'You Need to Think About It Like a War'


#1

Friendly reminder that a majority on the American Right are no longer conservative, they’re fascist, and would hold their noses while they helped corral the centrists and leftists and eventually Right-leaning minorities into abattoirs and ovens. They don’t see us as their countrymen, they see us as targets in their war against separation of church and state.


#2

Yup. The religious right like to think of themselves at the party of family values. When in reality they’re the party of “no standards for us”.


#3

As someone on another thread said a couple of days ago, it’s a cold civil war.


#4

I’m not saying the Right is correct. I’m just pointing out that’s how they see it. The problem with a war footing is that there are only to polar opposites, with us or against us. In actual war, anyone who fails to set aside doubts and questions and swear allegiance to your side has to be treated as hostile. That so many of them choose to see things that way doesn’t mean it’s correct. It is in fact what’s all but destroyed American political discourse.

There’s a very real danger of the American Center-Left following the American Right into the same trap, the kind of trap where being an actual Leftist is as unacceptable to the Resistance as being on the Right. But we’re at a crossroads and we don’t have to accept the Right’s violent framework.


#5

We’re already halfway there on that front. The enthusiastic recreation of red scare rhetoric isn’t helping.


#6

…it would be nice if more of the liberals would notice that the Russians and the socialists aren’t actually on the same team this time.


#7

Um, doesn’t everyone know that Russia hasn’t been socialist at all for like, over 20 years now?

As far as I can tell, since about 1991, it’s been a oligarchic kleptocracy with heavy features of feudalism.

There was a mass transfer of wealth from the government to a few aristocrats. And that’s what the republican party’s been trying to set up here in the USA for the last ten or fifteen years.


#8

IMHO, a lot longer than that. Many of the oligarchs were up-and-comers in the USSR.


#9

Yeah, but they needed the USSR to collapse in order to privatize all that wealth.


#10

#11

So that’s the new Faux Cyrillic, is it?

I suppose it beats TOYS Я US

but I don’t think that the “O” gylph is even from that alphabet.

Тче Считлиб гуиде то цивил дисцоурсе.
еверыоне и дон’т лике ис а русссиан бот.

and translate supplies

Руководство shitlib к гражданскому дискурсу. Всем, кому не нравится, русский бот

#12

That’s the thing though. At it’s height as a command economy, the USSR wasn’t really socialist in the sense of benefiting the Russian (and other Soviet) peoples. Lenin, for all his serious flaws as a leader and an economist, may have intended to build a Marxist society. But he failed and Stalin hammered the nails in its coffin long before glastnost. I’m of the opinion that Marx’s model of a communist economy is incompatible with his interim step of a centralized command economy, but I would prefer we keep this thread about the topic of the Atlantic article and leave Soviet economics for one of the econ threads.


#13

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.