the main problem being that none of the popularly presented are accurate. Once you try to combine and form a political ideal from the notion that class exists and is oppressive, the patriarchy and the structural racism, things get very, very complicated. And very, very complicated is essentially impossible in a world where people think Trump can force Mexico to pay for American infrastructure and that you can take all the money going into the EU and place it in health care. People aren't dumb, but democracy was built on people voting for whatever they thought best for the country. Now, we're just voting for whatever we think (feel) is best for ourselves. It's troubling, because the comfortable lies become truths so fast while the consequences are long term. Those who don't believe global warming now won't until it's too late; comfortably ignoring how little they know about the subject. It's just that if they don't believe in global warming, they can keep their two cars. Fantastic. Let's believe that.

It's this sort of confusion that has people conflating cultural commodification and liberal identity politics with a genuinely intersectional class-based project. Radical identity politics, if allowed to fucking breathe, could save us all. Yes, even the socially-dysfunctional basement-dwellers and maybe even Alty.

[Again, the problem is with capitalism itself, and in particular the acceleration of capitalism in a short period.]

Some can't be saved I'm afraid, but you're bashing capitalism beyond recognition here and that's coming from a socialist. There are many, many capitalistic societies you could look into to see alternative patterns. The political situation in America and the UK are strikingly similar, but while they are not unique neither are they exclusive.

 

[Bilo]

Nor do I believe that having a problem with an ideology that has birthed jihadi terrorism is racist.

If you have a problem with an ideology because it births terrorism, you have a problem with ideologies, period. You also have some reading up to do; ideology is pretty much always secondary to the believed oppression it fights. Essentially, the ideology is irrelevant, but where there is oppression there is terrorism. Very common narrative this, almost every expert will tell you the same. Google is your friend!

But even if you were right, you (or Trump) should have a problem with islamism, not islam. Which is fine, nobody likes islamists. And although all islamists claim to be muslims, almost all muslims are anything but islamists. Which is why the biggest enemy of all for islamist terrorists is precisely muslims. 95% of their victims are muslims, after all.

But Trump doesn't distinguish between islamists and muslims, and neither do his voters and obviously, neither do you. It's a bit like "having a problem with" Irish people because of IRA, germans because of the RAF, etc. You'll run out of people do "have a problem with" very, very quickly.

Anyway, read this article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-racist-examples_us_56d47177e4b03260bf777e83) then ask yourself why you find it so important to defend this man at all.

 

[smat]

but lena dunham's rap?

 

[Renegade]

If you have a problem with an ideology because it births terrorism, you have a problem with ideologies, period. You also have some reading up to do; ideology is pretty much always secondary to the believed oppression it fights. Essentially, the ideology is irrelevant, but where there is oppression there is terrorism. Very common narrative this, almost every expert will tell you the same. Google is your friend!

But even if you were right, you (or Trump) should have a problem with islamism, not islam. Which is fine, nobody likes islamists. And although all islamists claim to be muslims, almost all muslims are anything but islamists. Which is why the biggest enemy of all for islamist terrorists is precisely muslims. 95% of their victims are muslims, after all.

I am aware of the difference between Islam and Islamism, my feelings on this topic are well known on this forum if you look at the religion thread or the terrorist attacks thread. Islamists makes up a small subset of the Muslim population, but they were still bred from the original ideology. I'm not going to go into it again on here, because the debate always goes the same way, in which the attack of an ideology that breeds terrorism in its most extreme form (yes, Islamism) is conflated with bigotry. In short, I am avidly anti-religion, like a diluted Sam Harris. I am pro-immigration by the way, close to the level of open borders, which is where I deviate from Harris.

But Trump doesn't distinguish between islamists and muslims, and neither do his voters and obviously, neither do you. It's a bit like "having a problem with" Irish people because of IRA, germans because of the RAF, etc. You'll run out of people do "have a problem with" very, very quickly.

Anyway, read this article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-racist-examples_us_56d47177e4b03260bf777e83) then ask yourself why you find it so important to defend this man at all.

I wouldn't say that calling Donald Trump "not quite Hitler" is a defence. He is a deplorable human being and I am sickened that he is now President. I was more paying respect to the millions who were oppressed and murdered by the Nazi party. Their leader doesn't quite deserve the same appraisal as an orange oaf.

 

[Bilo]

I am aware of the difference between Islam and Islamism, my feelings on this topic are well known on this forum if you look at the religion thread or the terrorist attacks thread. I'm not going to go into again on here, because the debate always goes the same way, in which the attack of a ideology that breeds terrorism in its most extreme form (yes, Islamism) is conflated with bigotry. In short, I am avidly anti-religion.

You're aware of the difference, you just thought it wasn't relevant enough to point out?

Anyway, you go on about this ideology that breeds terrorism but you're ignoring the context. Sure, you can look at that, note that they're often muslims, and then call yourself "avidly anti-religion". Or you could consider that right now, almost all terrorists come from the most war ravaged, politically unstable and individually hopeless place on earth. You could be "avidly anti" that instead, and maybe you'd realize how little whichever ideology or religion terrorism claims to represent has to do with it.

