|
On October 31 2018 13:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 12:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 12:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2018 12:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 09:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2018 07:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 07:39 iamthedave wrote:On October 31 2018 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 06:56 iamthedave wrote:On October 31 2018 06:31 GreenHorizons wrote:
While white supremacist groups feel most at home in the US, they too have world wide networks and resources. Of course if we want to run the clock for the existence of America the white supremacy body count dwarfs all other forms of terrorism against this country combined, even if you count pearl harbor.
The resources and international network becomes much more clear when one realizes that white supremacy doesn't stop at terrorist attacks labeled by a known white supremacist group (the FBI). Are you sure it's a known white supremacist group? Or is that just your opinion of the FBI? I can't remember it ever appearing on anyone else's list. Well I think we agree they were clearly a white supremacist group in the 60's, so I'd have to be shown when they stopped being one. I do recognize it's likely a point of disagreement for most though. Yeah I think that's fair. The pretty obvious steps taken to prevent black emancipation is a BIT OF A TIP OFF on that front. I guess it depends on how much you think the FBI has an individual identity above and beyond serving the government. If the government has such leanings, the FBI will have them too. For example, if the US ever became a truly fascist state, the FBI literally is the apparatus of a new secret police. It has most of the traits such an organisation needs to function out of the gate. It may be personal idealism but I tend to think the majority of the people in such an organisation are going to lean towards being hard working, patriotic, and professional. But Patriotism is very dangerous, especially when you're in an environment like that where you see things you or I never will. I mean, literature's been dealing with the idea of how far you might have to go in order to best serve/protect your country, and how many moral boundaries you might have to cross in the process, for centuries. From a certain perspective, attempting to suppress the civil rights movement in the 60s can absolutely be seen as the act of Patriots. You know? So I tend to think the FBI is only as good or bad as the government it serves. But I don't know how much of a personal identity the organisation actually has. Under Hoover it was Hoover's (J. Edgar), since then I think your describing more or less what it is. So I guess that takes us to the question of whether the government operates under a branch of white supremacy. My answer is obviously yes, and I think while Trump's in charge most liberals are having a hard time disagreeing. Before there's any confusion, I'm not calling Trump a nazi, I'm simply saying that white supremacy has a wide and powerful international network with resources compared to none in my view, even if like "Muslim Terrorism" there are many, sometimes competing, factions. If you're going to take this kind of global view of white supremacy, then you're inevitably going to find yourself in the territory set forth in Clash of Civilizations, at which you point you better be rooting for white supremacy to win out. I do take it and no I'm not rooting for white supremacy, though under the scenario you're imagining I can understand why you would be. So if you're not rooting for the white/Western block, which one are you rooting for? My "clash of civilizations" is what you would probably know better as "class warfare" so white supremacy has no place on the side I'm pulling for. You know, I was reading something the other day that had a rather interesting observation. The point that was made was that traditional economic/class-based Marxism has been so thoroughly discredited by experience (everything from the USSR to Venezuela) that Marxists have been compelled to turn to new oppressor/oppressed dichotomies (e.g. the patriarchy as the oppressor to feminists) to stay relevant. Hell, class warfare always has historically degenerated into "clash of civilizations" - type identity politics anyway, so I don't see how you would ultimately be able to duck making a choice in the long run.
I thought this was already pretty obvious. The class struggle was not enough of a cultural and economic-anxiety pull to fracture existing structures like the family and whatever you want to call "pull yourself up by your bootstraps."
The bourgeoisie-proletariat 2.0 is white (cisgender hetero) males and PoC/BIPoC + trans/gender nonbinary + queer/etc. Your feminism/patriarchy is playing second fiddle, as seen in classics like the Vagina Monologues described as trans-exclusionary and "straight white able-bodied woman feels a little too empowered."
The backlash is one solid pillar of the Trump phenomenon: if politics is all about identity group power struggles at its heart, reducible to oppressor/oppressed, then whites just pull out economic dispossession, opiate addiction, and academic discrimination as some of their characteristics and band together against their shades of oppression instead of just sucking it up and taking it. I reject the whole premise, but I can admit that a lot of my new political allies are less interested in traditional conservative ideology like small government and individual responsibility as with getting attention and handouts too as a collective.
|
On October 31 2018 13:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 12:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 12:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2018 12:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 09:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2018 07:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 07:39 iamthedave wrote:On October 31 2018 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 06:56 iamthedave wrote:On October 31 2018 06:31 GreenHorizons wrote:
While white supremacist groups feel most at home in the US, they too have world wide networks and resources. Of course if we want to run the clock for the existence of America the white supremacy body count dwarfs all other forms of terrorism against this country combined, even if you count pearl harbor.
