So...it looks like it will be Clinton vs. Trump

[Rafiq]

So, first, to get it out of the way, please qualify your statements with regard to the context of the situation. Trump in no way can be a fascist, if the word is to have any meaning beyond - a person to whom I am antithetically opposed as a leftist, yet can't properly define them.

First, noticed the careful use of terminology here. I claim that Trump represents a revived Fascism, and I have thoroughly qualified what I mean by this in previous threads. I quite explicitly qualify that Trump's Fascism is irreducible to him as an individual - he represents a new kind of reinvigorated Fascist politics. I have quite explicitly qualified what Fascism is here. Trump the individual, as I stated, is ambiguous - he could be a Fascist, or he could be an incomplete reaction, i.e. in order for Trump himself to be a Fascist, he is going to have to link the 'plebian' reactionary sentiments with the aspirations of a social formation that could actually represent an alternative trajectory path for state-civic society as a whole, and I have claimed earlier that Trump will have to align himself with the 'virtual' or rentier-bourgeoisie - specifically the digitarii of Silicon Valley whose interests are more and more inversely proportional to those of Wall Street in order to truly not only represent but BECOME an alternative force of power - just as Putin is in Russia with the oligarchs. It is commonly thought that Putin's interests are inversely proportional to those of the oligarchs, but in fact whatever tension between Putin and the oligarchs is like the tension between a king and his lords, or even the bourgeoisie against the state who taxes them. In effect the system of oligarchy found absolution in Putin - this is how Putin is able to be in power and not just represent the 'plebian' discontent like Trump does.

Now, as materialists we do not qualify Fascism as the shit-mongering liberals and idealists do. The so-called 'definition' of Fascism in the specific context of Germany and Italy, its aesthetic, or what might superficially be 'similar' to it - in the sense of qualifying it in terms of vague abstractions like "A return to a great empire, 'glorification of war'," and so on, is thoroughly anti-Marxist and formalist. It assumes that formal definitions are enough to contain what is essential about them. Conversely we materialists recognize that what is essential to the word 'Fascism' is irreducible to what can be self-contained in that word alone, it instead relates to essential social and historical phenomena. Meaning, the use of the word Fascism is what is important, not the word itself. What was essential to Fascism both in Germany and Italy, has nothing to do with the outwardly superficial aspects of it - rather what is essential to Fascism as such, relates to the world-historical process and direction of capitalism as it presently exists, on its 'enlightened' trajectory path (i.e. that is, liberal capitalism). Fascism represents something unique to the epoch of enlightenment because it is precisely a deviation from it - it represents its degeneracy. I have written about this extensively here. Fascism is an alternate modernity.

So the context of the use of Fascism is far from arbitrary. It has nothing to do with making pretense to eternal, formal 'definitions' of Fascism that are purported, instead the ESSENTIAL social, ideological processes which underlied and which constituted Fascism during the 20th century, in relation to the teleiosis of capitalism as we know it, is responsible for the qualification of Donald Trump's momentum as Fascistic. What actually made Fascism, Fascism, what made it a world-historical phenomena, is present in the momentum that Donald Trump represents. That is to say, Donald Trump's momentum represents in relation to present day capitalism EXACTLY what Fascism in the 30's represented in relation to the capitalism as it existed then - that it is different in certain ways only reflects the fact that capitalism as such is different, and the conditions of life - both as it concerns the cultural, political, etc. context is different. The social formations that exist today are different.

The idiocy of conflating Trump, or 'categorizing him' in this idealist way - with being the present incarnation of 19th century protectionist populism is a falsity because it fails to understand the genesis and maturity of what is politically and ideologically constitutive of the social antagonism: The expression of ideology has matured and grown in congruence with the increased socialization of labor. For example, to clarify myself, Marx and Engels talked about reactionary socialism. But they weren't talking about some ossified phenomenon - reactionary socialism would meet its final genesis in Fascism, because the maturity of these ideas lead them to push come shove. It is not possible to be the incarnation of 19th century protectionist populism, becasue this ignores the historical developments that have existed since then, which 19th century protectionist populism was unable to own up to and relate itself to. Meanwhile Fascism constitutes something universal to capitalism, no matter its particular incarnation, what makes Fascism Fasicsm for us is its relation to the world-historical trajectory path of capitalism. Fascism is different across history. And likewise dealing with Fascism today is different from dealing with it before. Before, the 'hegemonic' social formation of Fascism was the industrial capitalist class.

