|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 06 2018 17:45 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2018 10:28 Womwomwom wrote:On August 06 2018 10:21 xDaunt wrote:On August 06 2018 10:18 Nebuchad wrote:
I have a hard time reconciling a love of free markets and a willingness to limit their scope to your own nation. Unless we are in full economic fascism mode (which maybe we are, that's not a pejorative in this context) I don't see how that works. Does the US (or any other nation) have free trade with China? How about even “fair” trade? Australia has a free trade agreement with China. On August 06 2018 10:26 JimmiC wrote:On August 06 2018 09:52 KwarK wrote:On August 06 2018 09:38 xDaunt wrote:On August 06 2018 05:29 KwarK wrote:
Globalists has always been Jews lol. The secret group of people within every nation who don't belong to the race and don't share the culture/religion/language/blood of the nation but are instead loyal to their international fraternal brotherhood. Also they control banking. And they're working together to destroy nations through creating global governments etc. It's literally the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
xDaunt's shtick has always been that he's not a Nazi, he just says all the same things as them. This is just another example. He won't say that globalist means Jews, but he will agree that the (((globalists))) like Soros are the enemy. Uh, no. Globalists definitely does not mean Jews in the context of globalism vs nationalism. Anyone who thinks otherwise is really missing the big picture. Globalists include anyone who seeks to subordinate the interests of the nation state to global interests and institutions. This is a very broad category, though George Soros is certainly in it. Your disagreement can be summed up as “you’re forgetting the Jew-lovers, it’s not just Jews”. Seriously, take an honest look at the rhetoric of the rest of the anti-globalist crowd sometime. None of its new. How do the globalists your talking about justify trumps support of Israel if they hate jews? I'm interested in the mental gymnastics. Jerusalem. Also, Israel is essentially an ethnonationalist state - why wouldn't a Trump supporter love that? The idea that xDaunt's original proposition - the US intelligence agencies are working against US national interests because of their loyalty to the globalists - makes any sense without resorting to some sort of Jewish conspiracy-esque conspiracy is literally insane. XDaunt's and others thinking is a direct result of the contradictions within the neoconservative positions they try and inhabit: unable to accept or formulate any critique of capitalism, and thus unable to really analyse globalisation, the negative effects of globalisation cannot be attributed to the structural processes encouraged by capitalism, but rather the Je-uh...globalists who use globalisation to assert their own power over the world. It is an inability to separate US national economic interests, the interests of global capital, and the economic interests of ordinary Americans that blights their way of thinking (hint: it is not usually possible to just choose 2 of these and assume they can be aligned through policy at any given time for any sustained amount of time). The process of globalisation is a valid one to critique, and to want to resist, but the idea it is being orchestrated by globalists rather than instigated by capital is absurd.
Nailed it. Excellent post.
|
United States41983 Posts
On August 07 2018 00:53 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 00:02 KwarK wrote:On August 06 2018 23:54 JimmiC wrote:Yes, he goes on to talk about the differences. Cotler elaborated on this position in a June 2011 interview for Israeli television. He re-iterated his view that the world is "witnessing a new and escalating [...] and even lethal anti-Semitism" focused on hatred of Israel, but cautioned that this type of antisemitism should not be defined in a way that precludes "free speech" and "rigorous debate" about Israel's activities. Cotler said that it is "too simplistic to say that anti-Zionism, per se, is anti-Semitic" and argued that labelling Israel as an apartheid state, while in his view "distasteful", is "still within the boundaries of argument" and not inherently antisemitic. He continued: "It's [when] you say, because it's an apartheid state, [that] it has to be dismantled – then [you've] crossed the line into a racist argument, or an anti-Jewish argument."[19] I also thought this video was good and 5 mins long. https://view.vzaar.com/13802625/video/hd I don’t think Israel should be dismantled because it’s been a few generations now and I don’t believe in the sins of the father argument. My own experience being on the other side with regard to the British ethnic cleansing and occupation in Ireland also informs that view. It wasn’t a legitimate state when it was founded, but very few were, what matters is that it is now. But the current Arab exclusionary state of Israel has to change, both for moral reasons and because they’ll never find peace if they don’t. Not destroyed, but certainly rebuilt from the foundations up to end the institutions that are incompatible with an inclusionary peace. More or less what GH has to say about the US with slavery I think, although I won’t put words in his mouth. I agree with you. That being said, in this very thread there have been posters posting about destroying Israel and removing it from existence. The far right is clearly more obviously and out front about it's racism (and likely worse), but the far left has their issues too and it important to remember to clean ones own house before talking about how dirty the other one is. Blanket blaming of the other side really doesn't accomplish anything other then feeling good short term. It tends to just divide the people somewhere in the middle, which does good for no one.
Sure. I’m hardly a member of the left anyway. I’m strongly opposed to the alt-right Trump ideology but beyond that I’m basically economically conservative and socially liberal. In most western countries I’d vote right, as I did in the UK.
American politics is a hard place to be for a centrist.
