United States Politics Thread 47

[zompist]

Just to name one example, when Communism and apartheid collapsed in the early 90s, many proclaimed an "end of history" in which liberalism had decisively triumphed over authoritarian ideologies. All alternatives to liberalism had been tried and found wanting, settling once and for all the ideal political framework for humankind. Thus not only were alternatives to liberalism morally reprehensible, they were also effectively impossible like cold fusion or alchemy.

Ah, Fukuyama. Hey, let's look at what Fukuyama actually said.

Fukuyama combined Nietzsche’s idea of the last man with his own diagnosis of underlying human psychology. His prognosis was that the outlook for post-History Western society was not good. It was possible that the last men at the end of History might sink down into a brutish contentment with material comforts, rather like dogs lying around in the afternoon sun (this was what Kojève predicted). But they might well go the other way. There was every chance that the last men (and women) would be deeply discontented with their historically unprecedented ease and luxury, because it failed to feed megalothymia. If the last men went this way, they would become bored by what Fukuyama called ‘masterless slavery – the life of rational consumption’. The spread of egalitarian values that went along with secular democratic politics would open up spaces of severe resentment – especially, we might now postulate, among those who had lost their traditional places at the top of social hierarchies, and felt cheated of the recognition that they believed they were owed. (Sound familiar?)

Fukuyama predicted that such restlessness and resentment would eventually need a political outlet – and when it came, it would be explosive. The anti-capitalist Left, however, was a busted flush. Communism was now a known fraud and failure, and post-Historical people driven by megalothymia would have no truck with its egalitarian pretensions, or its nakedly tyrannical realities. Far more threatening to the stability of liberal capitalist societies would be the emergence of demagogic strongmen from the fascistic Right, cynically feeding narrow self-interest and popular discontent, preying on human impulses for mastery and domination that the hollow comforts of consumer capitalism could not hope to appease.

So, Fukuyama was completely the opposite of your parody. Far from saying that fascism was "effectively impossible", he said it was quite likely (essentially due to human cussedness). That is, Fukuyama's book, rather than saying liberalism was untouchable, predicted a Trump 24 years beforehand.

[zompist]

I'm not at all sure this ceasefire, or, if you prefer, "ceasefire" will last the whole two weeks. Or even two more days.

Absolutely possible. Still, FWIW, there are signs the clowns want out of the disaster they created.

But as far as the competence or lack thereof of the Far Right is concerned, I'd say that they're a lot more competent at getting power than at using it. They are very competent at pushing many people's buttons in just the right way, and telling many people the comforting untruths they want to hear, and as a result, they are very competent at getting support and therefore power. But their ideas about how the world actually works are generally false, and as a result, they are not at all competent at using the power they get.

You can be an authoritarian conservative for decades, but it requires a certain restraint, and the current crop almost entirely lacks that. A political movement has to learn to be happy getting 60% of what it wants. That drive to get 90% instead almost always ends badly.

The apparent counter-example is Putin. But did Putin want to have a four-year-long grind in Ukraine, losing 1000 soldiers a day, slowly losing all his tanks, actually seeing NATO get bigger and closer to his borders, having factories and oil refineries blown up thousands of km from the front, driving Europe to re-arm? I think he's on the same road to failure, but having a long autocratic tradition has insulated him so far. Syria should have told him that that impunity can end very very quickly.

[Raphael]

Thank you for the information about Fukuyama, zompist. I still think there were some very serious flaws in what he actually said, although they are different from the flaws in what he is widely believed to have said. Perhaps more on that later.

[WeepingElf]

The apparent counter-example is Putin. But did Putin want to have a four-year-long grind in Ukraine, losing 1000 soldiers a day, slowly losing all his tanks, actually seeing NATO get bigger and closer to his borders, having factories and oil refineries blown up thousands of km from the front, driving Europe to re-arm? I think he's on the same road to failure, but having a long autocratic tradition has insulated him so far. Syria should have told him that that impunity can end very very quickly.

Putin definitely did not want to get into what he is in now. He expected to take over Ukraine within a couple of weeks or so with rather little effort, and now he is in a terrible mess, and can't go back. It doesn't seem as if he could win anymore, but when he loses, he'd probably not just lose his presidency - in those circles, the life of a man who has botched his job that badly isn't worth a kopek.

