United States Politics Thread 47

[rotting bones]

The leftist theorists were originally thinking something like, "America is the strongest empire. We should support the weaker empires. If they combine and stalemate America, it might be easier to overthrow some of them and create a new society. The question is whether the relevant groups are desperate enough to try something so risky (nothing to lose but your chains)."

It's like when the Byzantines and the Sassanids weakened each other, Arab tribes were able to take over the Sassanids.

However, it does sound like many rank and file leftists are satisfied with multipolar imperialism or plain Russophilia.

Most people don't have the time to educate themselves on these issues. I get into trouble for excessive extracurricular activities myself.

[Travis B.]

Fucking tankies at the DSA who think that the Russo-Ukrainian war is an 'inter-imperialist' war and that the Ukrainians ought to give in for the sake of 'peace'. As if surrendering to imperialists (and Russia is the imperialist power here, not the US, NATO, or the EU) were some kind of 'peace'. Fuck them.

[rotting bones]

I have also seen leftists characterize the Russian invasion as a national war of aggression that Ukrainians have the right to resist.

In my opinion, Ukrainians should have a demsoc revolution to overthrow their government and expel all foreign aggressors. They are the bread basket of the world. They're not going to starve. Whether they side with Russian fascism or Western neoliberalism, ordinary Ukrainians are going to be subjected to injustice.

Arguably fascism will be worse than neoliberalism. However, neoliberals can be indistinguishable from fascists in ferocity when fighting leftists. People starving needlessly under neoliberalism suffer no less than victims of fascist aggression.

Fascists are scarier because they are openly aggressive and contemptuous of justice. On the other hand, but they inspire stronger resistance because they put on less of an impassive mask.

[Travis B.]

I have also seen leftists characterize the Russian invasion as a national war of aggression that Ukrainians have the right to resist.

In my opinion, Ukrainians should have a demsoc revolution to overthrow their government and expel all foreign aggressors. They are the bread basket of the world. They're not going to starve. Whether they side with Russian fascism or Western neoliberalism, ordinary Ukrainians are going to be subjected to injustice.

Arguably fascism will be worse than neoliberalism. However, neoliberals can be indistinguishable from fascists in ferocity when fighting leftists. People starving needlessly under neoliberalism suffer no less than victims of fascist aggression.

Fascists are scarier because they are openly aggressive and contemptuous of justice. On the other hand, but they inspire stronger resistance because they put on less of an impassive mask.

The key thing is that the Western neoliberals are much less of a threat from the Ukrainian point of view than the Russian fascists. The Russian fascists are right next door and are actually invading them (and have a long track record of imperialism towards their neighbors), whereas the Western neoliberals are helping them stave off being conquered by the Russian fascists while having expressed no interest in conquering Ukraine themselves (no, becoming part of NATO is not being 'conquered by Western neoliberals').

[rotting bones]

The key thing is that the Western neoliberals are much less of a threat from the Ukrainian point of view than the Russian fascists. The Russian fascists are right next door and are actually invading them (and have a long track record of imperialism towards their neighbors), whereas the Western neoliberals are helping them stave off being conquered by the Russian fascists while having expressed no interest in conquering Ukraine themselves (no, becoming part of NATO is not being 'conquered by Western neoliberals').

The EU is right next to Ukraine. Neoliberals won't conquer Ukraine. When the economy inevitably fails, they will make further funding conditional on austerity measures known to make the poor suffer to benefit the wealthy.

This is not conquest. It's a different form of suffering that's harder to explain to people who haven't undergone economic hardship in a while. Even people who grew up poor forget what it's like to be unable to afford food.

Because neoliberals will impose this suffering, they should also be expelled. Ideally, you can ask for help from the neolibs to expel the fascists first and then backstab them. It's not easy to pull this off in practice.

[rotting bones]

Warning for American centrists: https://youtu.be/xEBoI8_Fw8o

[rotting bones]

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

Something I've heard Shias say in response to the suggestion that they should change tactics: "Pragmatism is a Sunni value."

[malloc]

Warning for American centrists: https://youtu.be/xEBoI8_Fw8o

Quite. Regardless of the confidence I see here, the odds are definitely against the Democrats and their future prospects remain quite dire.

[rotting bones]

Warning for American centrists: https://youtu.be/xEBoI8_Fw8o

Quite. Regardless of the confidence I see here, the odds are definitely against the Democrats and their future prospects remain quite dire.

They could get behind the left. Mamdani is popular last I checked. It's worrying that his popularity is lower than that of the previous corrupt mayors, but that's to be expected of a polarizing figure. Going centrist is to abandon your base.