|
|
|
On August 07 2018 01:09 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 00:53 JimmiC wrote:On August 07 2018 00:02 KwarK wrote:On August 06 2018 23:54 JimmiC wrote:Yes, he goes on to talk about the differences. Cotler elaborated on this position in a June 2011 interview for Israeli television. He re-iterated his view that the world is "witnessing a new and escalating [...] and even lethal anti-Semitism" focused on hatred of Israel, but cautioned that this type of antisemitism should not be defined in a way that precludes "free speech" and "rigorous debate" about Israel's activities. Cotler said that it is "too simplistic to say that anti-Zionism, per se, is anti-Semitic" and argued that labelling Israel as an apartheid state, while in his view "distasteful", is "still within the boundaries of argument" and not inherently antisemitic. He continued: "It's [when] you say, because it's an apartheid state, [that] it has to be dismantled – then [you've] crossed the line into a racist argument, or an anti-Jewish argument."[19] I also thought this video was good and 5 mins long. https://view.vzaar.com/13802625/video/hd I don’t think Israel should be dismantled because it’s been a few generations now and I don’t believe in the sins of the father argument. My own experience being on the other side with regard to the British ethnic cleansing and occupation in Ireland also informs that view. It wasn’t a legitimate state when it was founded, but very few were, what matters is that it is now. But the current Arab exclusionary state of Israel has to change, both for moral reasons and because they’ll never find peace if they don’t. Not destroyed, but certainly rebuilt from the foundations up to end the institutions that are incompatible with an inclusionary peace. More or less what GH has to say about the US with slavery I think, although I won’t put words in his mouth. I agree with you. That being said, in this very thread there have been posters posting about destroying Israel and removing it from existence. The far right is clearly more obviously and out front about it's racism (and likely worse), but the far left has their issues too and it important to remember to clean ones own house before talking about how dirty the other one is. Blanket blaming of the other side really doesn't accomplish anything other then feeling good short term. It tends to just divide the people somewhere in the middle, which does good for no one. Sure. I’m hardly a member of the left anyway. I’m strongly opposed to the alt-right Trump ideology but beyond that I’m basically economically conservative and socially liberal. In most western countries I’d vote right, as I did in the UK. American politics is a hard place to be for a centrist.
The democrats would be a centre right country in most of Europe. Frankly, they are not so far from the tories in terms of policy, except maybe for the upper class disdain for the peasants who didn't go to Eaton - and for the far right shenanigans of Johnson and his friends, but I don't believe you like those anyway.
I would say that as a european centre right folk, you esentially have your party in the US. What must really suck is to be left wing.
|
Norway28558 Posts
On August 06 2018 15:58 Womwomwom wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2018 15:51 reincremate wrote:On August 06 2018 15:38 KwarK wrote:The problem being that the ones who use it as a dog whistle aren’t some irrelevant minority and include the current president. It’s not hard to tell the difference either. If someone talks about the responsibilities of a global citizen in the context of global warming or whatever, they’re trying to express the idea that environmental catastrophes don’t respect national borders. If someone talks about how globalists control the media, they mean Jews. It's quite clear to any fluent English speaker that the term "global" has many uses and possible connotations, but it's also not very hard for those not so informed about the alt-right to assume that the word globalist is simply a variation of the word globalism, which dictionary.com defines as "the attitude or policy of placing the interests of the entire world above those of individual nations", a definition which of course doesn't at all evoke anti-semitism. The connotation of these words definitely depend on context, unlike, say, an out-and-out racial slur. If someone from Hong Kong or South Korea used the terms globalism and globalists interchangeably, I wouldn't suspect that they were irrationally prejudiced against a specific group of people with ties to some country in the middle-east. Truth be told, I don't think I've heard anyone use the term "globalist" outside of Twitter and Reddit. There's already terms for people who support globalism. I suspect that's why a lot of people automatically jump to the conclusion that its a dog whistle because there's a lot more conventional terms for people who support globalism and free trade such as neo-liberal (economic liberalization via privatization and free trade) or neo-conservatism (active promotion of American ideals on the international stage via diplomacy or military action). GH in this thread probably isn't going to rail against globalists. He's going to rail against neo-liberals.
I self-identify as a globalist, in that I favor a global agenda over a national one. Basically using the word as an opposite-of-nationalist. It's the most sensible word to use for that purpose, imo.
I do not at all self-identify as a neo-liberal or neo-conservative. And there are certainly a lot of 'policies purported by the powerful group of people identified by conspiracy morons as globalists' that I don't support. Tbh, I don't think this word is one where figuring out, based on context, which one of these versions of the word is being used is particularly difficult.
|
Unless I misunderstood what you mean by opposite-of-nationalist, what I would say is that you are an internationalist or a cosmopolitanism, not a globalist. The lexicon already exists for such without using loanwords from Trump's administration.
In any case, in relation to xdaunt usage of the word, it's appears to be a derogatory term to mean that you disagree with Trump, that to disagree with him is to be not patriotic, you aren't nationalist, that you must be part of a globalist conspiracy.
|
ah right because if he had said cosmopolitan industrialists/financiers/bankers he wouldnt have been accused of being a nazi . . .
did anybody think to just ask him what he meant instead of calling him a nazi?
|
On August 07 2018 02:16 IgnE wrote:
did anybody think to just ask him what he meant instead of calling him a nazi? Yes?
On August 05 2018 05:41 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2018 01:06 xDaunt wrote:On August 05 2018 00:53 JimmiC wrote:On August 05 2018 00:39 NewSunshine wrote:On August 04 2018 16:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 04 2018 16:28 iamthedave wrote:On August 04 2018 14:56 NewSunshine wrote:On August 04 2018 14:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 04 2018 14:06 Dan HH wrote:On August 04 2018 13:31 Leporello wrote:
Seriously, though, who the fuck is Mike. Michael Jordan? Because...? Because saying he likes an unrelated black guy means the rest of his tweet has nothing to do with the race of his targets, it's a shield. It's an impressive way to be even more racist while trying to present as not racist. I already saw someone respond to the unthinkable notion that Trump is racist because "see? he said he likes Mike! That's a black person, therefore...!" All I know is I'm looking at 2 grown men. One of them is an actual athlete, and opened an actual school to do something besides scam people. The other one is using his status as POTUS to have a pissing match over Twitter. I refuse to let this nonsense become the norm. I think at this point it must always be pissing matches. Is there a running total of the number of people he's gone after directly on twitter since becoming POTUS? As a matter of fact, there is This is delightfully illuminating. Of note are his insults against Fox News, which were obviously before he started campaigning and running as Republican, his almost total lack of insults against Robert Mueller himself, and the number of times he goes after Mueller's team instead, calling them "13 angry Democrats" almost exclusively. He is totally hollow as a leader, an empty husk that will say whatever it takes to get people to listen to him, and try to stir whatever outrage he thinks will be most effective for his run on power. It's all a game, until he tapped into the single greatest source of outrage in this country: that of perturbed white privilege. Once he found that, the rest was history. And here we are, with perhaps the most unfit man to fill the Office of the Presidency this country has ever seen. Fascinating. What I find most fascinating about him is unlike most populists who pick one scapegoat and blame them for everything (Jews, immigrants, the "elite", whoever). He moves through scapegoats and targets so quickly, some times pivoting in the same day. It is almost hard to keep up with who he is currently blaming and then impossible to predict who he will blame next. At least with Duerte, or Maduro, Hitler, Lennin you knew who the target was going to be. Trump is all over the map, immigration one minute trade with eu next, then might as well go after the media or the FBI. He only has one real scapegoat: globalists. Everything Trump does falls squarely on the side of nationalism. What doesthis even mean? Nationalsim and globalists aren't opposites, unless you have magically redefined the word.
