That's when ordinary politics becomes religionized --- that is, sacred enough to kill for.. But Left and Right hold different things sacred. So a democratic society must somehow bow to all gods, and honor all belief systems, and avoid dishonoring any particular sacred cow. — Gnomon

I'm not sure if I'd call it to become religionized. In a way it's the opposite, people who believed in the government/politics/democracy having their faith in the system erased. So it's more like a religious person becoming an atheist. Revolutions happen because of desperation when people who have nothing to lose lose it. Hence it's not just that something dear is threatened. You can have a lot that is important to you threatened and you will tolerate it, if you have something more important to lose. Starting from things like your freedom or your life. A lot of people can tolerate dictatorships as they fear more what will happen to them and their loved ones. Hence you can have system where everybody doesn't believe in the system, but the system just carries on. Hence dictatorships can unravel very quickly basically without bloodshed when that fear evaporates away.

To resort to violence there simply is a firm conviction that dialogue doesn't work, nothing will change things without resorting to violence. If a person individually thinks so while nobody else agrees with him, he is a madman. If a group of people think so, they are terrorists. If a large part of the population think so, it's called a revolution or civil war.

In our day, even non-theistic religions like Fascism & Communism have become the "other gods" in some cases. That's because they demand the same kind of loyalty to nation or party, that used to be reserved for the gods of chosen people. — Gnomon

More like political discussion becomes a lithurgy, one basically has to declare one's true faith by following the lithurgy. It is a religion in the way that people aren't open to other ideas, they hold them as issues of faith.

Unfortunately, all too often, one extreme is more ruthless (don't play fair) than the other : e.g. the extreme patriotism of Hitler's National Socialism and Trump's America First ; or the impractical (extreme idealism) ideology of Communism.. — Gnomon

History remembers Hitler's brownshirts, the SA, yet history commonly doens't remember the Roter Frontkämpferbund of the Communist Party, or the other various paramilitary groups starting with the Freikorps.

(You didn't have only Nazi paramilitaries in Weimar Germany...before Hitler came into power.)


The problem usually isn't that one side uses 'extra-parliamentary' action and others don't, what is the likely event is that the democratic system simply disintegrates into using violence, election rigging and other unlawful means. It simply becomes "the new reality", the norm how political competition happens. In third world countries it's quite 'normal'. The worst option is that democracy is replaced by guns without any trace to a democratic system.

I think one canary in the coal mine is when you start to have far too many different flags in different marches, people with gear in order to participate in a riot and openly carried weapons in political rallies.

And due to the geographic divide will lead to the inevitable outcome of a more literal split. In other countries the political division is generally scattered in the US you can pretty much see borders in the map. — I like sushi

This is true. What is happening is that you are getting areas with vast amounts of either Republican voters or Democrat voters. Typically you can guess where the large cities are and what is rural area, yet in the US this is even more visible.

The two party system is a house of cards that seem to be laid in concrete by three ideas that Americans cherish as self evident truths:

1) The amazing idea that democracy would work through the machinations of the two political parties, inside from them in the "primaries" in Presidential elections, as the position of the president is given near mythical status.

2) The idea that any other "third" party will either not have any chance or will simply be a spoiler, which is enforced by a media that only focuses on the two parties. The parties at least tell they have a huge following, the DNC with 48 million and the GOP with 36 million members, which is quite a lot.

3) The instigation of political polarization and tribalization by the two parties has lead Americans to think that they are divided by the lines of these two parties. As the two parties are quite close to each other on many issues (as noted earlier by the quote from Gore Vidal by @Tom Storm), they cannot compete with different policy options, but simply portray the other party in the worst way and instill fear about the other. This leads to what some could say amounts to inciting political violence, but this also has the effect that it divides the opposition of the two-party system into separate camps. The divide and rule strategy has been quite successful many times. A divided opposition to the two-party system will not be threat to the two parties.

It would be much like the current adminstration, except it will make liberals uncomfortable enough to say something because it will be honest about its depravity. — StreetlightX

Comes to mind the best reasoning given by Trump supporter why Trump should be elected in 2016. He said the following: "If Trump is elected, the media will do it's job and watch every move Trump makes. With Hillary they will be her lapdogs."

