Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
MisterSwig

Trump, the Anti-Socialist

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

What is radical about the form of socialism we are talking about?

I don't have a problem with using AOC as an example of a radical socialist. She wants to change our economic system in fundamental ways and make it even more socialistic. Sanders too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that's not "radical socialism". If you don't have a problem with that, it means you don't have a problem with using phrases that don't mean anything. There isn't socialism and people who are radical socialists or not; there isn't a spectrum of socialism like we might have with capitalism. What would a non-radical socialist be? It should be clear that what we are dealing with in Trump is not an attempt at thinking rationally or carefully. Maybe you can wordsmith it all to be much more coherent and sensible, but that's not the meaning intended. 

AOC isn't particularly radical as a democratic socialist anyway. If anything, it's the least dangerous form of socialism of all, and the least radical as for its ultimate goal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

 

The fact is that Sweden went through a socialist period, were taxed excessively (even for those who like socialism). Because of their institution of free speech, they were able to come out of it in the last 20 years. In some ways they are now more capitalistic that the US. They did it based on reasonable discussion of the issues not fraudulently taking over the government and forcing capitalism down people's throats. So honest discussion can save a country.

 

Search Results

Featured snippet from the web

image.png.d4233e0586052495b0c71042d7e51110.png
Personal Income Tax Rate in Sweden is expected to be 61.85 percent by the end of this quarter, according to Trading Economics global macro models and analysts expectations. In the long-term, the Sweden Personal Income Tax Rate is projected to trend around 61.85 percent in 2020, according to our econometric models.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

I don't have a problem with using AOC as an example of a radical socialist. She wants to change our economic system in fundamental ways and make it even more socialistic. Sanders too.

"It’s good that we know the real culprit behind the “scourge” of climate change: white supremacy.

Confused? Try following these words of Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, spoken by her this weekend at a rally for presidential candidate Bernie Sanders at a climate change conference at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa:

“The way we inoculate ourselves from continuing to burn up our planet at unsustainable level triggering feedback loops that we have not even begun to comprehend is by honoring indigenous wisdom and allowing it to guide our climate policy.

“The way that we preserve our systems is by transitioning to principles of universality, that means I want you clothed, I want you educated, I want you paid a living wage – no ifs, ands, or buts. And what that also means [and] what [the previous speaker] Naomi [Klein] talked about as well is directly, consciously, combating white supremacy in the United States of America.”

Klein had just spoken about climate change, which she called “impossible to deny,” and likened it to a fire. Klein then turned her wrath on “figures who are so expert at the art of spreading division” (read: President Trump), who she accused of setting another “fire” in the country – that of white supremacy – and using it to divide the nation.

Klein raged,

“Do we think it is a coincidence that these two fires [climate change and white supremacy] are raging at the exact same time? And as these strongmen turn their populations against each other, that frees them up for the real business at hand which is pillaging [the earth]. We cannot win this fight without battling white supremacy.” 

Not so coherent either. But stay with me as I try to unpack these statements and break them down to an “understandable” level.

First, who are these “strongmen” Klein is referring to? Presumably one of them is President Trump. But who are the others, and, equally important, who are their “populations?”

Second, whoever they are and whatever their battle is with each other, Klein and AOC are telling us that they are the cause of white supremacy in America.

But the conspiracy theory doesn’t end there.

According to Klein and AOC, these “strongmen” are using white supremacy as a smokescreen to make big bucks by ransacking the environment.

Who knew such sinister plots were afoot in America?

Yet, as ridiculous as it is, it is important to call out this false narrative. White supremacy is a problem in America, but not because it is causing climate change (it isn’t)..."

 

Meira Svirsky

 

 

 
 
 
Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/12/2019 at 6:47 PM, whYNOT said:

 

* UK election results later today will be indicative of where they're moving.

 

The Labour Party, Corbyn, the British Left, took a walloping. Who knew this many Brits still had the grit and common sense? The country will be a sovereign, self-determining nation soon, "nationalism" some collectivist-globalists sneeringly call it. They are right, that's individualism of nations.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

If anything, it's the least dangerous form of socialism of all, and the least radical as for its ultimate goal.

I disagree. It is most dangerous, because it wants the "people" to control the means of production, as opposed to the state. But in a democracy, the people are the state. So it's a backdoor attempt to gain control of production. They are trying to turn America into a full-blown democracy and wipe out the Constitution, while simultaneously pitching democratic socialism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2019 at 3:13 AM, Easy Truth said:

 

Now, I don't want socialism, I don't want mandated altruism, but I also want words to be treated as meaning something. At some point the political environment will muddy up the waters where leaders can say things that don't mean anything in particular. I find the OP to be that type of confusion mongering. If we want to attack socialism (which would be singing to the choir in this forum), then let's be clear about it. The way the OP puts it forth is: "That which is Capitalism, is Trump, and that which is NOT Socialism is Trump" which is nonsense!

