tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post891280106692193199..comments2024-03-28T01:17:42.336-04:00Comments on The Philosopher's Stone: PAUL'S CONTRIBUTION AND MY RESPONSERobert Paul Wolffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-36566545440644927622019-05-14T02:01:30.120-04:002019-05-14T02:01:30.120-04:00Note to self: Beware of Wallerstein bearing compli...Note to self: Beware of Wallerstein bearing compliments.Christopher J. Mulvaney, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15817420454023465228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-37369344257110786272019-05-13T21:24:26.312-04:002019-05-13T21:24:26.312-04:00Christopher Mulvaney,
It's a pleasure to be i...Christopher Mulvaney,<br /><br />It's a pleasure to be in agreement with you about something, especially your point 3. Fascism can only arrive in certain historical contexts and whatever Trump's power fantasies and racial and gender prejudices may be, the historical context in the U.S. in 2019 makes anything similar to fascism, as it commonly manifests itself, almost impossible. s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-27187591467525893142019-05-13T21:18:23.416-04:002019-05-13T21:18:23.416-04:00Mr. Wallerstein,
Three quick points in response.
...Mr. Wallerstein,<br />Three quick points in response. <br /><br />1) Neither how quickly someone takes dictatorial control of the state apparatus nor how brutal they were in maintaining power define Fascism. Fascism is a political ideology, not a measure of political violence employed to gain and stay in power. <br /><br />2) My priority as an analyst is to get to the root of what Trump is. You may not consider him a fascist, but he is not a Republican in any historical sense of that term, he is not a conservative, but he is part of a long American tradition of racist, anti-immigration, white supremacist political and extra-legal violence.<br /><br />3) Historical context matters. The U.S. in 2019 is not Germany in 1932, or Chile in 1973, or Serbia in the 1990's.Christopher J. Mulvaney, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15817420454023465228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-3853839064649556222019-05-13T16:09:15.770-04:002019-05-13T16:09:15.770-04:00You might be able to make the case that Trump is s...You might be able to make the case that Trump is some kind of fascism-ultra-lite, but why bother? <br /><br />I could even see how calling Trump a fascist might offend some Holocaust survivors, people who lived through fascism with all its horrors.<br /><br />I myself lived through 11 years of the 17-year Pinochet dictatorship in Chile. There was a lot of debate on the Chilean left if Pinochet was actually a fascist (or just a traditional Latin American strongman), but he has a lot more in common with Hitler than Trump does.<br /><br />The day Pinochet took power, September 11, 1973, Congress was closed, press censorship was instituted, all political parties were dissolved, books were burned, thousands of members of the Allende government (the government over-thrown in the coup) were rounded up and jailed in a football stadium under horrid conditions, judged without a lawyer and in many cases, shot. All over the country police and army shot leftists without a trial. Within a few months the junta established the DINA, a secret police force that arrested, tortured and disappeared opposition figures without trial or records (not even the bureaucratic procedures used by the army and the police). <br /><br />I could go on. Sure, Trump has some things in common with real-life fascists, but there seems to be a difference in degree between Pinochet and Trump, just as there is one between Pinochet and Hitler. <br /><br />Trump is a horrid person and I genuinely hope that he gets voted out in the next election, but I don't see what is gained by calling him a fascist. s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-85121206695017620752019-05-13T14:02:41.065-04:002019-05-13T14:02:41.065-04:00I believe that to think of Trump as a part of the ...I believe that to think of Trump as a part of the neo-liberal tradition, that he’s a Reagan Republican and hence not as dangerous as Dr. Wolff thinks, is seriously mistaken. The Republican Party has become, and Trump is, a fascist. I’ll make that case in this post, and I hope in another post (soon), to argue Trump is in fact a danger to democratic political structures and norms. <br /><br />Fascists are what fascist do: 1) convince us there is an inferior race that is responsible for the problems we have and the crises we face, 2) cultivate fear and gin up hatred any way you can, and 3) exploit that fear and hate for the benefit of right-wing business interests.