[Raphael]

The apparent counter-example is Putin. But did Putin want to have a four-year-long grind in Ukraine, losing 1000 soldiers a day, slowly losing all his tanks, actually seeing NATO get bigger and closer to his borders, having factories and oil refineries blown up thousands of km from the front, driving Europe to re-arm? I think he's on the same road to failure, but having a long autocratic tradition has insulated him so far. Syria should have told him that that impunity can end very very quickly.

Putin definitely did not want to get into what he is in now. He expected to take over Ukraine within a couple of weeks or so with rather little effort, and now he is in a terrible mess, and can't go back. It doesn't seem as if he could win anymore, but when he loses, he'd probably not just lose his presidency - in those circles, the life of a man who has botched his job that badly isn't worth a kopek.

All fine and nice, but who's going to move against him? The possible forces would be the military, the security forces, his courtiers, and the oligarchs. The military seems to have been mostly defanged, which is bad for his external plans, but good for his internal grip on power. The security forces are his most loyal constituency - he depends on them and they depend on him. They would have nothing good to expect from his fall. His courtiers seem to be largely people even worse and more dangerous than him. And the oligarchs are hated by everyone, and couldn't ever get anyone to support any plans or proposals they come up with.

[malloc]

So, Fukuyama was completely the opposite of your parody. Far from saying that fascism was "effectively impossible", he said it was quite likely (essentially due to human cussedness). That is, Fukuyama's book, rather than saying liberalism was untouchable, predicted a Trump 24 years beforehand.

I stand corrected, at least on this point. Nonetheless it does feel like liberals have greatly underestimated the far right. Somehow they went from fringe kooks on 4chan and such to building vast networks of podcasters and influencers, winning elections across the world, and converting millions of young people to their cause. Now we have Trump winning elections twice, far right parties polling at 25% across Europe, and public opinion turning against liberal ideals of tolerance and equality. What is your explanation for all this if not liberal hubris and reactionary political acumen?

[WeepingElf]

The apparent counter-example is Putin. But did Putin want to have a four-year-long grind in Ukraine, losing 1000 soldiers a day, slowly losing all his tanks, actually seeing NATO get bigger and closer to his borders, having factories and oil refineries blown up thousands of km from the front, driving Europe to re-arm? I think he's on the same road to failure, but having a long autocratic tradition has insulated him so far. Syria should have told him that that impunity can end very very quickly.

Putin definitely did not want to get into what he is in now. He expected to take over Ukraine within a couple of weeks or so with rather little effort, and now he is in a terrible mess, and can't go back. It doesn't seem as if he could win anymore, but when he loses, he'd probably not just lose his presidency - in those circles, the life of a man who has botched his job that badly isn't worth a kopek.

All fine and nice, but who's going to move against him? The possible forces would be the military, the security forces, his courtiers, and the oligarchs. The military seems to have been mostly defanged, which is bad for his external plans, but good for his internal grip on power. The security forces are his most loyal constituency - he depends on them and they depend on him. They would have nothing good to expect from his fall. His courtiers seem to be largely people even worse and more dangerous than him. And the oligarchs are hated by everyone, and couldn't ever get anyone to support any plans or proposals they come up with.

Yes, and that's the reason why those people would want Putin's head on a silver plate if he conceded defeat and withdrew from Ukraine. In their eyes, he has badly blundered, and has to pay for it. But as long as the war drags on and a victory seems at least theoretically possible, he is probably quite safe. Yet, I am no "Kremlin astrologer", and don't know whether my impression of Russian politics is apt or misguided - probably the latter.

[Travis B.]

So, Fukuyama was completely the opposite of your parody. Far from saying that fascism was "effectively impossible", he said it was quite likely (essentially due to human cussedness). That is, Fukuyama's book, rather than saying liberalism was untouchable, predicted a Trump 24 years beforehand.

I stand corrected, at least on this point. Nonetheless it does feel like liberals have greatly underestimated the far right. Somehow they went from fringe kooks on 4chan and such to building vast networks of podcasters and influencers, winning elections across the world, and converting millions of young people to their cause. Now we have Trump winning elections twice, far right parties polling at 25% across Europe, and public opinion turning against liberal ideals of tolerance and equality. What is your explanation for all this if not liberal hubris and reactionary political acumen?

