We must all unite to oppose Trump

[GLF]

Guys, this is serious. I am afraid that Sanders will not win the nomination and while I don't like Hillary at all I am afraid she is going to be our only hope. I don't want to go against the grain here by what I am about to suggest, but I think it might be necessary for me, as an American, to encourage any other American communists reading this to temporarily work and organize with centre-left social democrats and centre-right conservatives in opposing Trump this November. Had Thälmann's communists done the same in Germany and thrown in with Wels then perhaps history might have gone different.

I am warning you all that Trump is a Fascist by every reasonable definition of the term:

1. He is insanely patriotic to the point of nationalism
2. He believes in a corporate State and total autarky
3. He is anti-media and believes in some great "conspiracy" against himself
4. He employs divisive rhetoric to incite and divide the people
5. He holds to a Third positionist view of central economic planning
6. He is charismatic and uses this as a ploy for power

I don't care who we have to side with, who we have to vote for, what compromises we have to make, or what we have to do.

Donald Trump must be stopped. I beg of you.

[Dazhao]

It's a waste of time to support or oppose any of them. Sanders is just a social democrat, and Trump will moderate his positions after he wins the nomination.

I for one see the result as totally inconsequential.

[Comrade Strong]

CPUSA member?

[Bala Perdida]

The title of the thread made me laugh and attract attention.

[Bala Perdida]

CPUSA member?

Lol. Ur signature. The irony haha

[Sewer Socialist]

These aren't very good reasons to vote for Clinton. Most of them are even true of her as well, with the exception of the first item labelled #3 (there are two of them in your list), which isn't really true of Trump, as far as I've seen. He thrives from media coverage - he says outlandish things, violates taboos, gets news coverage for it, to the delight of many people feeling crushed by the modern world.

Trump isn't really a fascist, more of a Reaganite. If he were mobilizing popular armed mobs, terrorizing people, etc. I might be more inclined to agree, but he is simply a far-right figure, and one who is only relevant because far right populism is skyrocketing. It isn't Trump who is the real threat here, but the far-right.

You'll probably get much more sympathy comparing him to Reagan. In any case, if Trump is defeated, the far right will still be just as large, ready to throw their support behind the next reactionary to come along.

Your desired outcome, a Clinton or a Sanders presidency, will still have to contend with the far right and respond to them. If the feeble left is content to elect a Democrat, and wait until the next election, you'll be very disappointed - the far right will continue to organize in opposition, and "our" winner will have to work with them to accomplish anything at all - look at Obama's presidency, where that exact thing happened.

Not that allowing a right winger will help the left, either - we'd just mobilize around some centrist, who might manage to roll back the worst of it, if we're lucky, just like when everyone was eager to defeat the right after eight years of Bush, and got back to right where we started.

No, politicians respond to people in the streets - they aren't autocrats who immediately institute their platform after the election. They respond to organization, to action. One person can't create socialism, but they can not create fascism either.

Edit - As an example, look at history. How was slavery abolished? How was the working day reduced to eight hours? Not by electing the correct politicians, but through mass action and organization. Can a far-right politician take these away? Not if we don't let them. Can a Democrat make sure they remain in place? Not if reactionaries favoring this are too numerous.

[Rafiq]

Yet the false assumption is that defeating Trump electorally is going to defeat him and what he represents: his momentum. It will not.

Have you ever stopped to think about what kinds of people actually constitute Trump's basis of support? I'll give you a hint: In New Hampshire, voters were at the last second often times very unsure about whether they were going to vote for Trump or Sanders. Speaking of what happened in Germany - liberals love to point out the fact that with such ease young working class Germans were so easily able to switch between favoring the Fascists and the Communists. They interpret this in terms of the 'extremes' being equal in their essential substance, what they fail to see is that they are only 'similar' insofar as both address the social antagonism directly, directly (Communism) or indirectly (Fascism, which is displaced consciousnesses).

The fact of the matter is that yes Trump's momentum is a Fascist one, and that is precisely why actively mobilizing people to vote for Hillary against Trump is a mistake. It is not becasue Hillary is 'worse' than Trump, so to speak, it is because Hillary Clinton represents a kind of politics which is incompatible with the sentiments, dissatisfaction, and discontented spirit of the (white) American working class. Trump - like any Fascist - has directed this discontent in a reactionary way.

The kind of politics Hillary represents is that of repressing the social antagonism, ignoring it, attempting to dissuade it, while Trump is attempting to direct it (as a reactionary). Supporting Clinton therefore might electorally defeat Trump, but it won't defeat the momentum he represents - on the contrary, it will greatly strengthen it, becasue the social antagonism that is responsible for it in the first place is not going to be touched upon by Hillary. You see there is no room for falling back on moderates today. You can't play this game anymore. You must choose a side - you must resolve to be an 'extremist' in practice, because this 'middle ground' is already dead, and ordinary Americans know it - and despise it. The exact same thing goes for Europe, as I elaborated in my short criticism of Diem. You are worried about the legacy of liberal democracy? Then you must resolve to be a radical, because defending all that is worth defending of Liberalism is only possible as an 'extremist' now. You have no right to feel comfortable and safe today. You have no right. You have no right to be worried that your ignorance, your laziness and feeling of ideological safety is under siege. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT to defend your passivity. You must have a stake in the catastrophe that is impending, or you must move aside and stop complaining about it. You can't have it both ways. You have to be ready to sacrifice every single thing that makes you an individaul, that makes you you, to fight the darkness that is approaching. And much less inspired the same confidence and dedication in the very founders of our tradition a hundred years ago, where they were willing to dedicate every single aching second of their lives to the cause. Darkness and hell is approaching us right now, and Leftists still feel comfortable sinking in their stupid and worthless 'individuality'.

You do not defeat Fascism by being a moderate. You defeat Fascism by exposing the internal class antagonism within it - you relate to the proletarians in such a way that only the petty bourgeois vultures are left bare, naked and exposed as the particular ideologues representing the particular interests of a class enemy. I am not speaking bullshit - there is a way to do this, where eveyr single thing that draws working people to Fascism, can be addressed by the Communists, so that all that is left is the bare and naked mouthpieces of the bloodsuckers, clinging righteously to their superstitions, for us to annihilate. When it comes down to it, behind the aesthetic there is a sensitivity in Fascism which is purely a weakness - because Fascists do not and cannot engage in ruthless criticism, there are islands of sensitivity and weakness that once targeted and accentuated, reveals bare its social character. Fascists try and appeal to working people by appearing as strong, as powerful, as scary, as capable of being a formidable foe to those in power. But it's a sham, and we can expose that. WE are the real nightmare. WE are the specter that these Fascists continually refer to and run from TO THIS DAY, even when our movement is dead (i.e. 'cultural Marxism', etc.) - they are RUNNING from what they anticipate to be a vengeful spirit. We must be that vengeful spirit, we must be the bigger monster, we most be the monster that we can show the working people the bloodsuckers and petty bourgeois ideologues are running from. It is we who terrify them, us 'bloodthirsty' Bolsheviks, us 'godless' Bolsheviks who drink the blood of the enemy, leather claden chekists. Because only we can engage in ruthless criticism - in practice - only we have nothing to lose to the point where there are no sacreds, not holy mysteries to fall back upon. Communism is spiritually clean, sophisticated and unbreakable. Fascism is weakness and cowardice. We must hunt down the enemy, make their fucking nightmares come true.

When push comes to shove, ultimately, the Fascists will never be able to directly answer for the social antagonism. This is where their weakness is made bare for all to see. When push comes to shove, Fascists are normal, all too normal, whose aesthetic is purely the means that which everyday life and 'business as usual' is sustained while at the same time appealing to the enraged working masses. We must harness and direct this rage against the existing order scientifically, in a socially-conscious way, we cannot run away from it - as what the arrogant liberals want to do - THAT RAGE, DISCONTENT is THE basis of Communist struggle. This same fact applies everywhere in the globe - Islamism in the near east, and fascism in Europe.

Shame on the cowardly Left. The Fascists explode in popularity, THESE ARE NUMBERS THAT WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE BELONGED TO US! But alas, the 'time is not right'. And the time will never be right until it's too fucking late. The 'pacified' masses who are too 'content' with capitalism, they say. Look around us, everyone. Do you think ordinary people are content?

[odysseus]

Rafiq is right about the radicalism and failure of moderates. If Clinton is elected, she won't do anything, and in 2020 a person like Trump, as well as a person like Sanders, would absolutely crush their party's competition for president, even the assumed incumbent President Hillary.

[GLF]

...It isn't Trump who is the real threat here, but the far-right.

You'll probably get much more sympathy comparing him to Reagan. In any case, if Trump is defeated, the far right will still be just as large, ready to throw their support behind the next reactionary to come along.

Your desired outcome, a Clinton or a Sanders presidency, will still have to contend with the far right and respond to them...

The thing about the far-right is that they never had very much support nor do they require that much support! In Germany only about 3/10 Germans supported Hitler prior to 1933. The far-right plays dirty and the end justifies the means in their eyes. They don't care about decency. All it would take is 30% to 40% of support and they will find a way to snake their way into power. This is why they must opposed no matter what - violently if need be.

But it don't have to come to that yet (physical resistance). I despise the centre-left just as much as everyone here. I just think we should take Trotsky's advice and oppose Fascism by forming an uneasy alliance with the lesser evil. If I am wrong for suggesting this than I apologize and won't bring it up again. I just figure it's worth thinking about.

[Tim Cornelis]

He's not a fascist.

[Invader Zim]

Yet the false assumption is that defeating Trump electorally is going to defeat him and what he represents: his momentum. It will not.



Your comments about fascism take Trump and his supporters beyond what they are. And your pessimism about the long term viobility of this phenomenon is off the mark for a more practical reason, simple demographics. Over 1/3 of Trump supporters are over 65. Give it 5 years, many of them will be dead. Meanwhile, under 30s provide about 2% of Trump supporters. The mass support for Trump is a last gasp of an aging political discourse which emerged during the 1980s, all of which has come to a head now because of the changes underway in US society and geopolitics more widely. Their time is fast receding.

[Dazhao]

Your comments about fascism take Trump and his supporters beyond what they are. And your pessimism about the long term viobility of this phenomenon is off the mark for a more practical reason, simple demographics. Over 1/3 of Trump supporters are over 65. Give it 5 years, many of them will be dead. Meanwhile, under 30s provide about 2% of Trump supporters. The mass support for Trump is a last gasp of an aging political discourse which emerged during the 1980s, all of which has come to a head now because of the changes underway in US society and geopolitics more widely. Their time is fast receding.

These figures are not right.

[Armchair Partisan]

temporarily work and organize with centre-left social democrats and centre-right conservativesHmm, let me think about that...

No.


Had Thälmann's communists done the same in Germany and thrown in with Wels then perhaps history might have gone different.

Yeah... Liebknecht and Luxemburg can tell you stuff about how that would have gone. But honestly, alternate history is bullshit, aside from a fun hobby if you're into that. You know what else would have changed history? Hitler getting accepted into an art school. So, instead of voting for Clinton, let's shove everyone into art schools! That oughta help.

Don't you think you're being a bit sensationalist here?

[The Intransigent Faction]

The mass support for Trump is a last gasp of an aging political discourse which emerged during the 1980s, all of which has come to a head now because of the changes underway in US society and geopolitics more widely. Their time is fast receding.

Sorry, I don't buy this for one second. A friend of mine said something similar a while back: "The more time passes and the more new generations there are, the more neo-Nazism will fade away."

Of course, demographic changes and the passage of time and concomitant material developments will impact the relative strength of fascism at any given time. Yet, the strength of fascism as a reactionary force does not depend on which generation is in its prime...it depends on the developments of class struggle for any given generation.

As long as capitalism and its miseries persist, movements to channel popular anger over the status quo into a reactionary force will also persist...whether in 1944, 1994, or 2044.

In short, the politics of demographics is really a superficial liberal perspective, because it relies on assumptions about the impact of demographic trends without delving into why those trends have the political impact they do (beyond saying "young people are more progressive").