<br /><br />Trump did the first two the day he announced his run for office and delivered the business payoff (tax cuts) not long after his election. As his administration progressed, we have seen the scope of his fascist beliefs filled out . He hates Blacks, Muslims, Hispanics, and women. He doesn’t preach the gospel of racial inferiority, but he credits the view when possible (there are good people on both sides). He doesn’t shout his fascism from the rooftops like Hitler, rather he uses dog-whistles, winks and nods. If you think he is not a fascist, be reminded that the fascists/white supremacists think he is a fascist/white supremacist. <br /><br />The very language Trump uses echoes his Nazi precursor. Lugenpressen - lying press is the most prominent re-use of a Hitlerian phrase of which I am aware. Trump held press conferences with good Americans who had been victims of crimes perpetrated by drug-dealing, rapist Mexicans.. Hitler did the same thing, holding events with good Germans who had been victimized by a Jew. <br /><br />Trump is more likely to use more vile language in his rallies and at a recent rally a supporter called for immigrants to just be shot, a view Trump implicitly endorsed. One rhetorical difference between Hitler and Trump: Hitler gave speeches that used a standard pattern of starting slow and building to a frenzy while Trump’s “speeches” at his rallies are more freelance riffing on the usual set of themes.<br /><br />It is true that Trump doesn’t have an overtly fascist party platform, nor does he have a personal militia. I suspect that he doesn’t have them lies in the different historical circumstances. Parties in the 1920’s and 30’s were very different. The National Socialists and the Socialist Party had very similar party organizations that included social and education organization for members and their children. We saw a contemporary reflection of that type of party organization several years ago when a fascist attacked a Social Democratic youth camp on an island in Sweden.<br /><br />Today’s parties are mere shells of the earlier European model and their American precursors. But Trump’s party is the party of racism, and has been since the Nixon era. Trump is in no way, shape, or form a Reagan Republican and the party is no longer a bearer of Reaganesque conservatism. If it were, Paul Ryan would still be Speaker of the House. The Tea Party and Freedom Caucus factions now are the center of gravity in the party. <br /><br />They are the paranoid right that became frustrated at Bush (shrub) for not being conservative enough, came out of the closet in full force at the urging of Sarah Palin, and were motivated by the paranoid fear of a Black, Muslim, non-citizen running for office. And we all know Trump’s role in creating that controversy.<br /> <br />There is a statistical measure, DW-Nominate, that is used to rank legislator’s votes on a liberal -conservative scale. It shows quite clearly that the Republicans have moved drastically to the right compared to the Reagan years. They are no longer the party of Lincoln, or of Reagan. They are the Party of Trump and it is a neo-fascist party now. I tried to include the graph but it didn't work. The link is:<br />https://rpubs.com/ianrmcdonald/293304Christopher J. Mulvaney, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15817420454023465228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-30141474998199847022019-05-12T20:07:09.379-04:002019-05-12T20:07:09.379-04:00Thanks for replying at length to my comments! The ...Thanks for replying at length to my comments! The only thing I want to add on this is the following: I think that the evidence (of the kind I pointed out about Trump's inability to mount a genuine takeover while facing serious challenges both within and outside of his party) points to Trump being a quite a different political figure than your framing indicates. There's no doubt he's despicable and dangerous, and represents a step in the direction of a more openly authoritarian style in American politics. But I think the framing of him as Mussolini, or Putin, or even Putin-lite (or whatever--choose your analogy) is not only mistaken, but leads us to adopt a misguided sort or resistance. What sort of resistance? One characterized above all by a defensive stance, by an absolute cautiousness of him as a singular fascistic force. I think that would be lethal to the burgeoning left. As you mentioned, we have a real opening. That opening depends on our ability to make a clear moral and political argument--an argument that names neoliberalism (Reaganesque; Bush-and-Clinton–style politics) as the villain and clearly stakes out what's required to defeat that villain: massive organizing and mobilizing of the working class, and solidarity with the working class amongst those wealthy progressives serious enough to actually become class traitors. To do that, however, we can't be defensive and ally ourselves with whoever can beat Trump. We'll have to instead frame Trump as a symptom of the deeper rot, a rot manifest not only in Trump but in John Kasich, Mitt Romney, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton. I think we've got to relentlessly push that argument. And we therefore can't be in a state of paralysis, singularly focused on defeating Trump. I hope that all makes sense. At any rate, that's the conclusion the sort of profound leftist political economy I've learned from you ought to lead us.Paulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-4717313131752438132019-05-12T11:11:09.633-04:002019-05-12T11:11:09.633-04:00Dear Matt:
