US Presidential Election 2020

[JackRiddler]

.

Harvey, your post on any other thread would have nothing but truth in it.

Here? What are you telling any of us that we don't already know, and what is the meaning as an intervention in the current discussion here?

What was the rally called by Trump on January 6th?

What was its purpose? What did it do? Are you also going to avoid this subject?

Was it not an effort by the actual president to shut down Congress so as to reverse the result of an election that he lost?

All this other talk can be true and eternally so, but not if it's deployed to trivialize or excuse a riot against the legislature ordered by the executive and carried out by movement fascists.

Are we supposed to think this is irrelevant, because the same America bombs peasants in Vietnam and pays to arm death squads in Mexico and Colombia? Maybe that's so, but then, what is your point?

If you see it as so trivial, why take sides in a discussion about this Munich Beer Hall Putsch -- an event that the one I'm arguing against here apparently wants to valorize as the "legitimate" expression of "frustration" by the "downtrodden" among "the people."

.

[dada]

"its distinctly American face."

Since the fall of Nazi Germany, fascism has had to hide behind a mask. Longing for a day when it will be liberated from the indignity of wearing it. The brownshirt has been forced to play the clown and fool to survive, the mealy-mouthed upper echelon cultist like an actor ritually checks in the mirror, looking for any signs of betrayal. Perhaps the American face of fascism is a mask as well.

-
edited to move the last sentence from stand-alone punchline to the end of the paragraph, where it belomgs.

[Spiro C. Thiery]

Regarding the downtrodden among the greater MAMAverse, I do think it is crucial to admit, however, that it is by way of the people represented by surely a shitload of ballots among the 74 million who chose to re-elect this guy that better conditions for the entire spectrum of wage slaves and unemployed would go a long way toward removing the air of legitimacy that these insurgents wrongly believe they have behind them.

Well of course. But both objectively (regardless of what they think) and in their actual stated demands, the active Trump mobs (a small fraction of the Trump voters) are fighting for WORSE "conditions for the entire spectrum of wage slaves and unemployed."
.

I accept your "well of course" and raise you one. The following may be likewise self-evident but it needs to be a part of every conversation now as much as ever, even while stressing the importance of nabbing every single one of the asshole opportunists, including the coppers and commander-in-chief. We would do well to keep in mind how important it is that a the political will manifest itself that would offer social and financial security to what is left of American society, which includes however many of those 74 million, even if it's only a paltry percentage of them. I don't deny they should be reminded how actively against them their sect is, it's just that telling them how very wrong they are only to have yet another neoliberal regime fuck the shit out of everybody is only gonna end up having another would-be dictator foist upon us. This message is gaining steam in the mainstream media, while the incoming cabinet appears to be mostly a diversion of diversity set to go back to 2008. That should scare the fuck out of everybody, especially after what happened Wednesday.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

This event only adds to the premise that Trump is controlled opposition.

Fury at Trump and his followers (assuming for a moment that all in attendance were genuine followers of the 'Trump cause') is, again, misdirected and short-sighted. This wasn't only a Trump/MAGA/"right-wing" production. There were other factors/players involved in this. I would think this is self-evident, but it appears this event is being largely analyzed at face-value, which is short-sighted.

Look at what's already happened since this event took place Re: outright censorship/banning of accounts and alternative 'social media' platforms. Laws will be passed tightening the screws against dissent. This event will make it far easier for such laws to be 'ratified'. And this event certainly didn't benefit Trump in any way; politically, he's done.

I suggest we circle back on this in the next 6 - 9 months with the added perspective of time and looming events to come.

Until then, i've nothing more to add here.

[Spiro C. Thiery]

Until then, i've nothing more to add here.

You keep saying that.

[JackRiddler]

.

We are all in agreement about neoliberalism, austerity, the fake progressivism that uses a rainbow coalition of faces to run the same old machinery of exploitation, oppression, murder and mayhem, imperialism, the ongoing expansion of the surveillance and repression state, etc.

So an assessment of how that develops over the next six months isn't going to make anyone on this thread appear to be wrong. Since we all agree about that. It's all very likely to get worse -- though certainly not worse than if Trump had remained in charge on his promise of open fascism -- and the 6 January events will be used to justify new measures.

You, BS, consistently invoke this as if anyone disagrees. Specifically, as if I disagree, when obviously I do not.

And you do it, consistently, as a means to trivialize or even defend a very exclusive, elite, fascist mob called to DC by Trump, the president, so that he could order them to go shut down the Congress while it was certifying the results of an election that he lost, that will oust him.

Again, as I say to Harvey above, it's one thing if you think that's a trivial event compared to bigger things happening, or small compared to far greater crimes already committed in the name of America and/or democracy.