Some truth to that.

You may be right. Trump is a simple man. Really, really simple. One has to remind oneself about that.

Yep. True wealth creation comes from using leverage.

And not only for the rich. Same way the middle class becomes a middle class.

People have gotten prosperous in many countries with buying their home and then their children inheriting something from their parents. One of the reasons why poor countries stay poor is that the ordinary people cannot get a loan, banks don't loan to them and hence they cannot buy a house or a flat and are forced to live on a rental flat for all their life. You don't leave anything for your children when you have paid rent all your life and everything goes into simply feeding the family.

Or to say it otherwise, people are sentenced into povetry when they don't have the ability to take loans for buying a home or starting a business, and/or the loans aren't affordable to be paid back by normal income.

Some countries lure them and their money like a U.S. city giving Amazon a tax-free ride if they locate in town. The world is their oyster. I could go on. — James Riley

Not just other countries, you have the tax havens inside the US. Huge industry to hide the income.

Well, some call it tax planning. If it's legal, many people say it's just being smart and you are simply stupid if you don't take into account what is legal to do. To hell with it, I say. To hell with the deductions, all those bizarre ways you can decrease your taxes and with the complexity of taxation.

My view is that paying taxes and the tax system ought to be as simple, as transparent as possible so every bozo would understand it. Even better when it's automatic, that you only need to check that things are correct. And that avoiding taxes or doing anything else is simply a criminal issue.

I think one of the best improvements that happened here was that the tax official has to himself or herself to tax the person in the most convenient way for the taxpayer or otherwise the tax official is in difficulties. Earlier it was only up to the taxpayer to demand change to his or her taxation if their was a mistake or if the taxes hadn't been calculated in the best way possible for him or her. Hence a tax official could be sloppy as it didn't matter for him or her.

However, why is their money not paying taxes like all other workers? Withholding for SS, medicare, unemployment, income (state and federal), etc.? Can the money unionize? Go on strike against the billionaires and seek better working conditions? Make it's own investments? Vote? Etc. All independent of the asshole it works for? Just curious. Or is the money simply a slave? — James Riley

It's quite logical to pay taxes when either you get dividends or you cash out your investments.

If you own one stock you bought for 1 dollar and later someone is ready to 100 dollars for it, you will have that 100 dollars and make the 99 dollar profit only when you sell the stock...to that someone. Not when you are just holding on to it as then nothing has changed as you don't have income. And if it comes out that the whole company behind the stock was a ponzi scheme and in the end the actual prize is 1 cent or nothing, how would you think about paying taxes of a few dollars when it was valued 100 dollars?

It's actually quite similar to the farmer that barely makes a living and hardly makes an income after expenses equivalent to working at McDonalds, but if he would sell everything, the farm, the fields and the livestock he would be a millionaire. Oh but the farmer is so filthy rich because he has all that land! (Many of my neighbors in the countryside where we have a summer cottage have stopped farming and never wanted their children to carry on farming the estate for this reason.)

I didn't think it was strange. Putin is precisely the kind of charismatic, unconstrained 'strong man' Trump would see himself as aspiring to be. Since Trump scorned most conventional Western democratic politics, where else would he go for models? — Tom Storm

The most logical reason I can think of is simply appeasing to the populist crowd, but it simply doesn't make sense. To be tough on the allies and then to "make an openings" to those that see the US as a threat. Not actually a great way to go. You will have estranged allies and rivals that take advantage of you. But what else can such an inept politician do?

It simply wasn't normal. Yet what is noteworthy is the speed that the pro-Russia people were whisked away from the Trump administration.

Wonder what it's going to be like in the second Trump administration. That really would be the thing...

This scandal was spread worldwide, and though its dismantling will sound as a whimper in comparison to the fevered reporting of the big lie, the truth is nonetheless prevailing in the end. — NOS4A2

Uh, that actually could be seen that the Mueller Report didn't find similar things...

(AP/The Washington Times, April 22 2019) The Democratic Party-financed dossier, once celebrated by liberal Washington politicians and journalists, is officially debunked, according to a review of special counsel Robert Mueller’s 448-page investigative report.

