US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2122

On February 16 2020 20:13 Gorsameth wrote:
I'd give that the same probability as every other 'Clinton is running' rumor since 2016.
Near 0.

Also note how the article does not go beyond 'polling said it would be good'.
Polling would also show that running Obama would be good for beating Trump.
Its clickbait, nothing more.

On February 16 2020 05:28 Wombat_NI wrote:

Well I was warned (correctly) as per the rules of the thread in explaining what’s in a link and how it factors in to the discussion.

It’s just a name to use, really based on their output I don’t put a huge amount of signifance in it. By contemporary standards almost every historical figure is either wrong or a total piece of shit.

I’m honestly unsure as to what your wider points are here, perhaps a failure in reading comprehension from my perspective.

You seem to simultaneously be arguing that racism is bad but trying to rectify historic racism is also a problem as it fixates on ‘identity’, perhaps I am misreading though.

Or are you arguing that class solidarity should, or needs to outweigh other identity signifiers to have meaningful left wing change happening?

Again, it’s both not your first language and I’m a little drunk so any misunderstanding is probably my fault here.

On February 16 2020 20:56 stilt wrote:


Maybe but I am still not sure the jacobin ideology which impregnated french poltiics until the 60s correspond to their own political aspiration. And I still admire Saint-Just.

Sorry for my confusion. I think anglo saxon societies have always been divided between a lot of very influencial communities (based at first on religion but now there are new criteria such "races", genders ext) which have always struggled for their interest (political hegemony, control of ressources) and had undermined the idea of public good.

So yes, I am arguing against a sort of antiracism particulary present in anglosaxon country or at least which come from them and which denies universalism, they prone differentialism and in my eyes, there are not the polar opposite of the racists but their mirror, they are identitaries too as they basically put the racial struggle above the social struggle. In order to fully legitimate it, essentialism and victimization are necessary, it's to say there are no victims of structural racism but it is to say that it is instrumentalized just like fascists instrumentalize social inequalities.

Quite a lot of (very privileged people if you take in consideration the cultural capital) sociologues from the great american universities, which have a enormous influence in Europe at least, use this science to push this agenda.
A correlate thing is they are reappropriating their african roots and called themselves afro-american while the only african thing they still have is the skin... Which leads to monstruosity like afrocentrism which is not different from the racist intellectual trends of the 19th, basically, cleopatra was black, Hannibal was black and all north africa was until arabic invasion (which makes them not legitime by the way) and we conclude that a true african is black and that's all, a purely racist idea. Finally, people see politics and society though races or civilization conflict while it's quite a big lie.

This leads some occidental universities a sort of epuration of the european art in order to banish him or make him more suitable to this society ideology while acting as if taking distance toward it was impossible ( if my spiritual life was only dependent of stuff I fully agree with, it will be totally dry !). And if progressism is incarned by entairtenement industry like Disney then, I am clearly a reactionnary... Even more worrying is to see black american voting Clinton, a candidate of the Gafa and identifying themselves with Beyonce or whatever "artist"' from the entairtenement industry while the so-called "white trash" (I don't find another naming from the empoverish white people in america) are voting Trump while most of them have a common interest.

And if it only concerns USA or England, that's fine but this model is transposing to France where a part of our "progressive" intellectuals encourage our minorities to have identitary reflexes (in combinaison of the saudiis pushing their wahhanbism, it's problematic) and nowadays, "la convergence des luttes" or convergence of struggles which basically means in unions language that every professions should unite is becoming "intersectionnality", this means the social rampart against neoliberalism is becoming weaker and it's pretty telling that not a lot of people from the popular class are demonstrating.
They are now voting for the far right and it's not only because of the deindustrialisation (even if it might be the first reason, it broke up a lot of social link in France) or the far right populism but it's because the progressive left have now other concerns than social equality.

That's why I am only concerned about foreign policy in this election, like a president who would reengage the iranian agreement and be just a bit harder with Israel would be fine.

On February 16 2020 21:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


Pretty sure this is indeed a clickbait rumor that just got out of hand. One of those standard "Candidate X, would you ever consider Y as your runningmate?" And then X gives the usual, professionally ambiguous response of "We're considering all options and don't want to immediately exclude anyone". I'm sure Hillary Clinton would still poll reasonably well for most moderate Democrats, but I feel like there's a lot of establishment-centrism overlap between Bloomberg and Clinton, and that doesn't really broaden Bloomberg's reach much. Perhaps if Clinton made a public statement within a few weeks (right before Super Tuesday?) aggressively supporting Bloomberg over Biden and the other moderate candidates, I'd be raising my eyebrows, but as of right now I don't really think the rumor has been sufficiently substantiated.

