Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[Mr. Cairo]

Honestly, Trump is a very, very mild figurehead for nationalism/populism/citizen power. More a Berlusconi than a Mussolini. I'd want absolutely nothing to do with the *actual* peasant revolts that might follow on the current trajectory. This set of West-wide populist revolts are very very friendly compared to historical models.

There simply won't be violent populist revolts in the West anymore. This is due to the fact that militaries and the police of today are simply so much more capable than even a heavily armed populace like the American one. 150 years ago, a civilian-led revolt had a chance of succeeding, 250 years ago even more so. Nowadays, an actual violent popular revolt has no chance of succeeding in the face of a military loyal to its government.

During the Arab Spring, military units defected from the government in Libya and Syria, which is why both of the pre-existing regimes were unable to crush it, and stalemate ensued (only ended in Libya thanks to western intervention, and still continuing in Syria, although now it's turned into a four-way stalemate). In Egypt, the president lost the support of the military, he left, they tried democracy briefly, and now the military is back in charge, and nothing is very different from the government before the Arab Spring. In places like Tunisia the "revolts" were largely peaceful, and the governments were open to beginning mild reform.

In the west, the militaries and police forces are not only much more capable, but they are much more loyal, enough so that I can't see people even trying to revolt, at least not seriously (see Malheur National Wildlife Refuge).

To me, this is why voting is important, because it is now our only method in which people can force change on their government. Violent revolt is not an option, and even if it were I would rather vote, since violently overthrowing an oppressive regime very rarely results in one any less oppressive (which is why the American Revolution was so unique. Also the Glorious Revolution; although no actual violence took place, it was a military coup.) You may say that elections and voting have never change anything nowadays, but look at Brexit, where "the people" of the UK forced a change their government largely didn't want.

At the very least, I'd rather see stupid and lazy people vote than pick up a gun and try and do it the old fashioned way.

[Nicolae Carpathia]

Gavagai - I want to know what part of "Progressivism" you think will turn the world into USSR-lite?

you can find alot of paranoid rants on white supremacist websites that tolerance for nonwhites is a step on the road to foreign takeover

also, there's this random ussr defector who's made a living selling books over how the ussr are single-handedly responsible for brainwashing the american public with the progressivism

aka this is the stupidest fucking thing ever

[picklepikkl]

Speaking as a self-identified progressive, there are certainly trends in progressivism I find disturbing, particularly the "one strike and you're human trash" attitude adopted by a lot of the progressive media towards persons convicted of wrongthink. Callout culture has problems, and it reminds me of the political correctness I've read about in history of, yes, the USSR. The fixation on identity politics to the extent of active scorn for the disaffected working-class is also concerning. But I don't seriously think we're in danger of going down the USSR route in a meaningful sense, nor (obviously) do I think that these evils of modern progressivism outweigh its value.

My paranoia is entirely aimed at fascism and ethnic nationalism, which you might expect from a half-Greek half-Jew.

[TheHumanHydra]

As a Canadian, I find the characterization of my country as 'USSR-lite' rather quaint. Incidentally, I have always found (and I believe it would be historically accurate to say) that the Canadian electorate has had a defining impact on the direction of the country's politics.

Edit: picklepikki, this was directed at Gavagai's remarks, not yours.

[Gavagai]

Trump didn't need to spend much because he recieved millions in free airtime from an insatiable press, plus had the substantial "anti-Trump" vote split between several candidates for the critical early states.

It's irrelevant why exactly Trump was able to win the primaries without spending money, the fact is that he was. May be it's not the time for a populist candidate to win but in a couple of cycles it will inevitably happen, I think.

[Gavagai]

Need to expand upon my remarks about "USSR-lite", I think. I will be brief and abstract.

The essential attribute of state is ability to apply violence without any legal restraint (the only restraint possible is administered by the state itself). "Essential attribute" means that all other features which the state has can be also found in other types of corporations, only the right to apply violence is uniqe. From this follows that when we say that something must be done through government, we, essentially, say that something must be done through violence.

