|
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 07 2018 03:42 xDaunt 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. 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.
Whoa there, the Nazi's were nationalist because nationalism is self determination? Self determination for Germany was the entire selling point of the Nazi's rise to power. This some alternative history given the aftermath of WW1.
|
On August 07 2018 03:53 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 03:42 xDaunt 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. 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. Whoa there, the Nazi's were nationalist because nationalism is self determination? Self determination for Germany was the entire selling point of the Nazi's rise to power. This some alternative history given the aftermath of WW1.
Nationalism -- the belief that people have a right to self-determination -- is one of the big reasons why other countries acquiesced to Hitler's consolidation of German power in the 1930s. It doesn't mean that Hitler, himself, was a nationalist in that sense of the word. He proved quite decisively that he was an imperialist starting in 1939.
|
On August 07 2018 03:23 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 03:11 zlefin wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
That does not seem to be an adequate basis for blaming capitalism.
Section 1: first, capitalist societies don't "encourage" unemployment, they recognize it as something that can occur. But the governments all have mechanisms in place to try to mitigate the effects of unemployment. And capitalism by its nature wants people to be employed (maybe for a pittance, but it does want them to have jobs)
Second, I could replace "capitalist" in your points A/B (after adjusting B to remove "encouraged"), especially A by "democracies" or "highly developed countries", or a host of other things and it'd hold equally true. This makes capitalism not a highly discriminating basis for the causation.
Section 2: The Dems have presented some solutions to the insecurity; it's unfair to pretend that they have not, when it's been pointed out many times in the past in this thread that they have. And that it's often the republicans undermining those solutions. (admittedly not all of the solutions are well thought out, and some are quite expensive). Just because there is no perfect answer doesn't mean palliative measures don't exist. And those palliative measures could be employed and would help some, though they wouldn't fix everything.
Section 3: Question of clarification on your stance: for US industrial jobs, how much % do you estimate (without looking it up, just a ballpark estimate) were lost to technology as opposed to global competition or other factors? it looks like you said most were lost to outsourcing rather than technology; and I'm just trying to verify your position. And getting this answer is the most important one for the discussion.
Section 4: Technological change is inherently disruptive; the only way to truly slow down its disruption is lower technological growth rate. This of course means that everyone misses out on all the advances in productivity, wealth, and medicine, that would have come from that tech growth. How much of that tradeoff to accept is a complicated question with many plausible answers.
|
On August 07 2018 04:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 03:53 Plansix wrote:On August 07 2018 03:42 xDaunt 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. 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. Whoa there, the Nazi's were nationalist because nationalism is self determination? Self determination for Germany was the entire selling point of the Nazi's rise to power. This some alternative history given the aftermath of WW1. Nationalism -- the belief that people have a right to self-determination -- is one of the big reasons why other countries acquiesced to Hitler's consolidation of German power in the 1930s. It doesn't mean that Hitler, himself, was a nationalist in that sense of the word. He proved quite decisively that he was an imperialist starting in 1939.
He sold that idea under the guise of nationalism, or more specifically “lebensraum”(living space) for Germany. That national prosperity requiring expansion and room for the nation to defend itself. Germany’s nationalism didn’t end the instant they invaded Poland, it was how the Nazi party sold it to the German people. Your argument seems to revolve around all the bad things that came from rampant nationalist fervor were not really nationalism.
|
On August 07 2018 03:49 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 02:41 kollin wrote: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.
Why do you disagree with it though? It seems like a fairly logical conclusion. If you're annoyed by this globalization of markets, but don't have a criticism for what's factually causing this globalization of markets - economic (neo)liberalism working as intended - then surely you must think the cause is something else.
I'm also amused that you encouraged people to steelman in the same general conversation where you characterized KwarK as saying that everyone who disagrees with him is a nazi, but that's a sidenote.
|
On August 07 2018 04:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 03:53 Plansix wrote:On August 07 2018 03:42 xDaunt 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. 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. Whoa there, the Nazi's were nationalist because nationalism is self determination? Self determination for Germany was the entire selling point of the Nazi's rise to power. This some alternative history given the aftermath of WW1. Nationalism -- the belief that people have a right to self-determination -- is one of the big reasons why other countries acquiesced to Hitler's consolidation of German power in the 1930s. It doesn't mean that Hitler, himself, was a nationalist in that sense of the word. He proved quite decisively that he was an imperialist starting in 1939.