Anyway, Trump and the base of voters he largely represents is suspicious of muslims (not islamists) and 99% of them have as much to do with islamist terrorism as you do with the IRA. Sounds like racism, doesn't it.

I wouldn't say that calling Donald Trump "not quite Hitler" is a defence. He is a deplorable human being and I am sickened that he is now President. I was more paying respect to the millions who were oppressed and murdered by the Nazi party. Their leader doesn't quite deserve the same appraisal as an orange oaf.

If it's not defending, it's relativizing, which in this thread isn't completely separated. The similarities between Trump and Hitler are striking and Hitler hadn't killed 6 million three months before he took power, either. Now I don't think Trump will be as bad as Hitler, I agree with you on that. But somehow, I feel absolutely no need to relativize Trump to "pay respect to the millions who were oppressed and murdered by the nazi party". I don't know, maybe I'm just heartless.

 

[Jockney]

In before serious responses, this reminds me a bit of every artist being a sellout the second they made it according to their original fans, completely ignoring that becoming a sellout was the point from the beginning.

I'm not sure I follow the analogy, but art is not inextricable from market mechanisms.

As for what you're saying, I see what you mean but I disagree. Of course there will always be opportunists, and I agree in capitalistic democratic systems they have a tendency to be quite common, but for almost every opportunist there's an idealist. Not only do idealists actively seek to change through democratic procedures, but they form opinions and movements which the opportunists, in turn, react to. A simple, contemporary example is of course Barrack Obama, whom I'd personally identify as an idealist rather than an opportunist. He essentially created the movement that got him elected, but it wasn't there to begin with, not in an organized, politically identifiable fashion anyway.

I'm not talking about what any politician as a quasi-subject within a broader system is motivated by, I'm talking about the system itself which is beholden to the market to one degree or another. Is Obama an idealist? I believe so more than an opportunist, though he of course has latent opportunistic tendencies. Obama is not an emancipator. Obama believes very much in the system that causes the problems in the first place: he doesn't believe it necessarily causes the problems, but he does believe in the system. What polict platforms did Obama run on that most Americans weren't asking for for years. He wanted to ameliorate the system. He was concessionary, not visionary.

But nonetheless, the narrative you're presenting here is essentially built on politicians being exclusively opportunists, which is incorrect.

Of course they're not all opportunists, but they all have opportunistic tendencies whether they are conscious of them or not. I do genuinely believe that some politicians are not primarily self-interested, but then I think the way power operates and reproduces itself is far more complex than any reductionist analysis of individual intention could ever hope to elucidate. We need to get past this paradigm of the good or bad politician. These people are agents, actors, within a system that is far more complex and powerful than ideals.

It's just that any idealist who succeeds in their quest to create a movement for whichever question, will increasingly look like an opportunist in hindsight. Just like the sellout artist.

It depends on the politician. What Bernie did wasn't new. He was an 'in' for various radical movements that have been operating for over a century. The movements kept the issues on the agenda.

This, in my opinion is a completely different question. But it's clear to see we as a society struggle with identifying and working against multiple forms of oppression at the same time.

Yes, because labour movements and communities have been smashed and we've been very easy to divide and rule.

While feminism in its very nature ignores class, class tends to ignore gender and so on so forth.

Liberal feminism in its very nature ignores class. Feminism has always had a very strong class orientation. Feminism is not single issue and never has been. Class has never ignored feminism. Feminism has always been vital to class.

What you call hyper-individualisation I call underdeveloped world views, with the main problem being that none of the popularly presented are accurate.

Eh? You've countered a cause with a symptom. People didn't become individualised because they suddenly felt like being egocentric.

Once you try to combine and form a political ideal from the notion that class exists and is oppressive, the patriarchy and the structural racism, things get very, very complicated. And very, very complicated is essentially impossible in a world where people think Trump can force Mexico to pay for American infrastructure and that you can take all the money going into the EU and place it in health care.

[Something about base and superstructure....] I don't think regurgitating theory is helpful in any practical sense, but I think it's instructive in a few basic ways and besides, solidarity is not a particularly complex notion.

People aren't dumb, but democracy was built on people voting for whatever they thought best for the country. Now, we're just voting for whatever we think (feel) is best for ourselves. It's troubling, because the comfortable lies become truths so fast while the consequences are long term. Those who don't believe global warming now won't until it's too late; comfortably ignoring how little they know about the subject. It's just that if they don't believe in global warming, they can keep their two cars. Fantastic. Let's believe that.

I don't have time to go into the geneaology of the nation-state but the idea that liberal democracy was ever some radical, communal effort for the betterment of the people is a myth and one that even its best-known pioneers would acknowledge as such.

Of course capitalism is founded on consumption. Consumption makes it easier to ignore truths. This is as true as it has ever been in the information age. Acknowledging it won't make it go away.

Some can't be saved I'm afraid, but you're bashing capitalism beyond recognition here and that's coming from a socialist. There are many, many capitalistic societies you could look into to see alternative patterns. The political situation in America and the UK are strikingly similar, but while they are not unique neither are they exclusive.

