The fire alarm has been going off for 5 years and they're just now noticing the fire.
Yeah, while the republicans have basically openly moved to reactionary and fascist politics, thus implicitly accepting the status quo is over, the influential parts of the Democrats seem to have been clinging completely to the idea that the status quo is what is to be preserved - even though material reality will not make that possible.
Right now, we seem to be in a historical moment, where old privileges are breaking away from a continuing crisis in capitalism that basically has been smouldering since the (late) 70s and kept stable through neoliberal policies thus far. Old privileges being lost results in a reactionary shift worldwide at the moment. It will be harrowing, but there is at least always the possibility of the pendulum swinging the other way - right now, in the coming years, organisation, connecting people, openly presenting radical alternatives to prepare for that moment seems to be the most important work to me.
Would you mind expanding on what you mean by material conditions and fascism in relation to old privileges (don't know what you mean by the latter)?
So, I am heading to bed for the night, because I have been awake all night and day and the day before to catch the debate - but the short answer is: The decline of the middle class and the petite burgeoisie - which I in this case view not in the traditional definition, but also broader, as all the people owning a little bit of capital i.e. savings for old age in some fond or maybe a house of their own. Also the disappearance of job security and stable work relations.
With it, the conservative "lets keep things as they were" mindset of people who had a decent enough life, i.e. mostly boomers that lived through the economic growth phase of the post-war era, but also younger people dreaming of that time or having profited from it through their parents, comes into crisis. But as this mindset argues from its own experience, it dreams of the past ("Things worked back then, right?"), while missing, that the very same "working" system was what had within it, already the inherent nature that eventually led to it decaying around us. So they need to explain the decline as something caused by an outsider, a malevolent force.
At the same time, this decline of the middle class leads them to try and grasp to divisions that might "save" them from proletarisation - becoming properly dependend on paycheck to paycheck and owning nothing but their own labour power to sell on the market. So, racism for example - if you are white, you might just be spared from the above fate. And you can kick down, targeting all those brown people below instead of punching up - the latter is a lot more risky after all. And the people up above can't be at fault, after all, you (or the people you heard about from the past) had a great life when those were around, right? It just have to be the "right" people, like you and the people of your nationality/race/religion/other ingroup - often depressingly arbitrary.
This is still a very reductive summary, a lot is missing, globalisation, how it relates to the net rate of profit, how consolidation happens, details about the ideology of our current times. But broken down to it's basics it can be summarised as such. The middle class is disappearing as a consequence of capitalist development, which leads to them becoming panicky and diving headfirst into ideology.
Well, anyway, good night, hope it was possible to understand what I was trying to bring across in my rambling
Thanks! The increasing difference between material conditions of the upper middle class / petit bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and the often ensuing split of the middle class into these two, is definitely a contention point that allows for quick fascist demagogues to capitalize on. I see that the loss of "old privileges" for the former fortunate middle class allows for admiration of some greater past, which plays well into the fascist textbook.
However, I do think the far right's success within young males, for example, is a different symptom of the same condition. That young people whose futures are diminished by capitalist exploitation tend towards fascism as their solution, while fully educated about its past and its options, is what baffles me the most.
Maybe I am overlooking something and that is why I did not get your point originally nor that which I described above, but to me there seems to be a disconnect of logic that is exceptional, even when taking into consideration that we are talking about supporters of the far right.
Yes, you raise a very important point that I completely glanced over with sleep-deprived tunnel vision brain. Young males are a group, where ideological factors are a lot more prevalent. A constant barrage of presenting the desirable thing to be succesful - everything from sexual gratification to security in life depends on it - is given to, well, actually everyone, but even today still predominately young males. In addition, the ideological explanation presents no proper "out" that has analytical value: If you don't succeed, you are just some sort of beta cuck or whatever. How about you buy this course by this YouTube influencer, on how to get money and pussy by changing your own inadequacy, which of course in reality throws the vast majority of their fans into dependence and diminishes any resources they had.
This demand to be succesful, dominant, happy and stoic, weighing on the superego as basically an old dream of success that is becoming more and more unattainable but is still presented everywhere, is also in conflict with material reality. Being the breadwinner of a household where you have a wife that delivers reproductive labour and sexual gratification to you, while you earn the money and keep her dependent? Even with chauvinists that are deep into that ideological prison, households being able to earn enough money without both people working (often even more than two jobs) is not what we are seeing in the present and the future. So, this discrepancy has to be explained in a way, that is compatible with their ideology.
As a side note: parts of the liberal, more well-off "left" (a very relative term here) will basically just give them the answer "well, you are a stupid, low-IQ chud loser, so its your own fault" - basically reinforcing the very "sink or swim, be succesful, if you can't be, it means something about you is wrong" ideology that creates this whole mess to begin with.
But of course, the answer many will then land on is a variant of my previous post: It worked in the past, right? An outside malevolent force must have corrupted this. It's the feminists. It's the Jews. It's the insert enemy here. That is the core of it again - discrepancy between material reality and ideological demands and dreams within society. Concerning young men, the extreme right also has good illusionary ways to provide them with a sense of being powerful when they are in reality not, through violence that doesn't threaten the upper classes, and relative privilege within their ideological stratified view of reality.