Ignore my terrible spelling, I don't want to have an argument over my spelling again.
|
On August 07 2018 01:08 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2018 17:45 kollin wrote:On August 06 2018 10:28 Womwomwom wrote:On August 06 2018 10:21 xDaunt wrote:On August 06 2018 10:18 Nebuchad wrote:
I have a hard time reconciling a love of free markets and a willingness to limit their scope to your own nation. Unless we are in full economic fascism mode (which maybe we are, that's not a pejorative in this context) I don't see how that works. Does the US (or any other nation) have free trade with China? How about even “fair” trade? Australia has a free trade agreement with China. On August 06 2018 10:26 JimmiC wrote:On August 06 2018 09:52 KwarK wrote:On August 06 2018 09:38 xDaunt wrote:On August 06 2018 05:29 KwarK wrote:
Globalists has always been Jews lol. The secret group of people within every nation who don't belong to the race and don't share the culture/religion/language/blood of the nation but are instead loyal to their international fraternal brotherhood. Also they control banking. And they're working together to destroy nations through creating global governments etc. It's literally the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
xDaunt's shtick has always been that he's not a Nazi, he just says all the same things as them. This is just another example. He won't say that globalist means Jews, but he will agree that the (((globalists))) like Soros are the enemy. Uh, no. Globalists definitely does not mean Jews in the context of globalism vs nationalism. Anyone who thinks otherwise is really missing the big picture. Globalists include anyone who seeks to subordinate the interests of the nation state to global interests and institutions. This is a very broad category, though George Soros is certainly in it. Your disagreement can be summed up as “you’re forgetting the Jew-lovers, it’s not just Jews”. Seriously, take an honest look at the rhetoric of the rest of the anti-globalist crowd sometime. None of its new. How do the globalists your talking about justify trumps support of Israel if they hate jews? I'm interested in the mental gymnastics. Jerusalem. Also, Israel is essentially an ethnonationalist state - why wouldn't a Trump supporter love that? The idea that xDaunt's original proposition - the US intelligence agencies are working against US national interests because of their loyalty to the globalists - makes any sense without resorting to some sort of Jewish conspiracy-esque conspiracy is literally insane. XDaunt's and others thinking is a direct result of the contradictions within the neoconservative positions they try and inhabit: unable to accept or formulate any critique of capitalism, and thus unable to really analyse globalisation, the negative effects of globalisation cannot be attributed to the structural processes encouraged by capitalism, but rather the Je-uh...globalists who use globalisation to assert their own power over the world. It is an inability to separate US national economic interests, the interests of global capital, and the economic interests of ordinary Americans that blights their way of thinking (hint: it is not usually possible to just choose 2 of these and assume they can be aligned through policy at any given time for any sustained amount of time). The process of globalisation is a valid one to critique, and to want to resist, but the idea it is being orchestrated by globalists rather than instigated by capital is absurd. Nailed it. Excellent post.
look, if you are an isolationist-leaning conservative who thinks the US spends too much money protecting the rest of the world (for privileged monied interests?) then its not completely non-sensical to think that governmental institutions have been staffed w internationalists who "dont look out for america's interests." if anything is non-sensical it is the reference to "x-nation's interests," something that really only takes on firm meaning in a self-sacrificing nationalist framework
|
Norway28558 Posts
those words are both fine, although I'm sure they have some degree of inherent specific meaning as well. (and then, technically speaking, internationalist probably fits me the best of them all.)
But it's not like the pejorative&conspiratorical version of globalist is the only one ever used. I don't see it as an 'inherently tainted' word or whatever.
also I find myself amused by thinking about how this legit flat-earther I know is also the biggest anti-globalist.
|
I am quite interested to know what you mean by "nationalist". Since your definition of "globalist" predicates on "opposite-of-nationalist". I mean this in genuine argument.
"Globalist" isn't inherently tainted, but the way it is currently being used by the Trump administration is, just as the way the Trump administration uses "nationalist" is mindblowing. I beleive the Americans call it a "dog-whistle". It appears benign but isn't.
You are free to call yourself whatever you like, but internationalist seems to fit you better, so the association of your views aren't tainted by the Trump's administration misusage. then again cosmopolitan appears to be tainted too according to IgnE, so whatever.
|
There's no such thing as a "clean word" and all words are tainted by the repetitive, iterative contexts from which their meaning emerges. Naturally, that position changes the meaning of taint somewhat, but the point still stands that no one has the right to use a word while asserting their use somehow resists the forces of meaning that pull on all language constructions.