Nationalism and imperialism are not mutually exclusive as you imply, in fact the only way to justify imperialism is through nationalism. Also that's not the definition of nationalism, the concept of self-determination is related to it but it's not what it is.
|
Pretty amusing that a "nationalist" supporting the United States right to self-determination can't bring himself to say publicly that there was a well-documented illicit Russian influence campaign in the last election and trusts a foreign nation's word over his own intelligence agencies. But hey, ends justify the means right?
I don't understand how one can view Trump as anything other than a "me-ist" but perhaps that's just a deficit in my understanding. Perhaps this me-ism most frequently aligns with things nationalists like?
|
United States41983 Posts
I wonder how these nationalists who just want ethnic sovereignty on their own land and an end to outside interests abusing them, exploiting their resources, and settling on their land plan to treat the Native Americans. That’ll be a useful way of seeing if they’re for all people of all nations having control over their own affairs.
|
Norway28558 Posts
On August 07 2018 02:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
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.
Nationalist can also have different connotations, so that's fair. I'm not really thinking about some old school 'a group of people within a larger region claim sovereignty to end centuries of oppression from larger group X' or whatnot. There were positives as well as negatives to the rise of the nation-state era of european history, not really interested in tackling that - it's not what I'm talking about.
I rather use nationalist in a 'pursuing goals that benefit 'the nation' rather than 'the world'. I mean, this obviously relates to sovereignty issues, so I'm not claiming it's completely distant from the 'older' meaning of the word, but the overlap isn't perfect.
While I, principally, have always been fond of localized decision making processes, I have the impression that today, several problems that trouble us - environmental problems (and all that this will entail of other problems) being the main one - are just too damn big, and global, to be tackled locally. Basically there are a bunch of policy choices that have local benefits but global repercussions, or global benefits but local repercussions, and consequentially, the need for a global governing body becomes important. Anyway, when I speak of nationalism I at least try to speak of the same type of nationalism favored by the coherent segments of the right - my disagreement with them relates to whether it's a positive or negative, not about what the word means.
Then there's a separate problem of a principled vs pragmatic approach - just with a different consequence, in that all the overnational institutions have issues or are crippled in various ways. So there, I'm once again principally super-supportive, but in practice, countries aren't willing to cede sovereignty in a way that enables an overnational institution to implement policies that I myself favor - and I don't see how this could be changed without the implementation of other policies that I also do not at all favor.
Anyway, 'rootless cosmopolitan' has jewish connotations that to my knowledge far predate the jewish connotations of 'globalist'. Internationalist, to me, has some international socialists connotations - but I can largely get behind those anyway. from a bit of wikipediaing, it seems like I might identify the most with the 'anti-nationalists'.
Further, there's a last point in that I am utterly anti-trumpkin. The fact that these guys use 'globalist' as their main pejorative for people opposed to their agenda is why it becomes a viable self-description as someone who is extremely opposed to their agenda. In this sense, you can compare it to 'deplorables' - except 'deplorables' is one of the words where you could argue there actually exists some degree of 'inherent badness'. 'Globalist' is to me different because the implied meaning from how the word is designed is positive - the connotation is that of caring about the entire world rather than merely a region of it. It's more like 'social justice warrior' in this sense - I don't mind calling myself that, as I think that social justice seems like a worthy cause to champion. It's not like the people who use it pejoratively are likely to be worth conversing with anyway - again, much the same as people who use 'globalists' to describe some shadowy, nefarious group pulling at the soul-strings of the world. I mean even 'people opposed to the nationalist agenda' probably isn't meant positively when used by a nationalist - but this I would also see as a truthful description.
Like, it's hard for me and xdaunt to find common political ground. Doesn't even have to be something we should strive for - I at least do not want to change my opinions so they are more in line with his. And I'm not arrogant enough to presume that surely, his heart will change through reading my eloquently phrased and logically consistent arguments. But I never find myself having to play semantics game with him. If I just try to be a little bit charitable in my interpretation of the words he chooses to phrase himself with (and my experience is that usually the charitable interpretation is more correct if I bother asking for a clarification rather than assuming the non-charitable one).
|
On August 07 2018 04:12 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 03:49 IgnE wrote:On August 07 2018 02:41 kollin wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Why do you disagree with it though? It seems like a fairly logical conclusion. If you're annoyed by this globalization of markets, but don't have a criticism for what's factually causing this globalization of markets - economic (neo)liberalism working as intended - then surely you must think the cause is something else. I'm also amused that you encouraged people to steelman in the same general conversation where you characterized KwarK as saying that everyone who disagrees with him is a nazi, but that's a sidenote.