[Rafiq]

Your comments about fascism take Trump and his supporters beyond what they are. And your pessimism about the long term viobility of this phenomenon is off the mark for a more practical reason, simple demographics. Over 1/3 of Trump supporters are over 65. Give it 5 years, many of them will be dead. Meanwhile, under 30s provide about 2% of Trump supporters. The mass support for Trump is a last gasp of an aging political discourse which emerged during the 1980s, all of which has come to a head now because of the changes underway in US society and geopolitics more widely. Their time is fast receding.

Even if it is true regarding Trump's demographic, the key factor you're ignoring is the reinvigorated Fascism as it exists among this generation. And I mean THIS generation specifically, people who are my age and especially people who are many years younger. You're right regarding the fact that Trump is a reaction. But that's exactly the point. This is how it is, and how it always has been for reactionaries. And I've said it before: Trump represents something that is beyond him and his campaign. It is something new, I don't even have to point to Europe to prove this fact - the reality of where Trump is aligned as it concerns global politics. The political discourse Trump represents is as new and as fresh as any other, and as a 'political discourse' it specifically refers to the death of politics itself. He's our berlusconi. Our Putin. Our Orban.

How is a 'Trump suppporter' even measured, first and foremost? Pollings? Sorry, but this doesn't reflect the reality for us Americans on the ground regarding the discourse that Trump represents. It simply doesn't - that only 2% of those who are for Trump are bellow 30, that is a laughable notion for anyone who... Simply talks to people. If trump was the last dying breath of something which is inevitably going to be trampled on by the march of history, he wouldn't actually mean something in US political discourse - he wouldn't be as significant as he is. Of course let me be more clear: It's unlikely that Trump, as he is now, can adequately represent a future for the US. He is an incomplete reaction as far as taking power is concerned. Trump will either through the course of a potential presidency fuse himself with 'Silicon Valley' reaction or he won't be president at all. And I hear there are rumors (http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/14/silicon-valley-elites-speak-highly-of-donald-trump-but-only-in-private/) (from reactionaries themselves) that tech elites are actually quite fond of Trump and what he could represent (his technocratic anti-politics), but disagree with him over his immigration policies.

Nevermind 'trump and his supporters'. Just look at American political discourse and look at the impact Trump has had. Look at the impact Trump has had on the politics of everyday, ordinary Americans and how they see the world. Look at what he represents for the new generation of Fascists here in the United States, the so-called 'alt-right'.

It's not even that I'm crazy. Go on google and search 'alt-right'. You are telling me this is something marginal? Even major news outlets are now forced to recognize it. And yes, it is almost PURELY a phenomena of this generation. If they aren't fully behind Trump - which is contestable - they are only not behind him for the same reason certain leftists aren't behind Sanders.

[Rafiq]

In short, the politics of demographics is really a superficial liberal perspective, because it relies on assumptions about the impact of demographic trends without delving into why those trends have the political impact they do (beyond saying "young people are more progressive").

Which is exactly why liberals will always simply be passively slaughtered by the reaction. They don't understand it - they think, truly believe, that time alone is on their side, that capitalism inevitably marches in a direction which fulfills the enlightenment project. And it is inconceivable that it can be otherwise for them. The notion that a new kind of Fascism, a new kind of reaction, one that isn't simply the vestige of a dying order (i.e. Prussian romantic reaction) but something that is able to address and confront modern politics, have a place in it (Nazism), destroys the entire basis of their faith in liberalism. They don't understand: reactionary modernism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary_modernism) is real.

Why? Because for the liberal, they are the sole heirs of history. They are the 'progressives', and the inability for - for example - for people to accept an egalitarian society, for example, can for them only be conceived as a matter of 'undying attitudes' or a kind of stubbornness. They don't understand - Fascism is alternative modernity. Everything that makes a liberal 'progressive' is sustained by the crutches of the capitalist totality and their faith in the superstitions which sustain it. When the capitlaist totality no longer sutains the basis of their 'progressive' beliefs, they will be crushed. As soon as it is no longer fashionable or 'mainstream' to be 'progressive', their allegiance to the enlightenment will disappear.

Only the Communists, who engage in ruthless criticism, can endure, can uphold this legacy without any reliance on any big other. Only the Communists, who have no sacreds or superstitions can save all that is worth saving of liberalism. Only the Communists can energetically and actively succeed the enlightenment as its conscious partisans, defending and fighting for democracy while fully understanding all the contingencies which sustain it, only the Communists know that freedom is not free, and that the arrogant liberals will have to step aside, because they have shamed and are unworthy of the legacy of the enlightenment and the proud legacy of the French revolution.

Liberalism is doomed. It's doomed! Everything, everything is totally fucking damned. All the political correctness, all the established political standards - ghosts which have forgotten their origins, are damned to destruction. Only we Communists can save what is worth saving. Can you imagine to be violently opposed to racism, by its own merits, without any opportunistic reliance on the fact that it is morally wrong in our society to be a racist? We must not only imagine it, but understand this. Understand that we will march forward with the proud legacy of the French revolution, even when this is an 'extremist', 'unreasonable' and 'irrational' decision!

[Antiochus]

The bit about the demographics is absolute bullshit, sorry. People have been saying that for decades. There might be a bit of truth to that when it comes to explicit racism or anti-Catholic phobias or what have you. The average age of Fox News viewers is over 70. That has remained true for over a decade, and they are still getting higher ratings. It would be as naive as making the observation that most capitalists are very old (~70 or higher) and that therefore "most" will be dead soon.

[GLF]

I think the truth is between the two extremes.

I want to believe that the far-right is a joke with very few supporters. But what I've seen in the west (Europe mainly but now in the US too) has me spooked a little bit to be totally honest.

I do not think they have a lot of support. I think maybe 10% of politically minded whites sympathize with the far-right with maybe only 2% truly hardcore far-right. But they can draw support from people who aren't far right because of their populist BS.

That's the problem.

[Dazhao]

Trump won the Hispanic vote in Nevada.

[Puzzled Left]

Your comments about fascism take Trump and his supporters beyond what they are. And your pessimism about the long term viobility of this phenomenon is off the mark for a more practical reason, simple demographics. Over 1/3 of Trump supporters are over 65. Give it 5 years, many of them will be dead. Meanwhile, under 30s provide about 2% of Trump supporters. The mass support for Trump is a last gasp of an aging political discourse which emerged during the 1980s, all of which has come to a head now because of the changes underway in US society and geopolitics more widely. Their time is fast receding.

It cannot be denied that Trump IS a momentum with Fascist potential. You see the direct rise of these groups along with the rise of Trump:
http://fusion.net/story/269778/kkk-groups-in-america/

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/12/10/white-supremacist-website-stormfront-attributes-traffic-spike-to-trump

[GLF]

The thing about Fascism is that it only can come about in times of great social calamity. If people are well fed, well cared for, with things going good, Fascism doesn't stand a chance. I am a little shocked to see that the far-right have indeed made gains the past several years because I don't think things are that bad by capitalist standards.

I would be shocked if even 5% of Europeans and Americans held Fascist views. The problem is that the bulk of far-right supporters and voters are not far-right themselves. Many are normal people with itching ears, tired of the way things are currently going, being duped by the oppurtunistic fash who employ populist rhetoric that appeals to the uneducated and hurting.

If they stood up and said what they actually believed they would get maybe 1%-2% of the vote (see NPD in Germany). But most of them don't do this. They are mask wearing snakes and are trying to bamboozle their way back into power.

Always remember that if the disinformation suddenly disappear and people could see the fash as they truly are and what they believe, and then see us in what we truly are and what we believe - 99% of the people who side with us. So no matter how many gains the far-right appears to be making, take comfort in knowing it's mostly superficial and that the truth is ultimately on our side.

[Invader Zim]

It cannot be denied that Trump IS a momentum with Fascist potential. You see the direct rise of these groups along with the rise of Trump:
http://fusion.net/story/269778/kkk-groups-in-america/

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/12/10/white-supremacist-website-stormfront-attributes-traffic-spike-to-trump

That fascists ride on the back of this wave does not make either Trump or the vast bulk of his supporters fascist. And Trump, like the Tea Party, of which he is clearly a beneficiary of, is a phenomenon already losing that little power is ever had, and is mere historical ephemera. Like McCarthyism, which was far more virulent, is a flash in the pan. Even the primary medium for disseminating this narrative, Fox news is losing viewership by the month, meanwhile the alt-right or neo-reactionaryism (as they self style themselves) are a marginal fringe on the peripheries of the internet, who have merely occupied the space left in the wake of Randian libertarianism, which was also all the rage a few years ago.

[Armchair Partisan]

The problem is, while savagely opposing Trump, you seem to forget that the "center-left social democrats" and "center-right conservatives" you want to give tactical support to (or, in practice, subordinate the movement to) are just as much enemies of the revolution as Trump. Though outwardly less savage and less repressive, a Clinton presidency would be no relative gain for the working class. Ebert was just as eager to shoot Liebknecht and Luxemburg and throw them into canals as his Freikorps allies, despite the ideological differences. Whenever the communists tactically cooperate with the bourgeoisie, they lose - and overblowing the Trump threat while downplaying the adverse traits of more moderate capitalists can only be in the interests of the capitalists.

[DDR]

To be honest, I fear most Hillary. She is war incarnate.

[GLF]

Hillary would basically be more of Obama. Which is real bad. But there is no question that Trump is worse. I am not going to beat a dead horse here, but the man wants to discriminate against religious people and take away the rights of those born on the wrong side of an imaginary line. My God. I despise the social fascist dems as much as everyone else. But the fascist fascists are 100000000x worse. I would never compromise my beliefs. I just don't want a Donald Trump presidency. I don't want you guys to think I am suggesting that we move in with the centre-left or anything. I realize they are the right hand of the establishment. But Fascists aren't the establishment. They are hired guns and are much, much worse.

[PikSmeet]

Hillary would basically be more of Obama. Which is real bad. But there is no question that Trump is worse. I am not going to beat a dead horse here, but the man wants to discriminate against religious people and take away the rights of those born on the wrong side of an imaginary line. My God. I despise the social fascist dems as much as everyone else. But the fascist fascists are 100000000x worse. I would never compromise my beliefs. I just don't want a Donald Trump presidency. I don't want you guys to think I am suggesting that we move in with the centre-left or anything. I realize they are the right hand of the establishment. But Fascists aren't the establishment. They are hired guns and are much, much worse.

So fascists are muscle hired by the establishment to look after their interests?

[Lord Testicles]

So fascists are muscle hired by the establishment to look after their interests?

More or less.

[PikSmeet]

More or less.

Yet they are unlikely to come to power unless the working class supports it, either at the ballot box or on the streets. Yet when you look at their economic policies they seek the reform capitalism and reject free trade.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism

[Lord Testicles]

Yet they are unlikely to come to power unless the working class supports it, either at the ballot box or on the streets.

Nothing comes to power and stays there without support from the working class.


Yet when you look at their economic policies they seek the reform capitalism and reject free trade.

Irrelevant, reformed capitalism is still capitalism.

Fascists have historically been used to the bourgeoisie to crush any serious anti-capitalist working class militantly so they are essentially "muscle hired by the establishment to look after their interests".

[PikSmeet]

Nothing comes to power and stays there without support from the working class.



Irrelevant, reformed capitalism is still capitalism.

Fascists have historically been used to the bourgeoisie to crush any serious anti-capitalist working class militantly so they are essentially "muscle hired by the establishment to look after their interests".

I totally agree and would not support anyone who tried to merely reform capitalism. I don't believe that fascists are any more successful in their attempts to crush the working class than other politicians.

[Lord Testicles]

I totally agree and would not support anyone who tried to merely reform capitalism. I don't believe that fascists are any more successful in their attempts to crush the working class than other politicians.

What are you talking about?

[PikSmeet]

What are you talking about?

Well, when they come to power they promise jobs for those out of work, taxes on big business to help small eneterprises, positions for out of work professionals, they promise to unite the nations, protections for the small investor. Secure jobs in the state etc.
Are they any worse for the working class than what comes before or after them?

[Lord Testicles]

Well, when they come to power they promise jobs for those out of work, taxes on big business to help small eneterprises, positions for out of work professionals, they promise to unite the nations, protections for the small investor. Secure jobs in the state etc.
Are they any worse for the working class than what comes before or after them?

Are you being fucking serious?

