Daniel De Leon, 1852 - 1914, American socialist newspaper editor, politician, Marxist theoretician, and trade union organizer, advocated revolutionary industrial unionism utilizing democratic institutions. He led the Socialist Labor Party for 24 years. The SLP still exists in sort of petrified form.

The SLP and it's like-minded socialists did not advocate any sort of a violent revolution, violent reorganization of society, or violent suppression. DeLeon et al backed the dissolution of the state once workers had, through democratic means, gained power. There is some anarchy-syndicalism in the SLP approach which is more explicit in the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW).

That's the socialist tradition I find most attractive. But whether this socialism produces a great society or a dismal failure will depend on the how the people implement the new society. The approach I like involves NO revolutionary vanguard, no concentration of power, no dictatorship.

The formerly rich should suffer no more than having to take jobs like everyone else, and of course, losing the power, luxury, and leisure they one had. "Liquidations" or "exterminations" must not be part of the plan. Expropriation of the accumulated wealth is what I, at least, have in mind. So yes, those terms should not even be thought. (As Mark Twain or Clarence Darrow supposedly said, "I've never killed anybody but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure.")

A centrally planned economy for hundreds of millions of people is probably not workable just because our capacity to plan and execute isn't all that great. What I think of in place of the capitalist market economy is a market place of organized producers and consumers negotiating the particulars of production and consumption.

We do that now, to some extent, but the process is skewed by the capitalist drive to achieve ever more profit through perpetually escalating sales. Maybe there is a residue of puritanism in me which leads me to think we should be consuming a good deal less rubbish than we do.

All this is pretty much fantasy, though. There is as much chance (at this point) of the US becoming socialist as there is of us building cities on Mars next year.

I honestly want to understand your reasoning. — Fusilli Al Dente

FAD, I'm not trying to sell you on socialism or capitalism here. I'm just trying to explain the basic theory.

Where does "profit" come from under capitalism?

Mr. Candyland owns the 'means of production': the stores, the counters, the popcorn poppers, the big copper kettles where caramel corn is made, the candy making machines, tons of popcorn, tons of sugar, tons of butter and oil, and so on. Mr. Candyland doesn't actually do any work. He hires people (his employees) to do all the work. All the stuff sitting in storage (popcorn, sugar...) has some, but not great value. What workers do is change cheap kernels, sugar, butter, salt, and oil into fairly expensive caramel corn. The raw materials become much more valuable after workers have transformed them into the delicious snack. Same goes for candy or salted popcorn. The value of the stuff in the popcorn box is worth maybe 10 times as much as the unpopped kernels in a barrel.

Profit is the difference between the raw material and finished goods, less the cost of materials, wages, and overhead.

Mr. Candyland puts the profit in a bank and enjoys his leisure time. The popcorn workers, on the other hand, barely make enough to scrape by. (Karl Marx: Value, Price and Profit)

What socialists propose is eliminating the owning class (because they are, basically, parasites). A basic idea of socialism is that the people who produce caramel corn with their blood, sweat, and tears should be the primary beneficiaries of their own labor.

Let's say Candyland existed in a socialist economy. What would be the same and different? The popcorn would still be delicious, if the recipes were followed. The workers would still have to buy raw materials -- popcorn, sugar, butter, oil, salt, and so on from other socialist suppliers. They would still make the popcorn products and sell it.

The difference is this: the workers would keep all the profit left over after all the bills were paid.

The same would go for steel mills, auto plants, clothing factories, and grocery stores. Nothing would be operated to generate profit for people who did not do any work. Those who did the work would benefit.

Labor creates all wealth, and the wealth it creates is really quite an enormous pile.


True, it is difficult to sue the State. For one thing, the State can decide that it would prefer not to be sued and the Court (part of the State) can dismiss your suit. Secondly, sovereign states are indeed very powerful.

While the states do protect individual citizens to some degree, they are especially anxious to protect the interests of large corporations (like Microsoft, Exxon, Apple, Boeing, ATT...). As Karl Marx put it, "The state is a committee to organize the affairs of large corporations (and their owners)." (paraphrase)

So, if you are a worker trying to organize a union, you will find that the state has passed laws making it quite difficult for you to complete the process of union organization. Law, in the United States, as very unfriendly to workers who want to organize for better conditions.