|
On August 07 2018 02:25 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 01:08 Nebuchad wrote:On August 06 2018 17:45 kollin wrote:On August 06 2018 10:28 Womwomwom wrote:On August 06 2018 10:21 xDaunt wrote:On August 06 2018 10:18 Nebuchad wrote:
I have a hard time reconciling a love of free markets and a willingness to limit their scope to your own nation. Unless we are in full economic fascism mode (which maybe we are, that's not a pejorative in this context) I don't see how that works. Does the US (or any other nation) have free trade with China? How about even “fair” trade? Australia has a free trade agreement with China. On August 06 2018 10:26 JimmiC wrote:On August 06 2018 09:52 KwarK wrote:On August 06 2018 09:38 xDaunt wrote:On August 06 2018 05:29 KwarK wrote:
Globalists has always been Jews lol. The secret group of people within every nation who don't belong to the race and don't share the culture/religion/language/blood of the nation but are instead loyal to their international fraternal brotherhood. Also they control banking. And they're working together to destroy nations through creating global governments etc. It's literally the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
xDaunt's shtick has always been that he's not a Nazi, he just says all the same things as them. This is just another example. He won't say that globalist means Jews, but he will agree that the (((globalists))) like Soros are the enemy. Uh, no. Globalists definitely does not mean Jews in the context of globalism vs nationalism. Anyone who thinks otherwise is really missing the big picture. Globalists include anyone who seeks to subordinate the interests of the nation state to global interests and institutions. This is a very broad category, though George Soros is certainly in it. Your disagreement can be summed up as “you’re forgetting the Jew-lovers, it’s not just Jews”. Seriously, take an honest look at the rhetoric of the rest of the anti-globalist crowd sometime. None of its new. How do the globalists your talking about justify trumps support of Israel if they hate jews? I'm interested in the mental gymnastics. Jerusalem. Also, Israel is essentially an ethnonationalist state - why wouldn't a Trump supporter love that? The idea that xDaunt's original proposition - the US intelligence agencies are working against US national interests because of their loyalty to the globalists - makes any sense without resorting to some sort of Jewish conspiracy-esque conspiracy is literally insane. XDaunt's and others thinking is a direct result of the contradictions within the neoconservative positions they try and inhabit: unable to accept or formulate any critique of capitalism, and thus unable to really analyse globalisation, the negative effects of globalisation cannot be attributed to the structural processes encouraged by capitalism, but rather the Je-uh...globalists who use globalisation to assert their own power over the world. It is an inability to separate US national economic interests, the interests of global capital, and the economic interests of ordinary Americans that blights their way of thinking (hint: it is not usually possible to just choose 2 of these and assume they can be aligned through policy at any given time for any sustained amount of time). The process of globalisation is a valid one to critique, and to want to resist, but the idea it is being orchestrated by globalists rather than instigated by capital is absurd. Nailed it. Excellent post. look, if you are an isolationist-leaning conservative who thinks the US spends too much money protecting the rest of the world (for privileged monied interests?) then its not completely non-sensical to think that governmental institutions have been staffed w internationalists who "dont look out for america's interests." if anything is non-sensical it is the reference to "x-nation's interests," something that really only takes on firm meaning in a self-sacrificing nationalist framework
"have been staffed" is unclear here, are they there because some (presumably evil) people have decided that they should be there, or are they there because that's the natural way for governments to develop under a primarily economically liberal system?
It seems like in order to rail against it you'd have to think there's some deliberate action causing their presence. And the only frame of reference we have for this is, well... you guessed it.
|
On August 07 2018 02:16 IgnE wrote:
ah right because if he had said cosmopolitan industrialists/financiers/bankers he wouldnt have been accused of being a nazi . . .
did anybody think to just ask him what he meant instead of calling him a nazi?
To be fair to thread in general, folks really did try to have a more nuanced discussion about why some of us have concerns about that word for a couple days:
On August 06 2018 10:29 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2018 10:23 Plansix wrote:
Regardless of what globalist has become in the larger vernacular, it has been used by anti-Semites for far before it reached the wider public. Much like everything else out of the alt right, it is just rebranded bigotry. That use of globalist is just as stupid as Kwark’s attempts to imply that it is my usage. We are in an era in which nationalism is rising in response to globalization and challenging many elements of the current world order. Saying that is just about the Jews is asinine.
And I think that might have been my second or third post trying to provide context to how the word was used prior to 2016.
Back in 2008 when P6 was a country boy living in the big city for the first time, he referred to a girl of mix race as "mulatto". Two of his very patient black co-workers nicely explained that "mulatto" wasn't a great term for mix race people and had a lot of baggage. And he never used it again because he didn't want to be that racist white kid, even though the word was technically correct.
Sometimes words have larger meanings than what we are aware of.
Edit: Also its not like this is some new line of discussion. From 2017 And my changing culture prediction also came Trump, because that is how Trump has been talking about immigrants recently.
