Bernie Sanders may have attracted some voters but far from enough. Trump only lost because of the epidemic and because he made mistakes during the election campaign. This is not surprising though as he isn't a career politician.

How do you define "two-valued orientation"? We must have a concept of right and wrong otherwise social order and everything else collapses into anarchy and chaos.

I don't know, it's been working for thousands of years. — frank

Actually, I think it is the wisdom of nuance that keeps things "working." Kind of like natural selection. Cross thread points. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10752/being-a-man/p5

P.S. How do I grab just a single post from another thread and link it here?

How do you define "two-valued orientation"? We must have some concept of right and wrong otherwise social order and everything else collapses and we descend into anarchy and chaos.

How do you define "two-valued orientation"? — Apollodorus

A two-valued orientation would be saying that socialism is incapable of incorporating aspects of capitalism, and capitalism is incapable of incorporating aspects of socialism. It's like saying there is only black and white; no grey, no red, no blue . . .

Then there is the knob who thinks that dipping your toe into one results in an inevitable slide to it's logical extreme.

Actually, I think it is the wisdom of nuance that keeps things "working." Kind of like natural selection — James Riley

Up vs down. No nuance required. A freaking border collie can do it. :cool:

Sure. However, politics is about power which is a limited commodity. You can only acquire power for yourself by taking it from someone else and the more power you have the more you restrict others' access to power. This is why liberalism starts with fighting for freedoms for some groups and ends up suppressing others.

Up vs down. No nuance required. A freaking border collie can do it. — frank

Right vs wrong. I get it. And there is something to be said for the friction, and maybe even the impending fire, but those who get to sit around it and cook aren't burning up in it.

Sure. However, politics is about power which is a limited commodity. You can only acquire power for yourself by taking it from someone else and the more power you have the more you restrict others' access to power. This is why liberalism starts with fighting for freedoms for some groups and ends up suppressing others. — Apollodorus

It's still not an either or proposition. Not all power has to be taken. Just some.

The point though is that in practice you need to suppress others to some extent in order to stay in power. Nobody wants to be the underdog. The dominant group might be disposed to share some power but this will still leave it a dominant position. How do you share power fairly?

How do you share power fairly? — Apollodorus

Well, life is not fair. So what we do, in pursuit of self-interest, is we try a little bit of socialism, a little bit of capitalism, a little federal democracy, lots of guns, but mostly, education. Lots and lots of education. And not in *what* to think, but *how* to think. Oh, and trust and the maintenance of credibility by individuals and institutions.

Then perhaps the solution is to revert to a more traditional political culture and form of governance, one that prevents the growing fragmentation of society along political/ethnic/gender/religious lines which is what seems to be happening at the moment.

And in that case you can't avoid pushing back the subversive "divide-and-rule" crowd. Reestablishing the rule or right, in other words.

Then perhaps the solution is to revert to a more traditional political culture and form of governance, one that prevents the growing fragmentation of society along political/ethnic/gender/religious lines which is what seems to be happening at the moment. — Apollodorus

Or, we could always remember the higher ideals and aspirations of the traditional political culture, and try to live up to them. Maybe, also, stepping back and realizing that maybe the fragmentation has started inside, with our own fragmentation and refusal to allow those "others" in. Maybe a recognition that "we" are no longer a majority. Maybe leading by example (the city on the hill, the thousand points of light, etc.) instead of realpolitik.

Trump only lost because of the epidemic and because he made mistakes during the election campaign. This is not surprising though as he isn't a career politician. — Apollodorus

Trump is a demagogue surrounded by sycophantic plutocrats . He is exactly the kind of person Plato warned against in his criticism of democracy. His popularity has largely to do with the politics of resentment. By the time he ran for office the second time he was a career politician and remains so.

The problem is the two-valued orientation, — James Riley

I agree. Most regimes today, including the US, are mixed regimes.

Well, that sounds a bit too idealistic to me. It seems to overlook the agendas of subversive groups and foreign powers using local proxies to destabilize governments. Plus, the process of fragmentation may have already gone too far or is proceeding at too high a speed for idealistic countermeasures to actually work.

However, capitalist society saw itself forced to do something about those negative developments even without socialist revolution, hence liberalism ultimately won the debate. — Apollodorus

I suggest you do a bit more reading on the subject. It was not a full out revolution but the creation of unions to advance workers rights was a socialist movement. If liberalism won it was because of the socialists who advocated for the right of workers.

From that perspective, "social security" is just the bait used by clever socialists to promote communism ... — Apollodorus

Again, look at the history. Social security was not the bait, it was however denounced by its detractors as socialism and communism. It was signed into law in 1935. If it was a program to promote communism it failed. As a program to promote the economic welfare of the American people it has been a remarkable success comrade.

Funny enough, unionists didn't want to hear anything about Marx and Engels' socialist plans. And farmers and artisans even less. Marx and Engels themselves point this out in their Communist Manifesto.

The term predates Marx and Engels'. Marxism and socialism are not the same.