Do you suspect in some fashion the rol...Dear Matt:<br /><br />Do you suspect in some fashion the role of ideology has mutated in today's world? <br />The main functions of ideology are to provide a road map collectively and to give a sense of belonging.<br />Perhaps people have a sense of belonging by being connected by social media and sharing virtual experiences as signaling and perhaps because in an Orwellian sense since people can be easily fooled by Fox and company or by Trump, by being given slogans like MAGA and being cozily promised by Trump that he's adding jobs, while having the truth smoothed over and covered up, there is no real need for an ideology- it's like when you're downloading something- you witness the progress, you see on the news on your computer the "progress" Trump is making and you feel a part of it- there is no need for ideology to intervene, just deeply held and felt, collective political needs, and the lies that progress is being made<br /><br />Just thrashing out an idea, however I'm sure somebody way smarter than me had the same idea, more or lessHowiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12474061778220524205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-18389405359956562022019-05-12T08:28:33.022-04:002019-05-12T08:28:33.022-04:00He [Trump] lacks both the specific ideological vis...<i>He [Trump] lacks both the specific ideological vision and the tenacity required for that.</i><br /><br />There are a number of things I disagree, to varying degrees, with this account, but I want to focus on this supposed reason to not think Trump poses a special threat to US political systems. I think this is not at all right, for a number of related reasons.<br /><br />1. Trump has an ideological vision - white supremacy. It's been a part of his makeup for most of his life. Sometimes it's been more prevalent than other times, but it's pretty clearly been there his whole life, and it's important, both to him and to his supporters now. <br /><br />2. Lots of people who have destroyed any hope for democracy in their country have had no more, and often less, ideological coherence and vision. Take Putin, for example. What is his ideological vision? If we look to, say, 2000 (I watched him come to power live on TV in Russia on Dec. 31, 1999, and watched the 2000 elections first-hand), he had no vision at all except, perhaps, "Make Russia Great Again". He still has no coherent ideological vision. His grasping at stupid pseduo-philosophy like Aleksandr Dugin's "Eurasianism" is just a facade, no more real or of substance than his plagiarized PhD dissertation in economics is. And yet, this doesn't change the fact that Putin has destroyed the possibility for democracy in Russia, and made it, at least arguably, less politically free than it was in the last days of the Soviet Union.<br /><br />3. The fact that Trump is a fool and an idiot here doesn't obviously distinguish him from, say Mussolini, who was no big brain, and opens him up to manipulation by people like Stephen Miller, who is even more of an open fascist than Trump is. So, even if Trump isn't a thinker here on his own, this is no reason to not be worried. It only means he can be easily manipulated by people who are smarter than he is, while he serves as the public face. This is, of course, a pretty normal turn of events. <br /><br />So, there are a number of reasons to doubt the analysis here. But, this point in particular seems to me to be week, and pretty clearly not right. Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01446428606119200980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-74983474964975929852019-05-12T08:11:35.259-04:002019-05-12T08:11:35.259-04:00It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, ...It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to predict what will occur in 5 years time.<br />No one in 1963 could imagine 1968 and in fact, no one in 2015 could imagine that Trump would be elected president the next year. <br /><br />The electorate is extremely volatile and de-politicized, so it can change rapidly. A huge economic crisis or a war could occur, etc., etc.<br /><br />So it seems more sensible to focus our attention on the 2020 election than on how the results of the 2020 election may effect the 2024 election.s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-7767386519107262452019-05-12T08:05:05.519-04:002019-05-12T08:05:05.519-04:00Correction to penultimate sentence in the post.
