United States Politics Thread 47

[rotting bones]

And it's unfortunate that given the current political system we are stuck with, the only rational choice may be to vote for someone I despise (Gavin Newsom) -- and that anyone who doesn't vote for them in a general election, given the opportunity to do so, must be considered a fascist regardless of whatever they may happen to call themselves.

Your theory of how voting works doesn't seem to include the known behaviors of voters themselves. Despite their predictable irrationality, what we need is a system that precludes fascism from coming to power.

At this point, the main reason I'm not a revolutionary is that I don't know how to make revolutionaries happy. All the artists I like are bourgeois. All the economists I study are technocrats. If I try to write well, it's all AI. There's no point living in the ugly, ignorant, illiterate world they want to create.

[rotting bones]

Time and time again, people have insisted that Trump and his followers "wouldn't really do that" only for Trump to defy expectations and do just that. After watching him invade Iran against all good sense and rational expectations, I can no longer accept the notion that he's just bluffing.

Is the Iran War surprising? The US already attacked Iran last year.

No one will ever admit they lost this war no matter what happens. That's the kind of age we live in. Even if all IRGC get killed, the last one will go down proclaiming victory. In the afterlife, this hypothetical soldier will feel bottomless pride reflecting on their actions.

[Travis B.]

And it's unfortunate that given the current political system we are stuck with, the only rational choice may be to vote for someone I despise (Gavin Newsom) -- and that anyone who doesn't vote for them in a general election, given the opportunity to do so, must be considered a fascist regardless of whatever they may happen to call themselves.

Your theory of how voting works doesn't seem to include the known behaviors of voters themselves. Despite their predictable irrationality, what we need is a system that precludes fascism from coming to power.

There is a reason I am against representative democracy. It just happens that I think dictatorship, whether party or personal, is decidedly worse than representative democracy.

At this point, the main reason I'm not a revolutionary is that I don't know how to make revolutionaries happy. All the artists I like are bourgeois. All the economists I study are technocrats. If I try to write well, it's all AI. There's no point living in the ugly, ignorant, illiterate world they want to create.

You're probably thinking of stereotypical Marxist types who are philistines who consider cultured things to be 'bourgeois'.

[malloc]

TRUMP IS NOT THE SENATE.

Yes, Trump is unhinged, and if you were actually reading for comprehension you would not find any of us saying that Trump will ultimately be rational or wise. Quite the opposite. But Trump, despite his own and your belief in his omnipotence, cannot unilaterally change Senate rules.

What makes you so certain that the GOP senators will honor their promise not to change the filibuster rules? You must surely remember all the times the Republicans have lied and cheated over the years. It seems downright naïve if anything to trust them this time.

[rotting bones]

There is a reason I am against representative democracy. It just happens that I think dictatorship, whether party or personal, is decidedly worse than representative democracy.

You could have a different system of democratic government.

[Travis B.]

There is a reason I am against representative democracy. It just happens that I think dictatorship, whether party or personal, is decidedly worse than representative democracy.

You could have a different system of democratic government.

The key word is 'representative' -- I consider what I am for to be a form of democratic goverment distinct from representative democracy, specifically council democracy.

[zompist]

TRUMP IS NOT THE SENATE.

Yes, Trump is unhinged, and if you were actually reading for comprehension you would not find any of us saying that Trump will ultimately be rational or wise. Quite the opposite. But Trump, despite his own and your belief in his omnipotence, cannot unilaterally change Senate rules.

What makes you so certain that the GOP senators will honor their promise not to change the filibuster rules? You must surely remember all the times the Republicans have lied and cheated over the years. It seems downright naïve if anything to trust them this time.

I wish I had the certainty that you have in the God-Emperor's infinite power.

They're debating the bill right now. Since you don't listen to news sources or senators, you will just have to wait to see what happens.

[malloc]

I wish I had the certainty that you have in the God-Emperor's infinite power.

That's not really the issue. It's simply the case that the Republicans have a laser-like focus on taking and holding power and will take whatever measures that requires, regardless of ethics or even consistency. We cannot trust that they will follow precedent or honor any promises they make. Currently they are only one move away from check mate, an unstoppable hold on power.

[zompist]

I wish I had the certainty that you have in the God-Emperor's infinite power.