Again, no one here disagrees with you that socialism is bad.

The Swedish economic model you referred to suits a quite passively obedient populace. Americans wouldn't stand for it. The Swedes have considered themselves the moral (altruist) model to other countries, which explains the willing self-sacrifices made to their welfare state. They have to pay for the indulgence of feeling good about themselves, in a nutshell. But signs aren't good there lately, for reasons to do with intra-immigrant gang violence. Denmark took the unprecedented step of controlling their common border recently. And the numbers of migrants taken are increasing the load on the Swedish tax burden and the very small population (5 mil), so expect political change soon. 

For USA Socialism (two words not to be combined) I haven't seen anyone here or elsewhere know what form it will take, it is an unknown quantity by US standards, incomparable to prior samples in other places. I try to read the characters. From the mood of sheer spite, I can see, which has swept up the Democrats and followers, I would speculate this will be extreme. I disbelieve the politicians' protests of a moderate Social Democracy, and if true for the more honest ones, would their voters allow them? If they take power: payback time for the Conservatives. (Who stole the power that was already assured them). Then the numbers of "takers" would soar (the addiction of free stuff for the people) and the numbers of "producers" (generally) will drop accordingly, slowly at first and then drastically as many of the latter close down business, halt investments, move their companies offshore, etc. Americans won't stand for it. 

Wasn't there a novel about that very thing, when the Leftists take control, Atlas-something?

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/12/2019 at 10:24 PM, Eiuol said:

I don't know about you, but socialism is easily as bad as emotionalism combined with nationalism. Not sure how you get from that idea to "dry criticism" of socialism just as bad economic theory.

 

You are equating nationalism combined with emotionalism - with socialism. And what about socialism-leftism combined with emotionalism? IOW, the anger, spite and vitriol glaringly displayed by the Left one views every day from nearly all media outlets. Right down to several smirking, hate-filled comedians. Can one draw equivalence between a person who feels strongly about the value of his nation (yes, even if his is intrinsic value) and who obviously has no "Nationalist" expansionist intentions upon other nations - with a person who feels strongly about the lifelong duty/service one owes to everyone else-- at nihilistic cost to his nation's good?

I think not. The distinction is constructive vs. destructive.

I used to think that primacy of emotion was one characteristic of the Left. (Not them alone, obviously, but much more extreme and public with them). I have been watching this phenomenon up close from individuals I know who've turned Leftist. Now, it looks to me their emotions have no base in values, objective or not - they arrive from pure sensations. Sensation-ism, the term I have. I see - I feel. Him - evil; her - good. Not a thoughtful identification and value-judgement in sight. Which is amplified by the barrage of sensory experiences thrown at them all day from their I-Phones and by propagandized, ready to eat "narratives" produced by the Left media. 

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

And what about socialism-leftism combined with emotionalism?

Anything plus emotionalism is bad. Why are you talking to me as if I didn't think emotionalism plus socialism is bad? 

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

a person who feels strongly about the value of his nation (yes, even if his is intrinsic value) and who obviously has no "Nationalist" expansionist intentions upon other nations

But you left out the thing I'm talking about - emotionalism. You know, the people who make "ready-to-eat" narratives. Like whoever made the survey this thread was originally about.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Anything plus emotionalism is bad. Why are you talking to me as if I didn't think emotionalism plus socialism is bad? 

But you left out the thing I'm talking about - emotionalism. You know, the people who make "ready-to-eat" narratives. Like whoever made the survey this thread was originally about.

 

Anything plus emotionalism is bad, okay. And you and I can expect to see more emotions running riot in this political conflict. So subtract emotionalism from the equation, and what are you left with? Socialism v. "Nationalism".

The first with a consistently destructive-of-human endeavor identity, the second, by those with a non-aggressive value for their country (and its free endeavors) - largely.

I disagree strongly with your "as bad as".

If they (wrongly, I clearly believe) equate the two, to provide Objectivists a justification to sit on the fence, bemoaning the "nuttiness" of both sides (Yaron) they are going to the miss the party. A most critical historical crossroads is coming up, and organized O'ism should be early to throw in its measured, objective opinion and reasoned influence if it wants to stay relevant.

