trying to wrap my head around why everything in the US is turned into a political battle--from the most trivial culture war stuff to major national crises such as the response to COVID-19. Is it a Gramscian thing where a ruling class in crisis is unable to maintain ideological hegemony?
International Finance capital is eating into the profits of domestic manufacturing capital and culture war is the only way for that segment of capital to fight back because it can’t challenge capitalism’s economic foundations without destroying itself.
that...actually makes a lot of sense. Is it fair to say that Trump represents manufacturing capital and the Dems represent finance capital?
matt goes into this on the vlogs, how goldwater was an avatar of small holders and petit bourgeois with domestic/nationalist concerns and how after decades that wing has finally taken over the GOP and the loser (internationalist finance capital) has taken over the dems
EDIT: good one he talks about it in is Vibes at Midnight starting around 10 minutes in
Not to be facetious, but... that's sort of a tautology, isn't it? The political sphere encompasses the polity at all times. Art, labor, leisure, your consumption habits--everything is politicized, even if only in small and unimportant ways.
I don't disagree, but for example, Trump's decision in April to let the states take the lead in combating coronavirus instead of the national government is a very strange decision that I've been trying to understand for a while now. Most national emergencies and crises have been addressed by national leadership rather than the state leadership. And none of the other major countries have done anything like this--they have organized the COVID-19 response on a national level.
The only explanation that makes sense to me is that Trump wanted to distance himself from any possible culpability given the looming election. But if that's the case, then it seems to me like whether or not the federal government should act during national crises has now become politicized, whereas previously, it had been assumed that the national government should absolutely lead the response.
IDK, maybe I'm misreading things somehow, but the current moment feels like an escalation in this regard compared to even a decade ago.
I think handing off control of the states is a way for the right and business class to downplay the seriousness of the virus, not just a way to escape culpability for an election.
even if that's the case, Trump's decision was still hotly criticized by the liberal elite. The NYT and all the think-tank people seem to agree that the national government should have led the pandemic response--and they surely represent the business class as well. It just seems crazy to me that whether or not the US government should lead a pandemic response has become a part of the political debate rather than a point of assumed agreement among the different factions of US capitalists. I can't imagine this debate happening during Bush or Obama.
I'm positive if Obama attempted to take command of this federally, he'd be accused by rightists of making some kind of elaborate power grab.
Bush as well? or any of the other preceding neoliberals? Is this really business as usual in US politics?
No, I mean Obama specifically. The accusations would come from the right.
The level of government intervention at both the federal and state level to resolve this crisis is just not available in America. So the only way to treat this was to decouple responsibility at all levels.
I've read society of spectacle, I did not understand much of it, but my guts is telling me this is what it was about
All economic questions are resolved in capitalism so all that remains is culture war.
I was trying to think of a super technical term but I don't see any reason why we shouldn't call it totalitarianism. We have due process and elections but isn't the key feature TOTILIZATION?
Mussolini: "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." And we must vet literally all things for their- not exactly on nationalistic terms- but maybe more like their civic wholesomeness?
Is it just plain totalitarianism except with civics instead of ultra nationalism?
feels really totalitarian to me.
Partially it’s a strategy the far right are using called “confrontational politics” as outlined in the book of the same name: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4026039-confrontational-politics
Oh wow, that's basically "Ben Shapiro: The Book". I wonder what has pushed the right to adopt "confrontational politics."
I would argue that if youre in the United States at least, its in large part due to the two-party system we have running.
If one side takes a stance on anything, the other feels like they "have to" oppose it. If democrats say that diversity is good, for example, republicans say its bad so that they can snatch up all the voters who dont like that idea. Obviously on a societal level there are wayyyyyyy more factors involved (lobbying, propaganda, etc), but overall I would say the two party system is what encourages politicization of non political things for your "average joe".
totalitarianism? (which somehow doesn't apply to the capitalist mode of production because although it touches all aspects of your life you can choose between 37 brands of rice)