It's simply the case

No, it's not, and pretending it's a fact doesn't make it so.

But it's not worth arguing with you. Like I said, wait and see.

[rotting bones]

I have heard Iran's Shia supporters say they want the regime's hackers to break into America's central banking systems and give debt relief to anyone who has less than a million dollars.

Once again, it's a mystery why fascists think their leaders care about capitalism. In Iran, the clerics enrich themselves at the expense of the general public. Iran released propaganda images of a small room they say Ayatollah Khamenei stayed in. In reality, regime clerics own multiple properties in Iran.

If they care about capitalism, they should be leftists. It's like they can't connect the dots. If these people are rich themselves, they might be spreading cynical propaganda. If they are poor, it's probably idealist brain rot. Materialist philosophy could be the antidote.

[Raphael]

@rotting bones, re: your question whether the Iran War "surprises" anyone - well, a lot of people had assumed for a while that the rise of Trumpism meant the return of the old isolationist/paleoconservative tendency on the US right-wing.

I have heard Iran's Shia supporters say they want the regime's hackers to break into America's central banking systems and give debt relief to anyone who has less than a million dollars.

Once again, it's a mystery why fascists think their leaders care about capitalism. In Iran, the clerics enrich themselves at the expense of the general public. Iran released propaganda images of a small room they say Ayatollah Khamenei stayed in. In reality, regime clerics own multiple properties in Iran.

If they care about capitalism, they should be leftists. It's like they can't connect the dots. If these people are rich themselves, they might be spreading cynical propaganda. If they are poor, it's probably idealist brain rot. Materialist philosophy could be the antidote.

In the specific case of these particular fascists, part of the reason might be that they and their leaders have spent a lot of time as part of a loose global political alliance that also includes many of the world's at least nominally farthest-left forces, and which defined and defines itself to a good deal through enmity towards the most prominent capitalists in the world. The particular kind of brain rot is not "idealism", it's Us-vs-Them thinking, probably the strongest force in human life and history.

[rotting bones]

In the specific case of these particular fascists, part of the reason might be that they and their leaders have spent a lot of time as part of a loose global political alliance that also includes many of the world's at least nominally farthest-left forces, and which defined and defines itself to a good deal through enmity towards the most prominent capitalists in the world. The particular kind of brain rot is not "idealism", it's Us-vs-Them thinking, probably the strongest force in human life and history.

The same religious Shias who back Iran tend to be incredibly suspicious of China. Like oppressed Sunni Arabs who ally with Iran when no one else will help them, Iran supporters reluctantly side with China because everyone else hates them.

In America's poorest regions, people believe Trump will bring them relief from crushing economic woes. Isn't this the same phenomenon?

---

I was hoping that if Iran uses up America's military capabilities, it might bring relief to the other countries Trump hopes to attack. But I've heard people saying that after the Iran debacle, Trump might try to save face with an easy victory like toppling Cuba. Trump has been blockading Cuba for a while.

[zompist]

But I've heard people saying that after the Iran debacle, Trump might try to save face with an easy victory like toppling Cuba. Trump has been blockading Cuba for a while.

Unfortunately, all too likely. He thought his Venezuela escapade was a "success". As I said, he's jabbing the "military" button over and over, hoping that this time it works.

If he was at all cunning, he would declare victory in Iran and withdraw (which is more or less what he did last year). I don't know if he has that much smarts left, and the Iranians may simply not let him.

Gas has gone up from $3.00 to $4.20 a gallon around here. Great move, Donnie. Since fertilizer is affected too, food prices will eventually rise.

The big winners of the war are Russia and China. China's oil tankers are allowed to pass through the Gulf unmolested, and Trump handed Russia a windfall of oil money. Russia is also supposedly providing Iran intel. A little face-saver for Putin since he was unable to help Maduro or Assad.

[zompist]

In the specific case of these particular fascists, part of the reason might be that they and their leaders have spent a lot of time as part of a loose global political alliance that also includes many of the world's at least nominally farthest-left forces, and which defined and defines itself to a good deal through enmity towards the most prominent capitalists in the world. The particular kind of brain rot is not "idealism", it's Us-vs-Them thinking, probably the strongest force in human life and history.