S...Correction to penultimate sentence in the post.<br /><br />Should read:<br />"...I will donate...to <i>Sanders</i> and Warren...." <br /><br /> LFCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-44461890615900987612019-05-12T00:35:55.769-04:002019-05-12T00:35:55.769-04:00"I actually think Warren is better on the iss..."I actually think Warren is better on the issues than Sanders, but that is unimportant in this context."<br /><br />It's difficult to know which half of this sentence is more worrisome: that Warren is better "the issues" than Sanders (which issues? why is liberal technocracy better than grass-roots social democracy?) or that "this"--i.e., the right way to challenge neoliberalism--is somehow unimportant "in this context." <br /><br />Beside that all I can do is second Paul and Jerry Brown.talhahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14287356383220776892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-33434991087134646372019-05-11T23:46:23.473-04:002019-05-11T23:46:23.473-04:00What if the eras of the New Deal, and the Great So...What if the eras of the New Deal, and the Great Society, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and lasting, say, until the mid-70s, when real wages began to stagnate, was the high point of US democracy and the closest the US will ever get to the ideal free and equal and equitable democratic society?<br /><br />I can't decide what would be more disastrous for US democracy, seen through that lense, Trump winning a second term, or Biden winning, and the inevitable (I think), perhaps disciplined, certainly hard right, backlash?TheDudeDiogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613928663752680375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-55993328331091901112019-05-11T20:29:20.349-04:002019-05-11T20:29:20.349-04:00I am glad you responded to Paul. But I thought he...I am glad you responded to Paul. But I thought he was right and still think he was right. <br /><br />Jerry Brownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-15958159461090934902019-05-11T17:42:18.519-04:002019-05-11T17:42:18.519-04:00“...such changes would require a solid left majori...“...such changes would require a solid left majority in the House and Senate as well as a progressive in the White House, and that is much dicier.”<br /><br />I agree, but I think the chances of that occurring are virtually none. We do not have a solid left majority in the House now. About 30 of the Democrats come from districts that Trump carried. Their votes will not mirror those of AO-C. Senate control is at best a toss-up, and if the Democrats do get control it will not be enough to block the filibuster let alone convict on impeachment.<br /><br />Any Democrat elected to the White House in 2020 will be lucky to be able to accomplish as much as Obama was able to accomplish in terms of domestic legislation. <br />David Palmeterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01895092366685079046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-42059684980592605432019-05-11T15:08:17.216-04:002019-05-11T15:08:17.216-04:00I agree with Paul about Trump.
I think that you (...I agree with Paul about Trump.<br /><br />I think that you (RPW) and many others tend to exaggerate the dangers of Trump. As I've said before, he's a clown, a crook, a narcissist, a misogynist, a liar, vulgar, and even physically repulsive, but he's not a fascist dictator, and even if he wanted to be one, he's not going to pull it off.<br /><br />We all exaggerate in politics, that gets the passion burning and the indignation firing us up to go out and march, but it's an error to believe one's own exaggerations. From the first day the U.S. left framed Trump as a fascist and their own opposition to him as the "resistance" as if they were in occupied France facing the SS. We all love grand opera (I do too) and maybe framing opposition as resistance helped fired up people to protest, but Trump is not the gestapo and has never shown any signs of wanting to end "democracy" (note between quotation marks) in the U.S. Trump loves money and being the center of attention, and if he's defeated in the 2020 election and avoids being jailed, he'll probably produce and star in a successful TV reality show called "White House" or something like that and make millions of dollars from it. <br /><br />s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-63505600688917381372019-05-11T14:56:34.457-04:002019-05-11T14:56:34.457-04:00Biden is an unpredictable sort, and will likely se...Biden is an unpredictable sort, and will likely set his hair on fire once or twice during the campaign. Trump's wig, on the other hand, seems robustly resillient. These are curious times. MLK would have been surprised by the election and re-election of Obama. But what he wouldn't have been surprised by, I suspect, is that an ignorant racist would succeed the man.jgkess@cfl.rr.comnoreply@blogger.com