[Dazhao]

The establishment benefits the most from mass immigration, why on earth would they pick Trump as their man? :confused: Someone like Marco "H1B" Rubio would make more sense.

[Rafiq]

Fox news is losing viewership by the month, meanwhile the alt-right or neo-reactionaryism (as they self style themselves) are a marginal fringe on the peripheries of the internet, who have merely occupied the space left in the wake of Randian libertarianism, which was also all the rage a few years ago.

And it begs the question, what kind of 'wave' is this, if Fascists can ride upon it? And frankly, it is true that Fascists are riding the wave. Older Fascists. The wave itself represents something entirely new.

But the naivety is assuming that this 'fringe' can be measured in terms of its numbers, and this is a crass understanding of how ideology works, a dangerous one even. So confident am I of this that I can confidently say that within two years time you will be proven wrong. It's simply ridiculous what you say - it doesn't matter how 'fringe' they are (which is simply untrue), the ideas they possess relate to the ruling order in such a way that makes them meaningful and powerful to many people. Most people are by default not intellectuals at all. The growing neo-Fascism, you don't have to measure it in terms of its predominance on twitter, youtube or facebook. You can measure it in terms of the everyday language you see that relates to political discourse today, you can see it in virtually every domain and field of life, from the sciences (i.e. the dispute between 'hereditarians' and 'enviromentalists', the arguments used by the former), to simply everyday conversations about racism you here, Fascism IS returning.

The essential qualities of Fascism IS NOT some political tradition that you formally adhere through, through political education. There is no conspiracy - it is growing spontaneously, people do not see this and say "I agree with such principles", they say "Such a language speaks to my already conceived principles" and so on. The way Fascism is growing is that minds are finding their way towards each other - this is not so with, for example Marxism, which entails strict theoretical education, disciplining oneself, transforming themselves ideologically, conditioning oneself to think critically, and so on. Fascists do not have to do this - they simply, as a logical conclusion of the banal conventions of everyday life, adhere to Fascism as it is presented as common sense. So this is why it seems like the 'alt-right' is so few - the people who openly identify as 'alt-right' are few (and of course, this is contestable - they are not few, they have grown exponentially in the past two years), but their ideas are already 'mainstream'. Speaking of their growth, put it this way: Three years ago, the 'alt-right' was compromised of less than a hundred people. They were as 'fringe' as any. Yet a keen eye would have been able to identify that they represent something that is not measured in their few numbers. And this would have been validated by their exponential growth shortly afterwards.

This same kind of error cannot be repeated now. To make a conservative estimate, I will say that there are a few tens of thousands of active partisans of this 'alt-right' now. Keep in mind this is a very conservative estimate. This number alone is enough to dominate political discourse on the internet, because for one active ideologue there are several passive listeners. It is more than enough in fact. And the number is growing exponentially as we speak. The only question you need to ask is: How many active ideologues are there on the internet, that is, active intellectuals? Is it so ridiculous to say that the majority of them are reactionaries? It is not. Because they are. This does reflect the state of political discourse in the 'real world'.

This is not a joke. Significant people in Silicon Valley, in various industries, are talking this way now. People like Peter Theil are speaking this way OPENLY, and the rumors are that elite investors in the tech industry privately are courted by these kinds of fuckers. You really are just clueless about what's happening, and insisting on it is toxic and frankly criminal. This has polluted virtually every crevice of life.

That this is primarily confined to the internet means what exactly? The internet today IS THE hub, THE center of political discourse, or its generation - it's so pathetic how some older Leftists speak of how we ought to ignore such phenomena becasue "it's only on the internet " - our world IS reflected on the internet, it is what people are saying and thinking, where they are too afraid to say such things openly, where in real life they have to repress this. Every single aching day , the standards that which they are forced to repress their filth are eroded more and more, we are seeing more and more of this 'fringe internet' stuff bleed into the conventions of everyday life, even by 'respectable' figures.

But I digress, since I don't have a time machine, the point is rather simple: Active propagators of such ideas, true, are few, but they are not marginal, and the only evidence we need of this fact is the reality that they are merely consciously articulating, as active partisans, what is already entering into our mainstream political discourse, which frankly has polarized society to the point where one is eitehr an "SJW" or one is with them. For example for such a fringe phenomena, it is a wonder that they accrue so much attention and popularity on social media websites like - for example - youtube. The comment section of any vice news video, for example - THESE ARE NOT Fascist conspirators, they are Fascists spontaneously. For such a 'fringe' phenomena, why is it that regular, otherwise seemingly politically apathetic people, find meaning in their buzzwords like "cultural Marxism", "cucks', anti-semitic 'memes' like "Oy vey" and so on? It's precisely becasue these are not articulated as politically partisan positions, but everyday ideological conventions that is testament to the power of the growing Fascism!

What we are seeing is the emergence of a new political culture - this is what the 'alt-right' represents. Each day that passes is a day where it becomes more and more apparent that even our polite liberals cannot ignore it (http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/how-2015-fueled-the-rise-of-the-freewheeling-white-nationali#.rfQENj2xA).

Mark my words. Remember that - in the coming years - you chose to ignore them.

[GLF]

Well, when they come to power they promise jobs for those out of work, taxes on big business to help small eneterprises, positions for out of work professionals, they promise to unite the nations, protections for the small investor. Secure jobs in the state etc.
Are they any worse for the working class than what comes before or after them?

Fascists are much, much worse.

It is a system designed to eradicate class conflict - not by addressing the fundamental inequalities inherent in capitalism - but through an overpowering and sustained use of propaganda and authoritarian abuse of State power, brainwashing the proles into collaborating with their own enslavers in defense of the very system that enslaves them.

Fascism = working people's kryptonite

[Invader Zim]

Ok then, Rafiq, care to define fascism and explain how Trump and his supporters are covered by this label?

I also see absolutely no logic or satisfactory reason why these groups will be anything other than a marginal footnote, like Trump, in political history. This wave of political sentiment is dying -- though I suspect that you are right that a new point of reaction will emerge. But this current phenomenon stems directly from the Tea Party and its discourse, which reached its peak in 2009 and its central big names, Glenn Beck, Christine O'Donnell, Sarah Palin, etc. are, with occasional exceptions, fading from the public eye. What is left of the support for these groups is now following into the vacuum filled by Trump. Once he loses the Republican Primary, and if the GOP establishment gets its act together and unifies behind Rubio, there is little guarantee that Trump will even win this primary and he has virtually no chance of winning the election -- whether he faces Clinton or Sanders. With his political demise then the momentum behind this current wave of reactionary sentiment will fade into the distance.

[Rafiq]

Ok then, Rafiq, care to define fascism and explain how Trump and his supporters are covered by this label?

Fascism can be identified as an alternative course of modernity that is reactionary. This is why Fascism is a reactionary modernism.

This is different from typical kinds of reaction. Typical kinds of reaction are an insistence upon some kind of previous sacred, or superstition, that capitalism, 'progress', or forces of history are seemingly sweeping away. What makes Fascism in particular unique is that the insistence is not a vanity - it becomes invigorated as an alternative path for modernity, a different course of history for the future of capitalism. This is only made possible under the precondition that it is 'plebian', that it harnesses mass proletarian discontent, led by petty bourgeois elements, unified with sections of the ruling classes (or potentials for one, i.e. a peripheral bourgeoisie). This must be stressed - the real danger that German and Italian Fascism represented wasn't just limited to those countries. This Fascism had the sympathy of both the ruling classes in the United Kingdom and the United States, and WWII defeated this. This threat never took over - which is why we can say WWII was to a certain extent a 'democratic war': It had real ramifications for the advanced capitalist countries that was to the favor of not only their respective working classes, but to the downtrotten colonized, oppressed, etc. in the 'third world' (as well as, for example, the blacks in the US). The Fascism in both germany and Italy was not world-hegemonic, it was still a mere rebellion against the great powers at the time. The true threat was the Fascism that could have taken over in the US and the UK. This threat has returned, partially because this post-war anti-Fascist political solidarity has died.

So fascism, to put it shortly, is different from other kinds of reaction because it has the potential to be hegemonic in constituting a new trajectory path for capitalism: A barbarism that would lead to global war on national, ethnic, religious lines (which is already happening), or a new darkness that can harness the world without such conflicts (i.e. fantasies about turning countries into corporations, destroying politics completely, etc). We really do face a hell on Earth either way at this rate. We really do.

Right now Trump represents the former precondition - mass (white) working class discontent led by petty bourgeois elements. This is exactly the same as the technocratic, anti-political populism you find in Europe, with Putin, Orban, Berlusconi, and now Le Pen and the likes of Farage. For this Fascism to take power in a country like the US, it requires an alliance with a class that has the capacity to be hegemonic or is already hegemonic, which today, you find in Silicon Valley. In France it's different - France can very well become like Hungary, a quasi "rogue state" in rebellion against 'globalist' capital. But the US can't do this (similarly, the businessman's plot in the 30's had the support among finance - international finance, who were hegemons).

So I am far from thinking that Trump is the next Hitler, or whatever. It is clear that Trump isn't going to be the Fascism that can take power. But he represents its emergence and its birth, and I predict it is inevitable at the present rate, that this kind of Fascism will find its champions among the new 'Digitari'. See that's the thing - right now, Trump is not very popular among the ruling classes. That isn't to say Trump cannot be elected - but that if he is, he will have to find support among them (i.e. as Putin is with the oligarchs in Russia).


With his political demise then the momentum behind this current wave of reactionary sentiment will fade into the distance.

No, what will happen is that it will strengthen and will be unhinged by what little political correctness Trump is still bound by (i.e. regarding anti-semitism and open racism), and we can be assured of the fact that Trump right now is actually a limitation for them. The truth is that the political discourse that Trump represents, will not die with Trump, it will be strengthened and it will grow fast. The reason why Trump is popular is precisely for the reason that this discourse has a real context in our present politics.

You don't see the point: It's exactly becasue Trump seems like a 'last dying breath' that makes Trump represent a new kind of Fascism, becasue this is always how Fascism emerges. But say for a second you are right - that Trump represents a political discourse at its last stand. This only bolsters the argument that he represents a new Fascism, because this last stand's future remains indeterminate - it is going to evolve into a new kind of reaction and a new Fascism so long as the masses are discontented, and most importantly democratic institutions, or what remains of them, are an impediment to the health of capital - the US economy is not going to be 'fixed' by any of the candidates. Democracy, no longer 'works' for capitalism. In fact what Trump actually represents is the last stand of the 'establishment' right, or the linkage between 'tea party' politics and mainstream American conservatism. What sits at the other side is a reinvigorated anti-semitism, new racism, anti-democratic sentiment, and generally a new barbarism unified by the Californian Ideology.

Interestingly enough, the pseudo-intellectuals of this new Fascism, the actual 'fringe' ones, to whom this new alt-right pays tribute, sees the alt right as something they want to distance themselves from. They see it as 'plebian', the same way Julius Evola was critical of Italian Fascism. With the unity of this 'plebian' reactionary sentiment and Californianism, or the digerati, that will be the final culmination of this Fascism into something very real.

Trump has opened up a new political discourse, one that gives Fascism actual context beyond its conscious partisans. And every single day it grows fast.

[Masha]

If we are to unite, what is it we are to do? Pool our resources and create a communist propaganda organization?

[KaneLives]

I just shake my head whenever I hear him. It's disappointing when you see people actually believing that he knows what is good for the US. This privileged, entitled, multi-billionaire has not got a fucking clue on what things are like for the poor and the working people of the US and he does not care about them either, that much is clear. Despite this people really think he is the answer? WTF. Oh and his slogan, "Let's make America great again" is fucking stupid too - when was America ever great for everyone?

[GLF]

If we are to unite, what is it we are to do? Pool our resources and create a communist propaganda organization?

Bash the fash. That's what we do. If what Rafiq says is true, and actual ideological Fascists start gaining ground, then I am going to go Jihad real fast - faster than the trashfash can say "hail victory". You'll read about me in the news.

That may sound extreme but I am telling you all right here and now that I refuse to share my world with trashfash. I don't give two shits what people think. It's as simple as that. I encourage everyone reading this to take the same stance.