I think left vs right explains almost none of the current situation. There are some tankies who think that China and even Russia are still communist. Well, no, they're not, they're capitalist, just with a strong authoritarian state. Arguably the Chinese are "the most prominent capitalists in the world"; it's one of the few places in the world where capitalism works-- e.g., by having so much capitalist competition that corporate profits are low. (See my review of Breakneck.) But I suppose it'll be a generation before the world realizes it.

Plus, it's hardly the case that Trump is against Russia or vice versa. Quite the opposite, he's trying to achieve Putin's war aims for him, exempted Russia from his tariffs, and just eliminated sanctions on its oil. Trump loves Russia; it's Europe he hates.

Of course there's a coterie of countries that built themselves on anti-Americanism-- Cuba, Iran, etc. I think it'd be a mistake to put China in this category: China wants to be a major military power, but it also wants to make money, and to do that it can't rock the global boat too much.

Also, how do we classify countries like Nicaragua and North Korea that have achieved some modus vivendi with Trump?

[rotting bones]

I should mention that Islamic scholarship, including the Islamic scholarship followed by Iran, does contain a criticism of capitalism: Allowing money and/or goods to stagnate at certain nodes instead of allowing them to flow along trade networks is ungodly. Basically, it's the classic Western anti-scrooge moralizing.

From personal experience, I know that people in Muslim households repeat the belief that if you don't give charity when you see the poor calling their sustainer, Allah will lower your station by taking your wealth away from you through other means by the amount that the poor needed. Your station is your "rank" in the Neoplatonic Great Chain of Being. The idea is that Allah is the monad of Benevolence that sustains the universe. Some creations are closer to the monad and some are farther away. Your wealth shows that you are closer to the monad than the poor. When the poor call the monad for sustenance, that is your opportunity to demonstrate your closeness by carrying out the function of Benevolence. If you refuse this call, you will fall farther away from the divine. Your wealth will flow away to others who demonstrate this closeness better.

History doesn't bear out this theory. Nor does Islamic law do anything to address this problem. It doesn't understand that stagnation is a characteristic that trade converges towards as the wealthy invest their resources in profit-extracting enterprises. All it does is require you to pay a paltry 2.5% of your wealth (not income, excluding essentials and debt!) towards compulsory charity (zakat). Further charity (sadaqah) is optional but recommended. Any sustenance provided to Muslims and non-Muslims alike count as good works and raises your station through the function of the divine names ar-Razzaq or al-Qayyum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qayyum_(Sufism) Note the authoritarian framing typical of Neoplatonism.

I don't know how common this belief is in other Abrahamic religions. I have heard gossip that Jews have similar beliefs. I don't know if this is true. Basically, traditional, non-Islamist Muslims tend to think Jews are wealthy because Jews make a lot of charitable donations. That's why Allah raises their station and they will be rewarded in the hereafter.

[zompist]

From personal experience, I know that people in Muslim households repeat the belief that if you don't give charity when you see the poor calling their sustainer, Allah will lower your station by taking your wealth away from you through other means by the amount that the poor needed. [...]

History doesn't bear out this theory. Nor does Islamic law do anything to address this problem. It doesn't understand that stagnation is a characteristic that trade converges towards as the wealthy invest their resources in profit-extracting enterprises. All it does is require you to pay a paltry 2.5% of your wealth (not income, excluding essentials and debt!) towards compulsory charity (zakat).

I'd take a cultural-materialist view of this. Does zakat work? Not if your goal is eliminating inequality, no. But if the idea is to make an imperial system work better, it is probably better than the naked exploitation the nobles would otherwise indulge. So far as I know, every major civilization from the Egyptians on includes warnings to the rich not to oppress the poor, usually backed up by divine sanction and not infrequently by royal decrees. (As it happens I'm reading the Mahabharata right now, and though it's essentially a superhero film, it's also a morality tale where the gods punish unrighteousness, especially greed.)

Universalistic religions tend to appear and thrive just as large empires do. That doesn't mean they're created to make emperors happy. But an empire can sustain itself better if it the emperor has some conscience. (In the 1700s, the Chinese emperors seemed deeply distressed by famines and floods and omens: these were expressions of divine displeasure and were ultimately their fault. It didn't make them Marxists, but it probably made them more amenable to public relief and dredging waterways.)