Capitalism is inherently unstable. It literally cannot sustain itself past a certain point. In its most benign form it can provide for most people for a short period but only at the expense of various strata of people domestically, and at the misery and subjugation of peoples across the Global South. What happens when political revolution reaches Saudi Arabia? What happens when the economic project in China reaches critical mass and they start paying their workers a wage equivalent to those in the West? Even the most benevolent capitalist countries are plunged into crisis. Our plentitude is contingent on the suffering of entire continents of people. That will come to an end sooner rather than later.

 

[Alty]

If you have a problem with an ideology because it births terrorism, you have a problem with ideologies, period. You also have some reading up to do; ideology is pretty much always secondary to the believed oppression it fights. Essentially, the ideology is irrelevant, but where there is oppression there is terrorism. Very common narrative this, almost every expert will tell you the same. Google is your friend!

But even if you were right, you (or Trump) should have a problem with islamism, not islam. Which is fine, nobody likes islamists. And although all islamists claim to be muslims, almost all muslims are anything but islamists. Which is why the biggest enemy of all for islamist terrorists is precisely muslims. 95% of their victims are muslims, after all.

But Trump doesn't distinguish between islamists and muslims, and neither do his voters and obviously, neither do you. It's a bit like "having a problem with" Irish people because of IRA, germans because of the RAF, etc. You'll run out of people do "have a problem with" very, very quickly.

Anyway, read this article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-racist-examples_us_56d47177e4b03260bf777e83) then ask yourself why you find it so important to defend this man at all.

You've just made a series of assertions based on nothing there. Ideologies are not always defined on oppression. Don't know where that came from. You don't seem to have picked up on the differences between Jihadists, Islamists, Conservative Muslims and Liberal Muslims. And your point about the IRA is completely flawed because the IRA had a very straightforward territorial demand rather than a desire to impose a way of life on all others worldwide.

You seem to be talking about the world as you wish it was, rather than as it is.

 

[Bilo]

You've just made a series of assertions based on nothing there. Ideologies are not always defined on oppression. Don't know where that came from. You don't seem to have picked up on the differences between Jihadists, Islamists, Conservative Muslims and Liberal Muslims. And your point about the IRA is completely flawed because the IRA had a very straightforward territorial demand rather than a desire to impose a way of life on all others worldwide.

You seem to be talking about the world as you wish it was, rather than as it is.

Ideologies are not always defined on oppression, no. Who said that? Terrorism stems from oppression and little else. I said that. Well I and a series of others.

And I do know the difference between jihadists, islamists, conservative muslims and liberal muslims although I'd not bunch them together like that, mostly because islamism is politics and islam is a religion. What I was pointing out was that Renegade in his defense of Trump said "muslims", as if they're any identifiable group at all and as if their religion is in any way responsible for terrorism.

And if something is completely flawed, surely it's not flawed at all but just another colour? I don't know. Anyway, the difference you pointed out is irrelevant to my point, but if it hurts so much just think about the RAF and Germans instead. They did want to impose a way of life on all others. But I genuinely don't know what difference that makes, to be honest, but if it helps you understand then great.

 

[Renegade]

You're aware of the difference, you just thought it wasn't relevant enough to point out?

An oversight, accepted.

Anyway, you go on about this ideology that breeds terrorism but you're ignoring the context. Sure, you can look at that, note that they're often muslims, and then call yourself "avidly anti-religion". Or you could consider that right now, almost all terrorists come from the most war ravaged, politically unstable and individually hopeless place on earth. You could be "avidly anti" that instead, and maybe you'd realize how little whichever ideology or religion terrorism claims to represent has to do with it.

Again, I'm also aware that the problem of Islamic extremism is more down to the role of geopolitics in the last 100 years as it is due to literal reading of the doctrine. Their people have been separated, artificial states erected, corrupt governments installed and overthrown, their natural resources siphoned, their homes and loved ones bombed in an imperial game of Risk.

My qualm with religion (and this applies to them all), is that a literal reading of doctrine can lead to the formation of some fucked up ideologies, which can have a very negative effect on (both sides of) the world . In this case, jihadist terrorism.

Anyway, Trump and the base of voters he largely represents is suspicious of muslims (not islamists) and 99% of them have as much to do with islamist terrorism as you do with the IRA. Sounds like racism, doesn't it.

I don't think Trump is suspicious of all Muslims. I think he knows that Islamism is a threat to national security and he is exaggerating the threat of extremism to rile support. Yes, this will engage the support of a lot of racists, but I don't believe calling out Islamic extremism as a threat itself is racist.

If it's not defending, it's relativizing, which in this thread isn't completely separated. The similarities between Trump and Hitler are striking and Hitler hadn't killed 6 million three months before he took power, either. Now I don't think Trump will be as bad as Hitler, I agree with you on that. But somehow, I feel absolutely no need to relativize Trump to "pay respect to the millions who were oppressed and murdered by the nazi party". I don't know, maybe I'm just heartless.

I do.

I think you have caught me mid hypothetical argument and assume I am a bigot who is suspicious of Muslims. Again, this was an analysis of Trump vs Hitler. I am not, as said in the edited the post above, I am pro-immigration, almost pro open borders. Both the USA and the UK should be doing more in terms of bringing of refugees to aid a crisis they had a huge part in causing. I just don't think being protectionist or caring about national security is racist in itself.

