If I did have a tumor, I'd name it Trump

[connor17]

The problem of politics today is that there's no longer a left. The classical european social democracy has evolved to neoliberalism, so there's no difference from the right. In the usa, democrats are the champions of neoliberalism. So when people want to vote against neoliberalism, they just vote against neoliberal parties. But the problem is that the other party, is not a left party. Le Pen, Farage, Trump, are not the left, far from it.

In the usa there is a mobilization against Trump, the so called "resistance". What I'm going to try to explain here is that it's not a left movement either. It's an identity politics neo marxism. And marxism is not a left party because it's not even democratic.

Basically speaking, how alienation is treated defines politics. When you feel alienated from the world, you can blame the world, or you can blame yourself. If you blame the world, that's marxism, if you blame yourself (taking responsibility from your own acts, taking freedom as the essence of life), that's liberal democracy.

"Karl Marx's theory of alienation describes the estrangement (Ger. Entfremdung) of people from aspects of their Gattungswesen ("species-essence") as a consequence of living in a society of stratified social classes. The alienation from the self is a consequence of being a mechanistic part of a social class, the condition of which estranges a person from their humanity."
This idea is developed with the substructure and superstructure theory.
The substructure defines the superstructure. The substructure consists on the "relations of production" (proletariat-bourgeoisie, private property, etc), the superstructure consists on the ideology (politics, philosophy, etc).
So, in order to solve the alienation, the substructure that causes it must be changed. This is the only way of solving the problem, because the individual is just a mechanistic part, he doesn't have the power, the freedom, to do it for himself.

In the classical marxism, the substructure is materialistic: the forces and relations of production—employer–employee work conditions, the technical division of labour, and property relations.
In this new marxism this substructure has been replaced by identity politics: gender, race, religion, etc. The enemy is no longer capitalism or the bourgeoisie but the heteropatriarchy or white supremacy.

These protests against Trump, like a multicultural project mayhem, are not democratic in nature. They just want to impose their vision regarding identity politics. And if that vision is questioned, any criticism is disregarded as oppressive.
It's shocking to see a woman that wears hijab and defends sharia law pontificating about freedom and respect.

I think, on the contrary, that the essential problem is that alienation is not due to a substructure, being that racism, heteropatriarchy or whatnot. And that these "political protests" are just the psychological projection of an inferiority complex, a multitudinous group therapy.

So in the end it's just a rhetoric fight between neo-fascists and neo-marxists where the old left-right debate is long gone.

heh-heh hoh-hoh this-is-what-de-mo-cra-cy-looks-like

LOL

NSFW: A nice big cock

NSFW: A nice big cock

[joew771]

That cock isn't really that big. Mine is bigger.

And also, you are totally over analyzing what's going on.

Here's what is happening. The democrats, liberals, left; whatever you want to call them, are weak whiners, and because Clinton didn't win, they don't know what to do with themselves anymore, so attack Trump indiscriminately and illogically. Solely for the sake of attacking someone who thinks differently than they do. They have been doing the same thing for many years now. Even when Obama was prez. They have constantly pushed their ideology upon the country. Because a republican is in office again, that means they think they can bitch even more than usual.

But they for the most part are total idiots.

[connor17]

In order to send a coherent message, the left should avoid any tendency to dogmatism. Denigrating the people that don't agree with you is self destructive. You're just feeding totalitarianism, that in the end will bite the hand is feeding it.

When moral philosophy is written down, it freezes speech, it becomes orthodoxy. The moral dialogue gets codified. It's what Steiner calls "the decay into writing".
Every reader needs to decipher all over again what for the original writer was clear.
So we have the paradox of the dogma: it's unique, but at the same time is multiple. It's unequivocal, but that uniqueness is different for every reader.
The dogma is an empty shell that waits to be filled with the prejudices of every new sorcerer apprentice.

I see a lack of coherence on the left discourse about two dogmas: islam and communism.

The official stance of the left about islam is that "it's a religion of love, and muslims are tolerant people". And if you think different, that's because you're a racist bigot.

But that's the problem, the dogmatism. Islam is not A, or B, or C. Islam is all of them. Because islam is the dogma, not the particular interpretation that's made out of it. If someone says the real islam is A, then he's no better than the one who says that the real islam is B, or C.
In the end, interpretations are arbitrary, so any dogma is inherently amoral. It's absurd to think that is morally superior to say that islam is a religion of love, it's just another dogmatic interpretation, so inherently amoral.
The incoherence is to defend a dogma, pretending one specific interpretation is the good one, without taking into account that no interpretation is the right one. There's no right one, because all denies legitimacy to any other interpretation of the dogma. All dogmas are totalitarian, amoral, incompatible with democracy.

The same goes with communism. It's inherently totalitarian. You can not say that your interpretation of marxism is different from that of the communism dictatorships, that you get it right where all the rest along the history got it wrong. It's ludicrous. There's no right interpretation of a dogma, just someone imposing his ideas to all the rest.