I don't know how common this belief is in other Abrahamic religions.

The bit about the rich being rich because they're better people is pretty common in Christianity... but so are warnings that kings are also sinners, that God favors the poor, etc. In the Middle Ages it was taught that the demigoddess Fortune was responsible for redistributing wealth and power randomly to show the inherent equality of all humans. (Here's a picture of Fortune, blindfolded to emphasize her impartiality.)

Jesus famously exhorted a rich man to give away everything he owned, a suggestion that the shocked the rich man as much as it would today. The very early church was communist, the most admired priests in medieval times were begging friars, and alms were always supposed to be given.

Again, viewing religions as not very successful attempts to dismantle hierarchy is not a very useful viewpoint. No one knew how to dismantle hierarchy, only God, and he was in no hurry.

[rotting bones]

I'd take a cultural-materialist view of this. Does zakat work? Not if your goal is eliminating inequality, no. But if the idea is to make an imperial system work better, it is probably better than the naked exploitation the nobles would otherwise indulge. So far as I know, every major civilization from the Egyptians on includes warnings to the rich not to oppress the poor, usually backed up by divine sanction and not infrequently by royal decrees. (As it happens I'm reading the Mahabharata right now, and though it's essentially a superhero film, it's also a morality tale where the gods punish unrighteousness, especially greed.)

Maybe this worked somewhat at the community level, but the only checks on the powers of the kings and emperors were nobles, courtiers and other monarchs. Their brutality was unmatched when enforcing their interests. Medieval Islamic societies were ravaged by burdensome taxes that the scholars vainly preached against. There have been drunkard Caliphs. Michael Hudson says most of the crusades were undertaken against other Christians: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RzNCyMyTKA The other Christians were resisting the authority of the relevant monarchs. IIRC Hindus constantly destroyed temples in conquered Hindu cities.

Universalistic religions tend to appear and thrive just as large empires do. That doesn't mean they're created to make emperors happy. But an empire can sustain itself better if it the emperor has some conscience. (In the 1700s, the Chinese emperors seemed deeply distressed by famines and floods and omens: these were expressions of divine displeasure and were ultimately their fault. It didn't make them Marxists, but it probably made them more amenable to public relief and dredging waterways.)

I think the religion is just a reflection of the society with added glitter. Taoism has a heavenly bureaucracy because the Confucian state had an earthly bureaucracy. Islam/Christianity has a heavenly Malik/Lord because Muslims/Christians lived under an earthly malik/lord. The heavenly counterparts are just cool and awesome and so much more effective! That is, when they have finally had enough of the bullshit of the unbelievers, which is any day now!

The bit about the rich being rich because they're better people is pretty common in Christianity... but so are warnings that kings are also sinners, that God favors the poor, etc. In the Middle Ages it was taught that the demigoddess Fortune was responsible for redistributing wealth and power randomly to show the inherent equality of all humans. (Here's a picture of Fortune, blindfolded to emphasize her impartiality.)

Jesus famously exhorted a rich man to give away everything he owned, a suggestion that the shocked the rich man as much as it would today. The very early church was communist, the most admired priests in medieval times were begging friars, and alms were always supposed to be given.

Again, viewing religions as not very successful attempts to dismantle hierarchy is not a very useful viewpoint. No one knew how to dismantle hierarchy, only God, and he was in no hurry.

Right. I was talking about the very specific belief that if you don't help the poor, you will lose that money anyway. It's a very conspiratorial mode of thinking. The Islamic remedy for loss of wealth is generosity. If someone loses money, Muslims interpret it as that person having been insufficiently generous in hindsight! Very Book of Job vibe.

Compared to that, Protestantism talks about salvation through faith alone. Of course, Protestants also believe that good works are a consequence of faith rather than the good works themselves effecting salvation. Even Calvinists, who believe that the elect were predestined to be saved organize church-led charity drives, though perhaps they are less charitable than other religions: https://churchhealthwiki.wordpress.com/ ... ercuts-it/

[Raphael]

I think left vs right explains almost none of the current situation. There are some tankies who think that China and even Russia are still communist. Well, no, they're not, they're capitalist, just with a strong authoritarian state. Arguably the Chinese are "the most prominent capitalists in the world"; it's one of the few places in the world where capitalism works-- e.g., by having so much capitalist competition that corporate profits are low. (See my review of Breakneck.) But I suppose it'll be a generation before the world realizes it.