Today, this hegemonic social formation is the class of rent - the digitarii, and the oligarchs, who are 'non-productive', i.e. rent collecting as a result of increased technological automation. These are distinct, quite distinct, from the finance-capitalist class which was responsible for neoliberalism. This represents something new.

In the present epoch of capitalism, history is acausal. You are either a Communist, for the status quo (to whatever degree) or you are a Fascist. What you fail to understand is that the nature of reaction has sophisticated and has been forced to assume its highest conclusions. The past has already happened.

You use the term reactionary, but reactionary has a completely different context within both developed bourgeois society, as well as between different political situations. When you are talking about reactionaries in the US, for example, which was a country founded on liberal, democratic-republican principles, you are talking about a return within the framework of bourgeois liberalism. This is evinced, really made blatantly obvious, by the fact that the people with whom we are dealing, themselves are dealing specifically with the purity and fantasy of the so-called "free-market", and/or they are anti-corporatism, anti-establishment, anti-cronyism, or whatever other nonsensical terms that expose that they have zero understanding of capital (or are lying/have been lied to).

The specific historical circumstances of a country's national character is an interchangeable cosmetic, that effectively does not mean anything as far as what is essential about reaction is concerned. Again, you are here conceiving history in terms of the history of formally defined ideas, but this fails to acknowledge the precise nature of reaction: Reaction in the united states is only COSMETICALLY representing a return to the foundational principles of the United States. To end it there, is to again ignore the social dimension of making a pretense to the 'founding myth' of state civic society. That is, what does it mean for the real social formations as they exist in the here and now, to make a pretense to what they conceive to be the foundational myth of state-civic society? You see the assumption of the idealists is that it is at the expense of the real conditions of state civic society that people possess ideas which just 'happen' to be reactionary in its context. But you fail to understand that the only reason that reactionaries in 2016 can talk about the founding myth of state civic society is owed to the conditions of state civic society as they exist in 2016. Reactionaries are not taking a step back and looking at the holistic picture of American history - they are insisting upon the founding myth of the United States precisely because this founding myth constitutes the hegemonic conditions of state-civic society as they exist now.

You allot them too much and your understanding of the nature of reaction is shallow precisely because you assume outright that 'corporatism', the 'establishment', and so-called 'cronyism' are inevitably betrayals of the historical foundation of the United States. The precise nature of what constitutes the betrayal of the 'original principle' in any society for that matter, relates to the precise nature of the reaction. The petty bourgeoisie are going to inevitably emphasize certain aspects of the 'founding myth' of a country, and this is what makes them reactionary - not some insistence on a return to the late 18th century that is real, but an insistence upon a sacred which constitutes civil society as the basis of ones opposition to it. This is precisely what defines reaction: A reactionary is PRECISELY a reactionary because they oppose the existing order, but in such a way that insists upon a sacred that constitutes it. A sacred, is precisely those superstitions which reproduce the existing social order ideologically - which reproduce the social order in ways that don't allow us to conceive the social order in a way that allows real knowledge of it.

The precise cosmetic nature of this sacred, just like the precise aesthetic nature of Fascism, is dependent upon the cosmetic and aesthetic character of a country, but as far as what is historically and essentially constitutive of that country, it is nothing but a superficiality. Each nation relates to the world-historical universality that it forms a part of, in their own particular ways. Fascism will not look the same in America compared to Fascism in Turkey, or Fascism in Egypt will not look the same as Fascism in France. All this word 'Fascism' means is the common and essential universal relation to the universality of capitalism, that all capitalist societies embody. The reason it is Fascism has nothing to do with 'doctrine' or any of that nonsense. What Mussolini said about Fascism doesn't actually mean shit. The point is: What was essentially constitutive of this Fascism, and how does that express itself in other nations? The point is: Fascism is an attempted escape from the trajectory path of modernity that leads us to Communism, that leads discontent and opposition to the status quo, in ways that ultimately reproduce it. Old traditional bursts of reaction had no hegemonic potential in the past - because they were precisely spontaneous oppositions to the ruling order. When they become capable of assuming an entirely new ruling order, they become Fascistic.

