Senate The US Politics discussion

And too illiterate, as well.

 

What book, you mean The Wretched?

No you're the obscure translation convention joke.

 

The fact is that revolution or at least a real threat of it (e.g., the New Deal and the emergence of European social democracy post-WW2) is usually necessary for fundamental change. The Bourbons in France were never going to step aside on their own and the people who benefit from the unjust status quo in the United States and the world aren't going to suddenly realize the error of their ways. While I understand and share in fear and uncertainty regarding a revolution and the danger of a strongman dictator emerging, many people in the United States and around the world needlessly struggle and suffer and our system isn't doing nearly enough to fix it. Voting and peaceful protest are not and never have been enough.

 

I agree 100%

Whether a revolution happens or not, remains to be seen, but the system needs replacing in the United States and it is highly unlikely to come via the ballot box. Too many factors, mainly private lobbyists, are at play. A revolt might be required.

 

A revolt is ALWAYS required if people want the big change that they keep talking about.

No government that I am aware of has just decided on its own to change its parasitic system into something that actually benefits everyone across the board. Most broad sweeping changes have happened under revolutionary regimes and they almost always quickly turn away from their intended purpose.

 

Wall Street?

 

terms like "real change" and "everyday people" are doing a lot of work in these guy posts

 

The thing is, the myth that the U.S. is the home of freedom--and that "the system works" even if individuals seem inept or corrupt at the time--keeps the population complacent, always playing by the rules of the system and never questioning the system itself. That's why there'll never be any kind of serious revolt.

 

In terms of just the idea of the Bastille or in the context of the history of the French Revolution?

Because if it's the former then we have Guantanamo Bay and if it's the latter I guess we'll see when we ever become bold enough to revolt.

 

Nobody, at the time, thought France would overthrow the Monarchy.

 

I'm about to go full Marxist here but ideas can only go so far and eventually the material crises of capital will result in proletarian agitation, but whether it is an agitation resulting in communisation, mere readjustment of capitalism, or I guess apocalypse is on the table these days, will only be decided in the moment. Nothing, and I mean nothing, lasts forever.

 

All these things seem inevitable in hindsight, true. And I suppose that electing Trump was some kind of mass revolt in a sense. But those Trump voters now seem pretty happy with the way things are.

 

Depends if Trump is the endgame and something far worse cannot be produced. That, in itself, is the nightmare scenario.

 

Great post. Every once in a while, I like to imagine Agent Mulder speaking Guy's posts. Throw in a few "Scully"s and it's perfect!

 

No, but the systemic failures of Marxist economics in whole terms - plus the general reductionist approach of the left (drag us down to the level of the proles rather than promote an aspirational mindset a la Blair) - means whatever the unemployable intelligentsia wants, it's likely to cock up almost instantly.

 

Marxist economics is doomed to fail because Marx only gives us the theoretical tools to understand the value theory and social relations, not a prescriptive program. The proletariat must undergo the process of communization on their own, and cannot be directed. The best that very intelligentsia can hope for is to direct towards the left end of capitalism or involve itself in the general workers' struggle.

Also lol Blairism.

 

Marx thought Britain would be the birth of revolution against capitalism.

Blairism won three elections.

One of them actually happened.

 

Blair gets ****, rightly so too, for falling into the rabbit hole of doctored intelligence and enthusiastically supporting a war in which the cassus belli was entirely soluble. But he has done more than any other Anglosphere leader, save maybe John Curtin, to address inequality and provide state support for the needy.

 

He actually said

Marx was still a product of his time and if you're looking at the economic relations of said time and trying to figure out how you think a proletarian revolt would occur it's not unreasonable to conclude the economic superpower would have to be involved. Similarly, these days it would be pretty unreasonable to think communization could be undergone without the United States and China.

Blairism can be understood as an outgrowth of the neoliberal readjustment which reacted to the stagflation/oil crisis of the 1970s. Marx guarantees no inevitable communization, no inevitable collapse, he only proposes the former as an alternative to capitalist readjustment.

 

I'm not convinced neoliberalism is the problem its critics, who struggle to define neoliberalism, think it is. Yes, in the US it's problematic but there's an underlying culture of individualism there which meant there was broad support for any attack on collectivist through wherever it popped up. Free trade is a net benefit to society, in other words, as is globalisation. Failing to adequately plan for it is human, not ideological.

 

Ah, but it doesn't matter about society-level benefits, it's all:

 

I like how they represent millennials there, Rylo Ken.

 

Weird decision to represent the capitalist class as chihuahuas but whatever.

 

Besides a buzzword of the hipster left, what the hell is the capitalist class meant to actually be? Has to be some neo-Marxist nonsense that updates the bourgeois and finds a way to lump the middle class and wealthy against the people who, even in a socialist system, would not rise to the top (such as the top may be).