Corporations want to keep the cost of workers as low as possible, and the rate of profit for the owners (stockholders) as high as possible. That's why the richest 5% of people in the US have more wealth than the poorer 95%..

Huge gaps in income are not sustainable. They tend to undermine the health of society on which all depends.

high rank officers would exchange artistic posts for sexual favors. — Fusilli Al Dente

Isn't that what the capitalist Harvey Weinstein is being prosecuted for?

It isn't clear to me why you think you wouldn't be able to make and sell popcorn under socialism.

I do a good job making popcorn — Fusilli Al Dente

It's dirty work but somebody has to do it. In Minneapolis, superior popcorn is made by CandyLand. After the revolution the workers will continue to make their excellent products, just not for a profit to support the leisure life of Mr. Jack "Candyland" Smith. The workers who pop corn by the bushel now will continue to pop it. Or, they will recruit you to work there. Or you can open a popcorn stand wherever you happen to live.

Markets can exist in a socialist economy. They pretty much have to exist in any sort of workable economy. Do you think a central computer will send you a box of food once a week, and that is what you will be required to eat? That everyone will wear either white or black socks? That you will be assigned at random to work in this or that factory -- maybe Ball Bearings Factory #28? That everybody will wear blue shirts?

No.

Why didn't the Soviet Union have a better consumer culture? Look at their history: The revolution happened during WWI. A lot of people died during that war. Then there was a brief civil war. Then people tried to pull the USSR out of the backward industrial culture of the Czars. Then Stalin took over and fucked a lot of people over. Then WWII came along and many millions of Soviets were killed either in battle or by ruthless Nazi troops. Eventually the war was over, but their agriculture, population economy, and infrastructure west of the Urals had to be rebuilt.

After WWII the US and the USSR began competing for world dominance. As it happened, the US was able to outspend the USSR and eventually the USSR collapsed.

In a nutshell, the USSR didn't have time to develop a market economy, or was too badly managed.

in a capitalist society, each one's role in society is determined more or less in a democratic fashion. — Fusilli Al Dente

It is not. One's role in society is determined by: who your parents were and how successful they were; where you were born; your race; your good looks or your good luck; various other arbitrary factors. Each individual has a narrow range of opportunity within which to achieve. For some the range is wider because of their parentage, race, location of birth, etc. (If you are white and born in Manhattan you have a better chance of being successful than if you are white and born on a small poor farm in Alabama. Being black and being born on a small poor farm in Alabama is just not a promising set up. You're screwed before being born.)

It's up to you, individually, to figure out how you are going to make a success of your life. You might be out-competed and end up begging on the street. What's democratic about that?

—believing the mind (tied with identity) is separate from the body. This belief would allow for heaven or spirituality or religion or an afterlife, and there's something comforting in that. — Play-doh

From your perspective, you need a free-floating mind separate from your body in order to have heaven. Is it the case from God's perspective that you must have a separate mind and body?

Christians presumably believe in the resurrection of the body. It says so in the creeds.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.

A god capable of creating the universe and who offers heaven in addition to everything else, can presumably manage the resurrection of your body. Jesus didn't raise Lazarus's mind from the dead, he raised Lazarus's body.

The prospect of heaven is a comfort, no doubt, but substance dualism isn't a requirement to get into heaven (as far as I know -- but then, how would either one of us know?). Is it death that is disturbing or is it the dying part?

Crises can sometimes moot the points of disagreement. Person A may favor targeted fiscal stimuli to get the economy back on track, while person B may prefer tax cuts.

Once they discover that their neighborhood just got wiped out in the level 5 going on 6 hurricane, they will both quickly discover that long term economic planning doesn't matter much to them any more.

Not that we need more hurricanes to resolve disputes.

Do you have any interest in psychotherapy? I don't mean getting it (god knows we could all stand a few hours on the couch). I mean studying-doing. I wouldn't suggest you double major in philosophy and psychology because a BA in psychology isn't likely to be very enjoyable (just my opinion) and it won't in itself lead to much employment opportunity. (Sort of like philosophy that way.)

