Is USA a Plutocracy? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The non-democratic state: Platonism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15158336
Rancid wrote:
:lol: ok bro.... :lol:

Maybe I'm a closeted Trumpster or something. :lol:



It's good to hash these things out....


Rancid wrote:
When I said "Trumpism" that was basically a pseudonym for "Trump supporters". Trump supporters are anti-establishment. They are against the current plutocrat ruling class. Trumpism, is made up by the supporters themselves, not Trump. Trumpism cannot exist without supporters.

Trump himself, is just an opportunist, as you say. He's just playing the Trump supporters for his personal gain.



So if 'Trumpism' applies to Trump supporters, what are *their* aims, besides being lemmings for Trump?

What kind of political vision would *they* have realized, if Trump's coup had succeeded?
By Rancid
#15158339
ckaihatsu wrote:So if 'Trumpism' applies to Trump supporters, what are *their* aims, besides being lemmings for Trump?

What kind of political vision would *they* have realized, if Trump's coup had succeeded?


I wouldn't know. They themselves probably do not know either. They just know that they are angry, and want to lash out at everything that scares them. What makes it especially insidious is how they are willing to court racists, conspiracy theorists, and dumb people.
#15158359
ckaihatsu wrote:So if 'Trumpism' applies to Trump supporters, what are *their* aims, besides being lemmings for Trump?

What kind of political vision would *they* have realized, if Trump's coup had succeeded?

As Lacan said of the French students in May '68, they are slaves in search of a master. Or as Comrade Stalin said in a somewhat different context, "The people need a Tsar." The Trumpists want an Emperor, not just another President. Beyond that, I doubt they could agree with each other on anything much. But then, they don't have to: the Emperor would sort it all out....
By Rich
#15158363
Unthinking Majority wrote:The West used to be ruled by monarchs. The aristocrats stripped them of their power and took over. The Founding Fathers were not poor peasants, they were not slaves or housewives, they were the powerful white men and the educated elites and made a system that guaranteed equality while not undermining their interests, which wasn't equality at all. The Founding Fathers created a system in 1789 where the only people who could vote were land-owning white males, which at the time was 6% of the population.

A number of points.

Low population density increases prosperity, reduces inequality and encourages rapid technological, social and cultural development. We saw this in the aftermath of the Black Death and we saw it big time in North America. The northern states moved towards universal male suffrage quite rapidly and even the southern states were progressive compared to most of the world in terms of democracy and the expansion of suffrage.

Female suffrage came later, but still the United States was very much a leader in the introduction of female suffrage particularly compared to laggards like France and Switzerland. I'm no Conservative when it comes to women's position within society, in fact I seem to have sprung from the womb as a fully formed radical liberal on the issue, but the plain fact is that women's suffrage was a great non event. It was a secondary effect of changing social values and attitudes not the driver of them. These days women skew liberal and towards the left, but until a few decades ago women tended to skew conservative.

The Founding Fathers did not create a system in 1789, this is part of the founding myth or fantasy of America. The system of States came about not because of some ideological principle of the Founding Fathers, the founding Fathers wouldn't have known a moral principle if it had smashed them in the face, but due to the pre-existing power centres inherited from the Colonial period. The only reason there is a United States at all is because of the war of Independence. If the British had simply let the colonies secede, there would be no USA today and the make up of north and possibly South America would be very different.

Funnily enough I was thinking about this, this morning. The thing about fascism is that is its post democratic. It departs from a context where universal (at least male) adult suffrage is the baseline, has become the status quo so speak. Fascist ideologies are plebeian ideologies, unlike the pre democratic monarchical and aristocratic ideologies, so may be the Jim-Crow South should be thought of as the first fascist regime.
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15158424
Potemkin wrote:
As Lacan said of the French students in May '68, they are slaves in search of a master. Or as Comrade Stalin said in a somewhat different context, "The people need a Tsar." The Trumpists want an Emperor, not just another President. Beyond that, I doubt they could agree with each other on anything much. But then, they don't have to: the Emperor would sort it all out....



Here's a recent creation of mine that expresses the same dynamic, within the context of the left-right political spectrum:


3-Dimensional Axes of Social Reality

Spoiler: show
Image
#15169940
Rich wrote:Low population density increases prosperity, reduces inequality and encourages rapid technological, social and cultural development. We saw this in the aftermath of the Black Death and we saw it big time in North America.


