The explanation for this is so simple. The Dems want to lose the house in 2022 so they have an excuse for not doing anything
I tend to agree with you, but then why did they lie about 2000 checks in the runoff, wouldn't they prefer to lose by at least one senator?
They lied about them so people would hate them later. They want people to have zero faith in them. Capitalism wants people to have no interest in government because government is easier to control that way.
Hmmmm, that's interesting. I've always considered the first 2 years of the Obama administration to be very awkward for the dems, having all the power but knowing they can't actually do good things, but according to this theory, that period was intentional, to disgust people as much as possible. Funny thing is, the dems suck so bad, people still fucking love Obungler :michael-laugh:
Obungler is just our latest deity in the national religion. But you're right that they do sort of want people to like them. They have to play a balancing act between making sure people don't reject the Democratic Party and try to do change for real and wanting people to be detached from politics for the purpose of capitalist control.
Good point.
I think the difference is the candidates themselves want to win their own elections. However the party as a whole wants to be in the minority.
man... Žižek said a thing about how often far-right parties are paradoxically more in line with the working class' interests than the centrist/establishment one
why must he be right, this is pain
"...And sho in dish vey, we see that the situation is precisely the opposite, and so on and so on. schniff Once again Hegel ish proven right." :zizek-joy:
There's a lot of room to criticize zizek from the left though, none of it involves that cynical idpol cooption bullshit or the idea that he's 'problematic'.
he doesn't even really say anything that isnt obvious shit and makes it sound more complicated by using hegelspeak. some of his takes are good, some of them are bad, but Zizek isn't really some groundbreaking contemporary marxist. that or he's just being an edgy racoon man.
i mean yes and no, china theoretically is well on their way to defeating capitalism. theoretically. i pretty much agree on all your other points though. I'm unfamiliar with The Sublime Object of Ideology and really only know him from his more recent stuff. I'll take a look at it. Maybe I shouldn't talk out of my ass so much
Yeah I China is the last hope. The question is if they actually communize
i dont think thats possible until America's military is dismantled unfortunately. so, you know, the quicker the better :amerikkka:
if you're going to go that route I think North Korea has the best strategy. America seem pretty scared to fuck with them at least.
Nationalize literally everything and make like half of it military jobs. Put everyone through boot camp and teach them how to fire a gun. Basically militarize your population, but maybe not to the same crazy degree as the Kims.
Maybe here it's because right wingers are more populist and establishment centrists are cosmopolitan?
Populism is a fake word. Right wingers just know how to harness popular sentiment. They also are really good at manufacturing consent and leeching onto existing sources of collective power (see evangelicals).
There exists, in reactionary politics, a disfigured and evil collective formed in the loins of hierarchical oppression that the liberals refuse to acknowledge and the fascists feast on.
The "far" right is allowed to harness popular sentiment. Their message is allowed to be broadcast because capitalists are the ones spreading it, because it doesn't harm them. The right-wing that is less reactionary isn't allowed and doesn't want to harness popular sentiment, because they'd have to actually act on it and it would show their true face and contradict their whole purpose as 'controlled' opposition.
Exactly, I kinda glossed over that with the "disfigured and evil collective formed in the loins of hierarchical oppression" bit. The right's appeal to the collective is an appeal to the status quo and the mythos of the active superstructure. It's not one that seeks to overturn that superstructure and modify the base relations to the means of production.
Is there another meaning to 'populist?'
Democrats speak meaningless truths in their cherished civil discourse and lie in intent and attitude, conservatives can lie in broad daylight which is the honest reality, the honest attitude of our politics and it lends itself to popular sentiments
It's just a word that doesn't actually have meaning. It's double speak that attempts to equate communists and fascists by demonizing anyone who acknowledges that humans exist outside of television and spreadsheets.
It's a thought terminating cliché that flattens two very important things that everyone should understand as separate.
I think that's too far. it doesn't need to have a positive or negative connotation. 'harnessing popular sentiment' is a thing that happens, as you agree, so let's make a word for it.
when republicans appeal to "real americans" or whatever bullshit, that's populist compared to liberals' appeals to meritorious individuals.
Bernie turns libertarian, demands Congress lower eligibility ages nationally.
Oh I wish. Watching him confirm Neera Tanden next week is gonna be pain.