Have you been paying attention to anything any of us have been saying here? At all? Do we have to repeat ourselves yet again? And you forget that 25% for means 75% against, it should be noted.

[malloc]

Have you been paying attention to anything any of us have been saying here? At all? Do we have to repeat ourselves yet again? And you forget that 25% for means 75% against, it should be noted.

You also have to consider the trajectory of far right growth, not just its current percentage. Not that long ago, the far right was basically taboo and polled maybe five percent. Over the past decade or so, it has grown explosively with no signs of slowing down. If current trends continue, it will achieve an absolute majority in many countries soon enough. Even without an absolute majority, it could still form a minority government amidst divided opposition or exert considerable influence.

[Travis B.]

Have you been paying attention to anything any of us have been saying here? At all? Do we have to repeat ourselves yet again? And you forget that 25% for means 75% against, it should be noted.

You also have to consider the trajectory of far right growth, not just its current percentage. Not that long ago, the far right was basically taboo and polled maybe five percent. Over the past decade or so, it has grown explosively with no signs of slowing down. If current trends continue, it will achieve an absolute majority in many countries soon enough. Even without an absolute majority, it could still form a minority government amidst divided opposition or exert considerable influence.

The far right was not 'basically taboo' -- consider things such as just how many people were simply against civil rights for Black people and women in the US in the 1960's and before (remember that the vast majority of people at the time were not hippies), the National Front and like in the UK in the 1970's, the Historikerstreit in West Germany in the 1980's (where mainstream historians were basically apologizing for the Holocaust), the fact that the LGBTQ+ rights movement had gotten not nearly as far as it is now when I was growing up in the 1990's, just as a few examples from the not-so-distant past. You completely overlook just how right-wing people were in the recent past.

[Raphael]

Travis, I generally agree, but I don't think that's what the word "apologizing" means.



********************************___________________________________********************

Just saw this report at the BBC:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3ex07l1qvpo

Now, given that she was already in her 20s when Epstein seems to have gotten serious about his crimes, I doubt that he would have paid attention to her at that time, so she might be telling the truth. But, that said, is anyone else reminded of this?

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/ ... ificDenial

[alice]

You also have to consider the trajectory of far right growth, not just its current percentage. Not that long ago, the far right was basically taboo and polled maybe five percent. Over the past decade or so, it has grown explosively with no signs of slowing down. If current trends continue, it will achieve an absolute majority in many countries soon enough. Even without an absolute majority, it could still form a minority government amidst divided opposition or exert considerable influence.

The "far right" has always been there; it's just a lot more noisy and noticeable now, probably because it knows it's losing and is getting desparate. At best it's taken over a significant chunk of the moderate right, but it has virtually no chance of getting anywhere further left. Here in the UK, for example, it looks unlikely that N*g$L F@r*g!'s R£f]rm P%rty will poll above 30%, and enough of the remaining 70% is sufficently repelled and knows how to play the electoral system to keep them out. Indeed, recent opinion polls suggest the far right are losing support.

[rotting bones]

I think the slight far right swing and the socialist turn are because of the system unraveling from the falling rate of profit in actual production, inflation and assorted anxieties associated with a financial market economy: https://snapshotsofthelabyrinth.photo.b ... -planning/

The alternative to your money losing value at an alarming rate would be a depression every 7 years. Not that financialization has been able to stall mini-depressions entirely. They just manifest in different forms depending on what the financiers try to keep the system going.

[rotting bones]

One common reason right-wingers, including ZBBers, expected Russia to do well in Ukraine is they thought both countries belong to an Orthodox Christian "civilization". Their sense of reality told them the separation was an artificial, woke imposition over an underlying organic unity of peoples.

For them, "civilization" is not a manner of speaking. It's an ontological reality inseparable from their sense of belonging and self-respect. In this, they are following the respected foreign policy scholar Samuel Huntington, whom leftists, even Edward Said, have been arguing against since forever.

These people never listen to leftists or believe us ("bread lines"). Instead, they just keep failing over and over. The more they fail, the more power they accrue. If there's a trajectory to human history, I'd say it's failing upwards.

[malloc]

The "far right" has always been there; it's just a lot more noisy and noticeable now, probably because it knows it's losing and is getting desparate. At best it's taken over a significant chunk of the moderate right, but it has virtually no chance of getting anywhere further left. Here in the UK, for example, it looks unlikely that N*g$L F@r*g!'s R£f]rm P%rty will poll above 30%, and enough of the remaining 70% is sufficently repelled and knows how to play the electoral system to keep them out. Indeed, recent opinion polls suggest the far right are losing support.