[rotting bones]

Is skill necessary for success? Isn't mulish stubbornness enough to hold on to power if you already have it? And what happens overall is just an accumulation of the individual processes. The far right might have grown slightly because lots of humans are even dumber than they are.

[Raphael]

Travis: Well, the world is simply full of people who can't grasp any political ideas more complex than "me good, you bad".

Re: the fascism vs. "neoliberalism" (mostly a meaningless bullshit word that means whatever the speaker needs it to mean at any given moment) argument: Under what some people call "neoliberalism", you can usually argue for and try to work for changes in economic policy. Under fascism, you can't. Most of the time, the only way to improve anything under fascism is through a revolution. And one thing fascists are usually very good at is preventing revolutions.

In Western supposedly "neoliberal" countries, economic policy might change. Almost all of those non-Western countries that have governments hostile to the West have a certain amount of capitalism in the way they run their economy, and also have political structures that make it impossible to argue for or achieve changes in economic policies. Because we know what usually happens to people who argue for policy changes in places like that. In the case of Russia, the local variant of capitalism is definitely more brutal and ruthless than that practised in Western Europe. So these countries with decidedly anti-Western governments will keep the amount of capitalism, often very brutal capitalism, which they have now for a very long time. The people in charge all benefit from it, and everyone else can't do anything about who's in charge.

It follows that the best hope for socialism in the world is that the West survives and internal political developments in the West move towards socialism. Which can't happen if the West, or most of it, is destroyed by its enemies. The destruction of Europe, and of the currently non-Chinese-dominated parts of East Asia, and of Australia and New Zealand, combined with permanent fascist consolidation in the USA, would mean ruthless gangster capitalism all over the world forever.

Capitalism under political structures that allow people to work for changes in economic policy is bad, but it's a lot less bad than capitalism under political structures that don't allow people to work for changes in economic policy.

[rotting bones]

Travis: Well, the world is simply full of people who can't grasp any political ideas more complex than "me good, you bad".

Note that when I say "neoliberals should be thrown out", I mean the neoliberal equivalent of fascists who kill people. I don't think society should be ideologically uniform.

Re: the fascism vs. "neoliberalism" (mostly a meaningless bullshit word that means whatever the speaker needs it to mean at any given moment) argument:

Personally, I think "neoliberalism" is one of the most consistent words in contemporary political discourse. It means economically conservative, socially liberal. Neoliberals use "economic conservatism" in a novel sense to mean using government intervention to keep exploitative systems going.

Compared to that: "Fascism" can mean saying things you don't like. "Democracy" can mean bombing civilians.

Under what some people call "neoliberalism", you can usually argue for and try to work for changes in economic policy.

No, it's totally blocked. Workers side with the employers. Hurting profits means hurting their job prospects. If there is any kind of radical movement, neoliberals start supporting fascists. In the Third World, neoliberals are completely ruthless. See Chile. I think they will be nicer to Ukranians because they are "civilized". There's no guarantee. When regime change came to the USSR, millions of Russians starved as part of their policy of "shock therapy". Google it.

I've said all of these so many times. You don't remember my points because they don't affect your life.

Under fascism, you can't. Most of the time, the only way to improve anything under fascism is through a revolution. And one thing fascists are usually very good at is preventing revolutions.

Fascism never lasts. Neoliberalism is designed to stabilize injustice.

In Western supposedly "neoliberal" countries, economic policy might change. Almost all of those non-Western countries that have governments hostile to the West have a certain amount of capitalism in the way they run their economy, and also have political structures that make it impossible to argue for or achieve changes in economic policies.

Neoliberalism is a global system. (Hence the meme against "globalism" appropriated by Nazis.) There's no such thing as one neoliberal country. Third World regimes were installed by the West to obtain cheap products. Where leaders resisted, the CIA targeted them with regime change. Without Third World puppets, the West wouldn't be wealthy in the way it is now. This is not to say countries can't be wealthy under socialism. The system by which wealth is generated will be different.

While China is an authoritarian country, I'm not advocating emulating them, and it's impossible to achieve political change in their model, it's not impossible to change the way things are run in their model. Unlike in India, where most of the power is centralized, the decision-making power in China is far more localized. This has been confirmed by capitalist sources. China changes its economic policies all the time. Under Xi, China has moved away from the free market towards more state control. In a neoliberal country, moving entire industries under state control is politically impossible. Politicians are funded by the people who have the most to lose from such a move. The system is deadlocked.

