United States Politics Thread 46

[Ares Land]

In the case of Latin America, it certainly looks like libertarianism and/or Trumpism are being enforced, but it's been a while since there's been outright intervention. Bolsonaro or Milei are definitely a 'soft power' thing. Assuming we can blame them on the US; I don't know about that.

(We like to attribute fascism to external forces; but maybe we're just deluding ourselves. Honestly, people seem to just like fascism very much.)

[hwhatting]

Honestly, people seem to just like fascism very much.

This. Wherever you have a Middle Class with a stake in the system, people are generally more willing to support those who promise them to protect their status from whatever outsider*) threat they see - whether real or imaginary, i.e., supporting conservative authoritarians and fascists, than supporting change that would threaten their status. As people mostly are more concerned about relative status than absolute status, this makes them averse even against changes that lift others up to their level, even if that wouldn't change their wealth or material conditions of living.
That is why succesful communist / socialist revolutions only happen in states where a substantial Middles Class hasn't been formed yet, but takeovers by authoritarians can happen anytime when people feel sufficiently threatened.
*) Outsiders may be immigrants, ethnic or religious groups, other social classes... anyone who can be defined as not being "people like us".

[Raphael]

This. Wherever you have a Middle Class with a stake in the system, people are generally more willing to support those who promise them to protect their status from whatever outsider*) threat they see - whether real or imaginary, i.e., supporting conservative authoritarians and fascists, than supporting change that would threaten their status. As people mostly are more concerned about relative status than absolute status, this makes them averse even against changes that lift others up to their level, even if that wouldn't change their wealth or material conditions of living.
That is why succesful communist / socialist revolutions only happen in states where a substantial Middles Class hasn't been formed yet, but takeovers by authoritarians can happen anytime when people feel sufficiently threatened.

Oh shit. I never thought about it this way, but you make a really good case for what you're saying. If only anyone had a good idea for how to solve this problem...

[Raphael]

Hm, OK, H-W, I think I've got a counterexample: the relatively stronger position of the AfD in East Germany, which, I think, has less of a solid middle class, than in West Germany.

[Raphael]

Bolsonaro or Milei are definitely a 'soft power' thing. Assuming we can blame them on the US; I don't know about that.

(We like to attribute fascism to external forces; but maybe we're just deluding ourselves. Honestly, people seem to just like fascism very much.)

Since I was raised in a mostly more or less left of center family, when I was growing up, I assumed as a matter of course that everyone in Latin America was left-wing, except for a handful of CIA stooges (even though those, thanks to their CIA connections, often ended up ruling).

That assumption of mine took a serious hit when, in my early 20s, I lurked for a while on a German-language web forum. One of the people on that forum was a Brazilian with extremely reactionary political, philosophical, and cultural views. Really - he still saw jazz as one of the horrors of the modern world, and that was in the early 2000s. Anyway, as it turned out, that guy also hated the USA more intensely, openly, and explicitly than anyone else I've ever met, on the internet or in real life. He saw that country as a place run by and for the inferior lower-class rabble instead of the natural aristocracy.

As a result of my previous assumptions - see above - this, at first, led to a strong "does not compute" feeling inside my head.

[hwhatting]

Hm, OK, H-W, I think I've got a counterexample: the relatively stronger position of the AfD in East Germany, which, I think, has less of a solid middle class, than in West Germany.

I'm not saying "More Middle Class = More fascists" - I'm saying that a) starting from a certain size and share of the Middle Class, Communist / Socialist revolution becomes improbable, and b) that a Middle Class that feels threatened becomes more likely to support conservative authoritarians and fascists. The latter is what happens in Eastern Germany - the Middle Class there feels more insecure, because it is newer and many people there have experienced status loss, or know people who have, after the wall came down. Plus they have less trust in the ruling elites, because even now many in the top roles of economy and administration are Westerners, with whom they don't identify as much as with fellow Easterners. (Also keep in mind that Germany doesn't really have a Working Class anymore; even blue collar workers behave like Middle Class in many respects. And those actually can feel more threatened than the white collar Middle Class.)

[MacAnDàil]

it's just that they fortunately are not in the position to do so much outwith their borders.

I'm not so sure about that. I don't know exactly how effective the troll farms and propaganda are, but given the popularity of regressive authoritarianism they're evidently accomplishing something.

You make a good point. There are not so successful at invasions as such, but propaganda they have and bad models they are.

the us, by contrast, already *is* the one pole that dominates everything and crushes all dissent (or tries to)

This is an inaccurate representation because, while the US is strong economically, culturally, diplomatically and militarily, it is more soft power than hard. Xi and Putin make much more effort to crush dissent than the US ever have, it's just that they fortunately are not in the position to do so much outwith their borders.