Their insistence upon the founding myth of the United States is precisely because this founding myth constitutes state-civic scoeity - that is, neoliberal, 'corporatist' American capitalism, itself. They are opposing the ruling conditions of life but in such a way that insists upon one of the various superstitions which reproduces it. THAT is what defines reaction - and what defines this reaction as Fascist or not, has nothing to do with this or that 'ideal' qualification, it has to do with whether this reaction can own up to the whole extent of modernity by owning up to the highest conditions of ruling consciousness. Hence Fascism is a reactionary modernism, it is an attempt to simultaneously appease mass discontent with the ruling order by safeguarding certain sacreds while reconciling this with the status quo. Fascism is when reaction actually manages to seize power and reproduce that power. So when I say that Trump represents a new kind of Fascism, I do not mean that he himself IS inevitably a Fascist, but that he represents precisely the necessary step towards actual Fascism, he represents a new Fascism because he embodies discontent with the existing order channeled in a reactionary way, whose success or failure depends upon whether it can truly become a new Fascism.

To go back, and to give another example as to why you can't even come close to having this in America, in comparison to China, Russia, Germany, Italy, etc.: in the US, what do they even call what I already described as a part of the reactionary flavor? - libertarian. Some of these same people are completely on our side when it comes to foreign policy, civil rights, civil liberties, government, corporations, etc.

No, I insist we compare libertarianism to Fascism as it expresses itself in Russia, Germany or Italy. You claim that 'some of these people are compositely on our side when it comes to foreign policy, civil rights, civil liberties, government, corporations'. In what way is this different from how European Fascists, both in the past and the present, are also in this superficial way 'on our side' (in most abstract fashion) with regard to the side that Leftists in those countries take? There is no difference whatsoever in that sense! You clearly pay no attention to the actual political rhetoric of Fascists in those states - they ARE against global capital, in France FN is directly opposed to Austerity, Fsacists in Russia are often DIRECTLY opposed to the oligarchs, in Germany Fascists are opposed to austerity measures, are opposed to the big bourgeoisie, and so on. Your reasoning is so pathetic: The same stupidity of "We're all brothers! Left and right, we are united!" is MORE SO present in Europe than the US. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE, all it shows is the Fascistic nature of 'libertarianism', all it shows is that what is particular about libertarianism is cosmetic and nothing more: It relates to the same essential phenomena that working people oppose in a reactionary way, that ultimately benefits those in power and specifically the decaying bourgeois classes (petite bourgeoisie, national, non-globalist bourgeoisie, ETC.). You fail to understand the catch:

Yes, they are isolationists. But this also translates to a further insistence upon borders, and disallows further solidarity with other working classes of other nations. It translates into the reactionary anti-globalism that constitutes every outburst of reaction in the 21st century. Globalism is double edged sword. Remember Lenin in hte context of Imperialism:

Imperialism is as much our “mortal” enemy as is capitalism. That is so. No Marxist will forget, however, that capitalism is progressive compared with feudalism, and that imperialism is progressive compared with pre-monopoly capitalism. Hence, it is not every struggle against imperialism that we should support. We will not support a struggle of the reactionary classes against imperialism; we will not support an uprising of the reactionary classes against imperialism and capitalism.

And the same goes for the national sovereignty of the national bourgeoisie with regard to globalist capital: We oppose the national bourgoeisie and we regard global capital as, in comparison to the pre-globalist, protectionist national-capitalism as progressive. Putinite anti-globalism is reactionary.

Yes, they are for so-called 'civil rights'. But that can also translate to the 'right' in the face of the state to discriminate against blacks and gays in their businesses. Yes, they are for 'civil liberties'. But this easily translates into the right to 'free speech' for them - in particular at places like university campuses, as an opposition to 'political correctness'. Yes, they oppose the government - but this opposition is really an opposition to our 'democracy' - our ability to collectively effect the policy making decisions of the state, whether that is more welfare, higher taxes for the bloodsuckers, and so on, against the interests of the petite-bourgeoisie and the big bourgeoisie. It goes on - you abstract the nature of these vague oppositions from their real reactionary context. No they are not on our side - NOT TO ANY DEGREE WHATSOEVER is there ANY common ground between us and them. They are precisely our enemies BECAUSE they oppose the ruling order - but in such a way that makes impossible its super-session.