(And the propaganda of the Leftist mainstream media is hugely more effective, simply by its superiority of power, numerous outlets and the audience numbers it reaches, with its constant drip-dripping of a single-sided narrative. The conservative "narrative" put out to oppose it is minor, relatively).

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

Leftist mainstream media is hugely more effective, simply by its superiority of power, numerous outlets and the numbers it reaches

I disagree, or at least you're treating it as monolithic. Actual radicals don't have much of a voice. If you mean media like CNN, it is rather pathetically weak  there is Fox, which is pretty much the same way but for a different political audience. Propaganda can be effective, it only needs to be effective on the right people; more reach simply increases the likelihood of hitting your target. I'm not going to get into it, and I think you'll hate it that I'll say it, but I think you are a prime example of how people are manipulated by propaganda. If you see conservative media narratives as insignificant, then you aren't paying attention. Either that or it's only really apparent outside of underdeveloped countries.

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

the second, by those with a non-aggressive value

We aren't talking about these ideas as abstract ideals. We are discussing actual people who may or may not pose an actual threat. Regardless of if nationalism can be made tasteful (I think it can be),  the nationalists I am talking about are the emotional ones. I'm saying that *these* people, the populist type of nationalist as we see in Trump, are as dangerous as or more dangerous than the so-called "radical socialists" that we have talked about. Political threats must be talked about in concretes. A concrete threat must be dealt with more urgently than combating the philosophy behind it. So you want to talk about the more immediate threats to society, namely emotionalism. Anything touched by emotionalism is tainted and becomes destructive. Even though socialism ends up destructive anyway regardless of form, that doesn't automatically make it worse or more destructive than the nationalism of an emotionalist. 

 

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

Objectivists a justification to sit on the fence, bemoaning the "nuttiness" of both sides (Yaron) they are going to the miss the party.

I don't have a reason to think that Yaron Brook knows what he's talking about. That's beside the fact that someone with a lisp should not be the public (spoken) voice of an organization. Terrible strategy. The whole both sides argument is dumb, it still only sees politics as a polar issue. It's ridiculous how many sides there are, there is a great deal of nuance with beliefs and political positions. It's like seeing yourself as transcending politics if you just say both sides suck. It usually doesn't just refer to Democrat and Republican. Instead of complaining about the sides, it's better to manufacture your own side and aggressively persuade people to join you.

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I disagree, or at least you're treating it as monolithic. Actual radicals don't have much of a voice. If you mean media like CNN, it is rather pathetically weak  there is Fox, which is pretty much the same way but for a different political audience. Propaganda can be effective, it only needs to be effective on the right people; more reach simply increases the likelihood of hitting your target. I'm not going to get into it, and I think you'll hate it that I'll say it, but I think you are a prime example of how people are manipulated by propaganda. If you see conservative media narratives as insignificant, then you aren't paying attention. Either that or it's only really apparent outside of underdeveloped countries.

 

You really don't want to know. When you're floating too long in - predominantly Leftist - propaganda, you're the last to see. I remind you, I've had a background in Press and public relations. At a time the newspapers and magazines here were on a par with yours. I know how it's done from the inside, manipulating reality to fit agendas. I've informally made a study of the mind-washing CNN and BBC, RT and Al-Jazeera, for all their common techniques: what they publish and what they don't, what they hold back, suppress, embellish and stress, or limit or spike. How to build a story, how to play it down. How to bolster a political candidate and how to undermine him. All so crudely obvious, I'm amazed they think they will find the credulous who take it in as whole truth. The media understand that their viewers want nicely-packaged reality, a movie that doesn't challenge their minds overmuch: the baddies get their come-uppance - etc.

The gullibles fall for it, they've already made up their minds about an issue or individual, and simply demand confirmation for what they feel-know. Which is happily accomodated by media. To top that, some media presume themselves to be King Makers, whom the dumb public will obediently follow. When occasionally that doesn't work you'll see and hear their outrage!

Press reporting anyway, isn't "the metaphysically given" - it just has a base in real things and events - it is "man-made" from start to end. The guy with the camera can shoot a scene how he wants it to appear - all the way through, the story is artificially arranged/crafted/edited, right down to the inflections and facial expressions by the newscaster. Reporting, to borrow from Rand,  is a selective *representation* of reality, according to the reporter's/publisher's metaphysical value-judgments.

Does deliberate misrepresentation happen every time to the same degree, of course not. First, the paper and station have to keep up their credibility and a modicum of professional standards, or, like recently, stop being believed. Many stories, like natural disasters, don't carry any ethical-political significance, unless (e.g.) they can somehow blame the government, the president, etc., (like that congresswoman who blamed global warming on white supremacists). 