[Masha]

As commendable as your fervor is, going at it alone is most likely not going to lead to anything significant. Unity on a level-headed level is probably what is most called for now, with a multi-dimensional strategic and tactical program for promoting class consciousness and socialism in a non-juvenile/desperate fashion.

[PikSmeet]

Bash the fash? But behind fascism stands nationalism, behind nationalims stands capitalism. Best to bash capitalism!

[Burzhuin]

I think if Trump wins Republican party nomination he would be forced by the party leadership to move to moderate ground. But it is not the issue. I do not believe capitalism can be overthrown by election process. Particularly here in the USA. But we, generally leftists, should use this opportunity to promote Communists, Trotskists, Maoists, etc ideas. What third party candidate should we support? Any idea?

[PikSmeet]

I think if Trump wins Republican party nomination he would force by the party leadership to move to moderate ground. But it is not the issue. I do not believe capitalism can be overthrown by election process. Particularly here in the USA. But we, generally leftists, should use this opportunity to promote Communists, Trotskists, Maoists, etc ideas. What third party candidate should we support? Any idea?

I don't understand the first sentence of your post and disagree with the rest.
As for supporting a candidate, you should support one who believes in socialism and nothing but socialism.

[Lord Testicles]

Bash the fash? But behind fascism stands nationalism, behind nationalims stands capitalism. Best to bash capitalism!

You can't "bash" capitalism but you can throttle a fascist. Although we understand why you wouldn't want people to do that, considering how much you think fascists benefit the working class.

[Burzhuin]

I don't understand the first sentence of your post and disagree with the rest.
As for supporting a candidate, you should support one who believes in socialism and nothing but socialism.
Here is correct first sentence: "I think if Trump wins Republican party nomination he would be forced by the party leadership to move to moderate ground."
Here is the rest of my message: "I do not believe capitalism can be overthrown by election process. Particularly here in the USA. But we, generally leftists, should use this opportunity to promote Communists, Trotskists, Maoists, etc ideas. What third party candidate should we support? Any idea?"
I can understand that you might believe in overthrowing capitalism by election process. Are you seriously believing that playing by Bourgeoisie rules you can win? You probably forgot that if gentlemen is losing by the rules he will change the rules.
I can understand you are against using this year opportunity to promote Socialism, in generally. If you opportunist it would be a perfect position.
Here is link for list of presidential candidates: http://www.politics1.com/p2016.htm
You will find FOUR parties containing word Socialism or Socialist in its name. Plus there is Peace and Freedom Party. Can you tell me who, from the list of candidates, believe in Socialism?

[Counterculturalist]

Here is correct first sentence: "I think if Trump wins Republican party nomination he would force by the party leadership to move to moderate ground."?

I kind of doubt that. Besides his blunt and open racism, most of Trump's positions are either the same, or slightly more moderate, than those of the rest of the psychotic god squad warmongers in the republican party.

[Burzhuin]

I kind of doubt that. Besides his blunt and open racism, most of Trump's positions are either the same, or slightly more moderate, than those of the rest of the psychotic god squad warmongers in the republican party.
I do not care either for Republican or Democrat. As for me they two sites of the same coin.

[Chomskyan]

I have to agree. Trump will not do anything if he's President. Congress is bought by bourgeois interests, which oppose many of his policies. Same with Sanders.

Hillary Clinton is the most obvious bourgeois politician, in the sense in which she is obviously controlled by bourgeois interest, so she's the only one who could govern successfully if elected.

The most Trump can do is increase the imperialism around the world, that's what I think.

[Chomskyan]

I think if Trump wins Republican party nomination he would be forced by the party leadership to move to moderate ground. But it is not the issue. I do not believe capitalism can be overthrown by election process. Particularly here in the USA. But we, generally leftists, should use this opportunity to promote Communists, Trotskists, Maoists, etc ideas. What third party candidate should we support? Any idea?

In terms of the Presidency, I support the Green Party. Although I think capitalism can only be overthrown by the working class. Why Greens? Because they have a greater chance than PSL or SPUSA. They have ballot access to 38 or so states.

In any event, I consider voting for them a purely symbolic, ethical action. That I oppose the imperialist, neoliberal terrorist state and want to move forward. The chance of them actually winning is probably less than 1%, same with any of the other leftist third parties.

On the local level, though, I think building up any third parties is a good idea, Greens, SA, SPUSA, PSL, CPUSA whatever. I'd like a Communist governor, gonna be honest. In terms of the Presidency though, I vote my conscience not what I think is viable. Capitalism and bourgeois democracy is unviable as a notion, so of course independent candidacies and parties which exist outside of the rigged process in favor of bourgeois interests are equally unviable.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

He's not a fascist.

I don't think Trump is a fascist (at least not consciously - I don't think the man really has the intelligence or political imagination to lead a fascist movement), and certainly the movement has only some elements of fascist political praxis. However, I don't think that's the real problem - his popularity and the political base he represents the kind of anxiety and intrinsically reactionary ideology which is open to the development of quasi-fascist or fascist politics.

Its important to emphasize that Trump doesn't espouse an explicitly fascist ideology (or anything close to a coherent ideology in general), so much as an incoherent potpourri of randomly assorted rightwing and centrist positions. However, the anxiety he is playing into are the conditions under which fascism can arise. In particular, there is a kind of yearning for a non-existent national golden age which he is speaking to. One where blacks did not live in white suburbs, Mexican workers were forcefully kicked out of the country when no longer wanted, cops were heroes, nobody knew what LSD was, nobody had Muslim neighbors, and America went around "winning". There is an ultranationalist and vulgar reactionary base on the American right which has not been well organized except as the "moral majority" vote bank. They feel cheated by the mainstream GOP for lying to them, and are organizing around a candidate which they feel can realize these aspirations. Trump is organizing this base, empowering them and giving them a voice.

Invader Zim points out that his base is elderly and close to death. This is only partially true (he has many younger supporters, too), but I would worry that as middle aged conservative voters get older, they will feel the same kinds of anxiety that are motivating people to vote Trump.

[Gurov]

Opposing Trump is the easy part. The difficult part is what is the alternative we propose. In view of the reality, a United Front with its own candidate would be best.

[Burzhuin]

Opposing Trump is the easy part. The difficult part is what is the alternative we propose. In view of the reality, a United Front with its own candidate would be best.
You are master of understatement. Right now there is ALREADY registered president candidates from SIX left parties. How about that? Our problem is that we can only dream about United, Popular, etc Front. Right now we are more divided than right parties.

[Dazhao]

I have to agree. Trump will not do anything if he's President. Congress is bought by bourgeois interests, which oppose many of his policies. Same with Sanders.

Hillary Clinton is the most obvious bourgeois politician, in the sense in which she is obviously controlled by bourgeois interest, so she's the only one who could govern successfully if elected.

The most Trump can do is increase the imperialism around the world, that's what I think.

If you were concerned about imperialism then Rubio & Hillary are the biggest threats

[Counterculturalist]

Donald Trump Retweets Post With Quote From Mussolini (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/28/donald-trump-retweets-post-likening-him-to-mussolini/)

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/28/donald-trump-retweets-post-likening-him-to-mussolini/

The fact that he did this might not mean much, but it's a further example of the real threat posed by Trump: not what he'll do in office, but what he's normalizing and popularizing.

[Chomskyan]

If you were concerned about imperialism then Rubio & Hillary are the biggest threats

LOL I would say Cruz and Clinton, but whatever. Sanders is the only one who has a ´centrist´ foreign policy here. A well-thought out, joint, multilateral, liberal internationalism with Sanders. The others are neocon imperialist nutcases.

[PikSmeet]

You can't "bash" capitalism but you can throttle a fascist. Although we understand why you wouldn't want people to do that, considering how much you think fascists benefit the working class.

True, I don't want to throttle a fascist as I think it's more productive to end capitalism and replace it with socialism.

[Tim Cornelis]

An "ultraleftist" that will vote for the centre-left, neoliberal Greens, to show they don't agree with neoliberalism. Okay then...

[PikSmeet]

An "ultraleftist" that will vote for the centre-left, neoliberal Greens, to show they don't agree with neoliberalism. Okay then...
Yes and all these parties will work within capitalism...a system which, from time to time, throws up fascists!

[Lord Testicles]

True, I don't want to throttle a fascist as I think it's more productive to end capitalism and replace it with socialism.

What vague, meaningless nonsense.

"Hey the fash are marching through town, want to go oppose them?"

"No thanks, I'm ending capitalism and replacing it with socialism."

[PikSmeet]

What vague, meaningless nonsense.

"Hey the fash are marching through town, want to go oppose them?"

"No thanks, I'm ending capitalism and replacing it with socialism."

Or you could re-write it

"Hey the fash are marching through town, want to go oppose them?"


"Yes, i'll join your front to fight fascism but when we succed we replace capitalism with socialism"

"Sure (sniggers)"

"Ok sign me up!"

"Haha...what a sucker! He believed us!, but just to make sure send him to the front line, we don't want him coming back alive and asking us to make good on our promises"

[Lord Testicles]

Or you could re-write it

"Hey the fash are marching through town, want to go oppose them?"


"Yes, i'll join your front to fight fascism but when we succed we replace capitalism with socialism"

"Sure (sniggers)"

"Ok sign me up!"

"Haha...what a sucker! He believed us!, but just to make sure send him to the front line, we don't want him coming back alive and asking us to make good on our promises"

Your mask is slipping, troll.

[PikSmeet]

Your mask is slipping, troll.

If you can't take it then don't give it out.

[Lord Testicles]

If you can't take it then don't give it out.

You clearly have a comprehension problem. You are a troll, that's why you shit-post here. That's why you make posts like: "pls guys don't be nasty to fash they just want to give you jobs and unite the nations!" and then refuse to explain them. Fuck off back to scumfront you drooling ferrets anus.

[Burzhuin]

Does anybody seriously believe Trump is fascist? Honestly, as of right now, his political view can be described in one sentence: 'I am GREAT!!!'

[PikSmeet]

Does anybody seriously believe Trump is fascist? Honestly, as of right now, his political view can be described in one sentence: 'I am GREAT!!!'

Does he believe that democracy is the enemy? No, I don't think he does, so I don't believe he is a fascist.

[Burzhuin]

Does he believe that democracy is the enemy? No, I don't think he does, so I don't believe he is a fascist.
Right now the democracy is his only chance to win the nomination. Let say he wins and become the president. After that democracy would really irritate him.

[PikSmeet]

Right now the democracy is his only chance to win the nomination. Let say he wins and become the president. After that democracy would really irritate him.

But you don't think he would be able to suspend democracy in America?

[Burzhuin]

Unlike Germany-1933 USA-2016 have more than 200 hundreds years democracy' tradition. He would, probably, try to move to dictatorship but without success.

[PikSmeet]

Unlike Germany-1933 USA-2016 have more than 200 hundreds years democracy' tradition. He would, probably, try to move to dictatorship but without success.

In what way would he try to do this?

[Burzhuin]

In what way would he try to do this?
Your guess is as good as mine.

[Chomskyan]

An "ultraleftist" that will vote for the centre-left, neoliberal Greens, to show they don't agree with neoliberalism. Okay then...

Greens are not neoliberal, at least their platform isn´t. Whether they govern that way is a different issue. Obviously, social democrats always become bourgeois overnight. One need only look at SYRIZA and New Labor to see how that works out.

We´re in agreement here, voting doesn´t mean anything. I´m only looking at it from an issue of my personal ethics, I´m not going to pretend that it matters in any way.

[disarm-and-dismantle]

I completely agree.

I am so disgusted with American Marxism. If you want a good look at privelage, examine the "communists" in the States, who are so obsessed with dogma discerning who is the most revisionist in their application of Trotskyist bullshit that they forget there are real world problems facing us.

Of course we should vote, and of course we should vote for Hillary Clinton. What is our alternative?

There are thirty different parties in America all eschewing participation in electoral politics in exchange for the unification of a "true labor party." Well, where the hell is it?

I am waiting for all of the idealists to get off their ass, and make the revolution happen. There is no revolution. There is a scattered left field. How are their so many Trotskyist parties? How are there so many "anarchist syndicalist" parties? The left needs to unify, but they're too concerned with being right to ever get out from behind their laptops and do anything about it.