|
On August 07 2018 02:25 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 01:08 Nebuchad wrote:On August 06 2018 17:45 kollin wrote:On August 06 2018 10:28 Womwomwom wrote:On August 06 2018 10:21 xDaunt wrote:On August 06 2018 10:18 Nebuchad wrote:
I have a hard time reconciling a love of free markets and a willingness to limit their scope to your own nation. Unless we are in full economic fascism mode (which maybe we are, that's not a pejorative in this context) I don't see how that works. Does the US (or any other nation) have free trade with China? How about even “fair” trade? Australia has a free trade agreement with China. On August 06 2018 10:26 JimmiC wrote:On August 06 2018 09:52 KwarK wrote:On August 06 2018 09:38 xDaunt wrote:On August 06 2018 05:29 KwarK wrote:
Globalists has always been Jews lol. The secret group of people within every nation who don't belong to the race and don't share the culture/religion/language/blood of the nation but are instead loyal to their international fraternal brotherhood. Also they control banking. And they're working together to destroy nations through creating global governments etc. It's literally the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
xDaunt's shtick has always been that he's not a Nazi, he just says all the same things as them. This is just another example. He won't say that globalist means Jews, but he will agree that the (((globalists))) like Soros are the enemy. Uh, no. Globalists definitely does not mean Jews in the context of globalism vs nationalism. Anyone who thinks otherwise is really missing the big picture. Globalists include anyone who seeks to subordinate the interests of the nation state to global interests and institutions. This is a very broad category, though George Soros is certainly in it. Your disagreement can be summed up as “you’re forgetting the Jew-lovers, it’s not just Jews”. Seriously, take an honest look at the rhetoric of the rest of the anti-globalist crowd sometime. None of its new. How do the globalists your talking about justify trumps support of Israel if they hate jews? I'm interested in the mental gymnastics. Jerusalem. Also, Israel is essentially an ethnonationalist state - why wouldn't a Trump supporter love that? The idea that xDaunt's original proposition - the US intelligence agencies are working against US national interests because of their loyalty to the globalists - makes any sense without resorting to some sort of Jewish conspiracy-esque conspiracy is literally insane. XDaunt's and others thinking is a direct result of the contradictions within the neoconservative positions they try and inhabit: unable to accept or formulate any critique of capitalism, and thus unable to really analyse globalisation, the negative effects of globalisation cannot be attributed to the structural processes encouraged by capitalism, but rather the Je-uh...globalists who use globalisation to assert their own power over the world. It is an inability to separate US national economic interests, the interests of global capital, and the economic interests of ordinary Americans that blights their way of thinking (hint: it is not usually possible to just choose 2 of these and assume they can be aligned through policy at any given time for any sustained amount of time). The process of globalisation is a valid one to critique, and to want to resist, but the idea it is being orchestrated by globalists rather than instigated by capital is absurd. Nailed it. Excellent post. look, if you are an isolationist-leaning conservative who thinks the US spends too much money protecting the rest of the world (for privileged monied interests?) then its not completely non-sensical to think that governmental institutions have been staffed w internationalists who "dont look out for america's interests." if anything is non-sensical it is the reference to "x-nation's interests," something that really only takes on firm meaning in a self-sacrificing nationalist framework
Privileged monied interests is only meaningful if you're able to mount a sustained critique of capitalism, which very few conservatives seem able to do, or if your referring to, more or less, the Jews. And of course national interest only takes on meaning within a nationalist framework, but this is the framework through which most countries conduct foreign policy regardless, and which the US undeniably has done so for most of its existence. Truman turning away an initial draft of the Marshall Plan for looking too much like an investment prospectus has always stuck with me as exemplary of the tense relationship between US foreign policy and the interests of capital.
You can understand American foreign policy along 3 main axes: 'nationalist'/security interest, capitalist interest, and a moral interest (which is usually used to justify one of the other two interests). Trumpian critiques of past policy tend to do away with the capitalist element, and couch the debate in terms of patriotism. Therefore, those that want to uphold the 'liberal international order' or whatever don't hold that belief because they think that is in America's national interest, and ontologically can't hold that belief because they are rabid free marketeers or whatever. All that is left is the idea that they are seeking to undermine Trump because they're 'globalists', which without the foundational critique of capitalism behind it is an accusation of conspiracism along the lines of a global Jewish conspiracy. The idea that security agencies might want to undermine an elected leader is not insane, and there are numerous historical examples, even in the US and UK. the idea they are doing it out of anything but adherence to what they perceive to be national interest (and the extent to which that is tied up with the interests of capital, which doesn't usually want the boat rocked too much) is incoherent without resorting to conspiracy - and when that conspiracy is founded on an international group of 'globalists' insistent on pushing globalisation on unconsenting communities, without even acknowledging capitalism's role, it is a very small step to accusing people of cultural Bolshevism.
|
On August 06 2018 17:38 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2018 09:59 zlefin wrote:On August 06 2018 08:08 kollin wrote:On August 06 2018 07:47 zlefin wrote:On August 06 2018 07:21 kollin wrote:On August 06 2018 04:57 zlefin wrote:On August 06 2018 03:13 kollin wrote:On August 05 2018 09:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 05 2018 09:52 Gorsameth wrote:On August 05 2018 00:46 screamingpalm wrote:
[quote]
Ignoring the causes and core issues has been a losing strategy for Democrats. Progressives with a populist economic message could help to change that. Sadly running on 'Bring coal back' and 'minimum wage jobs should feed a family of 6' might get you votes from idiots that believe you but it won't actually help the country. Democrats have plenty of idea's for these people. But when they set up training programs to help out the sons of coal miners to find a new job they use it to learn to become a coal miner instead. These people don't want a realistic solution, they want a time machine. It's not so much that they want the coal mining jobs back (some of them might) it's that they want the straightforward good paying work back. You're not wrong though that they'd be better off building a time machine than thinking they are going to vote their way out of it with our 2 parties. I think the problem also is that the creative destruction brought about by capitalism, while clearly causing profits to skyrocket, bringing a billion people out of poverty in china etc, is tearing apart the fabric of social life that was formed by occupation in America and other post-industrial countries. The 'straightforward' element of the good paying work can't be underrated - if people are having to retrain every few years, rather than every generation, to work in new and different sectors, the social identity and security that work provided is lost. The anger from this process is undoubtedly expressed at the ballot box. That's more the creative destruction wrought by technology than by capitalism. otherwise I agree. It's a pity that the anger often expresses itself in destructive ways rather than constructive ways. Technological development is how capitalism at this stage of its development continues to sustain itself - the two can't be entangled. And yes, the idea that the NSA or whatever has been infiltrated by 'globalists' literally makes no sense unless you believe it's the Jews (I'm assuming you typoed and meant disentangled) I disagree; I think the two can be sufficiently disentangled for it to be a useful and clear point that the changing in the social fabric due to changes in industry is a result of technological changes foremost, though capitalism also has some effect on it in pushin the changes forward rather than sticking with economic waste for the sake of social order. I did, the perils of using a phone to post. I think the rapidity of innovation would be nowhere near what it is now without the impetus for growth that capitalism demands - that innovation not just being technological, but also in terms of 'more efficient' company organisation or whatever that results in people losing their jobs. The pace at which modern life is altering and the demands of the free market are closely related, and is, really, the key contradiction at the heart of American neoconservativism. more efficient company organization per se has very little effect on job loss as far as I know, what sources do you have on it? It's mostly tech replacing people (or shifting them to other positions) that I've heard about. all societies like growth, capitalist or not; people like stuff. If there's a way for people to get more stuff they tend to want that. Soviet Union had a lot of technological invention, and I'd say they weren't capitalist. I suspect the rapidity of innovation is a function of how much money is spent on research and development; and it's simply the case that in modern times it's possible to spend a lot more on that than in the past. (and that it has been steadily growing since the start of the industrial revolution). I'd also ask what you're comparing capitalism to for this discussion? and/or how you're defining it. Basically, since I'm disputing how much to attribute to capitalism as opposed to technological change, I want to get a clearer sense of what it would mean (in your perspective) to establish that the cause should be attributed one way or the other. I'm not clear what your point on neoconservativism is, but while it may be interesting, it seems irrelevant to the specific point I'm arguing on, and I'd rather not go off on a tangent. We're getting bogged down on technology. The important part is the unemployment resulting from it. That happens under capitalism for obvious reasons, and can also happen as a result of outsourcing, inefficiency within a state's industry, etc etc. This unemployment was not occurring under the Soviet system as a result of technological change (whether you want to call it state capitalism or socialism or whatever). The unemployment is key to what I was originally talking about, and it's a necessary result of a capitalist system that does not care about its workers beyond requiring the minimum consent to sustain itself.