 

[Alty]

I'm not sure I follow the analogy, but art is not inextricable from market mechanisms.

I'm not talking about what any politician as a quasi-subject within a broader system is motivated by, I'm talking about the system itself which is beholden to the market to one degree or another. Is Obama an idealist? I believe so more than an opportunist, though he of course has latent opportunistic tendencies. Obama is not an emancipator. Obama believes very much in the system that causes the problems in the first place: he doesn't believe it necessarily causes the problems, but he does believe in the system. What polict platforms did Obama run on that most Americans weren't asking for for years. He wanted to ameliorate the system. He was concessionary, not visionary.

Of course they're not all opportunists, but they all have opportunistic tendencies whether they are conscious of them or not. I do genuinely believe that some politicians are not primarily self-interested, but then I think the way power operates and reproduces itself is far more complex than any reductionist analysis of individual intention could ever hope to elucidate. We need to get past this paradigm of the good or bad politician. These people are agents, actors, within a system that is far more complex and powerful than ideals.

It depends on the politician. What Bernie did wasn't new. He was an 'in' for various radical movements that have been operating for over a century. The movements kept the issues on the agenda.

Yes, because labour movements and communities have been smashed and we've been very easy to divide and rule.

Liberal feminism in its very nature ignores class. Feminism has always had a very strong class orientation. Feminism is not single issue and never has been. Class has never ignored feminism. Feminism has always been vital to class.

Eh? You've countered a cause with a symptom. People didn't become individualised because they suddenly felt like being egocentric.

[Something about base and superstructure....] I don't think regurgitating theory is helpful in any practical sense, but I think it's instructive in a few basic ways and besides, solidarity is not a particularly complex notion.

I don't have time to go into the geneaology of the nation-state but the idea that liberal democracy was ever some radical, communal effort for the betterment of the people is a myth and one that even its best-known pioneers would acknowledge as such.

Of course capitalism is founded on consumption. Consumption makes it easier to ignore truths. This is as true as it has ever been in the information age. Acknowledging it won't make it go away.

Capitalism is inherently unstable. It literally cannot sustain itself past a certain point. In its most benign form it can provide for most people for a short period but only at the expense of various strata of people domestically, and at the misery and subjugation of peoples across the Global South. What happens when political revolution reaches Saudi Arabia? What happens when the economic project in China reaches critical mass and they start paying their workers a wage equivalent to those in the West? Even the most benevolent capitalist countries are plunged into crisis. Our plentitude is contingent on the suffering of entire continents of people. That will come to an end sooner rather than later.

I suspect it's utterly pointless to argue about whether existing political and economic systems will endure, but just for my benefit and to try to get an alternative perspective, can you give me an overview of a couple of things:

1. How do you anticipate things will go from here? It's not an uncommon view that our mate Fukuyama was too smug, too early, and that democracy and liberty are not inextricably linked at all. But what do you think might actually supplant what we call liberal democracy?

2. Ignoring the request for a prediction, what would you like to happen? What is the fairest, most equitable world order you imagine and how could it come about?

 

[Bilo]

An oversight, accepted.

You are a gentleman and a scholar.

Again, I'm also aware that the problem of Islamic extremism is more down to the role of geopolitics in the last 100 years as it is due to literal reading of the doctrine. Their people have been separated, artificial states erected, corrupt governments installed and overthrown, their natural resources siphoned, their homes and loved ones bombed in an imperial game of Risk.

My qualm with religion (and this applies to them all), is that a literal reading of doctrine can lead to the formation of some fucked up ideologies, which can have a very negative effect on (both sides of) the world . In this case, jihadist terrorism.

Well, did it ever occur to you that perhaps religion has absolutely nothing to do with it and that any region, with or without religion, having to go through what the middle east has would have resulted in terrorism?

I mean, people haven't exclusively needed anything aside from some form of believed oppression to become terrorists. I simply don't see the relevance. Sure, I see the simple view point, they claim to do it for islam some maybe therein lies the problem. But that's like, the opinion before you google the subject, before you read the first well researched book about it, before you read anything about it. Because the first few steps into the world that is terrorism research will tell you that whatever terrorists claim to represent is completely irrelevant. I just don't see why you have to take religion into the equation at all. I mean, do you genuinely believe that if there wasn't the Quran, there'd be no terrorism?

I don't think Trump is suspicious of all Muslims. I think he knows that Islamism is a threat to national security and he is exaggerating the threat of extremism to rile support. Yes, this will engage the support of a lot of racists, but I don't believe calling out Islamic extremism as a threat itself is racist.

Like most populists, Trump doesn't necessarily believe what he says, no. But you can't tell between an islamist and a muslim, can you? You don't think it's racist itself, but it is generalizing and dangerous. Because people now believe any muslim could be an islamist, guilty until proven innocent so to speak. Of course it's racism.

I think you have caught mid hypothetical argument and assume I am a bigot who is suspicious of Muslims. Again, this was an analysis of Trump vs Hitler. I am not, as said in the edited the post above, I am pro-immigration, almost pro open borders. Both the USA and the UK should be doing more in terms of bringing of refugees to aid a crisis they had a huge part in causing. I just don't think being protectionist/caring about national security is racist in itself.