Plus, it's hardly the case that Trump is against Russia or vice versa. Quite the opposite, he's trying to achieve Putin's war aims for him, exempted Russia from his tariffs, and just eliminated sanctions on its oil. Trump loves Russia; it's Europe he hates.

Of course there's a coterie of countries that built themselves on anti-Americanism-- Cuba, Iran, etc. I think it'd be a mistake to put China in this category: China wants to be a major military power, but it also wants to make money, and to do that it can't rock the global boat too much.

Also, how do we classify countries like Nicaragua and North Korea that have achieved some modus vivendi with Trump?

Well, I wasn't talking about how I'm seeing things. I was talking about my impression (which may or may not be accurate) of how supporters of the current Iranian system see things. You're providing a pretty good list of reasons why people should not agree with them on that point.

As for the relationship between Trump and Russia, it might be a bit more complicated that just "for" or "against". My impression is that Trump is completely in love with his fantasy image of Putin, which is almost, but not completely the same as the real Putin, with the one crucial difference being that the fantasy image is not allied, or at least not really allied, with any of the countries Trump hates.

I might be completely wrong on that, but if I'm right, that might be simply one of the many cases where Trump's racism is important: he might see Putin simply as a white man - and one of the "good" white men, not one of those led astray by "wokeness" - and therefore, he just can't imagine that Putin might really be allied with so many darker-skinned rulers whom Trump hates.

Compared to that, Protestantism talks about salvation through faith alone. Of course, Protestants also believe that good works are a consequence of faith rather than the good works themselves effecting salvation. Even Calvinists, who believe that the elect were predestined to be saved organize church-led charity drives, though perhaps they are less charitable than other religions: https://churchhealthwiki.wordpress.com/ ... ercuts-it/

I said before, and I might say again, that I think that the Protestant doctrine of salvation through faith alone started out as an overreaction to Renaissance-era Catholic priests running around telling people that salvation comes from good works, and that "good works", in that context, means "giving the Catholic Church money". An understandable overreaction, IMO, but still an overreaction.

[zompist]

I'd take a cultural-materialist view of this. Does zakat work? Not if your goal is eliminating inequality, no. But if the idea is to make an imperial system work better, it is probably better than the naked exploitation the nobles would otherwise indulge. So far as I know, every major civilization from the Egyptians on includes warnings to the rich not to oppress the poor, usually backed up by divine sanction and not infrequently by royal decrees. (As it happens I'm reading the Mahabharata right now, and though it's essentially a superhero film, it's also a morality tale where the gods punish unrighteousness, especially greed.)

Maybe this worked somewhat at the community level, but the only checks on the powers of the kings and emperors were nobles, courtiers and other monarchs. Their brutality was unmatched when enforcing their interests. Medieval Islamic societies were ravaged by burdensome taxes that the scholars vainly preached against. There have been drunkard Caliphs. [...]
I think the religion is just a reflection of the society with added glitter. Taoism has a heavenly bureaucracy because the Confucian state had an earthly bureaucracy. Islam/Christianity has a heavenly Malik/Lord because Muslims/Christians lived under an earthly malik/lord. The heavenly counterparts are just cool and awesome and so much more effective!

Well, AKAB, all kings are bastards. Still, as I'm sure you know, Islamic jurisprudence has a semi-antagonistic relationship with the caliphs. It's not a position that exists in the Qur'an, after all, and it was contested that the caliphs could even make laws. Abu Ḥanifa was jailed by the caliph when he refused to become chief judge.

That is, when they have finally had enough of the bullshit of the unbelievers, which is any day now!

I think it's a late phenomenon that religions worry about unbelievers at all. They are way more concerned with the bullshit of the believers.

It may be a bigger issue for Islam, which from Muhammad's day was ruling as a minority over a non-Muslim majority. This situation persisted for a surprisingly long time. (Suprising for an outsider, I mean, based on present-day distribution. Maybe it's a commonplace for Muslims.)

[alice]

I for one think a President that responds with pornographic doodles when asked for policy objectives would be an improvement over Trump.

I for one think pornographic doodles would be an improvement over Trump.