its not a logical conclusion to think that just because someone has not identified the same exact cause as you that the "something else" must therefore be a conspiracy run by an evil cabal. futhermore i dont see why you keep referring to neoliberal economic markets as if renegotiating free trade agreements did not implicitly include a criticism of neoliberal economic markets
kwark regularly puts words in peoples mouths or imputes nazi sympathies. look at xdaunts actual one or two sentences and then look at the paragraphs of hidden meaning that kwark supposedly unearths within those two sentences. kwark strawmans himself at times
edit: not only that, but kwark's steel-man argument is what? that globalist is often used by neonazis and antisemites and conspiracists? ok, granted. but xdaunt clarified he did not mean it that way, so what? kwark is arguing that its impossible to not mean it that way? that its impossible to use "globalist" in the seemingly reasonable sense defined by xdaunt (as a matter of policy priorities)? why should anyone take kwark seriously when he says that? why would you not just say, ok, i thought maybe you meant this heinous conspiracist sense but since you dont ill try to engage with what you yourself say you meant? please.
|
Some one was trying to defend the InfoWars ban on social media, and I brought up the idea that hey, they're businesses, so just like the NFL they have the right to stomp on your freedom of speech. He went on a tangent that it was not the same, that Facebook is public, while NFL is private. I kinda stopped there because he wasn't realizing that my point was businesses controlling free speech which I mentioned on different occasions.
So it was ending up into a more of "my side vs yours". He tried to play it off as he's for all freedom of speech, but then makes the comparison of a "publicly traded" vs "private"... Which is stupid because Zuckerberg is still quite a large owner of facebook, while the company itself, and select few investors own the rest. The NFL is essentially a franchise. Any rich person can start up a team in the middle of no where near a city, and now we have an extra team.
Am I wrong in my thinking?
|
On August 07 2018 04:49 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 04:12 Nebuchad wrote:On August 07 2018 03:49 IgnE wrote:On August 07 2018 02:41 kollin wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Why do you disagree with it though? It seems like a fairly logical conclusion. If you're annoyed by this globalization of markets, but don't have a criticism for what's factually causing this globalization of markets - economic (neo)liberalism working as intended - then surely you must think the cause is something else. I'm also amused that you encouraged people to steelman in the same general conversation where you characterized KwarK as saying that everyone who disagrees with him is a nazi, but that's a sidenote. its not a logical conclusion to think that just because someone has not identified the same exact cause as you that the "something else" must therefore be a conspiracy run by an evil cabal.
It isn't if you have some other solution that makes sense. I just don't see what that is. I've asked.
futhermore i dont see why you keep referring to neoliberal economic markets as if renegotiating free trade agreements did not implicitly include a criticism of neoliberal economic markets
You can criticize specific trade agreements without being against liberalism in general. But in this case I agree with you, when it comes to Trump and Miller/Bannon specifically that's my first thought as well, that we have an implicit criticism of free markets. We'd be to the right of economic liberalism, in the domain where self-sufficiency matters and where you can, for example, "emphasize that industries must uphold the national interest as superior to private profit".
|
On August 07 2018 03:42 xDaunt wrote:When I talk about Globalists, I'm not referring to some cabal of Jews or other interests. What you actually wrote:On August 05 2018 01:06 xDaunt wrote:
He only has one real scapegoat: globalists. Everything Trump does falls squarely on the side of nationalism.
On August 07 2018 03:42 xDaunt wrote:As I mentioned before Where? did you mention this before?
On August 07 2018 03:42 xDaunt wrote: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 would be called supranationalism.
On August 07 2018 03:42 xDaunt wrote: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. By your own definition, that would be Neoconservativism. I suppose you can call it Imperialism.
On August 07 2018 03:42 xDaunt wrote:Open border policy is also an application of the globalist perspective in the context of immigration. Fair enough. There isn't any country in the world with an actual open border policy. The biggest is the Schengen Zone, but that is limited to a few (relatively rich) countries. In any case this would be called freedom of movement.
On August 07 2018 03:42 xDaunt wrote: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. What? If that's globalism, then globalism doesn't exist, as there are plenty of tariffs on Chinese goods to the USA. Why write as if there aren't?