The resources and international network becomes much more clear when one realizes that white supremacy doesn't stop at terrorist attacks labeled by a known white supremacist group (the FBI). Are you sure it's a known white supremacist group? Or is that just your opinion of the FBI? I can't remember it ever appearing on anyone else's list. Well I think we agree they were clearly a white supremacist group in the 60's, so I'd have to be shown when they stopped being one. I do recognize it's likely a point of disagreement for most though. Yeah I think that's fair. The pretty obvious steps taken to prevent black emancipation is a BIT OF A TIP OFF on that front. I guess it depends on how much you think the FBI has an individual identity above and beyond serving the government. If the government has such leanings, the FBI will have them too. For example, if the US ever became a truly fascist state, the FBI literally is the apparatus of a new secret police. It has most of the traits such an organisation needs to function out of the gate. It may be personal idealism but I tend to think the majority of the people in such an organisation are going to lean towards being hard working, patriotic, and professional. But Patriotism is very dangerous, especially when you're in an environment like that where you see things you or I never will. I mean, literature's been dealing with the idea of how far you might have to go in order to best serve/protect your country, and how many moral boundaries you might have to cross in the process, for centuries. From a certain perspective, attempting to suppress the civil rights movement in the 60s can absolutely be seen as the act of Patriots. You know? So I tend to think the FBI is only as good or bad as the government it serves. But I don't know how much of a personal identity the organisation actually has. Under Hoover it was Hoover's (J. Edgar), since then I think your describing more or less what it is. So I guess that takes us to the question of whether the government operates under a branch of white supremacy. My answer is obviously yes, and I think while Trump's in charge most liberals are having a hard time disagreeing. Before there's any confusion, I'm not calling Trump a nazi, I'm simply saying that white supremacy has a wide and powerful international network with resources compared to none in my view, even if like "Muslim Terrorism" there are many, sometimes competing, factions. If you're going to take this kind of global view of white supremacy, then you're inevitably going to find yourself in the territory set forth in Clash of Civilizations, at which you point you better be rooting for white supremacy to win out. I do take it and no I'm not rooting for white supremacy, though under the scenario you're imagining I can understand why you would be. So if you're not rooting for the white/Western block, which one are you rooting for? My "clash of civilizations" is what you would probably know better as "class warfare" so white supremacy has no place on the side I'm pulling for. You know, I was reading something the other day that had a rather interesting observation. The point that was made was that traditional economic/class-based Marxism has been so thoroughly discredited by experience (everything from the USSR to Venezuela) that Marxists have been compelled to turn to new oppressor/oppressed dichotomies (e.g. the patriarchy as the oppressor to feminists) to stay relevant. Hell, class warfare always has historically degenerated into "clash of civilizations" - type identity politics anyway, so I don't see how you would ultimately be able to duck making a choice in the long run.
Yeah, I've been reading that as well. It's a shockingly ahistorical take: when those "marxists" "turned" to those new oppressor/oppressed dichotomies, there was nothing to "discredit" marxism yet: the first postmodern thinkers, people like Derrida and Foucault, start writing in 1967 and 1961 respectively. The french communist party is the third largest party at this time with 21% (1969), the italian communist party is the second largest with 26% (1972)... The notion that marxism was so discredited that postmodern authors had to hide their marxism so that they could continue to spread it is observably untrue: it just wasn't.
It also ignores that marxists and postmodernists tend to criticize each other a lot, even to this day (Zizek). But that's secondary. The main point is the complete revision of history and the blending of clearly distinct school of thoughts into one another so that you get to have a single enemy. It's convenient, but wrong.
|
On October 31 2018 14:23 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 13:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2018 12:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 12:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2018 12:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 09:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2018 07:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 07:39 iamthedave wrote:On October 31 2018 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 06:56 iamthedave wrote:
[quote]
Are you sure it's a known white supremacist group? Or is that just your opinion of the FBI? I can't remember it ever appearing on anyone else's list. Well I think we agree they were clearly a white supremacist group in the 60's, so I'd have to be shown when they stopped being one. I do recognize it's likely a point of disagreement for most though. Yeah I think that's fair. The pretty obvious steps taken to prevent black emancipation is a BIT OF A TIP OFF on that front. I guess it depends on how much you think the FBI has an individual identity above and beyond serving the government. If the government has such leanings, the FBI will have them too. For example, if the US ever became a truly fascist state, the FBI literally is the apparatus of a new secret police. It has most of the traits such an organisation needs to function out of the gate. It may be personal idealism but I tend to think the majority of the people in such an organisation are going to lean towards being hard working, patriotic, and professional. But Patriotism is very dangerous, especially when you're in an environment like that where you see things you or I never will. I mean, literature's been dealing with the idea of how far you might have to go in order to best serve/protect your country, and how many moral boundaries you might have to cross in the process, for centuries. From a certain perspective, attempting to suppress the civil rights movement in the 60s can absolutely be seen as the act of Patriots. You know? So I tend to think the FBI is only as good or bad as the government it serves. But I don't know how much of a personal identity the organisation actually has. Under Hoover it was Hoover's (J. Edgar), since then I think your describing more or less what it is. So I guess that takes us to the question of whether the government operates under a branch of white supremacy. My answer is obviously yes, and I think while Trump's in charge most liberals are having a hard time disagreeing. Before there's any confusion, I'm not calling Trump a nazi, I'm simply saying that white supremacy has a wide and powerful international network with resources compared to none in my view, even if like "Muslim Terrorism" there are many, sometimes competing, factions. If you're going to take this kind of global view of white supremacy, then you're inevitably going to find yourself in the territory set forth in Clash of Civilizations, at which you point you better be rooting for white supremacy to win out. I do take it and no I'm not rooting for white supremacy, though under the scenario you're imagining I can understand why you would be. So if you're not rooting for the white/Western block, which one are you rooting for? My "clash of civilizations" is what you would probably know better as "class warfare" so white supremacy has no place on the side I'm pulling for. You know, I was reading something the other day that had a rather interesting observation. The point that was made was that traditional economic/class-based Marxism has been so thoroughly discredited by experience (everything from the USSR to Venezuela) that Marxists have been compelled to turn to new oppressor/oppressed dichotomies (e.g. the patriarchy as the oppressor to feminists) to stay relevant. Hell, class warfare always has historically degenerated into "clash of civilizations" - type identity politics anyway, so I don't see how you would ultimately be able to duck making a choice in the long run. Yeah, I've been reading that as well. It's a shockingly ahistorical take: when those "marxists" "turned" to those new oppressor/oppressed dichotomies, there was nothing to "discredit" marxism yet: the first postmodern thinkers, people like Derrida and Foucault, start writing in 1967 and 1961 respectively. The french communist party is the third largest party at this time with 21% (1969), the italian communist party is the second largest with 26% (1972)... The notion that marxism was so discredited that postmodern authors had to hide their marxism so that they could continue to spread it is observably untrue: it just wasn't. It also ignores that marxists and postmodernists tend to criticize each other a lot, even to this day (Zizek). But that's secondary. The main point is the complete revision of history and the blending of clearly distinct school of thoughts into one another so that you get to have a single enemy. It's convenient, but wrong.