This is why Libertarianism finds a spectrum in the United States: from the 'plebian' Ron Paul libertarianism to the explicitly Fascist 'dark enlightenment', and ruling libertarian discourse falls somewhere in between and is more and more shifting towards the latter end. Take one ignorant worker who ascribes to Libertarian ideas. Isolate those ideas and take those ideas to their highest conclusion. At the end of the road you will find explicit calls for the destruction of democracy, privatization of all things, establishing a 'national CEO' instead of a president, explicit pseudo-scientific racism, and an unapolegetic disconetnet for those same 'unwashed masses'. You see the worker libertarian is a toady, an underlying, who salvages what piece of 'dignity' that this reaction allows he can, permanently ashamed of his inability to enter the ranks of the ruling classes. The worker-libertarian, is like the slave who betters himself by being closer and more obedient to his master, salvaging what scraps that he can so that he might have a piece of the life of the 'master'.

You fail to understand that the discontent they are relating to, is not of their creation - they are relating to an essential mass discontent with the ruling order WHICH EXISTS independently of them. What that means is that we must oppose the Fascists, the 'libertarians' with far more ferocity than we even oppose the 'status quo', because unlike the ruling liberal order the Fascists DIRECTLY insist upon the social antagonism in a way that disallows consciousness of it. The ruling order - in comparison is 'neutral' in the sense that it does not even regard mass discontent towards capitalism, it instead denies and seeks to repress it all together.

This is why you arrive at a disgusting and reactionary position on the matter:

Now, just to mention, at the end. Hillary (and neoliberalism) is the most extreme, reactionary form of the bourgeoisie within the context of our liberal, democratic-totalitarian society.

And one is tempted to say this derives from your lack of imagination. The nonsense of this kind of reasoning is that it is ahistorical: Why wasn't New Deal era welfare capitalism 'the most extreme, reactionary form of the bourgeoisie' as some stupid Leftists tried to say back then (Where today, to insist on policies that were simply a given in the 60's is a radical act)? Why wasn't pre-Fascist liberal-democratic imperialism the 'most reactionary form of the bourgeoisie'? Within the context of our liberal democratic society, reaction is only possible if it represents an opposition to the ruling conditions of this context of liberal-democratic society. You are simply ignorant as it concerns our present predicament: Hillary is not only not an 'extreme' reactionary, she is not even a reactionary at all, because she PERFECTLY REPRESENTS THE 'ORGANIC' TRAJECTORY PATH OF THE RULING CONDITIONS, of the status quo, she is precisely not a reactionary at all because she is the object of reaction itself - she embodies the object that which the reactionaries themselves are reacting to.

Leftists have this idiotic notion that the ruling order, the ruling class, is constantly reacting to their 'true Socialism'. As if Hillary Clinton gives a fuck about your 'true socialism'. She does not, I promise. She goes to bed and wakes up in the morning without even thinking once about it. There is nothing they are reacting to. They are not reactionaries because you are not a formidable force enough for them to react to. Meanwhile the actual reaction is reactionary insofar as it opposes the prevailing and hegemonic conditions of state-civic society in capitalism, culturally, politically and socially.

A Communist has no sacreds but the Communist movement, the self-discipline that embodies Communism, the real self-conscious individuals are all that we insist upon, ourselves, and those who we will 'convert' - that is it, that is all we have. We make no pretense to trans-historic principles or beautiful words, we make no pretense to eternal ideas that exist at the expense of men and women and the real conditions of life they face, we Communists are Communists because we are historically self-conscious, we subject our conditions of life to scientific knowledge, and thus, we alone embody the aufheben of the ruling order of things, because we directly assume what is essential about the constitution of the real conditions of life in a CONSCIOUS and DIRECT manner - through our insistence upon the proletariat as the revolutionary class, we supersede capitalism because now our opposition to capitalism no longer makes pretense to any constitutive sacred of it, but precisely an INSISTENCE upon capitalism by being socially conscious of it. We own up to capitalism, by directly being conscious of those essential things which constitute it, and this consciousness is the overthrow of capitalism itself, capitalism which can only exist insofar as it disallows direct social consciousness of it (i.e. social planning).