What about the Roman world c 260?

Fascist ideologies are plebeian ideologies,


Fascists were fond of uniforms and insignia which clearly distinguished superiors from inferiors.

so may be the Jim-Crow South should be thought of as the first fascist regime.


:) The Jim Crow South opposed a strong central government. Basically its values were typical American--the individual or local community should have free rein to run its own affairs, even to the detriment of a minority. The basic difference was just the last.
User avatar
By Odiseizam
#15205492
@starman2003 regarding the last paragraph that is true to some extent coz JimC was not ultralubertarian i.e. supporting wide decentralization but landlord one or in modern terms corporate one [1] altho as such again leads to centralization through elitism sooner or later /// anyway libertarians should respect the natural rights thus cant expect to establish extreme local majority prejudice on racial or ethnic level like ban for the minorities on all levels, it should be weighed whether the free will of the majority is negating the basic human rights eg. ostracism coz cultural or racial belongingness, tho here I am assuming that minorities are not seen as risk for the prevalent culture of the majority eg. adamites among Christians etc. yet in the end if referendums (ballots) are regular occurrence then as the community evolves so will the legal rights too i.e. quick way citizens too loosen or stiffen any standard or trend which is problematic or complex for legal balancing, but waiting on wide participatory democracy mids the current federalistic plutocracy is like waiting on santa claus mids Christianity, maybe thats why there is long tradition of bubbling pines in white house, hek not sure how TD step aside from that tradition!?

regarding the previous comparison of trumpeteers as delusional supporters of plutocracy is like comparing PaulR as crower, its wrong premise DT to be labeled as corporate or establishment bot, if we know that the war-industry was paused extra coz his decision for withdrawal from Afghanistan and Syria, but also by annulling ttip was broken the globalistic plan for expansion of us ban'corp capital to eU, so by no means he could be labeled as plutocratic stooge, on contrary He was maybe the only us'president after JFK that turned back to the established bipartisan enterprise, for what I've labeled him for a moment as centrist ...
By late
#15205496
ckaihatsu wrote:


So if 'Trumpism' applies to Trump supporters, what are *their* aims, besides being lemmings for Trump?

What kind of political vision would *they* have realized, if Trump's coup had succeeded?



Carne por machina... They will get what they want, apartheid, medieval law, hell on wheels, basically.

But medieval is where rich Right wing extremists want to go. They think they should have all the money, and peasants are there for the killing.
#15205498
Yes, unfortunately our government is at least a plutocracy. Not only are we a plutocracy, but also a kleptocracy as we are literally ruled by thieves who not only exploit other countries but also exploit common citizens like myself, all while giving our money to the already wealthy.

Unfortunately, a plutocracy is probably the most common form of government.
#15205507
late wrote:
Carne por machina... They will get what they want, apartheid, medieval law, hell on wheels, basically.

But medieval is where rich Right wing extremists want to go. They think they should have all the money, and peasants are there for the killing.



The biggest indicator of backsliding to greater social inequality is the re-rise of *rentier* capital, meaning assets and resources, that, by definition, are materially *non-productive*. (Stock buy-backs, land valuations, interest payments, rent payments, etc.) Real estate, hoards of cash, and investment vehicles like Bitcoin do not themselves *add* anything new / any new commodities to the overall mix (economy).

At least the bourgeoisie, early-on, were societally / historically *productive*, over and above the monarchies, by using capital to organize free labor and the implements of production, to produce commodities for the general public. (The legacy of which is seen today in the marketing of 'artisanal'-type production.)

But now such manufacturing, and the *finance* that followed it, are at historic lows of profitability, as seen by the stubbornly low interest rate (federal funds rate) over the last 2 decades.

So anyone today with hyper-concentrated wealth can't really *leverage* it, though, into typical capitalist / entrepreneurial *production*, for typical capitalist economic activity, for commodities, for people.

No capitalist economic activity = no capitalism, effectively, and the stagnation and ossification yields *exchange values* within capitalism to now be *meaningless* -- it's the *use values* that emerge now in the standstill, such as whether someone has a place to live, or not.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

@Potemkin They've spent the best part of two […]

Juan Dalmau needs to be the governor and the isla[…]

Whats "breaking" here ? Russians have s[…]

@Puffer Fish You dig a trench avoiding existin[…]