Not to mention that - in my experience at least - 90% of the people who talk about Marxism don't know what they're talking about. Most people are talking about talking points they've heard from other sources rather than having an understanding of the real thing or its history.
Marx had that problem certain thinkers had, of being so far ahead of their time and so in tune with things that they speak accurately to truths people are aware of deep down but have no idea how to grapple with.
That process is still ongoing. But the idea that Marxism is discredited when the modern day is an even better demonstration of Marx's principles than when he wrote it is absurd.
I mean, during the tax cut talk all people could talk about was how the middle class would benefit, and the working class would benefit, and the blue collar worker would benefit. Classism is alive and well. Even to the point that different classes have identifiable identities and voting preferences.
As are the systems of control used by the elite to stop them doing anything about their position.
|
On October 31 2018 17:17 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 14:23 Nebuchad wrote:On October 31 2018 13:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2018 12:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 12:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2018 12:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 09:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2018 07:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 07:39 iamthedave wrote:On October 31 2018 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Well I think we agree they were clearly a white supremacist group in the 60's, so I'd have to be shown when they stopped being one. I do recognize it's likely a point of disagreement for most though. Yeah I think that's fair. The pretty obvious steps taken to prevent black emancipation is a BIT OF A TIP OFF on that front. I guess it depends on how much you think the FBI has an individual identity above and beyond serving the government. If the government has such leanings, the FBI will have them too. For example, if the US ever became a truly fascist state, the FBI literally is the apparatus of a new secret police. It has most of the traits such an organisation needs to function out of the gate. It may be personal idealism but I tend to think the majority of the people in such an organisation are going to lean towards being hard working, patriotic, and professional. But Patriotism is very dangerous, especially when you're in an environment like that where you see things you or I never will. I mean, literature's been dealing with the idea of how far you might have to go in order to best serve/protect your country, and how many moral boundaries you might have to cross in the process, for centuries. From a certain perspective, attempting to suppress the civil rights movement in the 60s can absolutely be seen as the act of Patriots. You know? So I tend to think the FBI is only as good or bad as the government it serves. But I don't know how much of a personal identity the organisation actually has. Under Hoover it was Hoover's (J. Edgar), since then I think your describing more or less what it is. So I guess that takes us to the question of whether the government operates under a branch of white supremacy. My answer is obviously yes, and I think while Trump's in charge most liberals are having a hard time disagreeing. Before there's any confusion, I'm not calling Trump a nazi, I'm simply saying that white supremacy has a wide and powerful international network with resources compared to none in my view, even if like "Muslim Terrorism" there are many, sometimes competing, factions. If you're going to take this kind of global view of white supremacy, then you're inevitably going to find yourself in the territory set forth in Clash of Civilizations, at which you point you better be rooting for white supremacy to win out. I do take it and no I'm not rooting for white supremacy, though under the scenario you're imagining I can understand why you would be. So if you're not rooting for the white/Western block, which one are you rooting for? My "clash of civilizations" is what you would probably know better as "class warfare" so white supremacy has no place on the side I'm pulling for. You know, I was reading something the other day that had a rather interesting observation. The point that was made was that traditional economic/class-based Marxism has been so thoroughly discredited by experience (everything from the USSR to Venezuela) that Marxists have been compelled to turn to new oppressor/oppressed dichotomies (e.g. the patriarchy as the oppressor to feminists) to stay relevant. Hell, class warfare always has historically degenerated into "clash of civilizations" - type identity politics anyway, so I don't see how you would ultimately be able to duck making a choice in the long run. Yeah, I've been reading that as well. It's a shockingly ahistorical take: when those "marxists" "turned" to those new oppressor/oppressed dichotomies, there was nothing to "discredit" marxism yet: the first postmodern thinkers, people like Derrida and Foucault, start writing in 1967 and 1961 respectively. The french communist party is the third largest party at this time with 21% (1969), the italian communist party is the second largest with 26% (1972)... The notion that marxism was so discredited that postmodern authors had to hide their marxism so that they could continue to spread it is observably untrue: it just wasn't. It also ignores that marxists and postmodernists tend to criticize each other a lot, even to this day (Zizek). But that's secondary. The main point is the complete revision of history and the blending of clearly distinct school of thoughts into one another so that you get to have a single enemy. It's convenient, but wrong. Not to mention that - in my experience at least - 90% of the people who talk about Marxism don't know what they're talking about. Most people are talking about talking points they've heard from other sources rather than having an understanding of the real thing or its history. Marx had that problem certain thinkers had, of being so far ahead of their time and so in tune with things that they speak accurately to truths people are aware of deep down but have no idea how to grapple with. That process is still ongoing. But the idea that Marxism is discredited when the modern day is an even better demonstration of Marx's principles than when he wrote it is absurd. I mean, during the tax cut talk all people could talk about was how the middle class would benefit, and the working class would benefit, and the blue collar worker would benefit. Classism is alive and well. Even to the point that different classes have identifiable identities and voting preferences. As are the systems of control used by the elite to stop them doing anything about their position.
Marxism as an academic theory is kind of hit or miss (A bit like Jungian psychology). The way he talks about value and labour is debatable to say the least, but his observations about class are clearly true and have been proven true over and over again.
However, I don't really think you can generalize about attempts to synthesize this into a working economic theory, given that each attempt has been very different and taken place in completely different conditions, none of which have the slightest resemblance to the modern society we find ourselves in.
Marxist principles might become more useful as technology improves and the state of certain parts of society - and even the wellbeing of the planet - deteriorate further due to the inherent neglect that capitalist society shows them. I don't find them especially relevant when it comes to attempting to find a working economic model for today's society, however. I just can't see how it would even happen. Maybe that's a failure of imagination on my part.
|
On October 31 2018 07:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 07:39 iamthedave wrote:On October 31 2018 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 06:56 iamthedave wrote:On October 31 2018 06:31 GreenHorizons wrote:
While white supremacist groups feel most at home in the US, they too have world wide networks and resources. Of course if we want to run the clock for the existence of America the white supremacy body count dwarfs all other forms of terrorism against this country combined, even if you count pearl harbor.