But there is *always* control of the final product: "How is this going to come across to our audience?" How will it influence their actions? To our morally-righteous way of thinking, or not?

I recall btw you couldn't accept that the WaPo was faking reality with its headline...which was clear to any observant reader.

If people don't have a very solid, inductive base in reality - few have - they naively fall for the media tricks - their "new reality" is what they take off TV and other screens. Objectivists too, at times, I notice.

Again, while you can't seem to see it, for a prolonged period the Leftist media have been a dominant cause. Therefore, until recently, we saw everywhere largely Leftist results. Beware what your media tells you, Right- or Left-orientated.

 

 

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Eiuol said:

 

We aren't talking about these ideas as abstract ideals. We are discussing actual people who may or may not pose an actual threat. Regardless of if nationalism can be made tasteful (I think it can be),  the nationalists I am talking about are the emotional ones. I'm saying that *these* people, the populist type of nationalist as we see in Trump, are as dangerous as or more dangerous than the so-called "radical socialists" that we have talked about. Political threats must be talked about in concretes. A concrete threat must be dealt with more urgently than combating the philosophy behind it. So you want to talk about the more immediate threats to society, namely emotionalism. Anything touched by emotionalism is tainted and becomes destructive. Even though socialism ends up destructive anyway regardless of form, that doesn't automatically make it worse or more destructive than the nationalism of an emotionalist. 

 

 

There is nothing, per se, wrong with emotions.  Are we agreed on this? 

What you are worried about is the "emotionalism" of people who do place great value in their nation, who did think they had been abandoned by Washington, and sure, see the president as righting that and seem happy about that. We can unpack the truths, rights or wrongs in there, I know something about the complicating factors with the Christians, but ultimately I see their emotions posing no harm to anyone.

The threat of socialism is real, an objective disvalue. One is justified in experiencing rational emotions, anger, fear and sadness, contemplating this possibility, for America especially.

The socialists' (et al) emotionalism is much more dangerous because we know it will be acted out. They have proven they actively seek confrontation - already, during a sitting, duly elected president's term - and when (if) they are beaten again, their anger and hatred will boil over. Their's is an unparalleled greed for the power to force their agenda on everyone, and hang "democracy".

 I can't remember any of that from the Republican opposition when Obama was in office, unhappy as they were, they honored the system and their Constitution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

There is nothing, per se, wrong with emotions.  Are we agreed on this? 

Yes.

But a problem arises with "intense emotions" and rational discussion and behavior. 

34 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

The threat of socialism is real, an objective disvalue. One is justified in experiencing rational emotions, anger, fear and sadness, contemplating this possibility, for America especially.

Yes but the threat of irrationalism is a far greater because one cannot right the situation with rational discussion. Once contradictions are okay, anything goes. Once words are meaningless due to the blindness that panic or fury brings, "man" becomes a simple animal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

the "emotionalism" of people who do place great value in their nation,

I struggle to find any rational grounding to the people we are talking about. "Feeling abandoned by Washington" is purely a media manufactured narrative, and it just feels right. Trump understands media control, he understands emotional manipulation, he knows how to build a crowd. The extent that they feel abandoned is the extent that they feel the State ought to be an arm of the people's will. 
 

 

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

ultimately I see their emotions posing no harm to anyone.

So... The emotional nationalists are weak and unwilling to act out their emotional thinking? I mean okay, but that's another point I've been making - Trump is weak as a leader, even for the people who agree with him. It might be strange to say this, the political parties we see in America are not nearly as radical as you think, and that's partly because they are so weak and have a very thin control on their political philosophy. No teeth. 

I don't really care if you think left-leaning American politics is more dangerous than right-leaning American politics. I care if you see that there is room for much more radical politics, and the people you would like to support are so weak that they won't even move an inch towards where you want things to go. And the dangerous leftists aren't even the ones that get media attention. 

https://youtu.be/R_sot9ZK8X8


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/14/2019 at 2:35 AM, MisterSwig said:

I disagree. It is most dangerous, because it wants the "people" to control the means of production, as opposed to the state. But in a democracy, the people are the state. So it's a backdoor attempt to gain control of production. They are trying to turn America into a full-blown democracy and wipe out the Constitution, while simultaneously pitching democratic socialism. 

Seems nobody told the Left about separation of Church and State: the State IS their Church. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Eiuol said:


 

 

So... The emotional nationalists are weak and unwilling to act out their emotional thinking? I mean okay, but that's another point I've been making - Trump is weak as a leader, even for the people who agree with him. It might be strange to say this, the political parties we see in America are not nearly as radical as you think, and that's partly because they are so weak and have a very thin control on their political philosophy. No teeth. 