Well, that sounds a bit too idealistic to me. It seems to overlook the agendas of subversive groups and foreign powers using local proxies to destabilize governments. Plus, the process of fragmentation may have already gone too far or is proceeding at too high a speed for idealistic countermeasures to actually work. — Apollodorus

The Founding Fathers were "a bit too idealistic" too. But they didn't overlook the agendas of subversive groups or foreign powers using local proxies to destabilize the government. I think the process of fragmentation has not gone to far. It's just that the dominant paradigm doesn't like it. I don't think they need to get the hell out of the way, but they could quit being so two-valued. In fact, their dualistic thinking is more likely to create the oppositional push-back they dream of in their slippery slope arguments. Case in point: the Sanders and AOCs of the world are just a natural response to the right's failure to listen to capitalists like Warren. Please don't dissect the particulars on that: it was merely an example of how dualistic thinking is the source of it's own chagrin.

The idealistic countermeasure would call for a little self-reflection, instead of all the stupid finger-pointing and boogey men.

Social security was not the bait, it was however denounced by its detractors as socialism and communism. — Fooloso4

:100: I am hard-pressed to think of a single, solitary creation of man, currently embraced, and loved by the conservative mind, which was not, at it's genesis, zealously fought against and hated by their processors in interest. They like to pretend they created it, but it was brought to them, over their kicking and screaming, tightly wadded panties, by the liberals of the day. That is the course of humanity: liberals dragging conservatives into the future and progress. I suppose the resistance is a good thing. But, it can make the slog very exhausting. It's like dragging an insolent child through vegetables.

That is the course of humanity: liberals dragging conservatives into the future and progress.

That’s an important point. It’s the same with the modern welfare state. State welfare in imperial Germany and Austria, for example, were reactionary and religious creations. That progressives nowadays champion such measures, and conservatives oppose them, is somewhat ironic.

I would argue, though, that both conservatives and progressives have led us into a future of abject statism rather than something desirable. But as you say that’s the course of right-left politics.

It isn’t me you should be upset with, it’s the big corporations and corrupt politicians.

I haven’t got anything against socialism. But true socialism doesn’t exist anymore. After Marx and Engels closed down their Socialist International, socialism was taken over by England’s Fabian Society and Labour Party who have dominated the international socialist movement ever since in collaboration with big industrial and financial corporations.

Do some research and see for yourself:

Fabian Freeway: Highway to Socialism in the U. S. A.

The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy

That’s why the Labour Party has lost elections since 2010. People are beginning to wake up and see through the Fabians, the European Union and other socialist projects. There is a big awakening in Europe, Italy, France, Poland, Hungary, all of them are beginning to wake up. Even Scandinavian countries and soon Germany. Trust me, I've seen what's happening.

But as you say that’s the course of right-left politics. — NOS4A2

Yes, and one must be careful about picking the worst of the other side as a representative of it. Those who detest the idea of welfare will often drag out the worst as an example of what can and does happen. But reasonable people and policy makers should not base their decisions on what we used to call in the Marine Corps the 10%. If we want to devote time and resources to dealing with them, we can, but we should not let that stand in the way of helping the 90%.

I wish I could find it (it was stated much better than I can) a tweet on social media where a lady made a good point about how you actually get more out of people, and don't discourage hard work, when you treat them with respect and dignity.

Although social security is popular the GOP is still opposed:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2018/11/02/republican-public-opposition-to-social-security-and-medicare/?sh=3de051b44e71

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nancyaltman/2019/08/26/republicans-are-pushing-myths-about-social-security-to-justify-their-demands-for-benefit-cuts/?sh=2e636a5e1107

It isn’t me you should be upset with — Apollodorus

The fact that I disagree with you does not mean I am upset with you. I don't know who you are but I don't imagine you have much power to change things.

...socialism was taken over by England’s Fabian Society and Labour Party — Apollodorus

No one can take over socialism. All they can do is promote a particular socialist position. In the same way, no one can take over democracy.

There is big awakening in Europe, Italy, France, Poland, Hungary, all of them are beginning to wake up. Even Scandinavian countries and soon Germany. — Apollodorus

The pendulum swings. No one knows how things will look ten or twenty years from now.

Although social security is popular the GOP is still opposed: — Fooloso4

As some wag once said, "They want the issue, not the solution."

The issue is more important because without it, they have no importance. They are running out of issues, so they make them up. Like a war on Christmas.

But make no mistake: The system is working just fine. It's just fine for some and not for others.

And yet they remain popular. I think it is a combination of fear and resentment fueled by well funded right wing propaganda.

I think it fair to say, if you want to know what the right wing is doing look at what they criticize the left for.

:100:

Of course no one knows what will be in 10 or 20 years. Maybe Europe will be taken over by China and then we'll have Chinese-style communism instead of socialism. I'm only saying what's happening right now. By "taking over socialism" I meant exactly what you're saying, promoting one particular brand of it, like one that's favoured by big corporations, as opposed to others favoured by the masses. But that amounts to the same thing, in my opinion. It means that the man in the street has no say in it and is being led on by politicians.