The resources and international network becomes much more clear when one realizes that white supremacy doesn't stop at terrorist attacks labeled by a known white supremacist group (the FBI). Are you sure it's a known white supremacist group? Or is that just your opinion of the FBI? I can't remember it ever appearing on anyone else's list. Well I think we agree they were clearly a white supremacist group in the 60's, so I'd have to be shown when they stopped being one. I do recognize it's likely a point of disagreement for most though. Yeah I think that's fair. The pretty obvious steps taken to prevent black emancipation is a BIT OF A TIP OFF on that front. I guess it depends on how much you think the FBI has an individual identity above and beyond serving the government. If the government has such leanings, the FBI will have them too. For example, if the US ever became a truly fascist state, the FBI literally is the apparatus of a new secret police. It has most of the traits such an organisation needs to function out of the gate. It may be personal idealism but I tend to think the majority of the people in such an organisation are going to lean towards being hard working, patriotic, and professional. But Patriotism is very dangerous, especially when you're in an environment like that where you see things you or I never will. I mean, literature's been dealing with the idea of how far you might have to go in order to best serve/protect your country, and how many moral boundaries you might have to cross in the process, for centuries. From a certain perspective, attempting to suppress the civil rights movement in the 60s can absolutely be seen as the act of Patriots. You know? So I tend to think the FBI is only as good or bad as the government it serves. But I don't know how much of a personal identity the organisation actually has. Under Hoover it was Hoover's (J. Edgar), since then I think your describing more or less what it is. So I guess that takes us to the question of whether the government operates under a branch of white supremacy. My answer is obviously yes, and I think while Trump's in charge most liberals are having a hard time disagreeing. Before there's any confusion, I'm not calling Trump a nazi, I'm simply saying that white supremacy has a wide and powerful international network with resources compared to none in my view, even if like "Muslim Terrorism" there are many, sometimes competing, factions.
Just realised I never responded to this and I should have.
I think you're right that a lot of liberals have a hard time disagreeing, but I think you might both be slightly wrong. Or at least, putting emphasis in the wrong place. I believe there are people in your government who 100% believe in white supremacist principles, but I still think economic theory defines it. I don't personally believe arch-capitalism is racist, but it does greatly emphasise 'winners win more, losers lose forever', and since african-Americans, by dint of all the slavery years, are starting out at a much weaker position, that economic theory drives them down further as a by-product.
Of course its clouded by several people in government being overtly racist on top of that.
As for the supremacy angle directly, I don't think Trump has a coherent enough world vision to be a white supremacist. He believes Trump is best, and anyone who agrees is therefore a good person. White supremacists love Trump so they must be good people. I'm pretty confident in saying he's a racist going by what he says and does, and that pretty much all the racist asshats feel emboldened by his presence. So I guess the current era is Trump supremacy?
What actions do you feel demonstrate the current regime is operating under white supremacist principles?
On October 31 2018 17:58 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 17:17 iamthedave wrote:On October 31 2018 14:23 Nebuchad wrote:On October 31 2018 13:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2018 12:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 12:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2018 12:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 09:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2018 07:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 07:39 iamthedave wrote:
[quote]
Yeah I think that's fair. The pretty obvious steps taken to prevent black emancipation is a BIT OF A TIP OFF on that front.
I guess it depends on how much you think the FBI has an individual identity above and beyond serving the government. If the government has such leanings, the FBI will have them too. For example, if the US ever became a truly fascist state, the FBI literally is the apparatus of a new secret police. It has most of the traits such an organisation needs to function out of the gate.
It may be personal idealism but I tend to think the majority of the people in such an organisation are going to lean towards being hard working, patriotic, and professional. But Patriotism is very dangerous, especially when you're in an environment like that where you see things you or I never will. I mean, literature's been dealing with the idea of how far you might have to go in order to best serve/protect your country, and how many moral boundaries you might have to cross in the process, for centuries.
From a certain perspective, attempting to suppress the civil rights movement in the 60s can absolutely be seen as the act of Patriots. You know?