I think that the 'more soft than hard' is more theodicy than fact: is the US not the strongest military in history by every metric imaginable? does it not routinely engage in regime change abroad? does it not routinely outright invade other countries, costing thousands of lives each time? when's the last time it wasn't at war? is it not giving carte blanche to a genocide? has it not invaded (insert long list of countries)? does it not have hard military bases (with guns, not influencers) everywhere? maybe if one lives in western europe, canada, australia etcetera its power may look mostly "soft", but i get the feeling the people that power is or has been exerted upon (latin americans, palestinians, afghans, yemenis, pakistanis, iranians, the list goes on) might have something to say. xi and putin, domestically, are harder than the us, though, this much is true... though not by metrics one would think should correspond to being less authoritarian, like prison population.

The last time the US engaged in reigme change abroad was Iraq in 2003. The same goes for any other invasion. That was more than 2 decades ago. American regime change is not quite about as irrelevant as the Romanovs and the Ottomans in 1939 but it certainly is a thing of the past. If we're going to blame countries for what they did 20 years ago, why stop there? Why not blame China for invading Tibet? Or the Soviet Union for invading Afghanistan?

As for genocide, some may call the Israeli invasion of Gaza that and the Internation court did warn Israel to avoid that. And Biden has become the least israel-enthusiastic US president in the past 2 decades in reaction to that. Sure, they should stop ehlping Israel completely but Trump would do so much worse.

[Torco]

middle class really is a nebulous concept, but from the perspective of people in really poor countries (like russia was before the revolution, say), eveyone in germany is middle class or above.

The last time the US engaged in reigme change abroad was Iraq in 2003.

they've just otten better and less obvious about it (plus, contemporaries of the regime changes of the past didn't live in a world where it was known to all that those us regime change ops were in fact us regime change ops, there's always a veil of ambiguity with covert ops etcetera), but recent regime changes where the CIA had involvement include peru, where american arms are currently being used against civilians in protests (hence the current president's nickname, dina balearte, meaning something like 'to gun you down') and bolivia (where top officials in jeanine añez's government were transparent in acknowledging being CIA assets). i'm not so up to date in other regions.

As for genocide, some may call the Israeli invasion of Gaza that and the Internation court did warn Israel to avoid that. And Biden has become the least israel-enthusiastic US president in the past 2 decades in reaction to that. Sure, they should stop ehlping Israel completely but Trump would do so much worse.

even granting all of that, it's still an example of the us exerting a pretty hard form of power. it's not rock songs raining down in rafah

[Travis B.]

As for genocide, some may call the Israeli invasion of Gaza that and the Internation court did warn Israel to avoid that. And Biden has become the least israel-enthusiastic US president in the past 2 decades in reaction to that. Sure, they should stop ehlping Israel completely but Trump would do so much worse.

even granting all of that, it's still an example of the us exerting a pretty hard form of power. it's not rock songs raining down in rafah

But you are the one who is saying "support Trump because it will weaken the US etc. and make the world a better place as a result", when anyone who doesn't vote for Biden due to the whole Israel-Gaza war is an absolute fool because Trump will support Netanyahu whole-heartedly here, unlike Biden.

[alice]

What would happen in the extreeeeeemly unlikely event that Trump stands down, for whatever reason? What would his followers do?

[Raphael]

What would happen in the extreeeeeemly unlikely event that Trump stands down, for whatever reason? What would his followers do?

Vote for whoever he tells them to vote for?

[rotting bones]

Regarding the Empire: The Empire doesn't refer to the US in the literature kicked off by Hardt and Negri. It's a largely decentralized alliance of wealthy nations. The US just happens to lead it for now.

Although the Empire has considerable soft power (basically no one has a more favorable view of China than the US*), it also makes strategic use of hard power. These days, it's mostly reliant on allies and proxies. For example, the Saudis attack the Houthis to help the US control the East-West shipping routes. The Houthis are proxies of Iran, and Iran is an ally of China.

A telltale sign of life under the empire is freedom for the rich and "cultural values" for the poor. Beef is basically banned in India outside states like West Bengal. But the rich eat it all the time.

This standard imperial excuse is that the poor are conservative. They use this excuse to keep funding conservative representatives for the poor. There was a specific point in history where these conservative representatives received massive funding to represent poor communities. (Note that I include all of idpol under "conservatism". I simply don't agree with the universal 21st century assumption that idpol is somehow connected to leftism.)

This astroturfing has been going on for so long that most institutions catering to the poor are now conservative. The media has correspondingly started to signal conservative values to appeal to the poor.

Well, I am poor. In my experience, most poor people are unsure of themselves, and look to these official influencers to "learn" what their values should be. As for myself, I have never encountered a "representative" authorized to speak for me who I have ever agreed with regarding any point on which I had a well-researched opinion.