On August 07 2018 03:42 xDaunt wrote: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. You basically just repeated the Jew conspiracy theory. You should really stop that. That isn't globalism anyways, that's just deregulated capitalism and the consequences of the belief of "trickle down economics" and "greed is good" and the existence of tax havens in the race to the bottom countries engage in to attract corporations.
On August 07 2018 03:42 xDaunt wrote: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). This whole paragraph is so bad I don't even know where to start and end. I'll start with that Nationalism got a bad rap not becuase of nazis, but because it is tied to Facism and that every country that ever got gripped by nationalism of the modern era faced censorship and a loss in freedom of speech. In fact the way you use the word "nationalism" leads me to beleive that you use nationalism differently from everyone else.
On August 07 2018 03:42 xDaunt wrote: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. You haven't defined nationalism, except that "Everything Trump does falls squarely on the side of nationalism.". We are back to square one again where you define nationalism as trump and globalism as anti-Trump.
So what have we got here? What you call are Globalists, are actually a diverse group of people with different politic views that may or may not be combined and are best described with other words. Supranationalism, neoconservatism, freedom of movement, Chinese unfair trading practices and deregulation of international monetary controls.
What you call nationalism is just Trumpism. If the opposite to "globalism" defined to "national self-interest should be subordinated to global concerns" is nationalism, then as everything Trump does is not related to national self-interest, it is also not nationalism.
By your defintion, I am a nationalist, as I believe that the national self-interest of UK should not be subordinated to global concerns, which as you defined it by being contrary to globalism, I cannot possible hold any beliefs you hold to be part of globalism. This is just pure nonsense.
|
On August 07 2018 05:00 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Some one was trying to defend the InfoWars ban on social media, and I brought up the idea that hey, they're businesses, so just like the NFL they have the right to stomp on your freedom of speech. He went on a tangent that it was not the same, that Facebook is public, while NFL is private. I kinda stopped there because he wasn't realizing that my point was businesses controlling free speech which I mentioned on different occasions.
So it was ending up into a more of "my side vs yours". He tried to play it off as he's for all freedom of speech, but then makes the comparison of a "publicly traded" vs "private"... Which is stupid because Zuckerberg is still quite a large owner of facebook, while the company itself, and select few investors own the rest. The NFL is essentially a franchise. Any rich person can start up a team in the middle of no where near a city, and now we have an extra team.
Am I wrong in my thinking?
far as I can tell you're correct and the other guy is being an idiot. (ofc most poeple are idiots)
being publicly traded doesn't change that it's a private business.
it sounds like the person may be sloppily conflating the two different uses of public.
|
The role of nationalism, and countries subordinating global interests in favour of national/imperial interests, was also central to causing WW1. The idea that the Nazis gave nationalism a bad name is amusingly similar to the idea that Stalinists gave Bolshevism a bad name.
|
On August 07 2018 04:46 Liquid`Drone wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 07 2018 02:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
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. Nationalist can also have different connotations, so that's fair. I'm not really thinking about some old school 'a group of people within a larger region claim sovereignty to end centuries of oppression from larger group X' or whatnot. There were positives as well as negatives to the rise of the nation-state era of european history, not really interested in tackling that - it's not what I'm talking about. I rather use nationalist in a 'pursuing goals that benefit 'the nation' rather than 'the world'. I mean, this obviously relates to sovereignty issues, so I'm not claiming it's completely distant from the 'older' meaning of the word, but the overlap isn't perfect. While I, principally, have always been fond of localized decision making processes, I have the impression that today, several problems that trouble us - environmental problems (and all that this will entail of other problems) being the main one - are just too damn big, and global, to be tackled locally. Basically there are a bunch of policy choices that have local benefits but global repercussions, or global benefits but local repercussions, and consequentially, the need for a global governing body becomes important. Anyway, when I speak of nationalism I at least try to speak of the same type of nationalism favored by the coherent segments of the right - my disagreement with them relates to whether it's a positive or negative, not about what the word means. Then there's a separate problem of a principled vs pragmatic approach - just with a different consequence, in that all the overnational institutions have issues or are crippled in various ways. So there, I'm once again principally super-supportive, but in practice, countries aren't willing to cede sovereignty in a way that enables an overnational institution to implement policies that I myself favor - and I don't see how this could be changed without the implementation of other policies that I also do not at all favor. Anyway, 'rootless cosmopolitan' has jewish connotations that to my knowledge far predate the jewish connotations of 'globalist'. Internationalist, to me, has some international socialists connotations - but I can largely get behind those anyway. from a bit of wikipediaing, it seems like I might identify the most with the 'anti-nationalists'. Further, there's a last point in that I am utterly anti-trumpkin. The fact that these guys use 'globalist' as their main pejorative for people opposed to their agenda is why it becomes a viable self-description as someone who is extremely opposed to their agenda. In this sense, you can compare it to 'deplorables' - except 'deplorables' is one of the worst where you could argue there actually exists some degree of 'inherent badness'. 