[ckaihatsu]

Chicano students tell Hillary Clinton to get out of East LA

By staff



Los Angeles, CA - On May 5, students and community members protested the visit of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Clinton spoke to supporters on the East Los Angeles College (ELAC) campus Thursday afternoon. 500 protesters demanding she leave the campus marched on the gymnasium where she spoke.

Protesters gathered in nearby Belvedere Park and marched to the campus chanting “Deport Hillary!” “Hillary fuera! Fuera de East LA!” and “Chicano power!” Once on campus they were met by East LA sheriffs. Many of the sheriffs were on horseback. Many police helicopters hovered overhead. As the protesters kept chanting they gathered on campus for a round of speeches. After the speeches, they marched on the gymnasium and were met by barricades and more police.

Irving Grey Angeles, one of the organizers with MEXA de ELAC said, “The message is clear. She represents the 1%. She gives closed door speeches to Wall Street for hundreds of thousands of dollars and won't release the transcripts. She has called for the deportation of undocumented people, even children. As a working-class and immigrant community, clearly, she does not have our best interests at heart. In a classic display of pandering, she decides to visit us on 5 de Mayo. We're not having that. The protest brought out hundreds of students and community members who are tired of being lied to and misled by opportunist politicians. All power to the people!”

A few protesters went into the event and chanted during her speech. Clinton's speech was cut short by ten minutes and she was forced to leave early. As Clinton supporters filed out of the event, the protesters kept chanting: “Hey hey ho ho! Hillary Clinton's got to go!” “Vendidos!” and “Sell-outs!”

Long time Chicano activist Carlos Montes said, “We're not going to get Chicano political power through Hillary Clinton or the elections. We need to keep organizing and fight for equality and self-determination!”

Read more News and Views from the Peoples Struggle at http://www.fightbacknews.org. You can write to us at [email protected]

- - - Updated - - -

Immigrant rights group announces support for anti-Trump march at RNC

By staff



Los Angeles, CA - The Legalization for All Network (L4A Network) announced its support today, May 7, for the Dump Trump protest that will take place on the opening day of the Cleveland Republican National Convention, July 18. The Legalization for All Network is national network of immigrant rights organizations that fights against discrimination and advocates legalization for all undocumented people in the U.S.

Carlos Montes, of the Legalization for All Network states, "Dump Trump and his racist attacks must be our call to action! His rhetoric of hate is blaming immigrants, especially Latinos, for the suffering of working people. This suffering is in fact caused by the billionaire class that Trump represents. We say ‘Dump Trump’ and march on the RNC.”

Montes is a veteran leader of the Chicano and immigrant rights movements. He played a prominent role in the 2008 RNC protests in St. Paul and in the 2012 RNC protest in Tampa, Florida.

To view the Facebook event for the protest: https://www.facebook.com/events/574059672757617/

Read more News and Views from the Peoples Struggle at http://www.fightbacknews.org. You can write to us at [email protected]

[Homo Songun]

"You can only afford to not vote because you are white, privelged, etc."

The funny thing is that the people that left-liberals claim to be helping out are precisely the ones that don't care in the first place. Voter turnout amongst the poor and people of color is shit because they recognize that politicians don't act in their interest and don't care about them.

I agree with this observation 100%. Change never originates with the ballot. At the same time, I resolutely defend voting rights, especially for traditionally disenfranchised groups. Shit is like all dialectical and stuff.

To the OP's point I think there is a very real chance Hillary withdraws from the race prior to November because FBI partyvan. The Clintons are immensely powerful, but there really are clearcut violations of the law on the part of Hillary and co. despite what the true believers say.

[ckaihatsu]

I agree with this observation 100%.

Change never originates with the ballot. At the same time, I resolutely defend voting rights, especially for traditionally disenfranchised groups. Shit is like all dialectical and stuff.

I'll just note that this kind of thing -- voting rights in the bourgeois arena -- can be seen in terms of politics-strategies-tactics. Of course we support reforms like enfranchisement, but we'd never base our *politics* (principles) on such reformism.