Dossier creator Christopher Steele, who was paid with money from the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, leveled at least a dozen Russian election conspiracy charges against President Trump and associates.

Virtually all his information came from Kremlin intelligence, according to the dossier. Mrs. Clinton’s operatives spread the document to the Justice Department, the FBI and news outlets.

A Washington Times review shows that not one of his conspiracy charges 0-for-12 was proved true and most were outright rejected by Mr. Mueller. The Mueller report also puts to rest four other non-dossier conspiracy charges tied to Mr. Trump.

However, the Mueller report did not clear Trump totally, as we know.

Anyway, I watched Trump meet Putin here. Strange that the US President was a total toadie for the Russian President. It simply is bizarre.

End of story.

As I said, when there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence that points to conspiracy, sometimes a duck is just a duck, and not a reasonable facilely. — boagie

I think the bombing of USS Liberty was a conspiracy.

So, Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction that the Bush Admin knew about. — Bylaw

The vast inspections done after the country was invaded actually showed just how successful Operation Desert Fox actually was under Clinton. But then Saddam himself kept the myth alive...and their were people keen to attack Iraq in the Bush Whitehouse. But prior to that (and the Gulf war), Saddam did had chemical weapons, yes. Not so much as Nazi Germany had during WW2, but still. And an nuclear program that would likely have produced a nuclear weapon if the Gulf war hadn't happened (even with the Israeli bombing of the Osirak reactor).

Plato's Parmenides character is not Parmenides. Uncovering the foibles of the primitive logic of opposites and pluralities and how this evolved from Parmenides to Plato is what reading Plato's Parmenides is mostly about. — magritte

I agree. Which makes the actual Parmenides interesting. Zeno's paradoxes are themselves interesting, highly popular and lead to math that surfaced far later.

And wasn't during this time the belief in Greece that all numbers were rational broken by the observations that not all geometric magnitudes can be expressed by rational numbers? Which also begs the question.

Everyone that doesn't share your views is a bogie. Or a bougie. We know.

No, it isn’t, because China and Vietnam rejected neoliberalism. So your statement to the contrary makes no sense, because it isn’t true. — Xtrix

Ok, I think you misunderstood me.

What I meant that this, China and Vietnam rejecting neoliberalism, is a very important thing to understand here. Basically China opening up and emerging to become the second largest economy from the size of the Dutch economy in the start of the 1980's has been the real driving force in globalization. However, as this, as you agree, hasn't been because of a neoliberal policy in China, it's wrong to argue that events in China (or Vietnam) have happened because of neoliberalism. It has been marketed in the West as a success of neoliberalism as the US has had this false idea that China opening up would bring also political change (and make it more like, uh, Taiwan).

Hopefully you understood my point. As I think you are open to real discussion (unlike some others).

Exactly right. — NOS4A2

And that's how democracy works.

Except that WWI did not "prove them wrong" because worker solidarity literally flourished in the wake of WWI like no other time in the history of the planet. — StreetlightX

After millions of workers had killed each other and rallied to the flag of their country in 1914 and not have gone on strike everywhere...as the labour movement had thought prior.

They are socialists to me. So-called “social” legislation and other mollycoddling adopted by governments these days are but the successive steps to a socialist regime, if they’re not there already. — NOS4A2

Well, for example the US Republican party has a long tradition of that. Just to name few examples from some Republican Presidents:

Ronald Reagan:

- signed into law the Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984. The act has been the most significant factor in recent growth of SSDI usage. The share of the U.S. population receiving SSDI benefits has risen rapidly over the past two decades, from 2.2 percent of adults age 25 to 64 in 1985 to 4.1 percent in 2005.

- with Native policy in 1983 instituted direct funding rights for block grants for the tribes and special assistance for small tribes to help build managerial capacities and also seed money to attract funding for economic development projects on reservations.

George W. Bush:

- instituted the most significant reforms to Medicare in nearly 40 years, most notably through a prescription drug benefit, which has provided more than 40 million Americans with better access to prescription drugs.