So I tend to think the FBI is only as good or bad as the government it serves. But I don't know how much of a personal identity the organisation actually has. Under Hoover it was Hoover's (J. Edgar), since then I think your describing more or less what it is. So I guess that takes us to the question of whether the government operates under a branch of white supremacy. My answer is obviously yes, and I think while Trump's in charge most liberals are having a hard time disagreeing. Before there's any confusion, I'm not calling Trump a nazi, I'm simply saying that white supremacy has a wide and powerful international network with resources compared to none in my view, even if like "Muslim Terrorism" there are many, sometimes competing, factions. If you're going to take this kind of global view of white supremacy, then you're inevitably going to find yourself in the territory set forth in Clash of Civilizations, at which you point you better be rooting for white supremacy to win out. I do take it and no I'm not rooting for white supremacy, though under the scenario you're imagining I can understand why you would be. So if you're not rooting for the white/Western block, which one are you rooting for? My "clash of civilizations" is what you would probably know better as "class warfare" so white supremacy has no place on the side I'm pulling for. You know, I was reading something the other day that had a rather interesting observation. The point that was made was that traditional economic/class-based Marxism has been so thoroughly discredited by experience (everything from the USSR to Venezuela) that Marxists have been compelled to turn to new oppressor/oppressed dichotomies (e.g. the patriarchy as the oppressor to feminists) to stay relevant. Hell, class warfare always has historically degenerated into "clash of civilizations" - type identity politics anyway, so I don't see how you would ultimately be able to duck making a choice in the long run. Yeah, I've been reading that as well. It's a shockingly ahistorical take: when those "marxists" "turned" to those new oppressor/oppressed dichotomies, there was nothing to "discredit" marxism yet: the first postmodern thinkers, people like Derrida and Foucault, start writing in 1967 and 1961 respectively. The french communist party is the third largest party at this time with 21% (1969), the italian communist party is the second largest with 26% (1972)... The notion that marxism was so discredited that postmodern authors had to hide their marxism so that they could continue to spread it is observably untrue: it just wasn't. It also ignores that marxists and postmodernists tend to criticize each other a lot, even to this day (Zizek). But that's secondary. The main point is the complete revision of history and the blending of clearly distinct school of thoughts into one another so that you get to have a single enemy. It's convenient, but wrong. Not to mention that - in my experience at least - 90% of the people who talk about Marxism don't know what they're talking about. Most people are talking about talking points they've heard from other sources rather than having an understanding of the real thing or its history. Marx had that problem certain thinkers had, of being so far ahead of their time and so in tune with things that they speak accurately to truths people are aware of deep down but have no idea how to grapple with. That process is still ongoing. But the idea that Marxism is discredited when the modern day is an even better demonstration of Marx's principles than when he wrote it is absurd. I mean, during the tax cut talk all people could talk about was how the middle class would benefit, and the working class would benefit, and the blue collar worker would benefit. Classism is alive and well. Even to the point that different classes have identifiable identities and voting preferences. As are the systems of control used by the elite to stop them doing anything about their position. Marxism as an academic theory is kind of hit or miss (A bit like Jungian psychology). The way he talks about value and labour is debatable to say the least, but his observations about class are clearly true and have been proven true over and over again. However, I don't really think you can generalize about attempts to synthesize this into a working economic theory, given that each attempt has been very different and taken place in completely different conditions, none of which have the slightest resemblance to the modern society we find ourselves in. Marxist principles might become more useful as technology improves and the state of certain parts of society - and even the wellbeing of the planet - deteriorate further due to the inherent neglect that capitalist society shows them. I don't find them especially relevant when it comes to attempting to find a working economic model for today's society, however. I just can't see how it would even happen. Maybe that's a failure of imagination on my part.
All academic theories are hit or miss. When people are so keen to dismiss Marxism I rarely see them make the jump to pointing out that most theories of capitalism and the free market have been proven to be false as well. Remember how quietly the 'free market of ideas will inevitably lead to the best ideas rising to the top' was junked when people realised that what actually happens is that the market adapts to make lying a sellable commodity, and then the bullshit drowns out the truth by sheer volume? There's only one truth, after all, but you can make up a thousand lies! A much superior commodity for the market, don't you think?
Shit, most people don't have the intellectual honesty to admit that most of the west operates under various kinds of socialised capitalism now because raw capitalism invariably causes massive, society-crippling depressions due to fucking about like with the banking crisis not so long ago.
For you and me and closer to home, deregulation of the rail system has been such an unmitigated disaster that re-nationalising it is now a vote-getting platform for Labour and preventing it isn't something the Tories talk about for the same reason.
|
On October 31 2018 18:27 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 07:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 07:39 iamthedave wrote:On October 31 2018 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 06:56 iamthedave wrote:On October 31 2018 06:31 GreenHorizons wrote:
While white supremacist groups feel most at home in the US, they too have world wide networks and resources. Of course if we want to run the clock for the existence of America the white supremacy body count dwarfs all other forms of terrorism against this country combined, even if you count pearl harbor.
The resources and international network becomes much more clear when one realizes that white supremacy doesn't stop at terrorist attacks labeled by a known white supremacist group (the FBI). Are you sure it's a known white supremacist group? Or is that just your opinion of the FBI? I can't remember it ever appearing on anyone else's list. Well I think we agree they were clearly a white supremacist group in the 60's, so I'd have to be shown when they stopped being one. I do recognize it's likely a point of disagreement for most though. Yeah I think that's fair. The pretty obvious steps taken to prevent black emancipation is a BIT OF A TIP OFF on that front. I guess it depends on how much you think the FBI has an individual identity above and beyond serving the government. If the government has such leanings, the FBI will have them too. For example, if the US ever became a truly fascist state, the FBI literally is the apparatus of a new secret police. It has most of the traits such an organisation needs to function out of the gate. It may be personal idealism but I tend to think the majority of the people in such an organisation are going to lean towards being hard working, patriotic, and professional. But Patriotism is very dangerous, especially when you're in an environment like that where you see things you or I never will. I mean, literature's been dealing with the idea of how far you might have to go in order to best serve/protect your country, and how many moral boundaries you might have to cross in the process, for centuries. From a certain perspective, attempting to suppress the civil rights movement in the 60s can absolutely be seen as the act of Patriots. You know? So I tend to think the FBI is only as good or bad as the government it serves. But I don't know how much of a personal identity the organisation actually has. Under Hoover it was Hoover's (J. Edgar), since then I think your describing more or less what it is. So I guess that takes us to the question of whether the government operates under a branch of white supremacy. My answer is obviously yes, and I think while Trump's in charge most liberals are having a hard time disagreeing. Before there's any confusion, I'm not calling Trump a nazi, I'm simply saying that white supremacy has a wide and powerful international network with resources compared to none in my view, even if like "Muslim Terrorism" there are many, sometimes competing, factions. Just realised I never responded to this and I should have. I think you're right that a lot of liberals have a hard time disagreeing, but I think you might both be slightly wrong. Or at least, putting emphasis in the wrong place. I believe there are people in your government who 100% believe in white supremacist principles, but I still think economic theory defines it. I don't personally believe arch-capitalism is racist, but it does greatly emphasise 'winners win more, losers lose forever', and since african-Americans, by dint of all the slavery years, are starting out at a much weaker position, that economic theory drives them down further as a by-product. Of course its clouded by several people in government being overtly racist on top of that. As for the supremacy angle directly, I don't think Trump has a coherent enough world vision to be a white supremacist. He believes Trump is best, and anyone who agrees is therefore a good person. White supremacists love Trump so they must be good people. I'm pretty confident in saying he's a racist going by what he says and does, and that pretty much all the racist asshats feel emboldened by his presence. So I guess the current era is Trump supremacy? What actions do you feel demonstrate the current regime is operating under white supremacist principles?