[Homo Songun]

I'll just note that this kind of thing -- voting rights in the bourgeois arena -- can be seen in terms of politics-strategies-tactics. Of course we support reforms like enfranchisement, but we'd never base our *politics* (principles) on such reformism.

What is so heinous about supporting bourgeois-democratic suffrage in "principle"? I unashamedly do so. I have no illusions about its built-in limitations.

[ckaihatsu]

What is so heinous about supporting bourgeois-democratic suffrage in "principle"? I unashamedly do so. I have no illusions about its built-in limitations.

Well, that sounds like something of a *contradiction* -- would a person's principles have 'limitations' -- ?

Sure, struggles for reforms can have revolutionary implications, so there's never a good reason to *summarily* write off such struggles, but the question can soon become 'What is anyone doing about *revolutionary* issues' -- it's about priorities, as with anything.

And with the issue of *suffrage* in particular anyone who *does* take the bourgeois-arena vote seriously is now looking at a real possibility of either Clinton or Trump, so there's that. (Does the Sanders camp have a 'hard-left' wing that agitates for his presidency for the sake of *world revolution* -- ?)

[Homo Songun]

Well, that sounds like something of a *contradiction* -- would a person's principles have 'limitations' -- ?

I meant the limitations of bourgeois elections, of course.

[ckaihatsu]

Permits demanded for “Dump Trump” rally and march for first day of RNC

By staff

Minneapolis, MN - The Coalition to Stop Trump and March on the RNC applied for permits from the City of Cleveland May 10, for a major protest July 18, the first day of the Republican National Convention (RNC). The protest will put forward the slogans, “Dump Trump, Say No to the Republican Agenda,” and “We Demand Peace, Justice and Equality.”

Tom Burke, a spokesperson for Coalition to Stop Trump and March on the RNC states, “We have now applied for permits to march on the RNC and we insist that the permits are granted in a timely manner. We have a right to protest Trump and his racist, reactionary agenda, and that is exactly what we will do on the opening day of the Republican National Convention.”

Mick Kelly, also of the Coalition to Stop Trump and March on the RNC, added, “While the coalition wants permits to ensure the broadest participation in the protest, we will march permits or not.”

The Coalition to Stop Trump and March on the RNC permit application is for a rally at Cleveland Public Square followed by a march down Ontario Street to the Quicken Loans Arena – the site of the RNC.

According to a statement from protest organizers, “Activists from around the country will be converging on Cleveland, Ohio, July 18, the opening day of the Republican National Convention. Inside the convention hall, Republicans will promote their agenda of bigotry, racist discrimination, Islamophobia, war and austerity. On the streets of Cleveland, we will demand peace, justice and equality.”

Many of the organizers of this protest helped lead the mass marches that drew thousands at the 2008 RNC in Saint Paul, Minnesota and the 2012 RNC in Tampa, Florida.

Read more News and Views from the Peoples Struggle at http://www.fightbacknews.org. You can write to us at [email protected]

[ckaihatsu]

Nationwide support for “Dump Trump” rally and march on first day of RNC

By staff

Cleveland, OH - The anti-Trump rally that’s being organized by the Coalition to Stop Trump and March on the RNC on July 18, day one of the Republican National Convention (RNC), is gaining the backing of progressive organizations across the U.S.

Tom Burke, a spokesperson for the Coalition to Stop Trump and March on the RNC states, “Organizations are contacting us every day, telling us that want to join this march, and to let the world know that we will stand up to racist, anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim attacks.”

Over the past week, chapters of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) at Pennsylvania’s West Chester University; the University of MN; Houston, TX; Tampa Bay, FL and Tallahassee, FL have announced their support for the protest.

The Chicago Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression, which is leading the fight for community control of Chicago’s police has also decided to back the march on the RNC.

Other groups backing the protest include the Welfare Rights Committee, MN Anti-War Committee, Anti-war Committee Chicago, L.U.P.E - Tucson, AZ, Los Angeles’s Centro CSO, Legalzation for All Network, and the Minnesota Immigrant Rights Action Committee (MIRAC).

Mick Kelly, also of the Coalition to Stop Trump and March on the RNC states, “We expect thousands to join us for the march on the RNC. We have applied for permits, and expect to get them, but we plan on marching whether we get them or not.”