- Increased funding for veterans' medical care by more than 115 percent since 2001 and committed more than $6 billion to modernize and expand VA medical facilities, ensuring more veterans could receive quality care close to home.

So there you have your socialists, NOS4A2, Reagan and George Bush. And I think with a little looking in the net similar "socialist" laws are found done by Eisenhower, Nixon and older Bush.

And since your initial comment was to the effect that WWI somehow put a damper on worker solidarity — StreetlightX

LOL!

Talk about a desperate urge to find a strawman. But let's make it as simple as possible: PRIOR to WW1 the labor & socialist movement thought that the workers would unite against wars of the imperialists. THEN WW1 happened, which proved them wrong.

Understand now what I meant? Oh I forget, that isn't your agenda here, to listen what others say. Your just here to rant...

But it seems to me that leftists didn't abandon labor, both labor and the left were just beaten into the ground by the 1980s and 90s.

Obliterated. — frank

The left didn't abandon the organizations, but organized trade unions have not succeed in the US. The working class or people who think of them as being part of the working class do exist. That they haven't found a voice in the left is the problem. Usually the left has very crappy ideas how to fix problems.

I wonder if you get off on just making things up for fun or if you genuinely are completely ignorant of the fact that the interwar period was a literal golden age of worker power the likes of which have never been seen since. — StreetlightX

And that was after WW1. Perhaps something like the Soviet revolution had an effect on socialist ideas, you know. Otherwise, please inform yourself of the actual history before accusing others of making things up:

During the early twentieth century, the Second International, composed primarily of European socialist and labor organizations that sometimes included U.S. representatives, often declared its opposition to bourgeois and imperialist wars and discussed tactics for opposing such wars. Yet proposals for a general strike in the event of the outbreak of war were voted down and constituent groups failed to agree upon any other concrete plans of action to stop war. Following the cascading series of events that led European powers to declare war against each other in August 1914, labor and socialist organizations in belligerent countries found themselves in a conundrum. They opposed the war in principle, but had no unified plan for ending it.

The US is very, very different in this issue with things like mobsters running trade unions etc. The netflix documentary "American Factory" displays quite well the dismal position of the US workforce and the attitude towards labour unions in the country. Hence the differences are huge from country to country. For example in my country the vast majority of all in work belong to a trade union. For example all the officers in the Finnish Armed Forces belong to a trade union and believe me, they really, really aren't socialists.

A bit difficult to explain, but basically it is the leftist push on woke issues and emphasizing the causes of the "new left", which don't see the labour movement as so important. At least the populists and the right have successfully painted "the woke new left" to have abandoned the working (male).

Basically it's the phenomena like Trump having success with blue collar workers voters in 2016 or the labour voters who voted for the Conservatives because the party lead by Boris Johnson pushed for Brexit (and Labour was against it). At least Boris was smart enough to understand to be humble with these new "conservatives". Even here in Finland the traditional left has lost support to the populist "True Finns" party, which apart of it's anti-immigrant stance is basically quite centrist.

Yes. I was wondering if there is some way past that, but I think it would require a global government to ironically limit the ill effects of globalization. — frank

You don't need a global government, just few simple agreements between independent governments with ways to punish those that brake the agreement. Start from things like universal safety standards, work hours etc.

This is the real failure of the labour movement. Those idealists really thought at the start of the 20th Century that "all workers would unite", but then happened WW1 and the workers happily rallied to their flags killed each other. So perhaps those objectives or ideas of global solidarity were far too rosy, even if the salaries, work safety and work hours got improved (which is a huge thing, actually). Yet these, again, were fought in the national level, never on an international level. How these movements could cooperate at the international level has not yet happened.

And have to make the criticism that the political left has abandoned this classical support group and hence many in the working class have been lured by right-wing populism in many countries. Populism, of course, is extensively nationalistic in this view and naturally see's foreigners (and foreign workers) as a huge problem. Not something that can help here.

Easy to dissolve everything in the acid bath of cynicism. There’s a few specialists of that around. — Wayfarer

Let's look at that agreement. It's noteworthy to actually read those texts. They usually aren't thousands of pages as both countries have had to agree on every term and phrasing. And do tell a lot more than the media hype around the talks.