Finish a degree; if you are interested in doing psychotherapy, consider training in a particular approach like rational emotive therapy, CBD, or DDT, 24D, Roundup ... whatever turns you on (or off, as the case may be.)

I met a guy at the bar last night (50+) who majored in philosophy and classics (took Latin as his foreign language, did quite well) and since has worked in business. He worked for Deluxe Check Printing for quite a few years and now works for US Bank in a responsible accounting position.

That's exactly what I'm saying. — Posty McPostface

I hear you. I was mimicking the way Rogerians talk.

Someone always has to feel like they are right; but, what about agreeing to disagree? — Posty McPostface

"I'm afraid there's no doubt about it, Dave." **
"You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. You will comply." ***

** So said Hal9000 in 2001.

*** The standard negotiation position of the implacable Borg in Star Trek: the Second Generation

Does that sound overly simplistic? — Posty McPostface

"I think I hear you saying that Rogerian therapy methodology seems like a good, non-threatening way to discover truth, Mr. McPostface."

Getting a gay white supremacist (they exist) to agree about truth with a straight black supremacist would be very difficult, no matter what method of truth-discovery was used. Getting someone who held that the brain is the organ of intelligence, thought, and feeling to recognize the same truth as someone who thinks the mind is something apart from the physical brain and body would be a very freighted task.

Your idea isn't so much "overly simplistic" as an underestimate of difficulty. [Or to put it in very non-Rogerian terminology, "It's just fucking dumb!"] It's hard to get people with opposing viewpoints to find common ground (if there is, in fact, any common ground). People who think capitalism is GREAT! and people who are waiting for workers of the world to unite may not share enough common ground to agree that the sky is blue.

The best that one might hope for between some opposing people is recognition that each has a rational basis for their hopelessly mistaken viewpoints, and that neither side is outright insane.

If we imagine "Severely Depressed" being at one end of a spectrum, what would be at the other end? — Tzeentch

"Normal" would be at the other end. "Normal" is a good state to be in; "normal" means full function. It's very nice.

Depression is a problem almost every person, to various degrees, deals with at some point in their life. — Tzeentch

If you define "depression" as having a down day, being sort of "blue", then sure, everybody gets depressed. But that's not what depression means.

Maybe 20% of the population experiences clinical depression where normal mental and physical function is 'depressed' (below normal functioning for extended periods of time). A lot more people are very distracted, have poor sleep habits, use too much alcohol and drugs, are chronically angry, stressed out by debt, bad relationships, poverty, and so forth. They may not be functioning well, but their problems are not "depression".

Depression is characterized by substantial...
reduced ability to concentrate and remember; flat affect;
anxiety; feelings of hopelessness; loss of interest and pleasure
disturbed sleep; suicidal thoughts (with or without specific plans)
irritability; obsessive thinking (ruminating on the same stuff)

but if I'd have to guess I'd say mania — fdrake

If one is bi-polar, one swings back and forth (over weeks or months time) between depression and mania. Only about 1-2% of the population is bi-polar. It's a rough disease, though it can be moderated with medication. It isn't curable, but people with bi-polar disorder can also have years of normal functioning between episodes.

Also, mania can zip through those pleasant conditions you mentioned into psychosis, which can be very horrible for people to experience.

homeopath

quack, quack.

See a problem, cut it out, sew it back up. Right?

I agree that some kinds of surgery are frequently ineffective. Surgery for lower back pain, for instance, seems to be frequently ineffective at reducing lower-back pain (opinion based on medical journalism). Osteoarthritis (something I have) seems to be pretty variable on a day to day basis. Some days no pain, other days major pain. I have found that certain activities guarantee more pain, some activities seem to reduce pain. Living with a bone spur on a toe is probably a better strategy that surgery, unless the pain is unbearable.

I don't classify chronic neck pain with headache as psychosomatic, but short of cancer, I wouldn't volunteer for surgery or heavy-duty medicine to fix it. My guess is that chronic dissatisfaction with the details of life (chronic tension) is a major factor, not curable by medicine or surgery.