This is the second time you've accused me of soon accusing/assuming that you are a bigot. I haven't said anything of the sort and I missed your edit.

But honestly, if caring about national security equals shut out muslims, you're probably a racist. Yellow hair or not.

 

[Alty]

Ideologies are not always defined on oppression, no. Who said that? Terrorism stems from oppression and little else. I said that. Well I and a series of others.

And I do know the difference between jihadists, islamists, conservative muslims and liberal muslims although I'd not bunch them together like that, mostly because islamism is politics and islam is a religion. What I was pointing out was that Renegade in his defense of Trump said "muslims", as if they're any identifiable group at all and as if their religion is in any way responsible for terrorism.

And if something is completely flawed, surely it's not flawed at all but just another colour? I don't know. Anyway, the difference you pointed out is irrelevant to my point, but if it hurts so much just think about the RAF and Germans instead. They did want to impose a way of life on all others. But I genuinely don't know what difference that makes, to be honest, but if it helps you understand then great.

Well a) that's not true of terrorism either, and b) you're quite entitled to be wary of Islamists entering your country even if you don't think they'll resort to terrorism.

Errr, I think you've missed the point. If you allow Muslims to enter your country you're going to get people from all those groups. More than one of them is undesirable. And you're also wrong about the religion having no bearing whatsoever on whether people become terrorists. This is a line that's trotted out repeatedly but is demonstrably false. There are plenty of other religions that have adherents you could classify as fundamentalists but who aren't dangerous. There are plenty of other oppressed people who don't resort to mass murder on a regular basis. Of course most Muslims aren't terrible, dangerous people, but to claim the religion and the ideology are not linked is either disingenuous or ignorant.

Haven't the foggiest idea what you're taking about in the final paragraph.

 

[Jockney]

I suspect it's utterly pointless to argue about whether existing political and economic systems will endure, but just for my benefit and to try to get an alternative perspective, can you give me an overview of a couple of things:

1. How do you anticipate things will go from here? It's not an uncommon view that our mate Fukuyama was too smug, too early, and that democracy and liberty are not inextricably linked at all. But what do you think might actually supplant what we call liberal democracy?

2. Ignoring the request for a prediction, what would you like to happen? What is the fairest, most equitable world order you imagine and how could it come about?

Fair dues for staying all Scumbag levels of reasonable on this. I still think you're a dangerous c***, mind, but you've made an honest attempt to engage which, if I'm being honest, is a courtesy I'd probably rarely ever extend to you.

Anyway:

1) Hard to do any sort of predicting on the micro level, but more broadly I see the centre-ground clinging on to the bitter end, shifting more and more to the right on immigration but ultimately beaten soundly by right-wing populist projects across Europe (this is not long-term either, with 11 GEs across mainland Europe slated for 2017, I think the continental terrain will start its transition in earnest). May will want to align herself with Trump as much as possible and I can see something vaguely resembling the special relationship that Reagan and Thatcher shared emerging, especially when Trump starts to tone down the more ridiculous rhetoric in favour of legalist arguments against immigration. May to consolidate power in 2020 on a hardline anti-immigration platform; toothless Corbyn and centrist elements within the PLP will put paid to any meaningful mainstream political alternative, but I think a new independent rad-left project is likely to emerge as a reaction to authoritarian-nationalist sentiment. Going into the long, long term, I think the American democratic project is dying if not dead and with or without civil strife will dissolve into a handful of smaller nations. Some sort of mainland European Spring entirely possible within the next twenty to thirty years, especially with another big crash on the way. Britain hard to predict, only vaguely 'European', not so vulnerable historically to far-right authoritarianism, think that will probably change as consumption becomes harder to sustain and the housing bubble can't be sustained any longer.

That is not to be fatalistic, only a current projection. Again, capitalism is erratic, unstable but also tends to adapt very well to new conditions. I also think we are about to see radical movements step up to the plate big time now that most people feel like lives are at stake again and we've got a common enemy to fight.

2) I don't want to imagine utopias yet coz I'm still not sure what ground a radical left vision will be fighting on. Universal Basic Income, emancipatory automation and some elements of degrowth seem like fairly viable solutions in the mid-term, but that is very much contingent on the left making inroads in democratic party politics while things are relatively stable and I'm not so sure we're ready for anything like that before things start to get ugly.

 

[Renegade]

You are a gentleman and a scholar.
Well, did it ever occur to you that perhaps religion has absolutely nothing to do with it and that any region, with or without religion, having to go through what the middle east has would have resulted in terrorism?

I mean, people haven't exclusively needed anything aside from some form of believed oppression to become terrorists. I simply don't see the relevance. Sure, I see the simple view point, they claim to do it for islam some maybe therein lies the problem. But that's like, the opinion before you google the subject, before you read the first well researched book about it, before you read anything about it. Because the first few steps into the world that is terrorism research will tell you that whatever terrorists claim to represent is completely irrelevant. I just don't see why you have to take religion into the equation at all. I mean, do you genuinely believe that if there wasn't the Quran, there'd be no terrorism?