we can't be "getting bogged down on it" as it's THE central question of the debate.
that the workers wouldn't be literally unemployed in the soviet state doesn't change that they might be displaced out of the work they've always had, that had given their whole community meaning. The Soviets certainly might displace an entire community that was no longer needed where it was.
You also haven't addressed my point about what alternatives to capitalism your'e considering for purposes of this discussion.
|
On August 07 2018 03:11 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2018 17:38 kollin wrote:On August 06 2018 09:59 zlefin wrote:On August 06 2018 08:08 kollin wrote:On August 06 2018 07:47 zlefin wrote:On August 06 2018 07:21 kollin wrote:On August 06 2018 04:57 zlefin wrote:On August 06 2018 03:13 kollin wrote:On August 05 2018 09:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 05 2018 09:52 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]Sadly running on 'Bring coal back' and 'minimum wage jobs should feed a family of 6' might get you votes from idiots that believe you but it won't actually help the country.
Democrats have plenty of idea's for these people. But when they set up training programs to help out the sons of coal miners to find a new job they use it to learn to become a coal miner instead.
These people don't want a realistic solution, they want a time machine. It's not so much that they want the coal mining jobs back (some of them might) it's that they want the straightforward good paying work back. You're not wrong though that they'd be better off building a time machine than thinking they are going to vote their way out of it with our 2 parties. I think the problem also is that the creative destruction brought about by capitalism, while clearly causing profits to skyrocket, bringing a billion people out of poverty in china etc, is tearing apart the fabric of social life that was formed by occupation in America and other post-industrial countries. The 'straightforward' element of the good paying work can't be underrated - if people are having to retrain every few years, rather than every generation, to work in new and different sectors, the social identity and security that work provided is lost. The anger from this process is undoubtedly expressed at the ballot box. That's more the creative destruction wrought by technology than by capitalism. otherwise I agree. It's a pity that the anger often expresses itself in destructive ways rather than constructive ways. Technological development is how capitalism at this stage of its development continues to sustain itself - the two can't be entangled. And yes, the idea that the NSA or whatever has been infiltrated by 'globalists' literally makes no sense unless you believe it's the Jews (I'm assuming you typoed and meant disentangled) I disagree; I think the two can be sufficiently disentangled for it to be a useful and clear point that the changing in the social fabric due to changes in industry is a result of technological changes foremost, though capitalism also has some effect on it in pushin the changes forward rather than sticking with economic waste for the sake of social order. I did, the perils of using a phone to post. I think the rapidity of innovation would be nowhere near what it is now without the impetus for growth that capitalism demands - that innovation not just being technological, but also in terms of 'more efficient' company organisation or whatever that results in people losing their jobs. The pace at which modern life is altering and the demands of the free market are closely related, and is, really, the key contradiction at the heart of American neoconservativism. more efficient company organization per se has very little effect on job loss as far as I know, what sources do you have on it? It's mostly tech replacing people (or shifting them to other positions) that I've heard about. all societies like growth, capitalist or not; people like stuff. If there's a way for people to get more stuff they tend to want that. Soviet Union had a lot of technological invention, and I'd say they weren't capitalist. I suspect the rapidity of innovation is a function of how much money is spent on research and development; and it's simply the case that in modern times it's possible to spend a lot more on that than in the past. (and that it has been steadily growing since the start of the industrial revolution). I'd also ask what you're comparing capitalism to for this discussion? and/or how you're defining it. Basically, since I'm disputing how much to attribute to capitalism as opposed to technological change, I want to get a clearer sense of what it would mean (in your perspective) to establish that the cause should be attributed one way or the other. I'm not clear what your point on neoconservativism is, but while it may be interesting, it seems irrelevant to the specific point I'm arguing on, and I'd rather not go off on a tangent. We're getting bogged down on technology. The important part is the unemployment resulting from it. That happens under capitalism for obvious reasons, and can also happen as a result of outsourcing, inefficiency within a state's industry, etc etc. This unemployment was not occurring under the Soviet system as a result of technological change (whether you want to call it state capitalism or socialism or whatever). The unemployment is key to what I was originally talking about, and it's a necessary result of a capitalist system that does not care about its workers beyond requiring the minimum consent to sustain itself. we can't be "getting bogged down on it" as it's THE central question of the debate. that the workers wouldn't be literally unemployed in the soviet state doesn't change that they might be displaced out of the work they've always had, that had given their whole community meaning. The Soviets certainly might displace an entire community that was no longer needed where it was. You also haven't addressed my point about what alternatives to capitalism your'e considering for purposes of this discussion.