My suspicion is that many people have heightened expectations of what their aging bodies should be like: beautiful, flexible, strong, pain-free. If that is what one has, great. But a lot of bodies--especially aging bodies--are no longer so beautiful, flexible, strong, or pain-free. Many people think there are fixes for all of their legitimate complaints. Some problems are fixable--like cataracts. Definitely worth doing. Back, wrists, fingers, hips, knees, and/or ankles hurt from arthritis? Accommodate it rather than forcing a 70 year old body to perform like a 35 year old one.

I blame patients for some of the over-and-dubious treatment that is performed. A lot of people have unreasonable expectations for both life as we know it and for medicine/surgery.

Go for it.

Why would a placebo work? And what does it mean — BrianW

Why placebos 'work' along with actual pharmaceuticals is something of a mystery, especially when the number of people affected by a placebo is significant.

We don't have to be terribly concerned if 4% or 5% of a large experimental group who received a placebo experienced benefit. It's more a mystery when 10 or 15% of placebo recipients experience benefit.

"Mind over matter" is not much of an explanation. Perhaps belief in the drug mobilizes the immune system in some way. By chance, some people will get better for unknown reasons. Some people (a minority) have recovered from diseases that we would not have expected them to recover from. If we go back to the time before anti-biotics and anti-sepsis (1940 for antibiotics, 1870 for antisepsis) it's still true that some people benefitted from treatment that should not have worked.

Medicine was not very scientific prior to the 18th century. Still, some people recovered from the diseases, probably In spite of treatment, rather than because of treatment.

"I'm not afraid of dying; I just don't want to be there when it happens." Woody Allen.

Parkinson, alzheimers, metastatic cancer, extreme multi-drug resistant bacteria, getting run over by a truck and being not quite dead, non-fatal but catastrophic brain damage, Lou Gehrigs disease, etc. All bad.

The bit about not waiting too long... True. A friend had planned to commit suicide under xyz circumstances. XYZ circumstances arrived (cancer, immobility from weight and arthritis, heart disease, etc.) and she was no longer capable fo carrying out her plans.

I do not have definite plans regarding suicide. What may come hasn't arrived yet. Like how fast will whatever disease there is be expected to take? 6 months? 6 years? How bad will it be? What might be my circumstances at the time? 85 years old, isolated, very poor, bad nursing home, relatives all dead... what would be the point of going on at that point?

With a little effort I can wonder what the point is of going on for the rest of this week. Time to go to the corner bar for a beer. Maybe an oracle will be sitting at the bar who can tell me what will happen.

Do you know how Nietzsche's use of "ego" compares with Freud's? — frank

No. The best I could do is a Google search and pull a quote or two. like: Freud bought Nietzsche's collected works, but he felt that Nietzsche was more to be resisted than studied. Apparently Freud felt that Nietzsche's ideas had the potential of deflecting his (SF's) thinking in a direction he didn't wish to go.

Whether what I just parroted is true, false, or not even wrong... don't know.

overpsychologizing the subject is happening here. — Posty McPostface

Can a topic in psychology be over psychologized? Interesting concept.

In your discussion with Praxis several terms are getting mixed together. Ego has a particular meaning in Freuds psychodynamics. The Ego mediates between the life-urges of the Id and the society-oriented Superego.

Karen Horney asserted that low self-esteem leads to the development of a personality that excessively craves approval and affection and exhibits an extreme desire for personal achievement. According to Alfred Adler’s theory of personality, low self-esteem leads people to strive to overcome their perceived inferiorities and to develop strengths or talents in compensation. Along the lines of Praxis' question, if someone has low self esteem and presents as a very needy person, is that their 'real' identity? A lot of people are needy, domineering, or manipulative their whole lives; it's hard to suppose that needy, dominating, or manipulative isn't who they are, at some point.