From the State department website:

1. The United States and China recall their Joint Statement Addressing the Climate Crisis of April 17th, 2021. They are committed to its effective implementation and appreciate the intensive work that has taken place to date and the value of continued discussion.

2. The United States and China, alarmed by reports including the Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report released on August 9th, 2021, further recognize the seriousness and urgency of the climate crisis. They are committed to tackling it through their respective accelerated actions in the critical decade of the 2020s, as well as through cooperation in multilateral processes, including the UNFCCC process, to avoid catastrophic impacts.

3. The United States and China recall their firm commitment to work together and with other Parties to strengthen implementation of the Paris Agreement. The two sides also recall the Agreement’s aim in accordance with Article 2 to hold the global average temperature increase to well below 2 degrees C and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5 degrees C. In that regard, they are committed to pursuing such efforts, including by taking enhanced climate actions that raise ambition in the 2020s in the context of the Paris Agreement, with the aim of keeping the above temperature limit within reach and cooperating to identify and address related challenges and opportunities.

4. Moving forward, the United States and China welcome the significant efforts being made around the world to address the climate crisis. They nevertheless recognize that there remains a significant gap between such efforts, including their aggregate effect, and those that need to be taken to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement. The two sides stress the vital importance of closing that gap as soon as possible, particularly through stepped-up efforts. They declare their intention to work individually, jointly, and with other countries during this decisive decade, in accordance with different national circumstances, to strengthen and accelerate climate action and cooperation aimed at closing the gap, including accelerating the green and low-carbon transition and climate technology innovation.

5. The two sides are intent on seizing this critical moment to engage in expanded individual and combined efforts to accelerate the transition to a global net zero economy.

6. The two sides recall their intention to continue discussing, both on the road to COP 26 and beyond, concrete actions in the 2020s to reduce emissions aimed at keeping the Paris Agreement-aligned temperature limit within reach. With that clear purpose, and anticipating that particular forms of cooperation will have the effect of significantly accelerating emission reductions and limitations, including in the form of specific goals, targets, policies, and measures, the two sides intend to engage in the actions and cooperative activities set forth below.

7. The two sides intend to cooperate on:
regulatory frameworks and environmental standards related to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases in the 2020s; maximizing the societal benefits of the clean energy transition;
policies to encourage decarbonization and electrification of end-use sectors; key areas related to the circular economy, such as green design and renewable resource utilization; and
deployment and application of technology such as CCUS and direct air capture.

8. Recognizing specifically the significant role that emissions of methane play in increasing temperatures, both countries consider increased action to control and reduce such emissions to be a matter of necessity in the 2020s. To this end:

The two countries intend to cooperate to enhance the measurement of methane emissions; to exchange information on their respective policies and programs for strengthening management and control of methane; and to foster joint research into methane emission reduction challenges and solutions.

The United States has announced the U.S. Methane Emissions Reduction Action Plan.
Taking into account the above cooperation, as appropriate, the two sides intend to do the following before COP 27:

They intend to develop additional measures to enhance methane emission control, at both the national and sub-national levels.

In addition to its recently communicated NDC, China intends to develop a comprehensive and ambitious National Action Plan on methane, aiming to achieve a significant effect on methane emissions control and reductions in the 2020s.

The United States and China intend to convene a meeting in the first half of 2022 to focus on the specifics of enhancing measurement and mitigation of methane, including through standards to reduce methane from the fossil and waste sectors, as well as incentives and programs to reduce methane from the agricultural sector.

9. In order to reduce CO2 emissions:

The two countries intend to cooperate on:
Policies that support the effective integration of high shares of low-cost intermittent renewable energy;
Transmission policies that encourage efficient balancing of electricity supply and demand across broad geographies;
Distributed generation policies that encourage integration of solar, storage, and other clean power solutions closer to electricity users; and
Energy efficiency policies and standards to reduce electricity waste.

B. The United States has set a goal to reach 100% carbon pollution-free electricity by 2035.

C. China will phase down coal consumption during the 15th Five Year Plan and make best efforts to accelerate this work.

Recognizing that eliminating global illegal deforestation would contribute meaningfully to the effort to reach the Paris goals, the two countries welcome the Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land Use. The two sides intend to engage collaboratively in support of eliminating global illegal deforestation through effectively enforcing their respective laws on banning illegal imports.

