- 08 Oct 2021 12:59
#15193771
It is said that history repeats itself; first as tragedy, then as farce. In my opinion there are at least two significant historical events the current situation is a form of really bad Hollywood representation of:
1. The last civil war
The civil war was ultimately a clash between two incompatible economic systems. The northern states representing an industrialism like that of UK, with ordinary people being what we ideologically perceive as traditional working class. The southern states on the other representing an economy where capital (in the form of cotton and so on) was exported and production was outsourced to other countries, where ordinary (white people) were left, dirt poor, to fend for themselves without any actual role in the economy. You could arguably call this nationalism against globalism.
To some degree this tendency exists today, especially in rhetoric. Trump talks about making America great again, bringing home production, ending trade deals, and so on. Meanwhile the ideology, both republican and democratic, this is a reaction to is a form of hyperglobalism where capital (dollar) are exported and production being increasingly outsourced to other country, leaving more and more people without a clear role in the economy.
I think there is an argument to make that there is a farce-like ideological conflict, equally incompatible as that of the northern states (MAGA) against the southern (liberal democracy), at least in a symbolic and discursive sense.
2. The rise of Julius Caesar
Julius Caesar lacked a significant influence in Rome, understood in the traditional way. Yet he was feared and perceived as powerful because of his leadership, his successful campaigns and his admiration among ordinary people in Rome. When he crossed the Rubicon River with his army, there were since long a law for generals against doing this (entering with his army). It is at this point the die was casted and he became the enemy of the Senate, who essentially went into war with Caesar with a far larger army. But because of Caesars ability to make daring decisions and going against conventional means he was still victorious and emerged as an undisputed leader of Rome.
It is in my opinion not entirely unlike Trumps success. With unconventional means and, initially, any traditional influence in American politics he have made himself a candidate for the pleb with successful campaigns far away from Washington.
1. The last civil war
The civil war was ultimately a clash between two incompatible economic systems. The northern states representing an industrialism like that of UK, with ordinary people being what we ideologically perceive as traditional working class. The southern states on the other representing an economy where capital (in the form of cotton and so on) was exported and production was outsourced to other countries, where ordinary (white people) were left, dirt poor, to fend for themselves without any actual role in the economy. You could arguably call this nationalism against globalism.
To some degree this tendency exists today, especially in rhetoric. Trump talks about making America great again, bringing home production, ending trade deals, and so on. Meanwhile the ideology, both republican and democratic, this is a reaction to is a form of hyperglobalism where capital (dollar) are exported and production being increasingly outsourced to other country, leaving more and more people without a clear role in the economy.
I think there is an argument to make that there is a farce-like ideological conflict, equally incompatible as that of the northern states (MAGA) against the southern (liberal democracy), at least in a symbolic and discursive sense.
2. The rise of Julius Caesar
Julius Caesar lacked a significant influence in Rome, understood in the traditional way. Yet he was feared and perceived as powerful because of his leadership, his successful campaigns and his admiration among ordinary people in Rome. When he crossed the Rubicon River with his army, there were since long a law for generals against doing this (entering with his army). It is at this point the die was casted and he became the enemy of the Senate, who essentially went into war with Caesar with a far larger army. But because of Caesars ability to make daring decisions and going against conventional means he was still victorious and emerged as an undisputed leader of Rome.
It is in my opinion not entirely unlike Trumps success. With unconventional means and, initially, any traditional influence in American politics he have made himself a candidate for the pleb with successful campaigns far away from Washington.
- By Rich
- By JohnRawls
- By Dr House