The central question of the debate is the insecurity - economic, social and otherwise - engendered by capitalism, and the inability of both parties presently to provide any solution to that (Trump's desire to bring back the coal mines is indicative of this inability). I don't have any alternatives to consider because there don't seem to be any - this is a problem faced by almost every single post-industrial country, and no real alternative has been produced by any of them except just accepting that insecurity as part of modern life. That capitalism has responsibility for this insecurity is the case because a) it is an insecurity occurring in capitalist countries and b) unemployment is allowed and encouraged by capitalist societies. That technology is not the ONLY cause of a changing social fabric is obvious because of the fact that most industrial jobs were lost to outsourcing in the US (I'd argue that technology has resulted in a shift in the terms of employment for white collar workers more than anything). There is presumably some alternative where technological change either need not be pursued so focusedly, or need not be allowed to disrupt people's lives so profoundly. It is finding this alternative and building a consensus around it that is the key challenge for modern leftist parties.
|
I beleive an alternative would be state sponsored education, education, education, working life education, in response to technological shift. Unfortunately that leaves behind the incapable and the traditionalist, all of which also hold a vote. They will be left behind anyways, but in their shortsightedness, they would also harm the country. It also requires politics to value a social systems that delivers education.
|
On August 06 2018 17:45 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2018 10:28 Womwomwom wrote:On August 06 2018 10:21 xDaunt wrote:On August 06 2018 10:18 Nebuchad wrote:
I have a hard time reconciling a love of free markets and a willingness to limit their scope to your own nation. Unless we are in full economic fascism mode (which maybe we are, that's not a pejorative in this context) I don't see how that works. Does the US (or any other nation) have free trade with China? How about even “fair” trade? Australia has a free trade agreement with China. On August 06 2018 10:26 JimmiC wrote:On August 06 2018 09:52 KwarK wrote:On August 06 2018 09:38 xDaunt wrote:On August 06 2018 05:29 KwarK wrote:
Globalists has always been Jews lol. The secret group of people within every nation who don't belong to the race and don't share the culture/religion/language/blood of the nation but are instead loyal to their international fraternal brotherhood. Also they control banking. And they're working together to destroy nations through creating global governments etc. It's literally the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
xDaunt's shtick has always been that he's not a Nazi, he just says all the same things as them. This is just another example. He won't say that globalist means Jews, but he will agree that the (((globalists))) like Soros are the enemy. Uh, no. Globalists definitely does not mean Jews in the context of globalism vs nationalism. Anyone who thinks otherwise is really missing the big picture. Globalists include anyone who seeks to subordinate the interests of the nation state to global interests and institutions. This is a very broad category, though George Soros is certainly in it. Your disagreement can be summed up as “you’re forgetting the Jew-lovers, it’s not just Jews”. Seriously, take an honest look at the rhetoric of the rest of the anti-globalist crowd sometime. None of its new. How do the globalists your talking about justify trumps support of Israel if they hate jews? I'm interested in the mental gymnastics. Jerusalem. Also, Israel is essentially an ethnonationalist state - why wouldn't a Trump supporter love that? The idea that xDaunt's original proposition - the US intelligence agencies are working against US national interests because of their loyalty to the globalists - makes any sense without resorting to some sort of Jewish conspiracy-esque conspiracy is literally insane. XDaunt's and others thinking is a direct result of the contradictions within the neoconservative positions they try and inhabit: unable to accept or formulate any critique of capitalism, and thus unable to really analyse globalisation, the negative effects of globalisation cannot be attributed to the structural processes encouraged by capitalism, but rather the Je-uh...globalists who use globalisation to assert their own power over the world. It is an inability to separate US national economic interests, the interests of global capital, and the economic interests of ordinary Americans that blights their way of thinking (hint: it is not usually possible to just choose 2 of these and assume they can be aligned through policy at any given time for any sustained amount of time). The process of globalisation is a valid one to critique, and to want to resist, but the idea it is being orchestrated by globalists rather than instigated by capital is absurd.
When I talk about Globalists, I'm not referring to some cabal of Jews or other interests. As I mentioned before, I'm referring to people who are of the perspective that national self-interest should be subordinated to global concerns to one degree or another. This can manifest itself in a number of different ways and in a number of different arenas. Neoconservativism, for example, is a globalist perspective applied to American foreign policy: namely that the US should be the world's policeman and actively interfere in the affairs of other sovereign nations. Open border policy is also an application of the globalist perspective in the context of immigration. Interests that are pro-free trade in the sense that they don't want the US to impose any tariffs on imports of Chinese goods notwithstanding Chinese unfair trading practices are also globalists. In this case, the "global" concern is their own wealth accumulation in that they want to be free to move their capital wherever they can so as to maximize their individual profits, regardless of national concerns. In this sense, I fully agree with kollin that capital is driving globalization and globalist policy, which is also why I said in an earlier post that anyone who thinks "globalists" means Jews is a moron who is missing the bigger picture.
So let's talk about Nationalists. The problem with nationalism is that the term has received a bad rap since WW2 as a result of the Nazis. If you look at how nationalism was viewed prior to WW2, it was roughly defined as the right of a people (a nation) to self-determination. When looking at nationalism in this sense, it becomes quite clear that the Nazi's weren't nationalists at all. They were merely yet another iteration of a long history of German aspiration to empire. What we are seeing now with the new nationalist movements is nationalism reasserting itself in the classical sense. Nations are fighting for their sovereignty, demanding that they be in control of their own destinies rather than larger super-national bodies and interests. This is the ideological battle being fought in the EU in which multiple nations are rebelling against increasing EU hegemony, with immigration being the major flash point issue (though the nationalism has been steadily creeping up for at least 10 years now).