Capitalism and white supremacy are more intertwined for myself. Capitalism and white supremacy act in a sort of feedback cycle where they amplify and protect each other. Granted if a few historical events go slightly differently we might find ourselves with a supremacy that wasn't race based or where white wasn't the preferential race but as it stands we live in a white supremacist capitalist world from my perspective.
I've always considered Trump a "Trump supremacist" but Trump only exists as he does because of the longstanding white supremacist history of the country. That's part of why it was/is so hard for many to understand how Trump got elected in the first place. Most people don't really appreciate the cumulative effects of celebrating white mediocrity to preserve a belief in white supremacy.
For a practical example, imagine if the NBA was as effective as Wall St./the country at excluding Black people that were more capable than their white peers.
The athletic field has less barriers and less advantages are reserved to those with affluence and connections so you see more mediocre white people replaced with more capable people of color. Just as you see the prevalence of white athletes increase when the exclusive advantages that money and connections increase you see the same thing throughout capitalism.
The problem with capitalism is that as it's always "worked" it required people and resources to exploit and massive unaccounted for externalities. People can be down on socialism and Marxist analysis but there isn't a tweak to fix the problems of capitalism, we've got to end it or it will end us (at least as we know us, humanity is a stubborn species).
TLDR: Trump is a product of white supremacy's uplifting of white mediocrity (I'm being generous calling Trump mediocre).
|
On October 31 2018 18:27 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 07:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 07:39 iamthedave wrote:On October 31 2018 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 06:56 iamthedave wrote:On October 31 2018 06:31 GreenHorizons wrote:
While white supremacist groups feel most at home in the US, they too have world wide networks and resources. Of course if we want to run the clock for the existence of America the white supremacy body count dwarfs all other forms of terrorism against this country combined, even if you count pearl harbor.
The resources and international network becomes much more clear when one realizes that white supremacy doesn't stop at terrorist attacks labeled by a known white supremacist group (the FBI). Are you sure it's a known white supremacist group? Or is that just your opinion of the FBI? I can't remember it ever appearing on anyone else's list. Well I think we agree they were clearly a white supremacist group in the 60's, so I'd have to be shown when they stopped being one. I do recognize it's likely a point of disagreement for most though. Yeah I think that's fair. The pretty obvious steps taken to prevent black emancipation is a BIT OF A TIP OFF on that front. I guess it depends on how much you think the FBI has an individual identity above and beyond serving the government. If the government has such leanings, the FBI will have them too. For example, if the US ever became a truly fascist state, the FBI literally is the apparatus of a new secret police. It has most of the traits such an organisation needs to function out of the gate. It may be personal idealism but I tend to think the majority of the people in such an organisation are going to lean towards being hard working, patriotic, and professional. But Patriotism is very dangerous, especially when you're in an environment like that where you see things you or I never will. I mean, literature's been dealing with the idea of how far you might have to go in order to best serve/protect your country, and how many moral boundaries you might have to cross in the process, for centuries. From a certain perspective, attempting to suppress the civil rights movement in the 60s can absolutely be seen as the act of Patriots. You know? So I tend to think the FBI is only as good or bad as the government it serves. But I don't know how much of a personal identity the organisation actually has. Under Hoover it was Hoover's (J. Edgar), since then I think your describing more or less what it is. So I guess that takes us to the question of whether the government operates under a branch of white supremacy. My answer is obviously yes, and I think while Trump's in charge most liberals are having a hard time disagreeing. Before there's any confusion, I'm not calling Trump a nazi, I'm simply saying that white supremacy has a wide and powerful international network with resources compared to none in my view, even if like "Muslim Terrorism" there are many, sometimes competing, factions. Just realised I never responded to this and I should have. I think you're right that a lot of liberals have a hard time disagreeing, but I think you might both be slightly wrong. Or at least, putting emphasis in the wrong place. I believe there are people in your government who 100% believe in white supremacist principles, but I still think economic theory defines it. I don't personally believe arch-capitalism is racist, but it does greatly emphasise 'winners win more, losers lose forever', and since african-Americans, by dint of all the slavery years, are starting out at a much weaker position, that economic theory drives them down further as a by-product. Of course its clouded by several people in government being overtly racist on top of that. As for the supremacy angle directly, I don't think Trump has a coherent enough world vision to be a white supremacist. He believes Trump is best, and anyone who agrees is therefore a good person. White supremacists love Trump so they must be good people. I'm pretty confident in saying he's a racist going by what he says and does, and that pretty much all the racist asshats feel emboldened by his presence. So I guess the current era is Trump supremacy? What actions do you feel demonstrate the current regime is operating under white supremacist principles? Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 17:58 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 31 2018 17:17 iamthedave wrote:On October 31 2018 14:23 Nebuchad wrote:On October 31 2018 13:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2018 12:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 12:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2018 12:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 09:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2018 07:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Under Hoover it was Hoover's (J. Edgar), since then I think your describing more or less what it is. So I guess that takes us to the question of whether the government operates under a branch of white supremacy. My answer is obviously yes, and I think while Trump's in charge most liberals are having a hard time disagreeing.
Before there's any confusion, I'm not calling Trump a nazi, I'm simply saying that white supremacy has a wide and powerful international network with resources compared to none in my view, even if like "Muslim Terrorism" there are many, sometimes competing, factions.