The two sides recall their respective commitments regarding the elimination of support for unabated international thermal coal power generation.

With respect to COP 26, both countries support an ambitious, balanced, and inclusive outcome on mitigation, adaptation, and support. It must send a clear signal that the Parties to the Paris Agreement:

Are committed to tackling the climate crisis by strengthening implementation of the Paris Agreement, reflecting common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances;

Recall the Paris Agreement’s aim to hold the global average temperature increase to well below 2 degrees C and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5 degrees C and are committed to pursuing such efforts, including by taking ambitious action during this critical decade to keep the above temperature limit within reach, including as necessary communicating or updating 2030 NDCs and long-term strategies;

Recognize the significance of adaptation in addressing the climate crisis, including further discussion on the global goal on adaptation and promoting its effective implementation, as well as the scaling up of financial and capacity-building support for adaptation in developing countries; and Resolve to ensure that their collective and individual efforts are informed by, inter alia, the best available science.

Both countries recognize the importance of the commitment made by developed countries to the goal of mobilizing jointly $100b per year by 2020 and annually through 2025 to address the needs of developing countries, in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, and stress the importance of meeting that goal as soon as possible.
Both countries will work cooperatively to complete at COP 26 the implementing arrangements (“rulebook”) for Articles 6 and 13 of the Paris Agreement, as well as common time frames for NDCs.

Both countries intend to communicate 2035 NDCs in 2025.

The two sides intend to establish a “Working Group on Enhancing Climate Action in the 2020s,” which will meet regularly to address the climate crisis and advance the multilateral process, focusing on enhancing concrete actions in this decade. This may include, inter alia, continued policy and technical exchanges, identification of programs and projects in areas of mutual interest, meetings of governmental and non-governmental experts, facilitating participation by local governments, enterprises, think tanks, academics, and other experts, exchanging updates on their respective national efforts, considering the need for additional efforts, and reviewing the implementation of the Joint Statement and this Joint Declaration.

Yeah, at first glance I can say that the above is much more than a lousy Trump bullshit deal.

He was equating a massive transfer of wealth and power with “every advance the people have made in the last 20 years”. As is common, he confuses the state’s aggrandizement with that of their subjects. Insofar as socialism routinely pretends that state ownership is social ownership, his critics are not far off the mark. — NOS4A2

Democracy has this often resented feature that political movements do sometimes get their objectives and accepted by all sides. Hence if you refer to wealth transfers and social welfare nets being socialist, then both parties in the US (or parties in Canada) are all socialists. That hardly is the case. Yet when you look at how the UK, Finland or your country Canada actually spends the tax income (or the new debt), a lot of it goes into wealth transfers with systems similar to those implemented by Roosevelt and Truman in the US.

And so labor, which had become very effective and powerful in the UK and the US was left with nothing. — frank

And this is the important thing. Of course, one could naively think that this would be the most important issue for organized labour or the labour movement. Yet labour movements look out for their national workforces, not the way ideologically they say they would in old slogans (All workers unites and stuff...). Foreign workforces are the competitors who steal jobs!

The Chinese and Vietnamese rejected neoliberalism. So the example makes little sense. — Xtrix

On the contrary, it's the crucial building block here just why things are the way they are. Neoliberals praise free markets and free trade in the West while countries like China eagerly exploit the openings, but in no way endorse neoliberalism. And even if you look at various other South Asian "tigers" that endorse free market capitalism like South Korea or Taiwan, you can find them also having long term planned industrialization programs that basically started to bear fruit in the 1980's and onward. Not so as the preachers of free markets often declare just to let the "invisible hand" to invest where markets want.