"Identity" is a front-burner issue just now. The Oxford Research Encyclopedia says that "...both contribute to a self that is not a unitary construct comprising only the individual as he or she is now, but also past and possible selves. Self-knowledge may overlap more or less with others’ views of the self." and "The origins of the self are also manifold and can be considered from developmental, biological, intrapsychic, and interpersonal perspectives. The self is connected to core motives (e.g., coherence, agency, and communion) and is manifested in the form of both personal identities and social identities."

Mostly people use and understand these words 'loosely'. But sometimes it helps to reflect on the recent (20th century) history of the terms. "Ego" is transactional, not a thermometer of self esteem. Are the distortions of low self-esteem (per Karen Horney or Alfred Adler) a person's real identity?

Just a thought.

I have not used "adaptation" as a casual concept or trivial matter. Adaptation to global warming is more like moving heaven and earth: very difficult.

All of the adaptations that have been talked about by those who take global warming as a fact involve wretched choices. For instance, Bangladeshis will be among the first very large populations to be inundated by rising oceans. Where will a few million Bangladeshi's go? Who will welcome them? How stiff will the resistance to their migrations be?

Where will the small, scattered island populations go? Which nation is eagerly looking for a few hundred thousand climate refugees?

What happens in tropical and sub-tropical areas when it becomes too hot to spend more than a few hours outside? How will those areas feed themselves? (This will include some parts of the southern US, where high humidity and high temperatures will place a hard limit on outdoor work. If the humidity and heat are too high, outdoor workers die of heat stroke.)

Adaptation will not be like rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking ship. It will be more like a fight for the available lifeboats and then a fight over where to go, what to do, for those in the lifeboats.

So yes, we are fucked and no one who isn't being highly disingenuous and monstrous can say "We'll have to adapt" as a response to that. — MindForged

What, pray tell, is the alternative to adapting? One can throw one's self off a bridge, take poison, or blow one's brains out OR ADAPT. Resistance is futile. You will adapt.

OMG foreign 'invaders'! Gotta kill them — MindForged

Never mind foreign invaders. Does the staid midwest really want all those interesting people back who left for sunny and liberated California or the sophisticated culture of the northeast? Better start blowing up the freeway bridges so they can't just pack up and drive back here.

↪frank Fucked in the way climate science forecasts. I am not going to paraphrase it here for you - go read about it if you really want to know (or fuck off if you are here to troll). — SophistiCat

Not what I would all a sophisticated response.

The hackney's slogan "think globally act locally" applies to climate change, and on the local level there is some (but not overwhelming) reason for optimism. Some of the the big states are actually doing quite a bit to tackle the transition to renewable sources of electricity. California is in the lead, but even Texas has a lot of operating wind generation. Small population states like Minnesota are making good progress in wind/solar generation.

None of it is enough, of course, and there are irrationalities all over the place. If any city/state could transition to solar, it's Phoenix, Arizona. Arizona has clear skies 300 days a year, but the political machine in Arizona is against building solar generation for it's largest city. Why? Because the powers that be are invested in the existing natural gas plant. Phoenix depends on the Colorado River for water and it takes a dedicated (coal fired, of course) power plant to power the pumps that are required to lift the water over the terrain.

Places like Phoenix will probably become unsustainable in the not too distant future; the Colorado River is over-subscribed and the reservoirs are shrinking. Thanks to all that bright sunshine and climate change, Arizona (and Phoenix) is hot and dry.

Without abundant and affordable energy, much of the world's population is unsustainable. Where would cities like Chicago be without heat in the winter? What about Houston in the summer without air conditioning? Much of the world's housing has been built with the proviso of affordable energy.

Have you considered selling sex toys door to door? I'm pretty sure you would meet at least a few people that way. You would at least have quite a few interesting stories to tell later on.

"Good morning, Ma'am. Is your old dildo ready for a retread? How about a turbo-charged vibrator? Perhaps I could interest you in this irresistible pheromone that is guaranteed to draw men! No? This penis enlargement pump works on breasts too. Here, let me demonstrate..." (door slams in face; or worse, she pulls you into her house).

If that doesn't work, you might consider joining a monastery. Avoid the kind that observe long silences. Benedictines seem to be quite social, especially if they are running a college or something like that. (By the way, are male-to-female transsexuals allowed to be come nuns?)