Is the Democratic Party really out to serve the interests of the working class? Not so much. But if there is anything I can do to keep a fascist out of the White House, I'm gonna do it.

How can you call yourself an advocate for the working class when you would let them crumble? Don't like reformism? Cool. But when your health coverage expands (ever so slightly) and your wages increase (also slightly) and less immigrants are deported and education becomes slightly more affordable, it helps, even if the help is small. Your refusal to participate helps no one.

Revolution over elections? Show me the revolution, or shut the fuck up.

[Burzhuin]

Willita Bush (Missouri) (http://www.facebook.com/WillitaDBush)
Darryl Cherney (California) (http://www.facebook.com/DarrylCherneyforPresidentExploratory)
Bill Kreml (Illinois) (http://www.billkreml.org/)
Kent Mesplay (California) (http://mesplay.org/)
Robert Milnes (New Jersey) (http://rwm4prez2012.wordpress.com/)
Sedinam Kinamo (http://www.facebook.com/ms.skcmcurry)
Christin Moyowasifza-Curry (California)
Justin Robert Murphy (Indiana)
Rhett Smith (Texas) (http://www.rhettsmith.com/)
Dr. Jill Stein (Massachusetts)
Daniel White (Georgia)

This is a list of those who is seeking presidential nomination by Green Party. Any particular candidate is closed to your heart?

[lutraphile]

Does anybody seriously believe Trump is fascist? Honestly, as of right now, his political view can be described in one sentence: 'I am GREAT!!!'

It's pretty impossible for anyone running for office in 2016 to fit the exact billing of fascism from 80 years ago. But Trump (along with the original Le Pen, who endorsed him) is about as close as you'll ever see, and I think it isn't too unfair to classify him as a neo-fascist.

He uses ultranationalist, conservative rhetoric and portrays himself as the country's savior (http://qz.com/626988/what-era-is-donald-trump-referring-to-with-make-america-great-again/). He wants to prevent the immigration of a religious group (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/donald-trumps-call-to-ban-muslim-immigrants/419298/). He's oscillated on whether he wants a database of said religious group's members (http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/trumps-muslim-database-game). He defends "Operation Wetback" as a basis for his immigration policies (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/trump-praised-it-without-naming-it-what-was-operation-wetback-n461666). He has said that internment camps might be justified sometimes. (http://time.com/4140050/donald-trump-muslims-japanese-internment/) He has referenced as an example the (false) story of US generals shooting Muslims with bullets dipped in pig's blood (http://gawker.com/donald-trump-advocates-shooting-muslims-with-bullets-di-1760237641). He has encouraged his supporters to rough up protesters (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/11/22/black-activist-punched-at-donald-trump-rally-in-birmingham/). He wants to reign in freedom of the press (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trump-threatens-to-weaken-first-amendment-protections-for-reporters/). He refused to condemn the KKK, ridiculously claiming he didn't know enough about them. (http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/28/politics/donald-trump-white-supremacists/)He wants to bring back "a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding" to torture suspects (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/06/donald_trump_and_ted_cruz_advocate_bringing_back_w aterboarding.html).

He probably isn't Hitler, but he probably isn't just another Romney or McCain either. I will probably vote for Clinton if he is the nominee, as I live in a swing state. Of course, for the other 60% of the US population, their vote doesn't matter at all and the discussion is irrelevant.

[Masha]

I think the Trump ship is setting sail at last, with the turn possibly being the John Oliver segment which has been disseminated throughout the spectacle of mainstream politics on this day, February 29th. Call me pre-emptively hopeful, but there is a major tone shift, reminiscent of the Michael Jackson affair after the smear campaign about him sleeping with kids really got underway. It is drama of the highest kind. You wonder how much of it is deliberately planned to happen in a certain way to maximize engagement in the spectacle, and how much of it is just the aspects which make up hyper-reality acting out their intrinsic, unconscious constellation of logic (i.e., ideology in motion, to that fiery ocean). And also, what's there left to those of us who are not passively just sliding through the world; who actually have values, having cultivated them deliberately over years of strife and happiness?

Do you think there are significant ulterior motives to the Trump campaign (campaign in the sense of a militant campaign of indoctrination) and if so, what are they?

[bricolage]

I think the Trump ship is setting sail at last, with the turn possibly being the John Oliver segment which has been disseminated throughout the spectacle of mainstream politics on this day, February 29th.
There is absolutely no chance that a John Oliver segment will have any inch of impact on those who are voting for Trump.

[Masha]

There is absolutely no chance that a John Oliver segment will have any inch of impact on those who are voting for Trump.

I'd give it a few inches, at least! It's something his opponents seem to be indirectly rallying behind. I saw Rubio using material from it, as well as rehashed throughout the shit-level media like The Guardian. It's a useful, popular resource for undermining the image of the Magnate Formerly Known as Trump (now perhaps 'Drumpf') and the slogans that his supporters cling to.

[lutraphile]

There is 0 overlap between Donald Trump supporters and people who watch John Oliver.

[Masha]

There is 0 overlap between Donald Trump supporters and people who watch John Oliver.

Overlap? Who said anything about overlap? Besides what you say being an exaggeration, it's also important to realize that influence isn't just a matter of direct viewership. The arguments from that video, for example, are being used by NBC and by other republican candidates (e.g. Rubio joking about his stubby fingers). But if you want to be a curmudgeon about it be my guest.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Do you think there are significant ulterior motives to the Trump campaign (campaign in the sense of a militant campaign of indoctrination) and if so, what are they?

The only thing Trump gives a shit about is self-aggrandisement to bloat his celebrity, and that is the only consistent thing.

Cruz is way more insane in practice even if he doesn't mouth off as buffonishly, make no mistake about that reptile-faced little fucker, him winning over Trump is not bloody better, nor is anyone for that matter. Bloody taking sides crap. Pox on the lot.

[Masha]

The only thing Drumpf gives a shit about is self-aggrandisement to bloat his celebrity, and that is the only consistent thing.

Cruz is way more insane in practice even if he doesn't mouth off as buffonishly, make no mistake about that reptile-faced little fucker, him winning over Drumpf is not bloody better, nor is anyone for that matter. Bloody taking sides crap. Pox on the lot.

I wasn't implying that Trump was a mastermind, but he could have been manipulated into the position as a way to help politics get a good rating on tv. I agree, a pox on the lot of them. But Trump is why a lot of people are interested in this farce to begin with, so seeing him go would be one less thing to worry about.

[odysseus]

The rise of American authoritarianism (http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism)

[PikSmeet]

I heard on BBC radio 4 today that the other Republican candidates are moaning that Trump is not as conservative at them, not a true republican and not as far to the right either. That he will do and say anything that is populist. If all of this is true, does that make him a fascist?

[Dazhao]

I think the Trump ship is setting sail at last, with the turn possibly being the John Oliver segment which has been disseminated throughout the spectacle of mainstream politics on this day, February 29th. Call me pre-emptively hopeful, but there is a major tone shift, reminiscent of the Michael Jackson affair after the smear campaign about him sleeping with kids really got underway. It is drama of the highest kind. You wonder how much of it is deliberately planned to happen in a certain way to maximize engagement in the spectacle, and how much of it is just the aspects which make up hyper-reality acting out their intrinsic, unconscious constellation of logic (i.e., ideology in motion, to that fiery ocean). And also, what's there left to those of us who are not passively just sliding through the world; who actually have values, having cultivated them deliberately over years of strife and happiness?

Do you think there are significant ulterior motives to the Trump campaign (campaign in the sense of a militant campaign of indoctrination) and if so, what are they?

how'd that work out

[Tim Cornelis]

I heard on BBC radio 4 today that the other Republican candidates are moaning that Trump is not as conservative at them, not a true republican and not as far to the right either. That he will do and say anything that is populist. If all of this is true, does that make him a fascist?

No. Why would that be? Then Hillary Clinton is a fascist as well. (There's already a word for populism that isn't fascism: populism).

[PikSmeet]

No. Why would that be? Then Hillary Clinton is a fascist as well. (There's already a word for populism that isn't fascism: populism).

I agree, I don't think Trump is a republican or a democrat, he is just using the republican party to get into the Whitehouse.

[Burzhuin]

As I notice leftists like to create imaginable Boogieman (to be afraid of). And all of that instead to actually promote their parties candidates. OK, Trump is bad. Hillary is not better.

[PikSmeet]

As I notice leftists like to create imaginable Boogieman (to be afraid of). And all of that instead to actually promote their parties candidates. OK, Trump is bad. Hillary is not better.

Are they using the old "not as bad as" argument?

[PikSmeet]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-35712363

They are trying and failing to stop him.

[Chomskyan]

Are they using the old "not as bad as" argument?


As I notice leftists like to create imaginable Boogieman (to be afraid of). And all of that instead to actually promote their parties candidates. OK, Drumpf is bad. Hillary is not better.


We´re talking about the commie left right? In which case, they show their true colors as simply supporters of the bourgeois system. Instead of recognizing that the bourgeois political system itself spawns these ´candidates´ and the policies which come from them, they continue to want to rally and co-opt leftist struggle into supporting bourgeois parties, policies, politics and politicians and maintaining the system.

Donald Drumpf is simply the evidence of the reality, that bourgeois politics has failed. That it is a game, charade that the ruling class puts on to entertain their fancy.

As long as we´re clear. ;)

[Burzhuin]

I think you have to be mad to believe in Socialist Revolution by bourgeois election. But to miss the opportunity to promote our ideas and our own candidates. But what do we see here? We discussed Trump, Sanders, Hillary. But what about our own? Somebody mentioned here Socialist Alternative. But even after browsing Google I could not find any candidates from SA. I am aware about six parties candidates, but beside names I have no any other information. Do you?

[Chomskyan]

I think you have to be mad to believe in Socialist Revolution by bourgeois election. But to miss the opportunity to promote our ideas and our own candidates. But what do we see here? We discussed Drumpf, Sanders, Hillary. But what about our own? Somebody mentioned here Socialist Alternative. But even after browsing Google I could not find any candidates from SA. I am aware about six parties candidates, but beside names I have no any other information. Do you?

Capitalist media is focusing on Sanders as the ´vanguard of socialism´ currently, that´s probably why.

[PikSmeet]

But given that, according to Marx, politicians are not in control of capitalism, what are we all so worried about.
I mean, as the saying goes "you don't subvert the system, it subverts you".
Do you think the capitalist system changes, regarding to whom is sitting in the White House?

[hexaune]

But given that, according to Marx, politicians are not in control of capitalism, what are we all so worried about.
I mean, as the saying goes "you don't subvert the system, it subverts you".
Do you think the capitalist system changes, regarding to whom is sitting in the White House?

Nobody is ''in control of capitalism'' however, politicians do have an impact on how capitalism functions. They also have plenty of control over social matters, such as access to abortion, drug laws, policies towards refugees, foreign policy... So there is a reason to be concerned if it looks like someone with pretty far right policies is about to take power.

[PikSmeet]

Nobody is ''in control of capitalism'' however, politicians do have an impact on how capitalism functions. They also have plenty of control over social matters, such as access to abortion, drug laws, policies towards refugees, foreign policy... So there is a reason to be concerned if it looks like someone with pretty far right policies is about to take power.

Well I would agree up to a point. In the short term I agree, yes, they may have some control over social matters, but so does capitalism and in the long run the system will win out.

[Lord Testicles]

Well I would agree up to a point. In the short term I agree, yes, they may have some control over social matters, but so does capitalism and in the long run the system will win out.

What does that even mean?

[Burzhuin]

But we are not capitalist media, we are (at least supposed to be) leftists. As I understand it means to be on the left flank of political spectrum. I do not care about the bourgeoisie media. I was asking about left parties sources of information.

[Chomskyan]

Ah. In other words, you´re asking why aren´t socialists stepping up to the plate to take advantage of this mass movement to call for socialism?

Socialistworld has a video of Kshama Sawant calling for the establishment of independent movements outside of the Sanders campaign and ´Democratic´ Party.

Otherwise, I don´t have a clue why the left hasn´t done anything to promote socialism in lieu of Sanders´ campaign.

[Burzhuin]

It makes two of us.

[Comrade #138672]

Trump is a poor excuse for a human being. What a scumbag.