The push came out of the corporate sector, who rallied together in the 70s very openly. The Powell memo is partly the catalyst. — Xtrix

And here you again with one narrative from the US, which put one memo from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce from 1971 as the pinnacle thing here, which is eagerly promoted by leftist thinkers who want to have culprits to accuse. (Just looking at the actual memo just shows how things were viewed in the 1970s)

Again remember your own observation about China and Vietnam. The US centric view simply doesn't explain the globalization and the present "neoliberalism" of today. We aren't living in the 1950's where everybody else was either in ruins after WW2, still colonized or enjoying the fruits of the socialist experiment.

Globalization allowed liberalism to be disembedded. It was a tool for undermining labor. — frank

Exactly.

Opening the barriers for money and financial capital to move around freely and then have competition with labor costs basically undermined the previous system where labor regulation and wages were done at the nation level. To have global labor laws etc. simply wasn't as easy as opening the trade barriers or banking. And who would have an incentive to push through such a thing?

My point is that since you have such a multitude of different actors in this, it simply isn't so that all actors adhered to one "socioeconomic program" of neoliberalism. I doubt that the Chinese or Vietnamese leaders were preaching the same mantra as people in the US, but they were keen to have a growing export sector. But people usually just look at the issue from their own perspective or that of the "West". And of course it's the typical narrative of telling large scale events happening all because of one certain program of a few people.

That's because neoliberalism is not the same as globalization. Neoliberalism is a program involving deregulating industry, cutting taxes, and increasing privatization. — Xtrix

And what do you think has been the engine for globalization, for companies going off to other countries at ease other than the deregulation of industry, cutting taxes, making the trade barriers go away? Sorry, but having more trade has also made the World more prosperous.

Besides, a change that has happened all over the World isn't because one specific program (by Reagan and Thatcher). The changes have happened in China (that is still controlled by the CCP) and India, various countries lead by social democrats etc. It's a myth that there's this "neoliberal program" just like it is a myth that Universities have been taken over a program of the Frankfurt School: a broad loose change thought to be implemented by a small cabal that fits a specific narrative.

It’s a regretful quote. — NOS4A2

On the contrary. A Democrat with balls saying the truth. And of course, why wouldn't Truman be for the New Deal? Odd if he would be against it. Tells actually also a lot about the Democrats, in fact.

Except neoliberalism is a socioeconomic program that we've been living with for 40 years — Xtrix

Calling basically globalization a socioeconomic program isn't the way I would put it. But of course some want to see it as this "specific program" instigated by (whoever they don't like) to the entire globe. Anyone will do to be neoliberal, just if they are in power and the economy policy hasn't been the one in Venezuela.

Clinton and Obama were neoliberals as well, yes. — Xtrix

More precise would be to talk of Democrats trying to adapt to a neoliberal global economy.

But are they really Reaganites? Did they have the same discourse? Rosy small government speak?

Don't forget socialism. — James Riley

Harry S. Truman, October 10th 1952.

HA! That's perfect, @James Riley, absolutely perfect.

I mean, it seems highly probable that any of the several other centerists candidates would be President right now if they had been given similar support. What makes Biden the one? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, he (and Trump) are old. But then again, Americans just love old people as their leaders. For some unknown reason.

I think the main thing is that when we know that Biden won't be running again (and let's remember, this is his FIRST year), he will automatically get to be the lame duck. People simply will be looking past him for the next candidate making Biden a somewhat semi-lame duck.

And maoism.

In fact, any word that few know but that sounds sassy and clever.

Compare to the last 40 years of neoliberal Reaganite policies. You'll find the real fascism there. — Xtrix

Neoliberalism real fascism? That's too thick. (And how Reaganite were Clinton and Obama?)

Fascism is just a meaningless derogatory adjective then. There with communism (for some).

Hi @TheQuestion, there has been a long debate about cryptocurrencies started four years ago in 2017 and many have been active on this front (the thread is 12 pages). Usually when the prices have gone lower the debate has faded away and the thread hasn't been used for months.

There's a somewhat "philosophical" debate about it.

Link to the Forums thread about the cryptocurrencies

The only thing that would be a surprise is if all of what you just said was not the case. — StreetlightX

Well, a lot can happen in American politics by 2024. Yet again, some people even now seem to live in the 2016 elections.

More likely he'll die from a heart attack because of his fast food diet. — Wheatley

If you pin your hopes on that...