The real answer only comes to light when this dogmatic ideologies reach power.

It's ok to be muslim or marxist when that's just another multiculti gibberish. But the real self of this essentially totalitarian ideologies show their real face wherever they have the power.

Does someone really believe that if muslim population reach the majority in a country, it wouldn't mean the islamization of the country?
Does someone believe that communism can be democratic?

The left should not be so ambiguous, so multiculti, so idiotic. Its condescendence with dogmatic ideologies is maybe the main reason of its irrelevance.

[Headbanger]

Here's what is happening. The democrats, liberals, left; whatever you want to call them, are weak whiners, and because Clinton didn't win, they don't know what to do with themselves anymore, so attack Trump indiscriminately and illogically. Solely for the sake of attacking someone who thinks differently than they do. They have been doing the same thing for many years now. Even when Obama was prez. They have constantly pushed their ideology upon the country. Because a republican is in office again, that means they think they can bitch even more than usual.

But they for the most part are total idiots.

The stereotypes for both leftist and rightwing idealogues are ludicrous. There are plenty of reasons to complain legitimately about anyone holding political office.

Both sides push ideology - its kind of defining when we have Anti-Climate Change or Pro-Climate Change, or Anti-Evolution or Pro-Evolution, or any number of trans or homosexual or religious or what have you ideologies. You simply can't push legislation or policy without pushing some sort of ideology.


It never ceases to amaze me the number of people I listen to who can complain all day about people complaining, occasionally addressing an issue. This is not an attack against you, there are just a number of guys I work with that have this kind of mentality.

But that's the problem, the dogmatism. Islam is not A, or B, or C. Islam is all of them. Because islam is the dogma, not the particular interpretation that's made out of it. If someone says the real islam is A, then he's no better than the one who says that the real islam is B, or C.
In the end, interpretations are arbitrary, so any dogma is inherently amoral. It's absurd to think that is morally superior to say that islam is a religion of love, it's just another dogmatic interpretation, so inherently amoral.
The incoherence is to defend a dogma, pretending one specific interpretation is the good one, without taking into account that no interpretation is the right one. There's no right one, because all denies legitimacy to any other interpretation of the dogma. All dogmas are totalitarian, amoral, incompatible with democracy.

The same goes with communism. It's inherently totalitarian. You can not say that your interpretation of marxism is different from that of the communism dictatorships, that you get it right where all the rest along the history got it wrong. It's ludicrous. There's no right interpretation of a dogma, just someone imposing his ideas to all the rest.

I completely agree with you that interpretations are arbitrary, and any dogma is inherently immoral, at least in some sense. It all depends on your ideas of morality to begin with though.

A religion in itself can not be evil, it takes the men and women who practice to do that, and that depends on their actions and beliefs, aka, the philosophy they hold with regards to their identity of religion. Trying to make any one vision of a religion the de facto religion itself tends to make the religion fracture, like as in the Protestant Reformation, and then even further as the core religious beliefs get split.

Does someone really believe that if muslim population reach the majority in a country, it wouldn't mean the islamization of the country?

Does someone believe that communism can be democratic?


The left should not be so ambiguous, so multiculti, so idiotic. Its condescendence with dogmatic ideologies is maybe the main reason of its irrelevance.

1) Depends on the philosophy of the Muslim population that reaches majority. In your own argument, it would depends on their interpretation of dogma. That's in extremely general terms. The real answer would probably be an extremely long sociology thesis beyond my comprehension.

2) Depends on the interpretation of the dogma of communism.

3a) The left does not hold a monopoly on being "multiculti." The way things are now have a lot to do with history and how the political parties evolved in trying to gain the votes of group A or group B. Even the right wing of today courts a diverse bunch - businessmen, conservatives, Christian fundamentalists [as in anti-climate change and anti-evolution], big oil, coal industry, etc. Not saying the leftists don't have their own groups that they try to garner support from, rather, both do. What happened is that with votes representing political party, each party made its attempts to court various parties that it thought it could support. This kind of relationship kept changing and growing throughout the history of political parties.

3b) Calling the left irrelevant is like calling the right of 2008 irrelevant. Simply false. Down two houses and an executive branch, the Republican party of '08 was still able to effectively stifle the agenda of the Democratic party. As a pretty leftist and Democrat myself, this wasn't always a bad thing, but a lot of it was frustrating. Today, the idea of Democrat's blocking Republican ideas is resonating strongly, with congressman worrying about passing certain legislation in fear of blocking a federal budget.

Of course, I am thinking strictly of American politics while I am righting this. I lack the intimate background with other countries to comment on them [sorry!] Also, I am drinking while I type this so I am probably becoming increasingly incoherent.

[tienkhoanguyen]

I rooted for Hillary however I do not think Trump is that bad really.  I think he gets a bad rap for much of his remarks.  Everyone makes mistakes!