[Burzhuin]

Trump is a poor excuse for a human being. What a scumbag.

Do you expect any arguments? If yes, you are in wrong place.

[Comrade #138672]

Do you expect any arguments? If yes, you are in wrong place.
No. I just wanted to share my disgust.

[PikSmeet]

No. I just wanted to share my disgust.

But his USP is that he gets things done. That the political elite just look after themselves and their croines. He is saying "I'm different", I'll cut through all the red-tape, all the baloney and the back-scratching and make America a meritocracy again.
Granted he can't do any of this but people believe him as he has been successful in business and certainly can talk the talk.

[Burzhuin]

But his USP is that he gets things done. That the political elite just look after themselves and their croines. He is saying "I'm different", I'll cut through all the red-tape, all the baloney and the back-scratching and make America a meritocracy again.
Granted he can't do any of this but people believe him as he has been successful in business and certainly can talk the talk.
What surprise me the most I heard so much about 'people supporting Trump' but so far I have not met even one, face to face. Even several of my neighbors (registered Republicans) do not support him. One of them even told me he would vote Democrats. But he is so called traditional Republicans.

[Lord Testicles]

people believe him as he has been successful in business

No he hasn't, he's been successful at inheritance. There are sloppy turds that have a better business acumen than him.

[Chomskyan]

What surprise me the most I heard so much about 'people supporting Drumpf' but so far I have not met even one, face to face. Even several of my neighbors (registered Republicans) do not support him. One of them even told me he would vote Democrats. But he is so called traditional Republicans.

lol My father supports him, and my mother doesn´t see him negatively at least. So, they exist. And I live in Minnesota, a solid blue state. Also, I overheard two right-wing students saying they´d vote for Drumpf if Ben Carson wasn´t nominated.

So, they do exist.

[Burzhuin]

I do not argue the existence of Trump supporters. I just want to meet one and ask one simple question: 'Why?'

[Chomskyan]

I do not argue the existence of Drumpf supporters. I just want to meet one and ask one simple question: 'Why?'

My parents are very petite bourgeois, they might claim to be liberal, but they have racist, stereotypical, ignorant and culturally conditioned views about how people ´should live´ or ´should behave´ and they think Drumpf is a good business guy. Also, they always find ways to explain away his comments somehow. The Muslim ban is ´just to figure out what´s going on´ don´t you know?

Even though I have told them why the latter claim about his ´business expertise´ is bull, they seem to believe their own bullcrap.

[Counterculturalist]

I'd like to ask anyone who thinks Trump will "make America great again" a few questions. Namely, when was America great? Why was it great? At what point did it stop being great? What caused it to lose its greatness? What constitutes greatness? What will make America great again? What has Trump proposed that will make America great? And finally, why the fuck does it matter if a particular land-mass where you happen to have been born is "great" or not?

I have a feeling the answer to each question would be "fuck you", though.

[Fafnirbana]

I think Bernie Sanders has the best chance of stopping Trump. That said, consider the benefits of having Trump as president. He would most certainly oppress people. The result would necessarily be a Revolution. Imperialism would bite the dust here no matter who won, as a matter of need. Rebuilding would have to come before expansion. The US would lose face internationally. Its violence laid bare before the world for all to see. The best case scenario would be a coalition of Communist and Anarchist revolutionaries gaining the victory.

[Burzhuin]

I'd like to ask anyone who thinks Trump will "make America great again" a few questions. Namely, when was America great? Why was it great? At what point did it stop being great? What caused it to lose its greatness? What constitutes greatness? What will make America great again? What has Trump proposed that will make America great? And finally, why the fuck does it matter if a particular land-mass where you happen to have been born is "great" or not?

I have a feeling the answer to each question would be "fuck you", though.
Why do you ask us, leftists? Why don't you ask Trump?

[Burzhuin]

Too bad. But good news your parents are still alive, unlike mine.

[Counterculturalist]

Why do you ask us, leftists? Why don't you ask Trump?

I wasn't asking anyone here, just sharing questions I'd like to ask Trump supporters, if only to see their brains hurt trying to answer them. Asking Trump himself would be pointless, since I doubt he believes his own shit.

It might be worthwhile to try to get Trump supporters to unpack the meaning of "making America great again" - perhaps if they're forced to think about explaining it, they'll see the utter vapidity and meaninglessness of such a slogan.

[Chomskyan]

Too bad. But good news your parents are still alive, unlike mine.

My grandparents are also still alive, but they´ve started to show signs of slowing recently. I´m a naive young whippersnapper. No apologies.

Anyway, I am curious as to how many of these posts have ´Drumpf´ as the original reading rather than ´Trump´ because I have the #MakeDonaldDrumpfAgain extension installed.

Just curious.

[Verneinung]

I'd like to ask anyone who thinks Trump will "make America great again" a few questions. Namely, when was America great? Why was it great? At what point did it stop being great? What caused it to lose its greatness? What constitutes greatness? What will make America great again? What has Trump proposed that will make America great? And finally, why the fuck does it matter if a particular land-mass where you happen to have been born is "great" or not?

I have a feeling the answer to each question would be "fuck you", though.

It is kind of funny to make fun of Trump and his supporters, but it is not at all hard to see why people like him.


It might be worthwhile to try to get Trump supporters to unpack the meaning of "making America great again" - perhaps if they're forced to think about explaining it, they'll see the utter vapidity and meaninglessness of such a slogan.

I don't see what is so hard about the slogan.

Life was great in the 50s, and then blacks, students, gays, women, immigrants, politicians, corporations, the Fed, leftists, liberals, Muslims and Jews, drove the country off of a cliff.

[Armchair Partisan]

I don't see what is so hard about the slogan.

Life was great in the 50s, and then blacks, students, gays, women, immigrants, politicians, corporations, the Fed, leftists, liberals, Muslims and Jews, drove the country off of a cliff.

Even better, since Trump didn't elaborate, everyone can pick and choose their own bogeymen. I'm sure that there is a professional political term for "a vague statement that everyone can interpret favorably in their own way", though I don't know what the term is.

[Counterculturalist]

Most of Trump's supporters, if put in a position to honestly think about and articulate his appeal, would have no choice but to acknowledge the racism behind the slogan. I would hope that at least some of them - obviously not the avowed white nationalists that support him, but those who don't think of themselves as being racist - would be horrified at their own bigotry and re-examine some of their convictions. I'm probably being too optimistic.

[Chomskyan]

Most of Drumpf's supporters, if put in a position to honestly think about and articulate his appeal, would have no choice but to acknowledge the racism behind the slogan. I would hope that at least some of them - obviously not the avowed white nationalists that support him, but those who don't think of themselves as being racist - would be horrified at their own bigotry and re-examine some of their convictions. I'm probably being too optimistic.

Yes, you are.

[Communist Mutant From Outer Space]

does trump listen to vapourwave

[Comrade #138672]

But his USP is that he gets things done. That the political elite just look after themselves and their croines. He is saying "I'm different", I'll cut through all the red-tape, all the baloney and the back-scratching and make America a meritocracy again.
Granted he can't do any of this but people believe him as he has been successful in business and certainly can talk the talk.
I am well aware of his rhetoric and how people foolishly believe him. It doesn't make it less disgusting.

[Verneinung]

Even better, since Trump didn't elaborate, everyone can pick and choose their own bogeymen. I'm sure that there is a professional political term for "a vague statement that everyone can interpret favorably in their own way", though I don't know what the term is.

Most of Trump's supporters, if put in a position to honestly think about and articulate his appeal, would have no choice but to acknowledge the racism behind the slogan. I would hope that at least some of them - obviously not the avowed white nationalists that support him, but those who don't think of themselves as being racist - would be horrified at their own bigotry and re-examine some of their convictions. I'm probably being too optimistic.

Trump's vagueness is for political effectiveness, and he isn't the type to be a policy wonk, regardless. So, it is called (as a slogan) successful propaganda.

And America is racist, so there is no need to single these people out, just because others are more successful at repression or more PC and tolerant.

And those are not just "bogeymen", there is reasoning (faulty or not) behind why individuals would have a problem with those groups and their relation to the decline of their realities. And, also, I'm talking more in totality -- I wasn't trying to have a list where it was this for this person and the other for the other person.

[SentimentalDisenchantment]

I think he is better than anyone else on the republican side. He is the most liberal :grin: amongst them. I dont think he believes what he says. As for the other guy, ted cruz, now thats dangerous :(. He is a lunatic. Polls show him beating Hillary (whom I hate btw). That would be scary :unsure: for everyone.

[Comrade #138672]

I think he is better than anyone else on the republican side. He is the most liberal :grin: amongst them. I dont think he believes what he says. As for the other guy, ted cruz, now thats dangerous :(. He is a lunatic. Polls show him beating Hillary (whom I hate btw). That would be scary :unsure: for everyone.Trump doesn't actually believe what he says? Perhaps. But this does not change the fact that he is strengthening the fascist movement by making bigotry more mainstream.

Every Trump rally ends with violence. Not only does Trump not do anything about this, but he even encourages his supporters to use violence, especially against protesters.

[Comrade #138672]

Trump is a dangerous demagogue. If someone keeps saying stuff he doesn't believe in, then you should be especially suspicious of them. Don't be naive.

[KaneLives]

Trump doesn't actually believe what he says? Perhaps. But this does not change the fact that he is strengthening the fascist movement by making bigotry more mainstream.

Every Trump rally ends with violence. Not only does Trump not do anything about this, but he even encourages his supporters to use violence, especially against protesters.


Yeah just today he was apparently calling for his supporters to hit the protestors. Make America great again - physically attack the opposition, even if they have legitimate reasons to be opposing. It makes you wonder and puts things into perspective, if he's calling for his sheep supporters to attack opposition, can you imagine how many unnecessary conflicts may come about with him in charge? How many countries the United States may end up invading with him in charge? :rolleyes:

[Cliff Paul]

I didn't really take Trump's less than thinly veiled racism that seriously before but seeing Anthony Cage's bloody face after the Trump rally was really a wake-up call. Sure most American politicians engage in subtle racism from time to time - whether its talk of 'superpredators' or 'anchor-babies', etc. - but it's obvious that Trump is taking this to whole 'nother level, and giving voice to elements of American society that are better left voiceless.

[Verneinung]

I didn't really take Trump's less than thinly veiled racism that seriously before but seeing Anthony Cage's bloody face after the Trump rally was really a wake-up call. Sure most American politicians engage in subtle racism from time to time - whether its talk of 'superpredators' or 'anchor-babies', etc. - but it's obvious that Trump is taking this to whole 'nother level, and giving voice to elements of American society that are better left voiceless.

You're kidding right?

[SentimentalDisenchantment]

Trump doesn't actually believe what he says? Perhaps. But this does not change the fact that he is strengthening the fascist movement by making bigotry more mainstream.

Every Trump rally ends with violence. Not only does Trump not do anything about this, but he even encourages his supporters to use violence, especially against protesters.


Of course, his rallies are extremely violent and there is no denying that he is dangerous, but I think compared to Cruz and other guys he is relatively liberal. What he is doing is basically feeding into that hatred of the GOP voters. Dangerous. yes. Politically expedient. Probably.

Just watching the last debate. On question of Iran, he says that he is ready to make a deal. Cuba - ready to make something of it. Israel - he even said that he would be neutral (not sure abt that) and ready for a deal. The others responded with a flat out no. You see, I know he is pathetic. But the other guys, especially Cruz, IMO are worse (with exception of Kasich perhaps - not gonna win anyway). So out of Ted and Trump, I am inclined to say Trump.

[Comrade #138672]

You're kidding right?What's wrong with it?

[Verneinung]

What's wrong with it?

Maybe you could explain how it makes sense (since you seemed to have understood it). To me, it was totally nonsensical.

[#FF0000]

Maybe you could explain how it makes sense (since you seemed to have understood it). To me, it was totally nonsensical.

He's saying that Trump's racism and nativism is more pronounced and overt than that of other politicians -- which, I think, is accurate.

[Verneinung]

He's saying that Trump's racism and nativism is more pronounced and overt than that of other politicians -- which, I think, is accurate.

Well, that is not what he said, so it definitely doesn't get the the point of explaining; but that would also be untrue, unless you wanted to render the statement as meaningless or tautological.