No, but I believe religion has exacerbated the problem, before and after imperialism devastated the area. Do you believe that if there was no religion then there would be an equivalent issue to the sectarianism of Sunni vs Shia? And once their land was pillaged, religion again was the answer to some, a literal reading of their doctrine becomes a weapon to defend themselves.

Anyway, I'll let you respond to this point and I'll say no more, derailing this thread with what has been covered a bunch on this forum before.

Like most populists, Trump doesn't necessarily believe what he says, no. But you can't tell between an islamist and a muslim, can you? You don't think it's racist itself, but it is generalizing and dangerous. Because people now believe any muslim could be an islamist, guilty until proven innocent so to speak. Of course it's racism.

It is dangerous, I don't think when he points out the issue of extremism it is racist. Of course it will be jumped on by racists and Trump knows this.

This is the second time you've accused me of soon accusing/assuming that you are a bigot. I haven't said anything of the sort and I missed your edit.

But honestly, if caring about national security equals shut out muslims, you're probably a racist. Yellow hair or not.

Apologies, you called Trump a racist and stated that neither of us see or point out the differences between Islam and Islamism. Putting two and two together and getting five. Getting all riled up in this new world.

 

[Bilo]

I'm not talking about what any politician as a quasi-subject within a broader system is motivated by, I'm talking about the system itself which is beholden to the market to one degree or another. Is Obama an idealist? I believe so more than an opportunist, though he of course has latent opportunistic tendencies. Obama is not an emancipator. Obama believes very much in the system that causes the problems in the first place: he doesn't believe it necessarily causes the problems, but he does believe in the system. What polict platforms did Obama run on that most Americans weren't asking for for years. He wanted to ameliorate the system. He was concessionary, not visionary.

I agree with most of this, but if the problems still are oppression of minorities than I think your line of arguing -- let's see if I get it right this time -- is that the system causes it? I disagree entirely, structural racism causes it and the system can work against it, or enable it. Trump's an enabler, Obama was naive but not all presidents have been Reagan.

Of course they're not all opportunists, but they all have opportunistic tendencies whether they are conscious of them or not. I do genuinely believe that some politicians are not primarily self-interested, but then I think the way power operates and reproduces itself is far more complex than any reductionist analysis of individual intention could ever hope to elucidate. We need to get past this paradigm of the good or bad politician. These people are agents, actors, within a system that is far more complex and powerful than ideals.

This is extremely cynical throughout. I'll step back by saying I don't know quite enough about the American system to tell you that you're wrong; but I do live in Sweden, which is capitalistic, and here none of that is accurate. And believe me when I tell you that I do know enough about the political system in Sweden to tell you that what you're saying is inaccurate. I do think power in itself is problematic (what's that quote now, power corrupts and absolute ..?), but it can be both divided and controlled. Now I realize I'm forcing you into a corner where you either read up on Swedish politics or concede that there's two ways about it, but I can't see another way of going about this. For fairness sake, I'll give you a long run down if you actually ask me to do it. Please don't

It depends on the politician. What Bernie did wasn't new. He was an 'in' for various radical movements that have been operating for over a century. The movements kept the issues on the agenda.

Movements need politicians and politicians need movements, both can breed one another. Bernie called himself a socialist and almost beat Clinton, that was fairly new.

Yes, because labour movements and communities have been smashed and we've been very easy to divide and rule.

Well, there's more to it than that but I largely agree.

Liberal feminism in its very nature ignores class. Feminism has always had a very strong class orientation. Feminism is not single issue and never has been. Class has never ignored feminism. Feminism has always been vital to class.

Feminism doesn't have a very strong class orientation, not contemporary feminism anyway. It's gender orientated to the point that it rhetorically tends to insinuate that the most oppressed white male is still more privileged than the most privileged woman. I concede that I shouldn't have said in its very nature, you're right. But contemporary feminism in its current state represented by those I broadly generalize through vague rhetorical similarities do, in fact, ignore class as much as they can because they, too, act in a political arena where every response has 30 seconds or you're done.

Eh? You've countered a cause with a symptom. People didn't become individualised because they suddenly felt like being egocentric.

No, people have always been egocentric, they became individualized through under-developed world views presented to them by opportunists, rather than idealists.

[Something about base and superstructure....] I don't think regurgitating theory is helpful in any practical sense, but I think it's instructive in a few basic ways and besides, solidarity is not a particularly complex notion.

Solidarity is extremely complex in practical terms. It's not a complex notion in theory, no, but in theory you never have to help to the extent that you damage your own welfare. In the real world, you're forced to, eventually. The only question is where you draw the line, if you're like Alty and draw the line as far away as possible or if you're ready to give up some of your welfare to help others. But to call it not a particularly complex notion is trivializing it.

I don't have time to go into the geneaology of the nation-state but the idea that liberal democracy was ever some radical, communal effort for the betterment of the people is a myth and one that even its best-known pioneers would acknowledge as such.

I didn't say liberal democracy, I said democracy, which in the beginning was exactly what I described.

Capitalism is inherently unstable. It literally cannot sustain itself past a certain point. In its most benign form it can provide for most people for a short period but only at the expense of various strata of people domestically, and at the misery and subjugation of peoples across the Global South. What happens when political revolution reaches Saudi Arabia? What happens when the economic project in China reaches critical mass and they start paying their workers a wage equivalent to those in the West? Even the most benevolent capitalist countries are plunged into crisis. Our plentitude is contingent on the suffering of entire continents of people. That will come to an end sooner rather than later.