It's altogether another if you use the "bigger things happening" or the "six months test" as a camouflage for characterizing this fascist-mob carvnival, called forth by the leader of the executive against the legislature (and against the very idea of democracy), as a gathering of "the downtrodden" expressing "legitimate frustration." Because at that point you're veering toward support, and justification.

That is our disagreement. Stop trying to spin it as though it's about anything else. Stop trying to gaslight me, as they say, by suggesting that, if I correctly describe a fascist mob ginned up by Trump to attack the capital, that makes me a friend of anything the successor regime does. Because you know that's bullshit. And you should know I won't be swayed by it.

Again, I'm seeing there is a reason you don't acknowledge these questions:

Who called for this rally? What was its stated purpose? Who was the featured speaker? What did he tell his assembled followers to do?

.

[Harvey]

For everyone else in the world, Jack, it is utterly trivial.

America will not voluntarily descend into easily visible and discernable fascism any time soon, because then the world would at last unite against it. Therein lies the whole problem.

While the cruelty of the Obama era is fondly remembered by liberals and conservatives, it was a time of horror for immigrant workers, for the world at large and for the environment. The Trump era was slightly gentler by comparison, although mediated perception viewed it through the opposite lens, not least because we could all see it and some reaction to it did occur. Trump, through no grace of his own, united Americans and the rest of the mediated world against what had been merely business as usual under other presidents, and in that regard he was actually useful. If America always looked like Trump, we'd be able to mount some resistance to it, but for the most part it looks just like 'Hollywood'.

This, I feel sure, was a theatrical performance, designed by the power consensus for one aim, to achieve the next round of consolidation of both power and resources following Covid and 9/11.

[dada]

" it appears this event is being largely analyzed at face-value, which is short-sighted."

I wouldn't say that. I'd say that what is staring us in the face is not being left out. Not taking it into account makes for a poor analysis.

It seems your analysis tends to hinge upon a faith-based argument. When the looming predictions come to pass, you'll see, you'll all see. Ever the ominous prophet.

But I think you have to conflate different trends into a monolithic enemy to do it. On the one hand is the state, coming from the past, and on the other is the technocracy, barrelling down upon us like a tsunami from the future. The state is like a wounded animal. But the technocracy is more of an unstoppable force of nature, like Godzilla.

[Harvey]

" it appears this event is being largely analyzed at face-value, which is short-sighted."

I wouldn't say that. I'd say that what is staring us in the face is not being left out. Not taking it into account makes for a poor analysis.

It seems your analysis tends to hinge upon a faith-based argument. When the looming predictions come to pass, you'll see, you'll all see. Ever the ominous prophet.

But I think you have to conflate different trends into a monolithic enemy to do it. On the one hand is the state, coming from the past, and on the other is the technocracy, barrelling down upon us like a tsunami from the future. The state is like a wounded animal. But the technocracy is more of an unstoppable force of nature, like Godzilla.

Technocracy does not represent the future. In fact, its current is the precise reification of the past.

[JackRiddler]

For everyone else in the world, Jack, it is utterly trivial.

Again, if it's trivial, why take sides here? The ongoing debate was whether it was a fascist mob called forth by Trump, or just some downtrodden people expressing legitimate frustration. How do you see that?

America will not voluntarily descend into easily visible and discernable fascism any time soon, because then the world would at last unite against it. Therein lies the whole problem.

It did long ago, the kind of fascism you're describing, and the world didn't unite against it, though there have been transnational anti-imperialist coalitions, so to speak, and there may be more coming.

While the cruelty of the Obama era is fondly remembered by liberals and conservatives, it was a time of horror for immigrant workers, for the world at large and for the environment.

Exactly like the preceding era, except actually not as bad. (No thanks to regime policy but to general developments of political economy and society. Also, in keeping with the basic pattern of Republicans as radical path-breakers for barbarism and Democrats as consolidators and legitimizers of the Republican accomplishments.)

The Trump era was slightly gentler by comparison,

False. Radically so. Major escalations on all fronts. If imperialism is the first issue, self-evidently worse. Yemen, Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Honduras, Mexico -- all were fucked to an equal or greater extent than before. More bombs dropped, more people killed. Meanwhile, on the homefront, escalation on all of the outrages committed against immigrant labor and the environment. I won't say no comparison -- go ahead and compare. Everything got worse. As a matter of policy, not because people rightly hated him.

Trump, through no grace of his own, united Americans and the rest of the mediated world against what had been merely business as usual under other presidents, and in that regard he was actually useful.

Sure, and it's the part I also enjoyed ('you think we don't have killers?'), but that's not a justification.

If America always looked like Trump, we'd be able to mount some resistance to it, but for the most part it looks just like 'Hollywood'.

Yeah, that's changed now for good. In fact, Trump was a symptom of it, not a rupture.

This, I feel sure, was a theatrical performance, designed by the power consensus for one aim, to achieve the next round of consolidation of both power and resources following Covid and 9/11.