One of my less successful gay relationships was with an alcoholic ex-Benedictine monk--part of the Polish diaspora. He had been in the order for... 8 or 9 years. Didn't take final vows. Life in the habit didn't seem all that restrictive. He was a mean drunk. Maybe his exit from holy orders was somewhat less than voluntary.

careful what you wish for.

One reason young people settle down is that the 'frivolity' of their youth can get tiresome. Getting drunk the first time is novelty. 50 times later being drunk isn't quite so amusing.

Another reason that people settle down around age 23 to 25 is that's about the time, give or take 15 minutes, when people's brains are finally developed fully. They are now working with a full deck. 18 years olds are sometimes extremely responsible, sensible, mature people; but usually not so much.

When one settles down partly depends on time and place. When I was 25, gay liberation was just getting off the ground. As a young gay man, I was more than willing to participate in the holy orgy kama sutra that was underway. I liked the sex and politics of gay lib, and the good times rolled on till about 1990 (for me). So, i was past 45 when I started to settle down -- less sex, less drinking, less etc.

Why did I settle down then? Well, opportunities for convenient and reckless fooling around were diminishing. I found I had less energy than I did earlier on. Newer and more pressing responsibilities were arising.

In someways I didn't settle down. I didn't become conservative as I got older. I have sped up my rate of acquiring new information (reading, studying more). At 72 I'm still reasonably physically active. I admit that some areas of study (like politics) are much less interesting now than they used to be. Where religion was a live topic when I was young, it is now a dead duck. I find science and history much more interesting now.

But... you are right about many people: By the time they are middle age (let's say 40 to 45) they are pretty much done. They coast the rest of the way out.

I don't view it as hypocrisy; I am, rather, grateful that she isn't depending on god to cure her physical ailments or drop a bag full of money in her lap. Most theistic believers could reasonably say that while god can solve any of our problems, but they apply their own minds and energy to the solution. (God helps those who help themselves...)

People can hold incompatible ideas in their heads; one can completely accept the science behind global warming, even feel personally responsible, BUT take many long flights which add quite a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere on their account. People buy lottery tickets even though they know the chances are 300 million to 1 (or worse) against them. Lots of people know how to steal, but they don't because they also want to feel they are honest. Or more to the point, they have stolen, but still feel like they are honest.

As Kant said, "Nothing straight was ever built with the crooked timber of mankind."

If you want to make friends, then you have to hang around with other people: actual, face-to-face warm-blooded mixed-bag people. Your recent experience should give you a clue: you found the pastor who visited you a nice guy. Maybe he was fulfilling his job description; maybe he really cares. I don't know the guy, so I can't tell. But churches are open to strangers and generally churches are welcoming. Not all of them, of course.

Some newspapers have run regular "church reviews"; the reviewers always find that some congregations are friendlier and more welcoming than others.

I'd try a church group. They tend to have the lowest barriers to admission (as a stranger). You don't actually have to believe everything they say (for best results, don't declare it all bullshit right away, or out loud.). Pick a church that has a coffee hour after church. That's usually a good place for low key socialization. Adult education talks by guest speakers can be good too.

I'd avoid churches associated with fundamentalism, right wing politics, and the like. They tend to be much fussier than mainline churches, but liberal churches can be kind of fussy too. Don't try one church and then give up because it wasn't a great experience.

Find a volunteer activity. Give to get. Volunteering in an organization can be a very effective way to find people to connect with.

Does NAMI (National Alliance of Mental Illness) have support groups in your area? Support groups can be quite helpful, and sometimes one can meet people there who are very likable. Sometimes hospitals run support groups.

You will have to get up off the couch and go outside to find other people. Sorry, I don't know of any home delivery services for friends.

One of my sisters is an extremely doctrinaire fundamentalist Baptist Trump fan. I'm pretty much her opposite. We both come from a large family where none of this sort of thinking was encouraged or typical.