But this isn't Trump's fault at all.

Anyway, good post, I enjoyed reading it.

 

[G-Dragon]

Relax guys. Trump will make American Great Again!

 

[Abertawe]

This post is so absurd that I want to pick it apart simply to see what I come up with. I've never seen anyone argue this line in my life, ever. Probably for good reason.

This is technically correct. However, if all the bigots agree with you and the person you're voting for is also a bigot, you're probably in the wrong.




.

Utter mug.

This is technically correct. However, if all the bigots agree with you and the person you're voting for is also a bigot, you're probably in the wrong

The old say two things that contradict each other tactic, I like it. I do genuinely believe you're mature enough to understand that on an issue as broad ranging as an american presidential election there are so many factors on which a person can reach a conclusion. If that opinion lands on the same side as a bigot then it is what it is, an unfortunate circumstance. It doesn't deem that wrong purely on the basis a bigot shares the same view and you know it.

This is also mostly correct, although it's ignoring that the american economy is in a transition and that it works very well for lots of people, so I'd refrain from the phrase "the current system isn't working for people, it can be argued it's destroying them". It sounds very, well, Trump.

You really are an ignorant pompous prick.

"According to the Child Trends Databank, at the start of the 2013 – 2014 academic year, there were approximately 1.4 million children in the United States who reported to school and did not have an address to give to school authorities."

• In January 2015, 564,708 people were homeless on a given night in the United States.
• Of that number, 206,286 were people in families, and
• 358,422 were individuals.
• About 15 percent of the homeless population - 83,170 - are considered "chronically homeless” individuals.
• About 2 percent - 13,105 - are considered "chronically homeless” people in families.
• About 8 percent of homeless people- 47,725 - are veterans.

Fucking superb system son. First and foremost a country should provide for it's citizens, those above statistics should stop at zero. Trumps message stands up to scrutiny. Turning the screw on corporations by making it more expensive import from outside than if it was made in the States, limiting immigration thus cutting competition between the peasants will lead to an increase in wages, if they're going to embark on this investment bonanza that brings back boom time murica then then the work base will require upskilling and resources (500k homeless) working more efficiently. His plans stand up. Yes it would be nice if Trump was a man to reorder the distribution of wealth but that isn't the case. The reality is he will deliver more jobs whereby the workforce can force natural inflation of wages due to less competition.

Well, it's changed slightly since people realized you shouldn't be open about hating people for their skin colour. Nowadays you see everything but skin colour; religion, nationality etc. A good example of today's racism would be saying something ridiculous such as "mexicans are rapists". Don't know why that came to mind.


Now this is gold, absolute gold. Because it's so ignorant it's frightening, aside from being almost entirely incorrect. But you did say you didn't put too much thought into this post, so consider this from me to you so that you don't have to.

America is the country with the most frightening, challenging and tangible structural racism in the world since they abandoned slavery. And that's not exclusive for blacks, it goes for all minorities. You mention some of the problems trying to make some sort of point that this is due to previous administrations. It's broad and in fact, incorrect. Yes, there are bills such as three strikes and you're out that Clinton passed, the ridiculous war on drugs Nixon and Reagan tried, but the fact is this: America has since the 50's made huge strides for minorities, bigger than anyone in the world.

So when you're pointing out these problems, well they're the ones that remain and the ones that the progressive part of the American political system still want to change. You can argue that Clinton was the wrong person to represent this change, but Trump is the downright opposite. His political theory is essentially to make people believe that he can turn back time, and turning back time in America literally equals more racism. And this isn't stuff I'm making up to have you look dumb, if you actually took some time and read about the history of american politics I wouldn't have to tell you. I recommended a book called The authoritarian dynamic in my previous post, you really should read it. If you can't be bothered, watch "13th" on Netflix. But then again, if your political interest stops before reading a book, perhaps you should refrain from trying to call the guys trying to fight racism racists because blatantly, you have no idea what the hell you're on about. You wrote specifically "You've been involved in multiple administrations that have presided over those issues". Jesus christ, as if they're at fault for them. Nobody believes that, nobody argues that so just stop.

The part about Jay-Z and Beyonce was also embarrassing, but it has little to do with this thread so I'll leave it

Moron. Suggest you listen to this, you might actually learn something.

Once upon a time the likes of Jay-Z would just have been a young nigger from the projects, he's now in a position whereby he should be empowering young black kids yet he's complicit in the distortion of what it represents to be poor & black and how that has been conditioned to affect behaviour. Prisons are guaranteed set number of inmates per year, gotta fill them. When you want to be a prick at least assess the current landscape. You don't have to allow legalised lynching for institutional and state backed racism to still occur. Putting a mixed race puppet in as president doesn't solve racism. Obama brushing the dirt off his shoulder was an acceptance that the racism indoctrinated in the US system was to continue. Will Trump be any better more than likely not but you're a magnet for consent manipulation. Your middle class white guilt means that you happily buy the media liberal line that all is now equal and change has come. No, the reality is lives are still dictated to be a misery purely because you were born a certain colour. So when all you spivs are banging on about Trump you're being duped away from whats really going down. Open your eyes. Trump is bad for women yet this shit is fantastic to empowering young girls and definitely doesn't encourage the population of easy to trap into poverty single mothers. You're not wise Bilo, you've not woken. Jockney can get to fuck as well.