So if we look at the US and examine support and opposition Trump, the dividing line isn't along a traditional left/right axis. As has been pointed out, there are numerous conservative/right wing interests that oppose Trump. The one thing that all of these interests have in common is a globalist perspective, whether it be on free trade, foreign policy, or immigration. This is what I mean when I referred to the agencies being stacked with "globalists:" the agencies are stacked with people who fundamentally oppose Trump's nationalist ambitions and goals because they have a globalist perspective or otherwise prefer the globalist order.
|
On August 07 2018 02:41 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 02:25 IgnE wrote:On August 07 2018 01:08 Nebuchad wrote:On August 06 2018 17:45 kollin wrote:On August 06 2018 10:28 Womwomwom wrote:On August 06 2018 10:21 xDaunt wrote:On August 06 2018 10:18 Nebuchad wrote:
I have a hard time reconciling a love of free markets and a willingness to limit their scope to your own nation. Unless we are in full economic fascism mode (which maybe we are, that's not a pejorative in this context) I don't see how that works. Does the US (or any other nation) have free trade with China? How about even “fair” trade? Australia has a free trade agreement with China. On August 06 2018 10:26 JimmiC wrote:On August 06 2018 09:52 KwarK wrote:On August 06 2018 09:38 xDaunt wrote:On August 06 2018 05:29 KwarK wrote:
Globalists has always been Jews lol. The secret group of people within every nation who don't belong to the race and don't share the culture/religion/language/blood of the nation but are instead loyal to their international fraternal brotherhood. Also they control banking. And they're working together to destroy nations through creating global governments etc. It's literally the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
xDaunt's shtick has always been that he's not a Nazi, he just says all the same things as them. This is just another example. He won't say that globalist means Jews, but he will agree that the (((globalists))) like Soros are the enemy. Uh, no. Globalists definitely does not mean Jews in the context of globalism vs nationalism. Anyone who thinks otherwise is really missing the big picture. Globalists include anyone who seeks to subordinate the interests of the nation state to global interests and institutions. This is a very broad category, though George Soros is certainly in it. Your disagreement can be summed up as “you’re forgetting the Jew-lovers, it’s not just Jews”. Seriously, take an honest look at the rhetoric of the rest of the anti-globalist crowd sometime. None of its new. How do the globalists your talking about justify trumps support of Israel if they hate jews? I'm interested in the mental gymnastics. Jerusalem. Also, Israel is essentially an ethnonationalist state - why wouldn't a Trump supporter love that? The idea that xDaunt's original proposition - the US intelligence agencies are working against US national interests because of their loyalty to the globalists - makes any sense without resorting to some sort of Jewish conspiracy-esque conspiracy is literally insane. XDaunt's and others thinking is a direct result of the contradictions within the neoconservative positions they try and inhabit: unable to accept or formulate any critique of capitalism, and thus unable to really analyse globalisation, the negative effects of globalisation cannot be attributed to the structural processes encouraged by capitalism, but rather the Je-uh...globalists who use globalisation to assert their own power over the world. It is an inability to separate US national economic interests, the interests of global capital, and the economic interests of ordinary Americans that blights their way of thinking (hint: it is not usually possible to just choose 2 of these and assume they can be aligned through policy at any given time for any sustained amount of time). The process of globalisation is a valid one to critique, and to want to resist, but the idea it is being orchestrated by globalists rather than instigated by capital is absurd. Nailed it. Excellent post. look, if you are an isolationist-leaning conservative who thinks the US spends too much money protecting the rest of the world (for privileged monied interests?) then its not completely non-sensical to think that governmental institutions have been staffed w internationalists who "dont look out for america's interests." if anything is non-sensical it is the reference to "x-nation's interests," something that really only takes on firm meaning in a self-sacrificing nationalist framework Privileged monied interests is only meaningful if you're able to mount a sustained critique of capitalism, which very few conservatives seem able to do, or if your referring to, more or less, the Jews. And of course national interest only takes on meaning within a nationalist framework, but this is the framework through which most countries conduct foreign policy regardless, and which the US undeniably has done so for most of its existence. Truman turning away an initial draft of the Marshall Plan for looking too much like an investment prospectus has always stuck with me as exemplary of the tense relationship between US foreign policy and the interests of capital. You can understand American foreign policy along 3 main axes: 'nationalist'/security interest, capitalist interest, and a moral interest (which is usually used to justify one of the other two interests). Trumpian critiques of past policy tend to do away with the capitalist element, and couch the debate in terms of patriotism. Therefore, those that want to uphold the 'liberal international order' or whatever don't hold that belief because they think that is in America's national interest, and ontologically can't hold that belief because they are rabid free marketeers or whatever. All that is left is the idea that they are seeking to undermine Trump because they're 'globalists', which without the foundational critique of capitalism behind it is an accusation of conspiracism along the lines of a global Jewish conspiracy. The idea that security agencies might want to undermine an elected leader is not insane, and there are numerous historical examples, even in the US and UK. the idea they are doing it out of anything but adherence to what they perceive to be national interest (and the extent to which that is tied up with the interests of capital, which doesn't usually want the boat rocked too much) is incoherent without resorting to conspiracy - and when that conspiracy is founded on an international group of 'globalists' insistent on pushing globalisation on unconsenting communities, without even acknowledging capitalism's role, it is a very small step to accusing people of cultural Bolshevism.
obviously i agree a critique of capitalism is the only way to approach the topic coherently and have argued as such, at length, against xdaunt in particular
but there are conspiracies and then there are conspiracies. watergate did happen after all
what i disagree with is the line of reasoning where because i have a critique of capital and understand the abstract unfolding of capital circuits and how they interface w governmental institutions im not a conspiracy theorist, but the other guys who dont have a critique of capital, despite wanting some of the same broader goals i do, must be conspiracy theorists rather than having some more nuanced understanding of how institutions hire like-minded thinkers who share certain assumptions and therefore work towards certain shared goals etc. etc. it doesnt have to be this evil top-down conspiracy, even if you are more conservative than steve bannon
in other words, its far more productive to steel-man the opposition than to straw-man it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