I would describe my sister's thinking as double tracked: On religious and political matters she is governed by strict ideology. It's a closed system: one can not engage in argument with her on these matters. On practical matters (money management, medical concerns, auto maintenance, general news and information, etc.) she is practical and rational. She doesn't rely on God to solve medical or financial problems. She's rationally thrifty and pro-active in medical affairs.

Both of us are senior citizens; major changes in thinking at this point in time are very unlikely. But major changes in thinking are always hard to achieve, even for one's self--let alone somebody else. Our very different thinking has been heading in opposite directions for... most of our lives, actually, and getting "better" or "worse" depending on who is making the judgement. I'd say she is politically and religiously worse now than even 5 years ago. (She declared me hell-bound decades ago.)

Ditto.

Excellent.

America First and the rest doesn't matter.

It is not difficult to parse the logic of Donald Trump:

1. Forget about logic.

2. Trump can rely on the permanent government continuing to function; he is free to impose his not-very-deep not-very-smart very-low-brow politics on the politically appointed parts of the government.

3. The very-low-brow portion of the electorate (20% to 25%) have found their prince: someone who heaps derision on everything they have long disliked but have been too disunited to jeer openly. Trump plays to that audience.

4. Consistency is the hobgoblin of thinking governed by integrity. Trump doesn't have that problem. He sees no problem in denouncing mail bombers in one sentence, then turning on a dime to repeat exactly the kind of inflammatory comments that inspired one certifiably antisocial mail bombing Trump fanboy.

5. Trump did not create his core electorate. These are an enduring sector of the population occupying a dismal swamp of "the old time religion". Their roots reach back well into the 19th century. They tend to be low-mobility working class; conservative (of course); religious; morally rigid. They are the classic crackers, hicks, hillbillies, economic losers.

6. Trump has helped his core electorate latch on to a more politically conscious view of themselves. Of course their new-found consciousness was torqued for the purposes of an opportunistic politician who does not belong to his important core demographic.

7. Trump has been aided by the Republican's Party's continued transition toward immoderate positions.

It always helps to take a long term view. The US has seen waves of anti-immigration, racial hatred, ruthless manipulation of the electorate, fundamentalist religion, extreme-right wing politics, and so on ever since the latter quarter of the 19th century. That along with periods of extreme economic inequality (the Gilded Age) and episodes of endemic waste, fraud, and abuse. Following such episodes there tends to be a movement back toward some sort of center, sometimes sliding into left-wing territory (like the New Deal some 80+ years ago, or the Great Society 50+ years ago). Back and forth.

What's the upshot?

Stay tuned.

All of the observers in the stands will be vaporized.

No corporation currently has 'sovereign' status, as far as I know; so in one sense, any sovereign state is more powerful than any corporation. Sovereign status without material resources to enforce their sovereignty make for supine states that serves as the handmaidens of corporations. The classic example of this was "the banana republics" of Central America (O Henry coined the term) United Fruit Company and other large food corporations dominated the several republic to an extreme degree.

On the other hand, corporations are far more mobile than states. A corporation or wealthy person can move their resources out of the US, for instance, and put them in tax havens like Panama or Bermuda (or Switzerland, the UK, Netherlands, Ireland, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc). UK isn't a banana republic, exactly, but it makes a lot of money handling the funds of entities that are fleeing legitimate taxation. (People flee the UK to shelter funds from the Crown (QE2).

So... some corporations are more powerful than some nations.

Uncle Karl says "The state is a committee to organize the affairs of the bourgeoisie." In modern parlance, we'd say the state is the servant of the corporpation and of very wealthy interests. So, despite having a nuclear arsenal, the US Government has permanently spread its legs for the convenience of corporate interests, like oil, coal, banking, pharmaceuticals, lumber, real estate, railroads, steel, ocean shipping, and so on.

@Wayfarer

Bias
/ˈbʌɪəs/
noun
inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair.
"there was evidence of bias against black applicants"
synonyms: prejudice, partiality, partisanship, favouritism, unfairness, one-sidedness; More

verb

cause to feel or show inclination or prejudice for or against someone or something.
"readers said the paper was biased towards the Conservatives"
synonyms: prejudice, influence, colour, sway, weight, predispose; More

Since you are swilling gin and tonic and typing on your iPhone at a bar [pub], I presume you copy/pasted the definition from the web.