 

[Bilo]

No, but I believe religion has exacerbated the problem, before and after imperialism devastated the area. Do you believe that if there was no religion then there would be an equivalent issue to the sectarianism of Sunni vs Shia? And once their land was pillaged, religion again was the answer to some, a literal reading of their doctrine becomes a weapon to defend themselves.

The Sunni vs Shia, honestly man, I don't know. I mean, I know the conflict, I know what it stems from and I know what it has caused. But whether or not it'd be there to the same extent without islam, I'm genuinely unsure because I haven't read enough about it. Have you?

Anyway, I'll let you respond to this point and I'll say no more, derailing this thread with what has been covered a bunch on this forum before.

I'll try to be gentle.

It is dangerous, I don't think when he points out the issue of extremism it is racist. Of course it will be jumped on by racists and Trump knows this.

I feel you've said this and I've responded to it so well yeah.

Apologies, you called Trump a racist and stated that neither of us see or point out the differences between Islam and Islamism. Putting two and two together and getting five. Getting all riled up in this new world.

But that was back when you still bunched muslims together. You stopped doing that. So we've moved on and we're all friends, let's laugh at Abertawe.

 

[Bilo]

Putting a mixed race puppet

This is where I stopped reading mate but great post, I'll think twice before crossing you again.

 

[Jockney]

Utter mug.


The old say two things that contradict each other tactic, I like it. I do genuinely believe you're mature enough to understand that on an issue as broad ranging as an american presidential election there are so many factors on which a person can reach a conclusion. If that opinion lands on the same side as a bigot then it is what it is, an unfortunate circumstance. It doesn't deem that wrong purely on the basis a bigot shares the same view and you know it.



You really are an ignorant pompous prick.

"According to the Child Trends Databank, at the start of the 2013 – 2014 academic year, there were approximately 1.4 million children in the United States who reported to school and did not have an address to give to school authorities."

• In January 2015, 564,708 people were homeless on a given night in the United States.
• Of that number, 206,286 were people in families, and
• 358,422 were individuals.
• About 15 percent of the homeless population - 83,170 - are considered "chronically homeless” individuals.
• About 2 percent - 13,105 - are considered "chronically homeless” people in families.
• About 8 percent of homeless people- 47,725 - are veterans.

Fucking superb system son. First and foremost a country should provide for it's citizens, those above statistics should stop at zero. Trumps message stands up to scrutiny. Turning the screw on corporations by making it more expensive import from outside than if it was made in the States, limiting immigration thus cutting competition between the peasants will lead to an increase in wages, if they're going to embark on this investment bonanza that brings back boom time murica then then the work base will require upskilling and resources (500k homeless) working more efficiently. His plans stand up. Yes it would be nice if Trump was a man to reorder the distribution of wealth but that isn't the case. The reality is he will deliver more jobs whereby the workforce can force natural inflation of wages due to less competition.


Moron. Suggest you listen to this, you might actually learn something.

Once upon a time the likes of Jay-Z would just have been a young nigger from the projects, he's now in a position whereby he should be empowering young black kids yet he's complicit in the distortion of what it represents to be poor & black and how that has been conditioned to affect behaviour. Prisons are guaranteed set number of inmates per year, gotta fill them. When you want to be a prick at least assess the current landscape. You don't have to allow legalised lynching for institutional and state backed racism to still occur. Putting a mixed race puppet in as president doesn't solve racism. Obama brushing the dirt off his shoulder was an acceptance that the racism indoctrinated in the US system was to continue. Will Trump be any better more than likely not but you're a magnet for consent manipulation. Your middle class white guilt means that you happily buy the media liberal line that all is now equal and change has come. No, the reality is lives are still dictated to be a misery purely because you were born a certain colour. So when all you spivs are banging on about Trump you're being duped away from whats really going down. Open your eyes. Trump is bad for women yet this shit is fantastic to empowering young girls and definitely doesn't encourage the population of easy to trap into poverty single mothers. You're not wise Bilo, you've not woken. Jockney can get to fuck as well.

Alright, you watched a Netflix documentary on Chomsky. We get it.

That 'manufactured consent' is called hegemony by the way, and it is a concept that was fleshed out in a series of smuggled correspondences by an Italian bloke who went toe-to-toe with fascists and later died in one of Mussolini's prisons: spoiler alert, it wasn't fucking Jay-Z wot duped everyone.

 

[Abertawe]

Alright, you watched a Netflix documentary on Chomsky. We get it.

That 'manufactured consent' is called hegemony by the way, and it is a concept that was fleshed out by an Italian bloke who went toe-to-toe with fascists and later died in one of Mussolini's prisons: spoiler alert, it wasn't fucking Jay-Z wot duped everyone.

I couldn't watch Chomsky, mumbles far too much.

Great points there, really debunked what I said. Fuck me, even Jonny T has a greater grasp of the world than yourself.