U.S. Politics

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, Michelsen said:

As pertains to saying corporate+state=communism, then I’m really not sure that he is. That is, as @villakram  says, basically the very definition of fascist economic theory (typically called corporatism or corporative statism). Communism, or Marxism, very much goes in the opposite direction as it’s ultimate goal is the perenially misunderstood concept of the dictatorarship of the proletariate. Very little marrying going on there, in the violent overthrow of capitalism, whilst the goal of fascism is obviously to supress the proletariate with the systematic criminalization of and active opposition to class struggle through fascist anti-democracy practices and corporative economic structures. 

Or, in the words of Mussolini himself:

'No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State. Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade-unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State.'

from 'The Doctrine of Fascism': https://sjsu.edu/faculty/wooda/2B-HUM/Readings/The-Doctrine-of-Fascism.pdf

[magnkarl]

8 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Or, in the words of Mussolini himself:

'No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State. Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade-unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State.'

from 'The Doctrine of Fascism': https://sjsu.edu/faculty/wooda/2B-HUM/Readings/The-Doctrine-of-Fascism.pdf

When I studied international theory way back when my professor would always say that far right and far left economic theory essentially worked on the same principles. If you think of the political spectrum he'd say that the right and left almost turns into a circle at the top, and this is where you'd find people like Stalin and Mussolini. They liked to brand their economic ideology as communist or fascist, but in theory they were very similar. In a state where a party or a strongman holds all power there is essentially no free market or corporatism. Whether the economy pretends to work for the proletariat(communism) or the state(fascism) the strong handed leadership leaves the economy with the same bad result. Mussolini may have thought and communicated that his economic theory was radically different to that of communists, but in practice it wasn't. 

[HanoiVillan]

29 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

When I studied international theory way back when my professor would always say that far right and far left economic theory essentially worked on the same principles. If you think of the political spectrum he'd say that the right and left almost turns into a circle at the top, and this is where you'd find people like Stalin and Mussolini. They liked to brand their economic ideology as communist or fascist, but in theory they were very similar. In a state where a party or a strongman holds all power there is essentially no free market or corporatism. Whether the economy pretends to work for the proletariat(communism) or the state(fascism) the strong handed leadership leaves the economy with the same bad result. Mussolini may have thought and communicated that his economic theory was radically different to that of communists, but in practice it wasn't. 

Your professor was teaching you 'horseshoe theory', which is an echt-liberal theory, flattering liberals as it does by allowing them to believe that their opponents and critics to either side are 'irrational' and 'extreme'. It's not a statement of fact, but an ideological view of the world.

[magnkarl]

41 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Your professor was teaching you 'horseshoe theory', which is an echt-liberal theory, flattering liberals as it does by allowing them to believe that their opponents and critics to either side are 'irrational' and 'extreme'. It's not a statement of fact, but an ideological view of the world.

I do realise that even 1960's professors had slanted views, however I do think that a lot of what he said makes sense.

Communism the way Marx wanted it has never happened or worked, so the implementation of it by Lenin, Mao, KJU etc has always turned into more of a authoritarian (see fascism) way of running the economy and country. There's very little evidence to suggest that communism (albeit in Lenin and Mao's form) is radically different on economy than Mussolini and Hitler's fascist states. It all goes back to the state and it wanting the power over everything.

'The economy' never prospers under an authoritarian way of ruling which fascism and communism always turns into. There's really very little separation between Stalin and Hitler.

This is off topic, let's get back on US Bolitics.  

Edited January 27, 2021 by magnkarl

[HanoiVillan]

11 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

This is off topic, let's get back on US Bolitics.  

Yes, we really should!

[OutByEaster?]

26 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

'The economy' never prospers under an authoritarian way of ruling which fascism and communism always turns into. There's really very little separation between Stalin and Hitler.

I think though over time 'the economy' has become a concentrated group and an actor in its own right - we now have a corporate state that manages both the public state and the proletariat and it's in the same place at the end of the horseshoe as the other two - 'the economy' is now that authoritarian leader. Political theory struggles to deal with the usurping of politics by the power of money.