 

https://youtu.be/R_sot9ZK8X8


 

"Weak and unwilling to act out their emotional thinking"? 

No way I said that nor implied it. After long close observation it's personal character, respect for the Constitution and self-discipline/responsibility that I notice ~far~ more of from the Conservatives. (Very similar to the conservatives here in SA). That's why they, as a whole,  didn't throw endless emotional tantrums during the Obama terms, but mostly accepted the reality.

The weakness, particularly of character, almost totally lies Leftwards. Not only all over the TV news and its second-hander, dishonest commentators, I see this lack of character integrity in people I know (who happen to espouse Left ideology) - and not recognizing reality is the causal connection. 

Considering what he's up against daily from every side, I disagree that President Trump is a weak leader. Can you really not see: Everything the media is doing is designed to try to fluster him and make him look "weak". (Did you read my post?) When the media soft-soaps a president the way they did the last one, and he automatically gets world-wide acclaim from the Left abroad, it is a lot easier to look cool and wise and presidential. So instead, Trump has had to find and engage his own audience and self-promote. 

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

didn't throw endless emotional tantrums during the Obama terms, but mostly accepted the reality.

Yeah, you ate the narrative up. A lot of media consumption is selection bias.

30 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

No way I said that nor implied it.

You just haven't been following your own arguments. You were talking about emotionalism, thinking with emotions rather than rational thought. You said you don't see these emotional thoughts pose harm to anyone. If they don't pose harm to anyone, then they don't pose a threat to their rivals either. If they don't pose any harm to anything, they are weak. If you mean physical harm, then you either grossly exaggerate the harm that exists in run-of-the-mill statists, or you fundamentally disagree what counts as harm. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No sense.

Emotions felt for objective values (i.e. a country free of socialism) are right and proper. But they are "not tools of cognition". And further, not just "thinking with emotions", but acting on them, are both obviously much more of what Leftists are doing. They therefore promise much harm if they have the power. That makes them "weak", characterless. Am I clear?

It is this greater character among conservatives which means, by and large, "they don't pose harm to anything".

But you call that "weak"?!

 

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Yeah, you ate the narrative up. A lot of media consumption is selection bias.

 

 

 

I said: you really don't want to know.

If you can't see media manipulation, you are in a bubble. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I struggle to find any rational grounding to the people we are talking about. "Feeling abandoned by Washington" is purely a media manufactured narrative, and it just feels right. Trump understands media control, he understands emotional manipulation, he knows how to build a crowd. The extent that they feel abandoned is the extent that they feel the State ought to be an arm of the people's will. 
 

 

 


 

Now this is interesting, since it points to the heart of the problem. 

Was there Statist interference in the USA's industry by Washington which (for one) caused the Steel Belt to turn into the Rust Belt? The footage everyone has seen of dying towns and derelict factories. Cheaper goods imported from overseas became the preferred govt. policy, it appears. Isn't that state intervention?

If so, "being abandoned" is certainly not "media manufactured narrative", it was real, the results for the working men and women were evident. Unemployment. Poverty. Second: does the initial state interference into the nation's industry justify a "correction" by the Trump presidency in the other direction? In principle, no. Intervention is intervention. But I maintain there is a context that mustn't be dropped.

What came first. Who caused what? A general observation of politics anywhere (in the last decade) is of a hugely expanding Left. State policies in countries became more forcefully a sacrificial, Left agenda. Their conservatives were increasingly ignored and forgotten, as they saw their cultural values being trampled. (Open migration and preference shown for another religion over native Christians, just the most visible cause in Europe). The broad upshot is that the Left, from moderate to most radical have gradually taken over the political landscape. The conservatives were being squeezed out of the spectrum: now, anyone who is Right of the New Left is despised and spurned especially by intellectual "elitists" and the brain-washing media - as "ultra-rightist", nationalist, supremacist, etc., etc. 

The slumbering giant which I think the conservatives mostly were for a long period, quietly going about their lives, was galvanised into action and reaction by their extreme-Left-turning states.

Conclusion: The aggressive Left has 'caused' the Right backlash. 

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Statist interference in the USA's industry

 

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

If so, "being abandoned" is certainly not "media manufactured narrative", it was real

Interference is the opposite of abandonment. To feel abandoned means that you feel some interference is good.

Thanks for the media narrative though, it was like watching Tucker Carlson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...