If you're going to take this kind of global view of white supremacy, then you're inevitably going to find yourself in the territory set forth in Clash of Civilizations, at which you point you better be rooting for white supremacy to win out. I do take it and no I'm not rooting for white supremacy, though under the scenario you're imagining I can understand why you would be. So if you're not rooting for the white/Western block, which one are you rooting for? My "clash of civilizations" is what you would probably know better as "class warfare" so white supremacy has no place on the side I'm pulling for. You know, I was reading something the other day that had a rather interesting observation. The point that was made was that traditional economic/class-based Marxism has been so thoroughly discredited by experience (everything from the USSR to Venezuela) that Marxists have been compelled to turn to new oppressor/oppressed dichotomies (e.g. the patriarchy as the oppressor to feminists) to stay relevant. Hell, class warfare always has historically degenerated into "clash of civilizations" - type identity politics anyway, so I don't see how you would ultimately be able to duck making a choice in the long run. Yeah, I've been reading that as well. It's a shockingly ahistorical take: when those "marxists" "turned" to those new oppressor/oppressed dichotomies, there was nothing to "discredit" marxism yet: the first postmodern thinkers, people like Derrida and Foucault, start writing in 1967 and 1961 respectively. The french communist party is the third largest party at this time with 21% (1969), the italian communist party is the second largest with 26% (1972)... The notion that marxism was so discredited that postmodern authors had to hide their marxism so that they could continue to spread it is observably untrue: it just wasn't. It also ignores that marxists and postmodernists tend to criticize each other a lot, even to this day (Zizek). But that's secondary. The main point is the complete revision of history and the blending of clearly distinct school of thoughts into one another so that you get to have a single enemy. It's convenient, but wrong. Not to mention that - in my experience at least - 90% of the people who talk about Marxism don't know what they're talking about. Most people are talking about talking points they've heard from other sources rather than having an understanding of the real thing or its history. Marx had that problem certain thinkers had, of being so far ahead of their time and so in tune with things that they speak accurately to truths people are aware of deep down but have no idea how to grapple with. That process is still ongoing. But the idea that Marxism is discredited when the modern day is an even better demonstration of Marx's principles than when he wrote it is absurd. I mean, during the tax cut talk all people could talk about was how the middle class would benefit, and the working class would benefit, and the blue collar worker would benefit. Classism is alive and well. Even to the point that different classes have identifiable identities and voting preferences. As are the systems of control used by the elite to stop them doing anything about their position. Marxism as an academic theory is kind of hit or miss (A bit like Jungian psychology). The way he talks about value and labour is debatable to say the least, but his observations about class are clearly true and have been proven true over and over again. However, I don't really think you can generalize about attempts to synthesize this into a working economic theory, given that each attempt has been very different and taken place in completely different conditions, none of which have the slightest resemblance to the modern society we find ourselves in. Marxist principles might become more useful as technology improves and the state of certain parts of society - and even the wellbeing of the planet - deteriorate further due to the inherent neglect that capitalist society shows them. I don't find them especially relevant when it comes to attempting to find a working economic model for today's society, however. I just can't see how it would even happen. Maybe that's a failure of imagination on my part. All academic theories are hit or miss. When people are so keen to dismiss Marxism I rarely see them make the jump to pointing out that most theories of capitalism and the free market have been proven to be false as well. Remember how quietly the 'free market of ideas will inevitably lead to the best ideas rising to the top' was junked when people realised that what actually happens is that the market adapts to make lying a sellable commodity, and then the bullshit drowns out the truth by sheer volume? There's only one truth, after all, but you can make up a thousand lies! A much superior commodity for the market, don't you think? Shit, most people don't have the intellectual honesty to admit that most of the west operates under various kinds of socialised capitalism now because raw capitalism invariably causes massive, society-crippling depressions due to fucking about like with the banking crisis not so long ago. For you and me and closer to home, deregulation of the rail system has been such an unmitigated disaster that re-nationalising it is now a vote-getting platform for Labour and preventing it isn't something the Tories talk about for the same reason.
The problem with socialised capitalism is that the socialist policies involved tend to be very short term bandages for the massive inherent problems with capitalist economic models. It gives the poor just enough to avoid all out class war without addressing any of the issues that create such poverty in the first place. In the US they don't even need to do that much because the population thinks that they are just temporarily poor and that they'll be rich soon. Brainwashing is always a great place to start when it comes to controlling populations.
I honestly don't think socialism or communism would be better though. Its probably going to take someone much smarter than me to come up with a solution for that one. Dismantling capitalism would rely on having something workable to switch to.
Some of the UK's Labour party policies look great for this, such as the national investment bank that McDonnell wants to put in place to invest in infrastructure and social programs, but they are just a better version of what we have now, rather than being something really radical and new.
As for the rail system, that's just another example of something being done extremely badly. There are ways to have a privatized rail system that work very well, but ours is - and always was - a complete mess.
@GH:
I prefer to speak of fascism and capitalism rather than white supremacy and capitalism - as fascism is a little more universal. White supremacy seems to have an easier time flourishing in the US than in most other places. Your point is well taken though. Just look at all the talk of 'investment opportunities' in Brazil now that they have a fascist government.
|
My main issue with marxism is the way it treats history. The view that history is a succession of economic stages, and that each stage is necessarily more advanced than the former, is nonsensical to me. I don't really know if that makes me "not a marxist"... But does it matter really.
|
Trump deployment of the troops will not be able to legally detain or interact with the caravan when it arrives in 2 months time. They will get to sit there and provide moral support. There is something poetic about Trumps show of strength being unable to preform when the moment arises.
|
This is a good breakdown for why Trump's still such a force despite negative media attacks all the time. It comes from none other than Jon Stewart, but I guess it would take a veteran of the TV industry to actually have the balls to say "The journalists have taken it personally ... they are personally wounded." Trump is blessed by the quality of his most vocal and well-known critics.