I have never ruled this out. It's as fun to talk about here as it is tactically and strategically useless to front, in the absence of the memoranda. Plausibility is not a standard of proof. And fascism is still real when it's kayfabe. In fact, it's always started as kayfabe.

Best to stick to principles: for democracy and a free society and the common wealth, and against imperialism, natsec, the corporate-state surveillance-control-incarceration complex, the rule of money, the exercise of power in secrecy -- as well as equally against racism, fascism, supremacy in all its forms. I see no contradiction here.

I also see no reason, if you're going to express an opinion about it on the "US Presidential Election" thread, to trivialize the fascist mob riot called forth by the president on the basis that worse things have happened, are happening, are likely to happen.

.

[Harvey]

Again, if it's trivial, why take sides here? The ongoing debate was whether it was a fascist mob called forth by Trump, or just some downtrodden people expressing legitimate frustration. How do you see that?

Can you point to a side I've taken? No, you cannot. Then why say it? Because you feel 'the imperative to act' which has been the motive force since forever. Your energy will however, be neatly channelled into the next iteration of everything you loathe.

I could ask you, 'Why serve everything you loathe in this instance?'

And you would answer, 'Of course I don't.'

I would answer, 'Of course you do.'

You would ask, 'How do you know that?'

And I would answer, 'Because that is the purpose of the event. To elicit the motive energy.'

And neither of us would be able to meet at any point of recognition of what the other knows.

It did long ago, the kind of fascism you're describing, and the world didn't unite against it, though there have been transnational anti-imperialist coalitions, so to speak, and there may be more coming.

You're itching to inform me, why not do so?

Exactly like the preceding era, except actually not as bad. (No thanks to regime policy but to general developments of political economy and society. Also, in keeping with the basic pattern of Republicans as radical path-breakers for barbarism and Democrats as consolidators and legitimizers of the Republican accomplishments.)

Although you conflate different ideas here, you seem to agree with me.

False. Radically so. Major escalations on all fronts. If imperialism is the first issue, self-evidently worse. Yemen, Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Honduras, Mexico -- all were fucked to an equal or greater extent than before. More bombs dropped, more people killed. Meanwhile, on the homefront, escalation on all of the outrages committed against immigrant labor and the environment. I won't say no comparison -- go ahead and compare. Everything got worse. As a matter of policy, not because people rightly hated him.

And yet, I'd love you to prove its falsity. Obama began Yemen if we recall while Trump almost made it possible to call what is happening genocide. Venezuela has been under constant attack, business as usual. Bolivia, business as usual. Iran, seriously? Review the fucking history. Somalia was decimated by Bush and Obama. Sudan was decimated by Obama. Mexico found a democratic socialist president, against Trump. More bombs dropped, more people killed, all true, and I challenge you to find an American president for whom that was not true. Obama is certainly not that president.

Trump was a symptom of it, not a rupture.

My case precisely.

I also see no reason, if you're going to express an opinion about it on the "US Presidential Election" thread, to trivialize the fascist mob riot called forth by the president on the basis that worse things have happened, are happening, are likely to happen.

You have no evidence that anything unusual happened, except to point to Trump as an exception, an untruth you have already refuted, yourself, in your own words, above.

[dada]

"This, I feel sure, was a theatrical performance, designed by the power consensus for one aim, to achieve the next round of consolidation of both power and resources following Covid and 9/11."

In this scenario, we'd have to assume a power consensus gave a collective order to understaff Capitol security. That it wasn't a unilateral decision by one faction or another. So it's an argument that jockeying for Pentagon power is also a theatrical performance. You may feel sure of your position, but I think it's a point that is up for debate.

[Harvey]

"This, I feel sure, was a theatrical performance, designed by the power consensus for one aim, to achieve the next round of consolidation of both power and resources following Covid and 9/11."

In this scenario, we'd have to assume a power consensus gave a collective order to understaff Capitol security. That it wasn't a unilateral decision by one faction or another. So it's an argument that jockeying for Pentagon power is also a theatrical performance. You may feel sure of your position, but I think it's a point that is up for debate.

And yet, nobody moved to contravene events. And there you have it. Events served all the powers concerned.

[dada]

"Technocracy does not represent the future. In fact, its current is the precise reification of the past."

I see it as a reification of the future. Not a representative, though, unless we consider a tornado to be a representative of the wind, or an avalanche representative of the mountain. Which may very well be the case.

[Harvey]

"Technocracy does not represent the future. In fact, its current is the precise reification of the past."

I see it as a reification of the future. Not a representative, though, unless we consider a tornado to be a representative of the wind, or an avalanche representative of the mountain. Which may very well be the case.

I see technocracy, despite the PR of technocracy, as precisely, the further consolidation of power and control in fewer hands. How do you see it?