This is a general problem: The West imagines countries like Iran are static. This is Western propaganda. After the West conducted regime change in Libya, Iran spent decades decentralizing their military structure to prepare for the war that just happened. Just because you don't know of any changes doesn't mean countries aren't changing! Stasis is physically impossible! Everything is drifting all the time!

Of course, these are all bad models. I support direct democracy.

It follows that the best hope for socialism in the world is that the West survives and internal political developments in the West move towards socialism.

This is the position of Orthodox Marxism. However, many leaders around the world have tried many ways to reach socialism. They were crushed by the neoliberals and their ravening "civilized" fascist pets.

Which can't happen if the West, or most of it, is destroyed by its enemies. The destruction of Europe, and of the currently non-Chinese-dominated parts of East Asia, and of Australia and New Zealand, combined with permanent fascist consolidation in the USA, would mean ruthless gangster capitalism all over the world forever.

Unlike the West, which JUST THREATENED TO DESTROY A CIVILIZATION (it's like the West Westerners live in bears no relation to historical reality), China interferes much less in the internal affairs of their clients. Both ruthless dictators and democracies side with China. China insisted that Bangladesh hold fair elections as part of making deals with them. This is not because China is morally upright. They are worried about instability affecting their investments in an unelected regime. At the same time, they also cultivate ruthless dictators who fall out with the West. Often, these governments are ruthless because they are paranoid about hostile attempts at regime change that have been happening nonstop for the last hundred years. China is picking up the scraps from what the Nobel Peace Prize laureate Henry Kissinger and his CIA fail to fix. The West is also allied with Nazi countries like Israel.

Capitalism under political structures that allow people to work for changes in economic policy is bad, but it's a lot less bad than capitalism under political structures that don't allow people to work for changes in economic policy.

I did say fascists are scarier. On the other hand, people construct memorials to the victims of fascism because fascists are so obviously, dramatically evil. I see no memorials to the homeless. Neoliberalism conducts a much more insidious erasure. I'm not sure how much longer I can resist falling through the cracks of the neoliberal global order myself. I wouldn't be surprised if I freeze to death on a park bench next month.

[Raphael]

Note that when I say "neoliberals should be thrown out", I mean the neoliberal equivalent of fascists who kill people.

Now where did I argue against throwing people like that out?

I don't think society should be ideologically uniform.

And yet you are hoping for the global triumph of forces which, if they triumph, will create a world of ideologically uniform societies.

Personally, I think "neoliberalism" is one of the most consistent words in contemporary political discourse. It means economically conservative, socially liberal.

Nope, pretty much everyone with right-wing, or supposedly insufficiently left-wing, economic policies gets called "neoliberal" by some people, no matter what their policies on other issues are. One of the first people many people think of when they hear the word "neoliberal" is Margaret Thatcher. Well, she was leader of a Conservative Party, and aside from her evil economic policies, she was also a committed homophobe.

Neoliberals use "economic conservatism" in a novel sense to mean using government intervention to keep exploitative systems going.

No real disagreement, except that I think that sense is not as novel as you might think. Capitalism, of which what you call "neoliberalism" is one variant, is about a bunch of people looting the rest of us, and will use either government intervention or rhetoric attacking government intervention depending on what serves that purpose best at any given moment.

Compared to that: "Fascism" can mean saying things you don't like.

So can the word "neoliberalism", the way some people use it.

"Democracy" can mean bombing civilians.

Democracy is not about guaranteeing good things forever. It's about being able to fight against bad things.

Under what some people call "neoliberalism", you can usually argue for and try to work for changes in economic policy.

No, it's totally blocked. Workers side with the employers. Hurting profits means hurting their job prospects.

I was talking about the ability to argue and work for changes. Of course there's no guarantee of success. Neither is there anywhere else. But under a system where saying the rulers should do more for the well-being of the people drastically shortens your life expectancy, there's no chance of success at all.

If there is any kind of radical movement, neoliberals start supporting fascists. In the Third World, neoliberals are completely ruthless. See Chile.

That all depends on which of the various people who get labelled "neoliberals" you're talking about. Since I don't accept the validity of the label "neoliberal" in the first place, I don't see how the fact that some of the people to whom you're attaching that label are repulsive scumbags says anything bad about any other people to whom you're also attaching that label.

I don't find logic along the lines of "Alice has murdered many people. Bob hasn't. But I've come up with a creative way to attach the label 'blubbibluppists', err, I mean, 'neoliberals', to both Alice and Bob. So the fact that Alice is a mass murderer means that Bob is bad, too." in any way convincing.

I think they will be nicer to Ukranians because they are "civilized". There's no guarantee.