To the extent that his political correctness and pleasantness is less than others, it would basically go without saying. But, to the extent that that lack in Trump makes him worse than the other candidates in terms of "pronounced and overt" playing of the race card (which has to be separated from racial sentiment to which it is aimed, even that from racism as an ideological construct)-- unless you wanted to make that lack the key element (making a convenient tautology) -- it is just ridiculous.

[#FF0000]

Well, that is not what he said, so it definitely doesn't get the the point of explaining; but that would also be untrue, unless you wanted to render the statement as meaningless or tautological.

No that seems to be pretty clearly what Cliff Paul was saying. Trump's xenophobic rhetoric is far more overt than the typical dogwhistling of the Republican party.


To the extent that his political correctness and pleasantness is less than others, it would basically go without saying. But, to the extent that that lack in Trump makes him worse than the other candidates in terms of "pronounced and overt" playing of the race card (which has to be separated from racial sentiment to which it is aimed, even that from racism as an ideological construct)-- unless you wanted to make that lack the key element (making a convenient tautology) -- it is just ridiculous.

No, I don't think it is. I said before in, I think, this very thread, that Trump isn't dangerous because of what he'll do if he's in the White House -- he's dangerous because of how his campaign is energizing the far-right. I would say that does make him worse.

[Plagueround]

I think Bernie Sanders has the best chance of stopping Trump. That said, consider the benefits of having Trump as president. He would most certainly oppress people. The result would necessarily be a Revolution. Imperialism would bite the dust here no matter who won, as a matter of need. Rebuilding would have to come before expansion. The US would lose face internationally. Its violence laid bare before the world for all to see. The best case scenario would be a coalition of Communist and Anarchist revolutionaries gaining the victory.

This is called accelerationism and I for one don't think it should be encouraged. Not only does a lot of damage occur, but it seems what usually happens is it bolsters the policies slightly to the left of the person/policies in question rather than inspiring much revolutionary sentiment. This is what allowed President Obama's policies, which were largely a neoliberal correction to the perceived excesses of the Bush era, to be seen as revolutionary and a breath of fresh air (which they were not). I think it is imperative that capitalism be shown to be insufficient in all forms, not by letting it's most extreme and fascist forms to rise.

[Verneinung]

No that seems to be pretty clearly what Cliff Paul was saying. Trump's xenophobic rhetoric is far more overt than the typical dogwhistling of the Republican party.


Then... why did he mention Anthony Cage? Why did he mentioning not "really tak[ing] Trump's...'racism' seriously"? Why did he mention "'superpredators'"? Why did he mention a "whole 'nother level"? seemingly with emphasis. Why did he mention "giving voice to elements of American society that are better left voiceless"?

You have some explaining to do to get from Trump uses more lively (or "overt") rhetoric to all of that.


No, I don't think it is. I said before in, I think, this very thread, that Trump isn't dangerous because of what he'll do if he's in the White House -- he's dangerous because of how his campaign is energizing the far-right. I would say that does make him worse.

Well, that didn't really respond to what I said; but, I'll address it, because this also reeks of nonsense.

Since when does the far-right need energizing? Why are you making the connection between his rhetoric (with regard to certain racial/ethnic groups, which is being discussed) and his popularity/"energizing" -- how is he "energizing" the far-right? Why even assuming the "energizing" to be true, would this be "dangerous"? And how does, even assuming that this would be "dangerous", make him worse?

But, before you answer any of that, you might want to go back and address what I've already said previously.

[#FF0000]

Then... why did he mention Anthony Cage? Why did he mentioning not "really tak[ing] Trump's...'racism' seriously"? Why did he mention "'superpredators'"? Why did he mention a "whole 'nother level"? seemingly with emphasis. Why did he mention "giving voice to elements of American society that are better left voiceless"?

You have some explaining to do to get from Trump uses more lively (or "overt") rhetoric to all of that.

Nah. Cliff's saying that he didn't think Trump's rhetoric would have real-world consequences until he saw how he was stoking the violence at his rallies. Pretty simple and not a stretch in the least.


Since when does the far-right need energizing?

Since they've been relegated to the political fringe.


Why are you making the connection between his rhetoric (with regard to certain racial/ethnic groups, which is being discussed) and his popularity/"energizing" -- how is he "energizing" the far-right?

He is leaning on jingoism naked xenophobia in his rhetoric whereas other Republicans rely on dogwhistle rhetoric. The result is pretty obvious, with white supremacists saying outright that Trump has been a boon to their recruiting.


Why even assuming the "energizing" to be true, would this be "dangerous"? And how does, even assuming that this would be "dangerous", make him worse?

Because Trump's rise and popularity has been helping violent white nationalists organize and recruit, which brings with it the very real chance that they can become an actual threat and carry out mass racist and anti-worker violence on top of the status quo, "behind the scenes" racist and anti-worker violence in America (e.g. mass incarceration).


But, before you answer any of that, you might want to go back and address what I've already said previously.

What you said before is word salad, honestly.

[Verneinung]

he didn't think Trump's rhetoric would have real-world consequences until he saw how he was stoking the violence at his rallies. Pretty simple and not a stretch in the least.

That is different than what you have been saying. It is different to say that he has overt rhetoric, versus leading to "real...consequences". And, maybe that is what he meant, but it is not what he said. He was talking about racial elements, not rhetoric encouraging violence at rallies. And he said taking to another level but didn't specify violence at the rallies (he mention the guy, but that was in reference to the point at which he was alarmed, not to what he was worried about specifically, which is a part of the questioning).

So, there are still other elements within that post you haven't addressed, if you would like to address them (but from experience, you won't); however, now comes the question... What are these "real-world consequences" that are so serious that warrant that post as not being a joke?

A person going into a heated climate -- in opposition to tens of thousands whom they are purposefully disrupting -- getting harassed or beaten up, would make it the overstatement of the century to say it pales in comparison to the "real-world" harm that has affected millions if not billions of innocent people prior to Trump. It doesn't even begin to compare. It is beyond being a totally ridiculous statement.


Since they've been relegated to the political fringe.

Yeah, a political fringe that has been managing (better yet totally dominating) politics for the past 40 or so years.

Plus, the Republican Party (and the true masters) created Trump. And they are rejecting Trump as not being far enough to the right. They are basically saying they are going to collectively sabotage his campaign, and are already starting to do so in the media and in strategy. So, they are even as powerful as to dominate elements of the right they created, meanwhile the left can't even get one candidate, and people want to comment about what has been "relegated to the political fringe".

In a society where Barack Obama (pretty far to the right) is a socialist and Bernie Sanders (New Deal style liberal) is a radical communist, I don't even know if a comment like that deserves a laugh.


He is leaning on jingoism naked xenophobia in his rhetoric whereas other Republicans rely on dogwhistle rhetoric. The result is pretty obvious, with white supremacists saying outright that Trump has been a boon to their recruiting.

So, in your world: white supremacists/nationalists = far-right?

So we can ignore all of the people who are not nationalists and supremacists, while also ignoring that even those groups can support different policies in other areas.


Because Trump's rise and popularity has been helping violent white nationalists organize and recruit, which brings with it the very real chance that they can become an actual threat and carry out mass racist and anti-worker violence on top of the status quo, "behind the scenes" racist and anti-worker violence in America (e.g. mass incarceration).

Well, it is great to know that "mass incarceration" is not an "actual threat" (and forget all of the other stuff). And that white nationalist want to harm workers. All this time I thought they disliked blacks, gays, Jews and Mexicans, but that must have been because those were the only groups with jobs.

It is also good to know that they are going to pass laws that makes violence legal and violent hate crimes come with rewards.

And it is also good to know that until Trump there has been no racially charged, violent attacks or crimes, and that workers haven't been targeted negatively.

And that the vast majority of the country is going to disappear to allow for this.


What you said before is word salad, honestly.

And it is a surprise that the person who was incapable of jumbling together a logically coherent statement would also fail to question their level of reading comprehension.

[Cliff Paul]

shrug


That is different than what you have been saying. It is different to say that he has overt rhetoric, versus leading to "real...consequences". And, maybe that is what he meant, but it is not what he said. He was talking about racial elements, not rhetoric encouraging violence at rallies. And he said taking to another level but didn't specify violence at the rallies (he mention the guy, but that was in reference to the point at which he was alarmed, not to what he was worried about specifically, which is a part of the questioning).

Not doing this. You know what I meant in my post.


So, there are still other elements within that post you haven't addressed, if you would like to address them (but from experience, you won't); however, now comes the question... What are these "real-world consequences" that are so serious that warrant that post as not being a joke?

A person going into a heated climate -- in opposition to tens of thousands whom they are purposefully disrupting -- getting harassed or beaten up, would make it the overstatement of the century to say it pales in comparison to the "real-world" harm that has affected millions if not billions of innocent people prior to Trump. It doesn't even begin to compare. It is beyond being a totally ridiculous statement.


As a point of suggestion, please stop acting like an asshole. I'm sure you are capable of debating with others without acting like a pretentious snob. I can say from experience it doesn't help and people just tune you out when you act that way.

Secondly, there are already several examples of Trump's message having "real-world" consequences. Last summer there was the two men in Boston who beat and urinated on a Hispanic man, telling police officers afterwards “Donald Trump was right, all these illegals need to be deported”. There's been cases of high school students using Trump's name or rhetoric to bully and intimidate Hispanic students. There was the marine recruit who was expelled for attacking an African-American female at a Trump rally. And then there's whatever the fuck happened in Chicago. (There's probably more but these are just the ones I remember so far.) Taken in isolation these incidents don't mean shit but together they show an unsettling trend. I mentioned the Anthony Cage example in particular because previously I had largely dismissed talk of Trump instigating racial violence as alarmist, liberal drivel but I no longer think that the argument is without warrant.

On a different note, apparently Trump is thinking about paying the legal fees for the guy who sucker-punched Anthony Cage, talking about how he's a passionate guy who obviously loves his country.

[#FF0000]

That is different than what you have been saying. It is different to say that he has overt rhetoric, versus leading to "real...consequences". And, maybe that is what he meant, but it is not what he said.

Yeah it's pretty strange that you're commenting on my reading comprehension if you read Cliff Paul's post and don't understand that he's saying that he's concerned with the physical consequences of Trump's racist rhetoric, even when he references a black protester who was bloodied.


What are these "real-world consequences" that are so serious that warrant that post as not being a joke? Mass racist violence by organized fascist/racist/nativist/populist groups.


A person going into a heated climate...It's that, on top of the fact that, like I said earlier, white-nationalist organizations have been growing, thanks to Trump.


Yeah, a political fringe that has been managing (better yet totally dominating) politics for the past 40 or so years.
No, I mean radical nationalists, fascists, neo-nazis, etc.


Plus, the Republican Party (and the true masters) created Trump. And they are rejecting Trump as not being far enough to the right. They are basically saying they are going to collectively sabotage his campaign, and are already starting to do so in the media and in strategy. So, they are even as powerful as to dominate elements of the right they created, meanwhile the left can't even get one candidate, and people want to comment about what has been "relegated to the political fringe".I don't think that saying "white nationalists are part of the political fringe" is the same as saying "communists are not".


So, in your world: white supremacists/nationalists = far-right?Yes I think that's fair to say. Others would disagree and say they're "radical centrists" but I don't think that's true. I think that position rests on the idea that free-market ideals are inherently right wing, which ignores the love-hate relationship the Right has had with economic liberalism.


So we can ignore all of the people who are not nationalists and supremacists, while also ignoring that even those groups can support different policies in other areas. What do you mean here, exactly?


Well, it is great to know that "mass incarceration" is not an "actual threat" (and forget all of the other stuff).Speaking of reading comprehension, I never said this.


And that white nationalist want to harm workers. All this time I thought they disliked blacks, gays, Jews and Mexicans, but that must have been because those were the only groups with jobs. You may be surprised to know that fascist and nativist groups like the KKK have, historically, not been great fans of unions and labor organizers.


It is also good to know that they are going to pass laws that makes violence legal and violent hate crimes come with rewards.
You may also be shocked to know that murder has been a crime as long as the United States has been a country, and that it did nothing to stop organized mass violence against workers and people of color by non-state actors.