As I understand progressives, they are OK with this because they think that violence can produce good. Incidentally, this idea lies at the core of Marxism and was also central for Soviet ideology. I find it very counter-intuitive and I never saw an argument how exactly violence can help a good cause. I can grant that violence is necessary to stop evil - that's why I'm OK when government is running the police, for example. But we don't speak about "stopping evil" when we say that government should provide everyone with education and healthcare.

[Gavagai]

My paranoia is entirely aimed at fascism and ethnic nationalism.

I always feel pity for fascists, btw. There are a lot of stupid and hateful ideologies in this world but only Fascism is unprotected from scorn by PC shield. If you speack about Islam in the same manner, in which Fascism is usually discussed, you'll be accused of "Islamophobia". If you dare to criticize Communism - you are dismissed as a sycophant of bourgeoisie. When a Muslim does mass-shooting - he is a lone madman, not representative of his community. When a fascist does mass shooting - this is a consequence of his ideology, of course, and another proof that Fascism is evil.
It feels that fascists have kind of drawn a short stick here. May be have something to do with them losing a war...

[AdrienIer]

Need to expand upon my remarks about "USSR-lite", I think. I will be brief and abstract.

The essential attribute of state is ability to apply violence without any legal restraint (the only restraint possible is administered by the state itself). "Essential attribute" means that all other features which the state has can be also found in other types of corporations, only the right to apply violence is unique. From this follows that when we say that something must be done through government, we, essentially, say that something must be done through violence.

I think you don't understand the concept of "état de droit" (I think it's Rule of Law in English). The state is not supposed to be able to use violence without legal restraint. It is bound by its laws as well. Policemen can in theory be put to trial for manslaughter or "non assistance to a person in danger". In practice the policemen know this and don't go too far in their use of violence. A few years ago a couple of far left activist were mistreated by the government (they were used as a scapegoat for various things), but they filed a complaint against the state and won (I think the case is in appeal currently).

The one difference between what corporations can do and what a state can do is that a state is theoretically supposed to care for the welfare of the population, at least insofar as it passes and enforces laws that will in general benefit the population. The corruption of the state is usually a problem, but there are still many domains where the state is necessary. Having a generally balanced education system available to everyone, or making sure that we tackle climate change by using less oil are things that can only be enforced via government. Not because it will use violence for it, but because a corporation's one and only goal is to make money for its bosses and shareholders. The shareholders don't care if Total or BP destroys the world as long as they get their money now.

As I understand progressives, they are OK with this because they think that violence can produce good. Incidentally, this idea lies at the core of Marxism and was also central for Soviet ideology. I find it very counter-intuitive and I never saw an argument how exactly violence can help a good cause. I can grant that violence is necessary to stop evil - that's why I'm OK when government is running the police, for example. But we don't speak about "stopping evil" when we say that government should provide everyone with education and healthcare.

No one is using violence to provide education or healthcare. The fact is that those are among the things that are better off centralized by us through the state. In no state except totalist regimes is healthcare or education fully state-controlled. Even in France (which you probably consider a USSR-lite) there are private schools (some supervised by the state and in contract with it, some fully independent) and private clinics (who have few constraints, like having real doctors and surgeons in it)

[Gavagai]

The state is not supposed to be able to use violence without legal restraint.

It is only restrained by other branches of state (e. g. courts) as I said.

The one difference between what corporations can do and what a state can do is that a state is theoretically supposed to care for the welfare of the population

Non-profits are often supposed to care about welfare of the population either, so it by itself it doesn't make the government necessary.

No one is using violence to provide education or healthcare.

Why it can't be totally run by charities then?

[AdrienIer]

No one is using violence to provide education or healthcare.

Why it can't be totally run by charities then?

Because pretty much no one has control over them. If they screw up how do we, as a society, correct that screwup ?

Edit : also, who gets to choose which charity runs education ?