On February 16 2020 19:31 Dirkzor wrote:
Yo.

I've just read the last page and saw Denmark mentioned in comparison to USA. I know little about US politics and unions but a bit more about danish ones by the fact that I am danish =)

You can NOT compare the two. Well you can, but you can't compare isolated parts of the danish welfare system and the system in the US.

Yes we don't have a minimum wage by law in DK. But technically we do because of the unions. But the unions are historically very strong and because of that there weren't any need to make a law about wage. But since unions in the US (as i understand) are far less powerful in the US a minimum wage by law (as you already have) might be they way to get the low income class up a tier -so to speak.

I just find the whole comparing Nordic countries to the US a bit weird. The basis of our society and the way if was shaped historically makes this comparison a moot point imo.

Yes you can strive to do it like "we" do, but you can't copy our methods. So saying there is no need for a minimum wage by law, since we don't have one in DK, is maybe not the right argument. There are other factors and it a quite big picture.


I'm Danish - AMA =)

On February 16 2020 21:30 Wombat_NI wrote:

Is Nicklas Bendtner as revered in his native land as he is everywhere else?

More seriously what are the main social/economic political issues that are a cause of dissatisfaction over in Denmark? Especially interested in ones that are maybe specific to your particular way of doing things over there.

We don’t hear a huge amount about such things over here, usually it’s the ‘here what the Scandis do better’ for the most part.

Cheers!

On February 16 2020 21:48 farvacola wrote:

I’ll leave it to you to explain why a focus on African identity is part and parcel with the mechanics of truth and reconciliation here in the US, though I can do my best in turn or in your stead, if you prefer.

On February 16 2020 20:56 stilt wrote:


Maybe but I am still not sure the jacobin ideology which impregnated french poltiics until the 60s correspond to their own political aspiration. And I still admire Saint-Just.

Sorry for my confusion. I think anglo saxon societies have always been divided between a lot of very influencial communities (based at first on religion but now there are new criteria such "races", genders ext) which have always struggled for their interest (political hegemony, control of ressources) and had undermined the idea of public good.

So yes, I am arguing against a sort of antiracism particulary present in anglosaxon country or at least which come from them and which denies universalism, they prone differentialism and in my eyes, there are not the polar opposite of the racists but their mirror, they are identitaries too as they basically put the racial struggle above the social struggle. In order to fully legitimate it, essentialism and victimization are necessary, it's to say there are no victims of structural racism but it is to say that it is instrumentalized just like fascists instrumentalize social inequalities against brown/black people.

Quite a lot of (very privileged people if you take in consideration the cultural capital) sociologues from the great american universities, which have a enormous influence in Europe at least, use this science to push this agenda.
A correlate thing is they are reappropriating their african roots and called themselves afro-american while the only african thing they still have is the skin... Which leads to monstruosity like afrocentrism which is not different from the racist intellectual trends of the 19th, basically, cleopatra was black, Hannibal was black and all north africa was until arabic invasion (which makes them not legitime by the way) and we conclude that a true african is black and that's all, a purely racist idea. Finally, people see politics and society though races or civilization conflict while it's quite a big lie.

This leads some occidental universities a sort of epuration of the european art in order to banish him or make him more suitable to this society ideology while acting as if taking distance toward it was impossible ( if my spiritual life was only dependent of stuff I fully agree with, it will be totally dry !). And if progressism is incarned by entairtenement industry like Disney then, I am clearly a reactionnary... Even more worrying is to see black american voting Clinton, a candidate of the Gafa and identifying themselves with Beyonce or whatever "artist"' from the entairtenement industry while the so-called "white trash" (I don't find another naming from the empoverish white people in america) are voting Trump while most of them have a common interest.

And if it only concerns USA or England, that's fine but this model is transposing to France where a part of our "progressive" intellectuals encourage our minorities to have identitary reflexes (in combinaison of the saudiis pushing their wahhanbism, it's problematic, especially when I hear it is about empowerment and reclaiming its roots) and nowadays, "la convergence des luttes" or convergence of struggles which basically means in unions language that every professions should unite is becoming "intersectionnality", this means the social rampart against neoliberalism is becoming weaker and it's pretty telling that not a lot of people from the popular class are demonstrating.
They are now voting for the far right and it's not only because of the deindustrialisation (even if it might be the first reason, it broke up a lot of social link in France) or the far right populism but it's because the progressive left have now other concerns than social equality.

That's why I am only concerned about foreign policy in this election, like a president who would reengage the iranian agreement and be just a bit harder with Israel would be fine because this deal of the century is a shame.

