Random American wrote:
I prefer pragmatist but people think that means "liberal," which is just another ideology, not actually pragmatic.
You have to ask yourself 'pragmatist' in *whose* interests, exactly, to be more specific and definitive.
If you're *for* the system then that makes you a *statist*, and tolerant of the status-quo.
If you're *not* for the system then that makes you an *anarchist* because you know that the state is just a bourgeois superstructural social convention / norm.
Random American wrote:
Well, there will be successful terrorist attacks by his moronic base. The FBI cannot catch each and every fascist or other type of moron who would raise a "revolution" for that orange idiot.
The question, though, is if such fascists, even assuming relative operational autonomy, would be able to hold the country hostage on behalf of Trump. This is where the *subjective*, 'petty bourgeois' factor plays a crucial role, as I alluded-to, because there's not a clear sense (to me) where people stand in relation to *fascists*.
It looks like the *state* has shifted, anyway, with that roundup of the conspirators in Michigan, and the full prosecution of Rittenhouse, so *that's* a plus, but we need to see where the *grassroots* *public* is on all of this, to make it democratic and deterministic going-forward.