+ Show Spoiler [video] +
|
Amanpour is the very essence of a veteran reporter and raises a good point. Stewart isn’t really the risk associated with being a reporter into account. It can be a very scary job and the President does not seem to care if he makes it more dangerous.
|
You can still be an incredible narcissist and very likely to be played by that character defect, while at the same time feeling fearful. Trump's allies can reflect the same gripe right back: the reporters don't care in their false stories whether or not actual people are harmed by people consuming the lies and grabbing a gun. Bravery would mean focusing on more than just their personal bruised ego and actually reporting, but of course that's a step too far, and Trump plays them like a puppet.
|
Reporters absolutely care about the accuracy of their stories and the only people who claim otherwise often have something to hide. There are plenty of reporters doing great work across the country, you just don’t read their work.
|
On November 01 2018 00:03 Plansix wrote:
Reporters absolutely care about the accuracy of their stories and the only people who claim otherwise often have something to hide. There are plenty of reporters doing great work across the country, you just don’t read their work.
They care about the stories they write about Democrats. When it comes to Republicans, it’s Haley that blew money in curtains, Kavanaugh’s a gang rapist, and 2014 migrant children were put in cages by Trump. The national media has taken sides and are helped by the fact that people like you don’t care. Trumps radicalized more people than ISIS don’t you know. But they’re so brave.
Gotta have their defenders to keep up the pretense I suppose.
|
On November 01 2018 00:17 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2018 00:03 Plansix wrote:
Reporters absolutely care about the accuracy of their stories and the only people who claim otherwise often have something to hide. There are plenty of reporters doing great work across the country, you just don’t read their work. They care about the stories they write about Democrats. When it comes to Republicans, it’s Haley that blew money in curtains, Kavanaugh’s a gang rapist, and 2014 migrant children were put in cages by Trump. The national media has taken sides and are helped by the fact that people like you don’t care. Trumps radicalized more people than ISIS don’t you know. But they’re so brave. Gotta have their defenders to keep up the pretense I suppose.
By that note, because you support Trump, you need to discredit the press and everything they do.
But your claim that reporters only care about stories they write about democrats does not match any experience I have following the news for two decades. Different publications are of verying quality, of course. But the top quality news organization care about accuracy in their reporting.
|
On November 01 2018 00:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2018 00:17 Danglars wrote:On November 01 2018 00:03 Plansix wrote:
Reporters absolutely care about the accuracy of their stories and the only people who claim otherwise often have something to hide. There are plenty of reporters doing great work across the country, you just don’t read their work. They care about the stories they write about Democrats. When it comes to Republicans, it’s Haley that blew money in curtains, Kavanaugh’s a gang rapist, and 2014 migrant children were put in cages by Trump. The national media has taken sides and are helped by the fact that people like you don’t care. Trumps radicalized more people than ISIS don’t you know. But they’re so brave. Gotta have their defenders to keep up the pretense I suppose. By that note, because you support Trump, you need to discredit the press and everything they do. But your claim that reporters only care about stories they write about democrats does not match any experience I have following the news for two decades. Different publications are of verying quality, of course. But the top quality news organization care about accuracy in their reporting.
They did better, though with heaps of bias, prior to the Trump era and without as much pushback. That changed when Trump exposed them as self-obsessed heroes of their own making and taunted them into making insane reactions all over the place. It used to be this cute dance where they would accuse McCain, Romney, and conservative politicians of being racists and anti-poor and dangerous, and they’d all scramble to defend themselves and prove they weren’t. It was favorable to the media class, so everything felt calm.
Reverse it with Trump. The media invents stories and doesn’t do basic fact checking before publication. The retractions and rewrites come like a torrent. Everything is built around an anonymous leak, and the correction doesn’t bring the reader any closer to evaluating the source of the story. It’s a clown show and Trump profits off it. Accuracy doesn’t matter. Getting the story right the first time doesn’t matter. Just hit back at Trump and #resist.
|
I think the media is covering Trump just the same as they did in June 2015 when he made his transition from birther king to presidential candidate. Certainly the fact that Trump fights the media is the main reason Republicans chose him. I don't really see it as a personal matter between Trump and reporters (in Trump's imagination it certainly is, since his ego is more fragile than a baby boy's). The reason Trump gets covered is because he makes for good TV. He knows how to get the lights on him while getting Republicans to love him, which is by saying things that have double meaning in that you could interpret them as racist/sexist, or you could interpret them as innocent. For example, "she had blood coming out of her wherever" could be interpreted as "maybe he was referring to her nose." The media jumps onto another interpretation, and I'm not sure that necessarily has to do with personal animosity between Trump and reporters.
And by the way, the media is making money hand over fist right now. If anyone is suffering, it's certainly not the media class. In the minds of Republicans the media is suffering, because Trump holds up his middle finger to them at all times. Republicans see this as a win, when in fact they are only feeding and enlarging the media machine. When Trump is gone, the media machine will remain. And American won't be any better off just because Republicans put a circus clown in front of the media for 4 or 8 years so that they could "win" against the media.
|
There have been so many accurate stories pointing out the presidents inaccuracies and lies though
This torrent of rewrites and retractions, is probably as real as the fictional torrent of thugs and gang members that require 5000 soldiers to stop. But that's not a clown show I guess.
|
On November 01 2018 01:13 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
There have been so many accurate stories pointing out the presidents inaccuracies and lies though
This torrent of rewrites and retractions, is probably as real as the fictional torrent of thugs and gang members that require 5000 soldiers to stop. But that's not a clown show I guess.
This is the other thing, Republicans have lost sight of the fact that you can treat individual media stories on their own, identify the exaggerated portion, and identify the accurate portion. There's no reason to disbelieve a story from the outset. The extreme anti-media bias of the right leads them to miss the accurate portions of the stories. Thus you get people saying Trump is like Reagan and otherwise putting lipstick on a grotesque pig. The cosmic joke here is that Trump is an actual circus clown, but the right's anti-media bias has detached them from reality and led them to interpret him to be something quite different.
|
The complaints against the press were summed up when Sanders said there were fake news agencies spreading lies, but refuses to name which networks and stories were fake. It reminded me of McCarthy and his claims of card carrying communist in the state department that he always refused to name.
You see the same thing mirrored everywhere, including this thread. Vague claims of the media making up stories without a lot of specifics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