On February 16 2020 21:30 Wombat_NI wrote:

Is Nicklas Bendtner as revered in his native land as he is everywhere else?

I'm torn because this is a well thought out and argued post that I disagree with vehemently. I'm only passingly familiar with Jacobin (both the publication and namesake) but can I ask; When you speak to "intersectionality" are you speaking to Kimberly Crenshaw's term or the bastardization in modern discourse? It sounds like the latter.

On February 16 2020 23:12 Wombat_NI wrote:

Interesting, although not sure how we got here from that article haha.

There’s intersectional theory, which is really just an analytical tool and then how people choose to apply it. I do agree with much you say about the negative externalities although I’m not sure how unique to the Anglo-Saxon sphere it is, or indeed what particular segment of the left it comes from.

One negative outcome of these kind of politics of ethnic identity is it opens the door to the dominant group doing it. The flip side of the coin is the white dude talking about some mythical trans-European tradition on the internet with a Roman bust as an avatar.

Intersectional analysis isn’t incompatible with universalism, indeed it’s probably the necessary next step in approaching more genuine universality of prospects and outcomes.

On the other hand, as GH rather nicely put it the ‘bastardised form’ has the sort of effects you’re talking about, so I do agree with you there. The identity component(s) is meant to be bolted on top of a class analysis and how those parts interact, not subsume it.

On February 17 2020 03:37 stilt wrote:


Nop I only speak about the popular usage of the term (by militants ext)
The jacobins were quite interesting people, admirers of Rousseau (for his general will notably) and the roman republic (especially the optimates which is somehow a paradox because they clearly represented aristocratie but Brutus'virtue who slained the tyran was an inspiration for them), they were advocating for a republic "united and undivided" so radically antifederalist, hated what was called the "factions", (they would probably hate modern political parties today), tried to create a weird christian synchretism mixed with civic religion (which does not make Robespierre an atheist, actually he thought a suprem being was necessity for virtue), fought a war against whole europe (which they didn't want, it was the brissotin who delcared it), a civil war, a lot of riots while founding a new political system against both the aristocratie and the "golden nation" as they were calling it, ruthless but interesting people for sure.
In some aspect, they followed the centralist policies of the monarchy but turned it against them with a lot of images around "le peuple" (using the english term the people would actually be a bad translation because there is only one people) taking act of its own political supremacy.



Oh it was only an example, I always wondered why the repression of riots was harsher in GB than in France and while a lot of historian give a lot of very good explanations, I found they might have some correlation with the lack of wealthfare state (compared to France) in USA/GB and I end up concluding the lack of centralism and ideology tailored around it were the "structural cause". I don't think what I say is new, while I am not very educated I am pretty sure a lot of people come up with this idea.

But yes, in the end, it should lead to universalism but I don't think it will, identitary policies in order to exist, cannot stop being identitary, they won't resolve social inequality and in consequence, I don't see them resolve racism and patriarchy ext. When Locke wrote he wants the communities to compete for the love of god, I see on it some kind of everlasting competition between the communities for political hegemony.
The concept of double oppression can be problematic, I don't say it is fundamentally wrong but its use by very progressive individuals can be questionnable : my gf is from Lebanon and she almost broke up with her family because a woman is not supposed to have sex before mariage, and a (former) friend was trying to justify it with some arguments like these people are oppressed as a minority and I shouldn't judge their culture. This might be an extreme example of differentialism but it can't lead to anything good. Just like having different history class for the young children is terrible, without a common past, there is no common future for a nation, it leads to intern division in which communities interests are predominants.

Now in a very pragmatic perspective, in France, a lot of former communist bastions are now voting RN and it's a problem, the working class is largely voting for far right and it's not with a speech like "you're white so you're privileged" they'll be mobilized. (even if you think my view are simplistic and even populist, it's quite their feeling, a large chunck of the elite is living in bubble while there are struggling).

All in all, as silly as it sounds because racism, patriarchy ext are obviously linked to social inequality, I think the best way is not to mix these causes with the social struggle because it always ends up being subdued.

Edit : I suppose we have deviated enough haha

On February 17 2020 08:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
Bloomberg is such an awful person, let alone politician, it is really fascinating to see Democrats contort themselves to deal with the increasingly apparent reality that it is him or Sanders getting the Dem nomination.

On February 17 2020 09:03 Wombat_NI wrote:

But he can beat Trump, apparently.

No he’s fucking awful, fuck him. I’m not even sure why he’s running,

Horrendous candidate and tbh even Trump’s puerile insults might actually land when it comes to Bloomberg anyway.

I’d honestly rather Trump win than a Bloomberg.