Ironically, that material reality of proletarisation can even fuel "tradwife" romanticism for some women - basically, the dream of being a loved and loving housewife, being submissive to and dependent on their husband and his income, anything, just to escape the dread of having to work under current conditions without any of the security of the past. (Note that actual submissive impulses that people potentially have as a fetish are a whole other thing in that discussion, but it is relevant, that for some submissive people at least, that can of course also add to the allure of that fantasy, just as the idea of being a breadwinner that has a dependent person giving them sexual gratification and admiration is alluring to people with dominant fetishisations)
Trump would only win if the Democrat party found someone seemingly more inept than him.
I am impressed that the Democrat party managed to present not one, but two outstandingly incompetent candidates. In a row. That's some bottom of the barrel advanced scraping techniques right there. They even managed to get a representation of both sexes.
I'm sure Mr. Biden will be terribly distraught, as soon as he is able to understand what's happening around him at the moment.
You know it is pretty bad when a bunch of CNN commentators think he got smoked.
I poked into r/politics to see what was up and there's a bunch of libs wondering how this old guy snuck in and became the nominee somehow, and how whoever did that should be fired. It's really weird to see the about face, I thought he was a phenomenal candidate with a sterling record last week.
Chinese spies incepted Biden into acting like a demented 81 year old with the Havana syndrome gun.
If Biden dies and his tombstone is running for president, I’d still vote for his tombstone over trump.
A corporate-controlled genocidal fascist who's incapable of speaking is the ideal leader under liberalism. Saying mean things destroys democracyTM.
The libs don't even have a candidate in that country's weird election format. It's a tough say that the lesser shit is ideal.
Here's the original link in lemmy.ml if you want to see lemmy.world loser ledditors coping: https://lemmy.ml/post/17384440
Actually, the other way around. We keep on compartmentalizing, Trump can lie all he wants and nothing happens, but Joe stutters and it's a national disgrace... How can you compare one without including the only alternative?
Republicans accept a post-truth society where everything is someone's propaganda, that the federal government is out to get them and that the union would be better served as a union of state-level republics. Democrats still believe in the existence of a ground truth and want a union with centralized control (i.e., they are Federalists). Like the Federalists, the Democrats are backed by wealthy financial states (New York, California) as opposed to more rural/working-class states (Alabama, Ohio) and support heavy industrial subsidies (Biden's IRA, CHIPS) as well as weak state governments.
This is a fundamental difference that explains a lot, actually. The role of government has always been to convince populations to pursue the policy goals of the elite. The foundations of representative democracy involve choosing which elites' policy goals to follow. The Republicans want to follow state elites (to borrow a Chinese proverb, the mountains are high and the President is far away). The Democrats want to follow federal elites.
Here's the real problem. The US gets to choose between a career politician and a career businessman (swindler, by definition). Who represents the working class? Who represents the people who actually built America's economy?
Nobody represents the people, but that's not a new problem nor, in anyway, a new thing in this Trump era
My biggest fear is that the USA always gets to chose someone who does not represent them at all but at least had the notion that we need a planet to live in
Trump is a man child and will see the world burn out of petty spite. And us, in the rest of the world, would have to still live with those consequences
So back to the debate and the choice between Biden and Trump... Sure Biden is a terrible option, like chosing to get cancer... But Trump is like chosing to be gang raped, shot and left for dead in an open sewer and here we are pretending the 2 bad options are somehow the same
Can you actually explain the difference between the options and reconcile the fact that Hillary and the DNC purposefully elevated Trump behind the scenes (entire "lesser evil" rationale is a farce)? Thx!
I distinctly remember that before I left Reddit, I had some lovely discourse with someone who was absolutely inconsolable over my opinion that Biden was too old for the job. Got called ageist and everything else they could think of.
Trust me, I hate being right.
Please replace him with Hillary or Bernie or something it would be so funny. They could even have Hillary and Bernie debate for the candidacy 😂
I'm more worried that he won't win the election rather than he will win it. I don't think the debate changes anything about that, people are likely still going to vote who they were going to vote for. He is the not Trump vote, and it's just as important as ever if not more important to vote not Trump.
authoritarian fascist
Please just say fascist, authoritarian has horseshoe theory vibes which we don't allow on this com.
You don't really have a choice. Biden basically just joke show to support Trump being elected and don't get me started on that nightmare. There's really only two responses to this but it ain't electing and I ain't gonna say it here.
I'm off to start my fire for this dark fucking night.
He was weak but they couldn't adjust his mic levels? That was weird.
The Democrats knew this was going to happen. There's no way they couldn't. And I don't mean Democrat supporters, many of whom were vehement that Biden was fine like so many anecdotes in this thread recount. I mean the Democrat leadership, who manage his campaign and more than likely manage his presidency. Unlike the public, they have access to him. They have his medical records, the reports of his doctors and caregivers, everything. There's no way they didn't know this would happen if he debated.
They might start seeding support for a different candidate into their supporter's discourse after this, but they will have been planning for this outcome long ago. And when a left-leaning (left from a US Overton window) news platform hosts a debate that shows him up that badly and then publishes commentary like this, you have to wonder if that caused friction with the DNC or if they assented to it.
As the party starts singling out a replacement, the question I hope people start asking is why they didn't replace Biden earlier? Did they need to wait until the urgency of imminent elections made their new candidate more palatable? And if they don't replace Biden, why are they letting Trump win?