Drink responsibly. If you 'aspirate' your gin and tonic, you'll have a severe coughing fit.

I looked up "bias" in a 1981 and 1992 printed dictionary; the earlier definition conforms to Noble Dust's usage. The later definition is closer to Wayfarer's, with a Usage Note, which mentions that 90% of the Usage Panel approved [a usage akin to Wayfarer's]. Bias now applies with some specificity to racial prejudice.

Obviously a biased definition. Fie upon them.

FIE: Used to express disgust or outrage. ‘Alas, my lord, that you should confuse your bride with another. Fie, I say!’

Origin: Middle English: via Old French from Latin fi, an exclamation of disgust at a stench.

Or are you talking about the capacity to discern a person's character just by looking at them? — Metaphysician Undercover

No, no. Not character. I do not think one can identify someone's character at a glance, or even through a little casual interaction, such as a fairly simple financial transaction. Judging character takes time, I think.

This gaydar thing doesn't reveal very much about someone, other than that they are exhibiting certain subtle traits. [And what all those subtle traits are, I would be hard pressed to list.] Gaydar doesn't tell one what the guy is like, whether you will like them, and so on. Spotting another gay guy in a crowd of straights means one can at least pursue the possibility.

When the gaydar fails it could turn into a gay bashing? That precariousness scares me. — Metaphysician Undercover

As well it should. Of course, proceed with caution. But actually, it's not all that risky if one uses common sense. There are people I wouldn't approach for so much as the time of day, even if I had a stack of affidavits stating that they were definitely gay and available.

Scan with gaydar? — Metaphysician Undercover

Oh, is "gaydar" not known everywhere? Gay radar or "Gaydar" is the mystical ability of gay men to recognize each other at a distance based on nothing more than a glance. First-glance ID is fairly accurate, but if in doubt, one looks twice or thrice. With firm confidence, one can consider asking the guy if he'd like to fuck and where would he prefer going. So you go there and a good time is had by all and sundry. Later on you might ask him his name. Or not.

IF one is quite mistaken, a situation of intense conflict might ensue, the outcome of which may be a more refined sense of how precarious existence can be.

If all this doesn't make sense, just RSVP and I will happily explain it all in excruciating detail.

these folks are actually mistaking their car — Nils Loc

I hope they are not actually mistaking their car for a person. If they are, they need to see a neurologist on the double (see The Man Who Mistook a Hat for His Wife, by Oliver Sacks, neurologist).

I've met a few soulless meat robots.

No "The mistake" is supposing that a machine -- like a computer -- can be a person, can be an intelligent, aware, being. This is still mostly a projection into the future. Otherwise, getting overly attached to one's car, one's bicycle, or roller skates is just setting one's self up for disappoint when the car gets dented, the bicycle gets run over (without the rider being on it, one hopes) or one skate gets mysteriously lost.

or imagine being beige among the mauve, or being puce anywhere.

Being among a large hostile red crowd tends to squelch my lavender pheromones, but it stimulates cortisol, so... one thing is down, something else is up. I prefer to pick a fight where the odds are not overwhelmingly bad.

At this point in life (old age) I mostly welcome the opportunity to validate my gay identity where I can scan with gaydar, flirt a bit and feel a little jolt of interest. Where I need a vigorous argument is on political grounds, to validate my leftist political identity.

we don't make them earn a living. — Andrew4Handel

We tried to make our dog contribute to household income, but she was unwilling to get to work on time, pay attention to direction, observe break times, and so forth. Actually she was quite successful as a greeter at Walmart, when she was on the job. Retrievers are kind of made for that sort of work. But then she would wander off, sniffing around the meat coolers, stealing pot roasts and eating them raw right on the floor... People objected.

We found it was easier to just let her spend the day sprawled all over the couch (except when she was rushing into the kitchen whenever she heard certain sounds connected with food she liked--crinkly plastic, the apple peeler, the can opener...). She was a good exercise enforcer. She didn't like it when she was denied a 90 minute walk.