Let's not forget that the nausea in US politics isn't only because of Trump.

According to a poll, 44% of Democrats wants somebody else than Joe Biden to run in the next Presidential elections. That's somber news for Joe.

Then for the ugly side of the poll:

Half of Republicans, however, said former President Donald Trump has a better chance of winning in 2024 than any other GOP candidate on the ticket.

Another 35 per cent said they think someone else would have a better shot at winning the White House in 2024 than Trump and 14 per cent of Republicans and right-leaning voters said they are unsure.

So, Trump against somebody in 2024... oh what a rosy picture I can make in my mind about that! The US happily coming together again to decide an honorable leader for their country.

(Likely they won't name the campaign this, but it's likely how it would feel to the supporters:)

Would have loved to read Zeno's book.

After all, now we read the story from the writings of those who opposed the ideas, even if (hopefully) treated them respectfully. But it still begs the question if Eleatic School's view is represented in a negative light or some interesting view is not discussed. That Zeno came up with the problem of mathematical limits (or the infinitesimal) is no small matter. Starting from an indivisible atom has it's obvious problems as is putting natural numbers as basis of all mathematics.

And still, we take infinity as an axiom and yet these questions are raised for example in this Forum thousands of years afterwards.

Even if intelligence services do have active measures and are active in "information warfare", the popularity and mind set of conspiracy theorists are far more abundant and popular to view this phenomenon as something instigated for intelligence services. Add there political parties and other political pressure groups and you have a better picture of the landscape.

Yet part of it emerges from the desire to basically have a community. If your views make you ostracized or even laughed upon, what better way to find similarly thinking companions from the internet! The "conspiracy theorist" often has this idea of people that oppose or who are indifferent of their theories as being "sheeple", the ignorant masses successfully controlled by the puppet masters, while they are part of the small crowd that has "seen the light". In a way, it works like a religious cult sometimes. And for the true conspiracy theorist that someone busts the myth in your supported theory, especially in the media, just shows how large the ominous conspiracy is and how much the "powers in be" are willing to silence their opposition.

Add to the picture how partisan the modern media can be (that makes it nearly similar to what the media was like in the 19th Century), and it's no wonder people are so suspicious that even whacky conspiracy theories take ground.

Of course there are the definitions found in any dictionary that show what is meant by the words.

But that isn't what makes conspiracy theories so interesting, the secret plots to do harm or something unlawful. It isn't the interesting issue here. It is more about a public narrative where some ideas and theories are accused to be conspiracies. It is a public narrative where conspiracy theories are promoted and some politicians accept them on face value... at least publicly. Naturally conspiracies do happen, but I guess it is far more usual that something is accused to be a conspiracy theory as to ridicule and critique it. Conspiracy theorists, as we all know, aren't held in respect and the definition has an obvious negative view. And, it should be mentioned, there really is a lot of goofy theories that stay in the media limelight.

As @SpaceDweller referred to "information warfare" and "psychological warfare", I would refer also simply to "populism". Note that populism doesn't mean something popular, but a specific viewpoint of there being the bad elite and on the other hand the ordinary (good) people.

And populism, both right-wing or left-wing, is the environment where conspiracy theories prosper as the populism basically is in the end a conspiracy theory: a conspiracy of the elite to disregard the common people.

I do think though that there we’re issues with high rates of immigration between 2004 and 2016 and this made it easy for UKIP to employ xenophobia. However there were solutions to this issue without leaving the EU, but it would require competent government to achieve it. Tory incompetence wasn’t up to the job. — Punshhh

Well, they were not so incompetent to lose the elections. Which likely they can thank the opposition.

If someone can be gloomy it is Tony Blair and the Blairites, who are (I guess?) still bitterly opposed in the labor party. So bitterly opposed, that the Labor lost the election when by all means it should have won. As if social democracy that speaks to the masses and wins elections is so bad. But of course, idealists don't care about what other people think, because they are right and everybody else is wrong.



Of course, now it's other people in the leadership of the Labour party.

Yeah gee it's not like I talk about it all the time yeah real underestimating. — StreetlightX

Is it as bad your country?

You do have more parties than the US with labor party and even a green party.