'Globalist' is to me different because the implied meaning from how the word is designed is positive - the connotation is that of caring about the entire world rather than merely a region of it. It's more like 'social justice warrior' in this sense - I don't mind calling myself that, as I think that social justice seems like a worthy cause to champion. It's not like the people who use it pejoratively are likely to be worth conversing with anyway - again, much the same as people who use 'globalists' to describe some shadowy, nefarious group pulling at the soul-strings of the world. I mean even 'people opposed to the nationalist agenda' probably isn't meant positively when used by a nationalist - but this I would also see as a truthful description. Like, it's hard for me and xdaunt to find common political ground. Doesn't even have to be something we should strive for - I at least do not want to change my opinions so they are more in line with his. And I'm not arrogant enough to presume that surely, his heart will change through reading my eloquently phrased and logically consistent arguments. But I never find myself having to play semantics game with him. If I just try to be a little bit charitable in my interpretation of the words he chooses to phrase himself with (and my experience is that usually the charitable interpretation is more correct if I bother asking for a clarification rather than assuming the non-charitable one). Thanks drone. Your definition of nationalism is in the 'pursuing goals that benefit 'the nation' rather than 'the world' and globalism as the opposite of that. I would say that they don't lie on two opposite ends of the spectrum. For instances such as environmental issues, to use international or supranational organisations, would be as benefit to the nation as a whole. To beleive in a global approach to certain problems would not make you a globalist by xdaunt rather tenuous definition in any case. I am not sure, but I am pretty sure that even though you may beleive in suprantional organisations, you don't appear to particularily care or support neoconservatism, unfair chinese state trading practices or deregulation of international monetary capital controls.
By labelling yourself as "globalists" is to play into those who use such terms to mean a shadowy cabal of capitalists who control the world (whether jew or not) by normalising such terms on their ground, when infact you aren't a "globalist" by their definition anyways. The other corollary is that you are also by using their definition of "nationalist" to define the opposite of "globalist" to normalise their usage of the term "nationalists" which is not how it is commonly used except by the Trump Administration and the conspiracy theorist. In essence they want to form a connection that everything Trump does is "nationalist" and therefore looking after the interest of their country, and everything opposite is "globalist", even if what is described as "globalist" would be in the interest of the nation.
|
On August 07 2018 05:00 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Some one was trying to defend the InfoWars ban on social media, and I brought up the idea that hey, they're businesses, so just like the NFL they have the right to stomp on your freedom of speech. He went on a tangent that it was not the same, that Facebook is public, while NFL is private. I kinda stopped there because he wasn't realizing that my point was businesses controlling free speech which I mentioned on different occasions.
So it was ending up into a more of "my side vs yours". He tried to play it off as he's for all freedom of speech, but then makes the comparison of a "publicly traded" vs "private"... Which is stupid because Zuckerberg is still quite a large owner of facebook, while the company itself, and select few investors own the rest. The NFL is essentially a franchise. Any rich person can start up a team in the middle of no where near a city, and now we have an extra team.
Am I wrong in my thinking?
I mean... no in the fact that neither company is the government so there the 1st amendment doesn't apply to them or their platform. Yes in the fact that you can't just add an NFL team cause you have buttloads of money.
|
Actually both NFL and facebook cannot infringe on your freedom of speech as neither are governmental platforms. If Trump blocks you on his twitter account, that could be infringing on your freedom of speech.
The only problem is that social media has an oversized effect on public discourse and and possibly a manipulative effect by targeted ads but that would be a separate issue from freedom of speech.
Theres a difference between "freedom of speech" as in "political freedom from government censorship" and "freedom to say whatever you like anywhere and anytime you like".
|
Yeah, his ability to speak was not taken away. Google just took away its free megaphone.
|
This whole thing with xDaunt trying to define nationalism reminds me of how the right condemns feminism for being "anti- Male" despite "equality" being an explicit part of it's definition.
I'd like to hear xDaunt's opinion on feminism, because the road to hypocrisy is incredibly clear here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