And it is also good to know that until Trump there has been no racially charged, violent attacks or crimes, and that workers haven't been targeted negatively. Ah, another thing I didn't say. What I actually said is that Trump's campaign is helping the growth of the organized radical right, which opens the door to mass racist and anti-worker violence on top of the violence which already exists in the United States.


And it is a surprise that the person who was incapable of jumbling together a logically coherent statement would also fail to question their level of reading comprehension.oh boy the irony.

[Cliff Paul]

*Actually Trump is thinking about paying for the legal fees for the guy who punched Rakeem Jones not Anthony Cage (can't edit posts because revleft is acting up as usual). Hard to keep track of all the racist shit that goes down during Trump rallies.

[Comrade #138672]

I find the apologetics of Verneinung very disturbing. I really hope I am misunderstanding something in his posts.

[#FF0000]

he's just being pedantic -- not defending Trump or any of this nonsense.

[Comrade #138672]

I'm afraid it's more than just being pedantic. He seems really defensive about white nationalists.

[PikSmeet]

I'm afraid it's more than just being pedantic. He seems really defensive about white nationalists.

Can you quote any evidence that Trump is a white nationalist?

[#FF0000]

I don't know what it is about this thread but everyone in it is doing a really bad job of reading what people say

[Counterculturalist]

I don't know what it is about this thread but everyone in it is doing a really bad job of reading what people say

Mass outbreak of deliberate obtusity?

[#FF0000]

Mass outbreak of deliberate obtusity?

are you calling me stupid?

[Counterculturalist]

are you calling me stupid?

Please provide a citation to prove your contention that my next-door neighbor is a white nationalist.

[Lord Testicles]

are you calling me stupid?


Please provide a citation to prove your contention that my next-door neighbor is a white nationalist.

It's surprising that both of you would support the North Korean state.

[Burzhuin]

Yea, to call each other names it is easier than to defend your point by arguments.

[Cliff Paul]

Yea, to call each other names it is easier than to defend your point by arguments.

Don't tell me you are going to start now with this shit

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't think we can seriously say there is a fascist movement in the US, but Trump is a focal point for elements that would be the building-blocks for a fascist movement. And there are fascist elements, and they are rallying to Trump, but not explicitly being organized into a movement (beyond getting Trump elected).

The Republican party has used churches and far-right "culture-war" groups like the NRA to organize their supporters. But many of these groups are disoriented and willing to break from the RNC if Trump appears popular enough (they don't want to also be rejected by the middle-class and racist white working class induviduals).

Sanders is also rallying elements that could become the basis for reform movements, but he is also not organizing them; and the electoral organizing he's doing just goes back into the Democratic party that supports all the things that have led to the political polarization we are seeing (urban Democratic Politicians are the enforcers of racist policing, gentrification - i.e. increased inequality in cities, and mass-incarceration - national Democratic figures are the best pushers of US intervention and neoliberalism).

But Clinton has the backing of the DNC's "grassroots" in using the carrot of "access" to rally local NGOs and "community groups" and black churches, etc. This is who her "realism" argument is directed at and aside from a few of the more liberal unions, she has these groups locked-up.

So organization is the issue. Trump is rallying right-wing orgs to the right because he's doubling-down on the dog-whistle racism that Republicans use to rally people. Meanwhile, the pro-Labor, anti-oppression liberal groups are also being rallied to the right and people who don't are being rallied to a politician who will not fight like Trump would (against his own party) and will tell his supporters to support Clinton.

[Invader Zim]

Even if it is true regarding Trump's demographic, the key factor you're ignoring is the reinvigorated Fascism as it exists among this generation. And I mean THIS generation specifically, people who are my age and especially people who are many years younger. You're right regarding the fact that Trump is a reaction. But that's exactly the point. This is how it is, and how it always has been for reactionaries. And I've said it before: Trump represents something that is beyond him and his campaign. It is something new, I don't even have to point to Europe to prove this fact - the reality of where Trump is aligned as it concerns global politics. The political discourse Trump represents is as new and as fresh as any other, and as a 'political discourse' it specifically refers to the death of politics itself. He's our berlusconi. Our Putin. Our Orban.

How is a 'Trump suppporter' even measured, first and foremost? Pollings? Sorry, but this doesn't reflect the reality for us Americans on the ground regarding the discourse that Trump represents. It simply doesn't - that only 2% of those who are for Trump are bellow 30, that is a laughable notion for anyone who... Simply talks to people. If trump was the last dying breath of something which is inevitably going to be trampled on by the march of history, he wouldn't actually mean something in US political discourse - he wouldn't be as significant as he is. Of course let me be more clear: It's unlikely that Trump, as he is now, can adequately represent a future for the US. He is an incomplete reaction as far as taking power is concerned. Trump will either through the course of a potential presidency fuse himself with 'Silicon Valley' reaction or he won't be president at all. And I hear there are rumors (http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/14/silicon-valley-elites-speak-highly-of-donald-trump-but-only-in-private/) (from reactionaries themselves) that tech elites are actually quite fond of Trump and what he could represent (his technocratic anti-politics), but disagree with him over his immigration policies.

Nevermind 'trump and his supporters'. Just look at American political discourse and look at the impact Trump has had. Look at the impact Trump has had on the politics of everyday, ordinary Americans and how they see the world. Look at what he represents for the new generation of Fascists here in the United States, the so-called 'alt-right'.

It's not even that I'm crazy. Go on google and search 'alt-right'. You are telling me this is something marginal? Even major news outlets are now forced to recognize it. And yes, it is almost PURELY a phenomena of this generation. If they aren't fully behind Trump - which is contestable - they are only not behind him for the same reason certain leftists aren't behind Sanders.

And Trump's support is withering on the vine. As it was always going to.

What a shock.

[Rafiq]

Unrelated: Have still been working on that post. It is taking far longer than I expected because I am putting a great deal of consideration and detail into it, constantly editing, adding, etc. I am not working on it non-stop either, but in increments of 2-5 hours, and not every day either (I have simply been busy). I would say it is 2/3rds complete.


And Trump's support is withering on the vine. As it was always going to.

What a shock.

You seem to not be reading what you have quoted:

Of course let me be more clear: It's unlikely that Trump, as he is now, can adequately represent a future for the US. He is an incomplete reaction as far as taking power is concerned

Let us assume Trump's campaign is losing steam. Trump's effect on actual American political discourse and what he represents ideologically not only remains unchanged, but has been strengthened (because those limitations are now recognized and have to be dealt with by the reaction, which is far from subdued). You seem to be under the impression that Trump's limitations are the limitations of the reaction in general that he only generally represents. That kind of naivety is not warranted by Trump losing steam, because it is quite obvious that if his campaign is indeed losing momentum, this is not owed to what he represents being subdued by more 'progressive' politics but is owed to the fact that there are definite limitations to how Trump himself can represent it.

These include that first and foremost Trump's politics fails to find appeal in any sections of the ruling class (as opposed to his rivals), represents the discontent of the small capitalists. It seems paradoxical: Trumps' entire aesthetic seems to contradict his populist appeal. But this is because his 'billionaire' aesthetic is quite cheap, vulgar and outdated, the class he represents are no longer the real top dogs. Trumps' significance is that he is the bridge between 'mainstream' and reactionary discourse, but it has yet to be fully crossed.

When Trump falls, something much uglier will inevitably take his place, even and especially if it is more 'politically correct' (i.e. openly racist, yes, but 'politely' and 'professionally', in a way that is not seen as a vulgar expression of past prejudice but speaks the language of the actuality of racism as it is reproduced now). Trump is an umbrella for something irreducible to him. It is similar to the 'rogue states' of Hungary and Russia. Both countries have reactionaries in power, and yet there is still a darkness that lurks beneath them which is concealed by their on-the-surface banality. In Hungary's case, we have Jobbik. Russia has the most, and probably the most active Fascists in the world, there is a darkness to the political underworld there, that sometimes it seems (or is meant to) like Putin is simply a normal guy but that the very dark political discourse under him, that he attempts to subdue or conceal bleeds through him.

In any case it could very well be that Trump is only a short glimpse of what is to come. That does not change the nature of the glimpse. And to clarify, glimpses of what is to come are not just reserved for the reaction but are to be found even in mainstream politicians like Obama and Clinton. Obama's significance, as well as Hillary's, was as a mediator between new developments and the old. To paraphrase him in an interview, he claims that what was most shocknig to his ascension to presidency was how outpaced (by the tech and digital industries) state-infrastructure had become. This should be read deeper: It reflects how social relations have emerged that the state has not yet conformed or adjusted to. Yet everything points to the precarious nature of the relationship between the state and 'tech': Google is almost a sub-government of its own (this much has been revealed by, for example, Assange (https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/)), and the example of google and its significance is that while it is intertwined with the American state apparatus it also has a particular interest that is not inevitably aligned with that of the American state. The interests of Silicon valley and the state merely align with each other, but in a contingent way. What, besides the recent controversy between Apple and the federal government, serves to better illustrate this? An increasing discourse of 'looking past partisanship' and 'uniting the country', i.e. 'doing what works' at the expense of our 'biases' and so on you can even see in Obama and Clinton.

Recently Obama said something which is almost incredible. It highlights precisely the decline of democracy today. To quote a recent article:

“So often in the past there has been a division between left and right, between capitalists and communists or socialists, and especially in the Americas, that’s been a big debate,” Obama said during a town hall meeting in Buenos Ares.

“Those are interesting intellectual arguments, but I think for your generation, you should be practical, and just choose from what works,” Obama continued. “You don’t have to worry about whether it neatly fits into socialist theory or capitalist theory. You should just decide what works.”

What this kind of talk represents is that no longer do we even choose or debate about the framework of the very standard of 'working'. And that is precisely what surrounds the appeal of Trump, because he has simply taken this to a cultural conclusion. The last vestige of democracy is in what we might call 'political correctness', but what happens when 'political correctness' gets in the way of 'efficiency' and 'making things work'? What happens where all that stands in thew way of 'getting things done' (i.e. 'making things work') is our meager, 'biased' 'PC" sensibilities which are increasingly practically worthless for capital and the new forms of rent-profit especially? Sure, perhaps Trump wouldn't actually viably 'make things work' in the eyes of those in power, but his significance is that he has challenged political correctness in favor of 'making things work' (no matter if he can do this or not himself), of 'cutting the bullshit', etc.. Trump's anti-politics is not unique to him.


Changes in the essential conditions of life are yet to be fully accounted for politically today. It is not inevitable that we enter a new Fascism, but this is the spontaneous trajectory path (meaning WE must stop it WILLFULLY). The 'superstructure' will collapse or completely be transformed. Trump, ultimately, represents its volatility.

[Antiochus]

Bingo. The highlighted parts anyway. One of the key elements of fascism is the rejection of political identity ("we are neither of the right or of the left,,,, we have superseded them"). This is exactly what millions already say. This is what my father says. Despite being a reactionary he contests that "ideology is a lie" and 'pragmatism' is what must be embraced.

Now, imagine the Trump movement in the hands of someone who is actually a bit less of a clown and far more able to fuse together technocratic and reactionary sentiment together. A better public speaker say. This is partially why there is an obsession in reactionary politics with the "he is a businessman.... government should be run as a business".

As far as Trump losing steam,,, what? Trump will win the nomination in terms of votes/delegates. The only scenario left is to deny him the nomination based on anti-democratic means like delegate machinations and so forth. On April 19th and April 26th, a total of 6 states will vote for the GOP nomination. In all 6 Trump is decidedly ahead in the poll numbers, in the biggest (New York), he is ahead by a margin of 30+ percentage points. Never mind the fact that his closest competitor (Cruz) is behind him by some 200+ delegates.

[AdrianO]

I really hope it wouldn't come down to Trump vs. Clinton, because there is no way I'd ever pick someone who actively caters to the corporations - and I mean Hilary.

[Klaatu]

You are all forgetting the fact that in the US, the president has very limited powers, contrary to what most people think. That is, we need to elect socialists to congress and state legislatures, governors, judicial positions, etc. The far-right wing had realized this more than 30 years ago and have slowly been consolidating their power. And they have been largely successful. Somebody left the door open, and all the bugs got in, so to speak. This is what we are up against, not merely one presidential election.