It's particularly visible in the US where I'd wager that Stephen Schwarzman has more power over the running of the country that any Senator.

 

 

[villakram]

On 26/01/2021 at 10:56, mjmooney said:

You're wrong, @bickster's right. 

I have a degree in International History and Politics, btw. 

Wow, a degree. So what.

A marriage is a partnership.

Is that what you call communism?

Go back and read some animal farm, twice, might help you a little.

 

[villakram]

45 Senators sign on against the impeachment nonsense.

What will the dems do. It is going to be really interesting to see how the political winds blow in this one. Very risky right now.

"Forty-five Senate Republicans voted to declare former President Donald Trump's impeachment trial unconstitutional on Tuesday, all but securing his eventual acquittal." ... including Mitch!

https://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-democrats-clash-over-trump-impeachment-constitutional-senate-trial-2021-1

[HanoiVillan]

What Democrats *should* do is take the L and drop it, and save valuable Senate floor time for filling vacancies and stuff.

I don't suppose they'll drop it though.

[villakram]

5 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

What Democrats *should* do is take the L and drop it, and save valuable Senate floor time for filling vacancies and stuff.

I don't suppose they'll drop it though.

I agree, they need to find a way to do that but given that this is Pelosi's baby and she is retiring, urgh. One would hope AOC and some of that younger wing will push hard here and understand that this is not a hill worth fighting for. 

[maqroll]

Enrique Tarrio was an FBI informant, lolol

 

[Seat68]

5 minutes ago, maqroll said:

Enrique Tarrio was an FBI informant, lolol

 

Lets hope snitches get stitches. 

[sidcow]

3 hours ago, villakram said:

Wow, a degree. So what.

A marriage is a partnership.

Is that what you call communism?

Go back and read some animal farm, twice, might help you a little.

 

 

[Davkaus]

4 hours ago, villakram said:

45 Senators sign on against the impeachment nonsense.

 

Out of interest, on what grounds do you think it's nonsense?

[limpid]

16 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Out of interest, on what grounds do you think it's nonsense?

Personally I don't think you should prosecute serial killers if 45 of their mates say "but he's a good bloke".

"Justice"

[sidcow]

It would be a crime against the free world if Trump got away scott free. 

[Davkaus]

I feel like this sums up what we're going to see under the Biden presidency perfectly

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ted-cruz-move-on-insurrection_n_6010ff46c5b6c5586aa4f121?

Quote

 

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) thinks it’s time to move on from the deadly insurrection in the U.S. Capitol that was carried out by supporters of then-President Donald Trump just three weeks ago. 

The violent attack, egged on by Trump himself, was part of an effort to stop the certification of the 2020 election and ultimately overturn the results so Trump could stay in power despite losing to President Joe Biden. 

 

Although the House impeached Trump for “incitement of insurrection” over the attack, Cruz called the impeachment petty and said it was time to move on

Cruz has spent years obsessing over former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails, even referencing them in a complaint to the Justice Department last month. He also blames Clinton for the 2012 deadly terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, an event he has used as a talking point for years. 

 

 

 

I'll file this under the same category as Mitch blocking Democratic nominations for the Supreme Court during an election year under a democrat presidency, while ramming nominations through until the dying moments of a republican presidency. 

Edited January 27, 2021 by Davkaus

[HanoiVillan]

16 minutes ago, sidcow said:

It would be a crime against the free world if Trump got away scott free. 

I agree . . . but given that he's going to anyway, is it a sensible idea to spend a huge amount of time on failing to get that accountability?

[Davkaus]

It surely sets a dangerous precedent to essentially just let him walk off once his term ends?

[villakram]

1 hour ago, sidcow said:

 

It is not anger.

That sort of ignorance is the kind of thing you expect from a teenager who's mad at the world and going to change things. Their first set of opinions can be a little naive/ignorant, but that's generally ok as they'll grow and learn. Those two don't have that excuse, but yet still attempt to drive discussions. It's a bit, I'm not really sure how to describe it - sad/mad/terrifying..., to see people be so ignorant given what happened in the last century.