There's never a guarantee of good things. There are often guarantees of bad things.

When regime change came to the USSR, millions of Russians starved as part of their policy of "shock therapy".

After a quarter of a century of rule by people whom people around the world see as glorious fighters against neoliberalism, Russia still has the basic economic setup instituted during shock therapy. Except it's now a lot more likely to last for a very long time.

Google it.

You seriously think I'd still have to google what happened in 1990s Russia? Thank you for demonstrating how little you know about me.

I've said all of these so many times. You don't remember my points because they don't affect your life.

I remember your points perfectly well. I just don't agree with them. But it's true that I first and foremost have to worry about things that directly affect my life. Such as the fact that some people with whom you've chosen to side might well end my life, and the lives of the people I know in real life, in the not-too-distant future.

Fascism never lasts.

What are some plausible ways how the current fascist or not-at-all-fascist-we-swear systems in Russia, China, or North Korea might stop lasting any time soon?

Neoliberalism is a global system. (Hence the meme against "globalism" appropriated by Nazis.) There's no such thing as one neoliberal country.

What you call neoliberalism is one variant of capitalism. It is very much possible to have capitalism in individual countries. But to some extent, everything is global now. All major political, religious, and economic movements are trying to win on a global scale.

Third World regimes were installed by the West to obtain cheap products. Where leaders resisted, the CIA targeted them with regime change. Without Third World puppets, the West wouldn't be wealthy in the way it is now.

Wait, are you saying that, if a country in the Global South produces and exports a lot of cheap products which raise the material wealth of the West, that means that that country is ruled by puppets of the West? Hmmmm........

While China is an authoritarian country, I'm not advocating emulating them, and it's impossible to achieve political change in their model, it's not impossible to change the way things are run in their model. Unlike in India, where most of the power is centralized, the decision-making power in China is far more localized. This has been confirmed by capitalist sources. China changes its economic policies all the time. Under Xi, China has moved away from the free market towards more state control.

Hoping that the good-but-tragically-misguided king will have a mood change that turns him into a Good King is not much of a plan.

In a neoliberal country, moving entire industries under state control is politically impossible.

In the pre-neoliberal period, that did sometimes happen in previously old-school liberal countries.

This is a general problem: The West imagines countries like Iran are static. This is Western propaganda. After the West conducted regime change in Libya, Iran spent decades decentralizing their military structure to prepare for the war that just happened. Just because you don't know of any changes doesn't mean countries aren't changing! Stasis is physically impossible! Everything is drifting all the time!

Details change all the time. More basic chance is the less possible, the more autocratic the system gets.

Of course, these are all bad models. I support direct democracy.

How to you propose we get from the "temporary" world of global autocracy which the forces you've aligned yourself with are trying to build to direct democracy?

This is the position of Orthodox Marxism.

It's the position of anyone who pays close attention to global political structures and developments.

However, many leaders around the world have tried many ways to reach socialism. They were crushed by the neoliberals and their ravening "civilized" fascist pets.

See my point about "I'm using the same label for different people, and some of them are clearly bad, so this proves that they're all bad"-logic above.

Unlike the West, which JUST THREATENED TO DESTROY A CIVILIZATION

Yeah, sometimes (though not always) the enemies of the West prefer to do their civilization-crushing without openly announcing it. Very polite of them.

(it's like the West Westerners live in bears no relation to historical reality), China interferes much less in the internal affairs of their clients.

Yeah, their client rulers are usually good enough at spreading misery on their own initiative.

the scraps from what the Nobel Peace Prize laureate Henry Kissinger and his CIA fail to fix. The West is also allied with Nazi countries like Israel.

All of which can be, and is, criticized and opposed in the West. No option of doing that in China when Xi Jinping does similar things.

I did say fascists are scarier. On the other hand, people construct memorials to the victims of fascism because fascists are so obviously, dramatically evil. I see no memorials to the homeless. Neoliberalism conducts a much more insidious erasure. I'm not sure how much longer I can resist falling through the cracks of the neoliberal global order myself. I wouldn't be surprised if I freeze to death on a park bench next month.

Same for me, if the glorious fighters against neoliberalism whom you're cheering on should succeed in their plans for Europe. That is, if they don't just kill me first.

[rotting bones]

If you think the defeat of neoliberalism is the victory of fascism, then you are actively working to kill me. There's no point arguing with you. You will probably win and I will die, but the world has a way of surprising would-be prophets.

[Raphael]

If you think the defeat of neoliberalism is the victory of fascism, then you are actively working to kill me. There's no point arguing with you. You will probably win and I will die, but the world has a way of surprising would-be prophets.