Sure but the far right has not always had thirty percent of voters. Currently they enjoy a plurality of voters. If those votes are evenly spread across the country, they would win an absolute majority of seats, giving them an unassailable government. Even without that, keeping them out of power would require everyone from Tories to Greens to form a coalition against them. How likely does that sound?

[Raphael]

Sure but the far right has not always had thirty percent of voters. Currently they enjoy a plurality of voters. If those votes are evenly spread across the country, they would win an absolute majority of seats, giving them an unassailable government. Even without that, keeping them out of power would require everyone from Tories to Greens to form a coalition against them. How likely does that sound?

Perhaps this can be continued over in the British politics thread?

[rotting bones]

Regarding the Middle East:

In popular polls, I'm seeing the Trump haters outnumber the Trump supporters about 2:1 by this point (ignoring a significant number of neutrals). People are ready to change their minds if the economy improves.

I've heard things like: "If you hate Trump, do some political and geopolitical research." Remember: https://snapshotsofthelabyrinth.photo.b ... sychology/

---

I hear Israel is telling Lebanese Christians to report Shias who may be hiding in their homes.

---

On Zeteo, a Jewish girl from a Bundist family says she was brought up to believe being Jewish means being smart and a rebel: https://open.substack.com/pub/zeteo/p/r ... id&r=e7ptw By that definition, I aspire to be Jewish.

---

Iran, of course, declares total victory like they have been doing since the beginning of recorded history. Shah fascist Jorjani is freaking out on X, saying the Islamic Republic has won completely.

Apparently, Iran bombing every country in the region was an effect of the decapitation strikes. Cut off from central command, goofy regional commanders did whatever they thought would advance Iran's war goals, including striking Turkey and Oman IIRC.

The lesson is that Iran is not held together from the top. The regime has considerable regional support.

Just to be clear, this is a regime that reportedly throws acid in the face of women who don't wear a hijab. At the same time, Iran released Lego videos of Hegseth giving blowjobs to Trump. As usual, religious people have the most perverted imaginations.

At least Iran is still not turning against Jews yet: https://ground.news/article/synagogue-i ... room-share

[zompist]

One common reason right-wingers, including ZBBers, expected Russia to do well in Ukraine is they thought both countries belong to an Orthodox Christian "civilization". Their sense of reality told them the separation was an artificial, woke imposition over an underlying organic unity of peoples.

For them, "civilization" is not a manner of speaking. It's an ontological reality inseparable from their sense of belonging and self-respect. In this, they are following the respected foreign policy scholar Samuel Huntington, whom leftists, even Edward Said, have been arguing against since forever.

Conservatives glommed onto Huntington because the Cold War fizzled out and they needed a new enemy. During the Cold War it was common to depict Russians as barbaric and half-Asian, and make (false) claims that Russian has no word for "liberty".

These people never listen to leftists or believe us ("bread lines"). Instead, they just keep failing over and over. The more they fail, the more power they accrue. If there's a trajectory to human history, I'd say it's failing upwards.

Unforunately not all leftists are solid on fascism either. I pretty much gave up on the DSA when they responded to the invasion of Ukraine with fascist talking points. They too had internalized the Cold War, only taking the other side.

[Ketsuban]

Travis, I generally agree, but I don't think that's what the word "apologizing" means.

Wiktionary marks it as dated, but apologise can absolutely be used in the sense "make an apologia or defense; act as apologist". (I wonder what it says about us that a word meaning "make excuses" came to mean "express contrition".)

[Travis B.]

These people never listen to leftists or believe us ("bread lines"). Instead, they just keep failing over and over. The more they fail, the more power they accrue. If there's a trajectory to human history, I'd say it's failing upwards.

Unforunately not all leftists are solid on fascism either. I pretty much gave up on the DSA when they responded to the invasion of Ukraine with fascist talking points. They too had internalized the Cold War, only taking the other side.

This makes me think of the tankies who have forgotten that the Soviet Union has been dead for a bit over 34 years now, and somehow act as if Russia were still Communist. Or they're just thinking "America bad, so whoever is opposed to America is good" very uncritically.