The protest will put forward the slogans, “Dump Trump, Say No to the Republican Agenda, Stand Against Racist, Anti-Immigrant, and Anti-Muslim Attacks,” and “We Demand Peace, Justice and Equality.”

Many of the organizers of this protest helped lead the mass marches that drew thousands at the 2008 RNC in Saint Paul, Minnesota and the 2012 RNC in Tampa, Florida.

Read more News and Views from the Peoples Struggle at http://www.fightbacknews.org. You can write to us at [email protected]

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

could a donald trump presidency mean a blow to the evil empire from within? could he be america's nero or something? i mean, if he does half the shit he says hell do, itll be disastrous for everyone... workers, capitalists, women, immigrants, et al. imagine that man as head of state... will western capitalism as we know it ever recover? the mere fact that hes been nominated and brought his lunacy to the mainstream is a sign that the end is nigh for american bourgeois democracy imo. discuss

[bluetortilla]

I have not read through the whole thread and I'm new around here but I believe it a grave mistake to underestimate the dangers of a Trump presidency. I don't think I need to spell that out to anyone here. I also find it reckless to sit back and watch what happens.
I am very skeptical of the unstated suggestion that a Trump Presidency will be easier to fight because of the chaos it will create (my interpretation). Chaotic political situations usually mean more bloodshed, and could mean a slamdown on any descent. With Clinton it will be business as usually and easier to continue our work, albeit the wheels will grind slower. For the victims of 'hot combat' imperialism, I can only see Trump as being worse (kill free trade agreements and 'bomb every square inch' of the enemy). Accordingly, I will vote for Clinton in hopes of slowing Trump, and hope that Sanders is the VP. That being said, if it's rigged it's rigged, but then again, how do we know the extent to which elections are rigged? Especially with Trump. A great many GOP people never expected to see him as the nominee, and at this writing are publicly showing their disdain.
Finally, I don't see Trump as a populist at all; he's an opportunist who cares for no one but his self and power. You might be able to say that about just about any nominee but Trump is particularly vile, ignorant, and hateful. Comparisons with Hitler, in some important respects, hold water.
I have confidence we can contain to a degree the growing police state under the current bipartisan arrangement- but when it comes to a Trump presidency, all bets are off. Bullets will fly. What is our role then?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

killing free trade agreements will be tremendous for workers

[bluetortilla]

killing free trade agreements will be tremendous for workers

That sounds like a nationalist argument for sure, and tenuous. What the world needs are new industries and new kinds of occupations- not shifting jobs that feed consumerism back to the U.S. From our viewpoint, it is the same if jobs are lost in Mexico let's say and gained in the U.S. So Mexico gets 'poorer.' Does that make us better off?

What people need to understand are new concepts of job creation, not getting past decades' production lines back. For example, how about instead of washing dishes building solar panels? Just for starters...

[Tio Pepe]

Ironically, Trump may be slightly less dangerous to humanity than Warmonger-In-Waiting SHillary.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

That sounds like a nationalist argument for sure, and tenuous. What the world needs are new industries and new kinds of occupations- not shifting jobs that feed consumerism back to the U.S. From our viewpoint, it is the same if jobs are lost in Mexico let's say and gained in the U.S. So Mexico gets 'poorer.' Does that make us better off?

What people need to understand are new concepts of job creation, not getting past decades' production lines back. For example, how about instead of washing dishes building solar panels? Just for starters...

its not nationalist because im not american. free trade is a policy envisioned and implemented by and for finance capital. to use your example, the outsourcing of jobs destroys workers bargaining power, generates a net decrease in working cinditions and consequently hampers international unity and solidarity

[TheIrrationalist]

Ironically, Trump may be slightly less dangerous to humanity than Warmonger-In-Waiting SHillary.

there is nothing in trump's platform or rhetoric that would suggest this. "make america great again" is clearly nothing but a slogan for imperialism. it is the hitler idea of the german empire, a declining and betrayed empire. the call make it great again is a call for intensified imperial war and rape. he says that stupid 'anti-nato' shit to gain support among the isolationist right, the tea party type. if he is elected there is no way he will dismantle the most extensive and successful imperialist apparatus the world has ever seen.