As I said, I think the same about you. Anyone who does not see Putinism as one of the biggest problems in the world right now, and as something that people have to fight against, is actively working to kill me. And whether the defeat of neoliberalism is the victory of fascism depends entirely on who defeats neoliberalism.

[Travis B.]

Okay, I got it all wrong -- neoliberalism and fascism really are equally evil, and Ukraine should have a socialist revolution and stand alone against Putin because it would be no more of a victory if the fascists lost and the neoliberals won. Not only is the US evil but France and Germany are just as evil and anyone who doesn't see that has been tricked by the neoliberals' lies. And yes, everyone who isn't a socialist is evil because they all believe in either bombing or starving people to death.

[Raphael]

OK, unrelated question, not about current events, but about the political and cultural landscape of the USA in general:

Some people might note that the Indigenous share of the USA's total population is fairly small these days. But I wonder if people making such counts might not focus too much on proudly self-identified Indigenous people. Now, I don't know any of this for sure, but based on how many Latin people there are in the USA, and how many of them have "multiracial" ancestry, I would guess something like this:

If you would compile a list of all the people living in the USA who have some reasonably serious amount of recent Indigenous ancestry, most of the people on that list would be Latin people with mixed ancestry, with only smaller portions of the list taken up either by people who mainly identify as Indigenous, or by the notorious white people with one Cherokee great-grandmother.

Now, does anyone here have access to actual data that might either confirm or refute my guess?

[zompist]

Some people might note that the Indigenous share of the USA's total population is fairly small these days. But I wonder if people making such counts might not focus too much on proudly self-identified Indigenous people. Now, I don't know any of this for sure, but based on how many Latin people there are in the USA, and how many of them have "multiracial" ancestry, I would guess something like this:

If you would compile a list of all the people living in the USA who have some reasonably serious amount of recent Indigenous ancestry, most of the people on that list would be Latin people with mixed ancestry, with only smaller portions of the list taken up either by people who mainly identify as Indigenous, or by the notorious white people with one Cherokee great-grandmother.

Now, does anyone here have access to actual data that might either confirm or refute my guess?

I don't think such data exist. Starting with Mexico: Mexico hasn't asked about race on its census since 1921; the ideology of the PRI was that everyone was mestizo. Even if we knew, we don't know whether immigrants to the US had the same demographics as Mexicans back home.

Still, we can make a seat-of-the-pants estimate. That 1921 census showed 60% of Mexicans identifying as mestizo. Mexicans make up 57% of US Hispanics, for a total of 39 million. 39m x 60% = 23 million.

As it happens Peru is also about 60% mestizo. 51% in Venezuela, 18% in Costa Rica. This is by no means universal in Latin America— e.g. the Caribbean is more Black than indigenous. So let's take a very safe number of 40% for non-Mexicans. That would be 29m * 40% = 11 million more, for a total of 34 million.

That is far higher than the 9.6 million people who reported full or partial indigenous origin on the US census.

(I'm not sure I'd make any serious point with any of this. A Peruvian may be "just as indigenous" as a Navajo if we're talking about the Americas, but not if we're talking about the Navajo Nation.)

[Raphael]

I don't think such data exist. Starting with Mexico: Mexico hasn't asked about race on its census since 1921; the ideology of the PRI was that everyone was mestizo. Even if we knew, we don't know whether immigrants to the US had the same demographics as Mexicans back home.

Still, we can make a seat-of-the-pants estimate. That 1921 census showed 60% of Mexicans identifying as mestizo. Mexicans make up 57% of US Hispanics, for a total of 39 million. 39m x 60% = 23 million.

As it happens Peru is also about 60% mestizo. 51% in Venezuela, 18% in Costa Rica. This is by no means universal in Latin America— e.g. the Caribbean is more Black than indigenous. So let's take a very safe number of 40% for non-Mexicans. That would be 29m * 40% = 11 million more, for a total of 34 million.

That is far higher than the 9.6 million people who reported full or partial indigenous origin on the US census.

(I'm not sure I'd make any serious point with any of this. A Peruvian may be "just as indigenous" as a Navajo if we're talking about the Americas, but not if we're talking about the Navajo Nation.)

Thank you!

[Richard W]

If you would compile a list of all the people living in the USA who have some reasonably serious amount of recent Indigenous ancestry, most of the people on that list would be Latin people with mixed ancestry, with only smaller portions of the list taken up either by people who mainly identify as Indigenous, or by the notorious white people with one Cherokee great-grandmother.

'Indigenous' to where? The USA? The Americas?