* probably partly because of all the artists hired by the West. This is ironic because a lot of art stands for rebellion against injustice.

[rotting bones]

Regarding voting for the center instead of trying to move people to the left: The problem with this strategy is that it's a purely defensive rearguard action that doesn't excite me enough to make me get off my chair.

Look, I'm a single adult cishet male. I don't have a family, and I can't afford a family thanks to the right and the center. Yes, if the right comes to power, I could die. But I'm honestly not convinced that death is a worse option than carrying on in a centrist utopia. Eternal sleep sounds kinda nice, honestly.

I would have a different attitude if I had a family to think of. Again, I can't afford one thanks to the right and the center.

Women don't usually have this kind of self-destructive attitude. You should direct your rhetoric to them.

[malloc]

(Note that I include all of idpol under "conservatism". I simply don't agree with the universal 21st century assumption that idpol is somehow connected to leftism.)

That makes no sense, though. One person cannot veto the prevailing definition of an entire political milieu. If the vast majority of contemporary leftists count identity politics as part of their movement, then it belongs. It sounds like you are the conservative one for ignoring the ways the modern left has evolved.

[rotting bones]

That makes no sense, though. One person cannot veto the prevailing definition of an entire political milieu. If the vast majority of contemporary leftists count identity politics as part of their movement, then it belongs. It sounds like you are the conservative one for ignoring the ways the modern left has evolved.

1. Historically, the left has always been about freedom instead of pushing a new system of cultural values.

2. Encouraging ethnic identities makes poor majorities fight poor minorities.

3. Idpol was astroturfed instead of being an organic movement from the bottom.

...

My opinion is the result of research and discussion with other leftists.

Personally, I get economic theory from Paul Cockshott's Classical Econophysics, political theory from Bruce Bueno de Mesquita's Logic of Political Survival and social theory from Marx. Marx was already talking about rebellion against rigid family structures enforced from the top over a century ago.

[rotting bones]

I haven't even started defining my own terminology yet. If I get any more frustrated, I will soon define away the "personhood" of conservative influencers. I will then define "literalness" as the nature of the equivalence between every major contemporary politician and Hitler. My pettiness knows no bounds.

[zompist]

Regarding voting for the center instead of trying to move people to the left: The problem with this strategy is that it's

Rule of thumb: the only people advocating that people "vote for the center" are center-right columnists, people like David Brooks-- if you haven't heard of him you're lucky.

Also, talking about "idpol" is like complaining about "wokeism". It's generally either center-right or far-left strawmanning about issues the complainers cannot bear addressing. If you can't stand the idea of a socialist revolution being feminist and anti-racist, that's a you problem.

[Ares Land]

Regarding the Empire: The Empire doesn't refer to the US in the literature kicked off by Hardt and Negri. It's a largely decentralized alliance of wealthy nations. The US just happens to lead it for now.

It makes a lot of sense; that books sounds very interesting.

This standard imperial excuse is that the poor are conservative. They use this excuse to keep funding conservative representatives for the poor.

That's a nice turn of phrase, and a very good way to put it.

There was a specific point in history where these conservative representatives received massive funding to represent poor communities. (Note that I include all of idpol under "conservatism". I simply don't agree with the universal 21st century assumption that idpol is somehow connected to leftism.)

That's the more traditional Marxist view; but I'm not sure I agree. For one thing, I think it's too broad (all of identity politics?everywhere?) Second, some varieties of it did make socialist ideas popular again. Feminism definitely revived socialist ideas.
Finally, in the global West 'working class' and 'minorities' are increasingly equivalent.

[rotting bones]

Rule of thumb: the only people advocating that people "vote for the center" are center-right columnists, people like David Brooks-- if you haven't heard of him you're lucky.

I assumed the implication of the "socialism doesn't appeal to voters" talking point is "vote for the center to defeat fascism". I would call Biden a centrist because IIRC he has both supported strikes and broken them as politically expedient.

Also, talking about "idpol" is like complaining about "wokeism". It's generally either center-right or far-left strawmanning about issues the complainers cannot bear addressing. If you can't stand the idea of a socialist revolution being feminist and anti-racist, that's a you problem.

I have given an example of what I'm talking about. I have given many more examples in the past.

The enforcement of traditional values is not emancipation. I support feminism, anti-racism and decolonialism as long as they're actually emancipatory movements. Compare the rise of girlboss fascism, decolonial Islamism, etc. Many indigenous movements don't even identify as "leftist" anymore.

[Ares Land]

The enforcement of traditional values is not emancipation. I support feminism, anti-racism and decolonialism as long as they're actually emancipatory movements. Compare the rise of girlboss fascism, decolonial Islamism, etc. Many indigenous movements don't even identify as "leftist" anymore.

What is "girlboss fascism"?