Donald Trump - MAGAtwat news and discussion

[Wilf]

Oh fuck off.

There's lots of apathy out there.

Much of the voting public are not interested or motivated to know the detail.

If you'd like to convince yourself otherwise. Then that is ridiculously naive.

So, there's a sliding scale of interest in politics and policy? And you (?) or I (?) are at the motivated end of that scale? And does knowledge always produce more leftward outcomes?

 

[Kris Silver]

Is the growth in inequality going to be slower under Labour than under the Tories?

Genuine question that I don't know the answer to. I do know that this govt's supply side economic policies are guaranteed to increase inequality. Would the Tories have been even worse?

I think the rich have come to own so much of the pie, the land, the properties, the infrastructure and wealth of the country.

No, Labours policies still aren't bold enough to actually reverse this sharp trend of the last decade, seeing wealth rise from the majority up to a select few.

But, making people realise the Tories/Farage/Trumps of the world are the absolute shocking worst in this key area, is a mammoth task even in of itself.

 

[teuchter]

You happen to be someone who knows where I grew up. You’ll also have known similar communities where you grew up. I imagine, while of course having social, historical and cultural differences, US rural “redneck” communities with a lot of shared values with those communities of our youth.

My limited understanding is that in the USA some of the "mutual aid" is more formalised than what we'd be used to here, because it has to fill in bigger gaps in what the state provides - I guess mainly related to healthcare.

 

[Kris Silver]

So, there's a sliding scale of interest in politics and policy? And you (?) or I (?) are at the motivated end of that scale? And does knowledge always produce more leftward outcomes?

There's a sliding scale of people's interest levels, in all topics, isn't there. So that's a non question.

We're motivated to be on a politics forum engaging in the topic, so yes, we're likely above average interest in the topic.

I didn't say more informed voters produces drifts from the right to the left. But given much of the recent rights electoral successes have been born out of misinformation, portraying themselves as good for the poor, blaming various groups of people's wealth shrinking, rather than the rich.

With it a media that doesn't hold that to account enough. In many cases are firmly right leaning influencing the public (papers, Fox, GB News, others). Yes given all that, I would objectively say in that climate, being more informed on these things naturally steers more people away from those hard right parties.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think the rich have come to own so much of the pie, the land, the properties, the infrastructure and wealth of the country.

No, Labours policies still aren't bold enough to actually reverse this sharp trend of the last decade, seeing wealth rise from the majority up to a select few.

But, making people realise the Tories/Farage/Trumps of the world are the absolute shocking worst in this key area, is a mammoth task even in of itself.

I think you have this wrong about Labour. It's not that their policies are not bold enough to reverse the trend, which dates from the 1970s btw, not just the last decade. Their economic philosophy - government provides the infrastructure while private borrowing provides the capital for investment - is designed to increase inequality. It's not an accident or an unfortunate side-effect. It is the intended outcome.

 

[teuchter]

It is the intended outcome.

What's your basis for believing this?

 

[danny la rouge]

Oh fuck off.

There's lots of apathy out there.

Much of the voting public are not interested or motivated to know the detail.

If you'd like to convince yourself otherwise. Then that is ridiculously naive.

Hi Kris. I think you’re misunderstanding redsquirrel He’s asking how you’re defining “politics”. To me, politics is the sphere of acting in groups, in communities, in the processes of decision making over our future and acting together (or not) to that end. It might involve Parliamentary party politics, but it need not.

I believe, from my experience, that representative democracy is neither representative nor democracy. That’s a point of view and you may not share it. However, whether you do or not is not really germain here.

What matters is that when we become in local activity away from the ballot box. In the workplace or the community, in base union organising, in repairing a local path, in organising a community hall community, in arranging a breakfast club, in organising social events involving refugees and others in the community in a cultural exchange of food and music perhaps. Whatever form it takes, through those experiences your community will start to repair its natural solidarity; the practical sense of community, of mutual aid, that has been eroded by decades of neoliberal attrition. And that renewed solidarity will lead on to other things.

This sort of constructive self-activity is a demonstration that the power we have is derived from us, from our communities, from the social impulse inherent in our species. That power isn’t someone else’s to give: it is ours to use now. We don’t need anyone’s permission to use it.

Their power over us depends upon us being passive. That’s why society’s structures depend upon us using the “correct channels”. It saps our power by putting in place the expectation that our options consist in asking other people to do things for us, and waiting to see if requests are fulfilled.

Those processes are political. Both the self management and the passivity of electoral politics. And, in my view and experience, the former are more empowering than voting once every four years. But even if you disagree, you have to admit that politics is much more than “what political parties do”.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What's your basis for believing this?

Everything Rachel Reeves has ever said or done.

 

[Kris Silver]

I think you have this wrong about Labour. It's not that their policies are not bold enough to reverse the trend, which dates from the 1970s btw, not just the last decade. Their economic philosophy - government provides the infrastructure while private borrowing provides the capital for investment - is designed to increase inequality. It's not an accident or an unfortunate side-effect. It is the intended outcome.

You make an entirely valid argument, one for which I in part agree with.

For the most part through, I don't think Labour politicians or leaders in their most, are particularly conscious of their policies intentionally increasing inequality. Doesn't make it much better, and is naive on their part, sure. But, I just stop short at the point of intention. If there were more politicians firmly making the case, with simple punchy stats and targeting Labour, in the house and politics, really going for them, how their policies were increasing inequality. I'd perhaps then be more fully onboard with the awareness/acceptance/intention part, too.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's naive to think that Reeves isn't fully aware of what she is doing. She believes in this shit. She is an ideological right winger who believes that the best way to help everyone is to help the rich.

An extraordinary thing to believe, I know. But there it is.

 

[HeAthen]

There's a weird massive gap here, and in some of the other comments recently, that just seems to assume voting for a Starmer or a Harris is the correct (or intelligent) thing to do. When they absolutely are part of that drift right and are busy actively promoting right wing talking points.

No argument from me on that; it's something I've been saying for quite a while now.

 

[Kris Silver]

Hi Kris. I think you’re misunderstanding redsquirrel He’s asking how you’re defining “politics”. To me, politics is the sphere of acting in groups, in communities, in the processes of decision making over our future and acting together (or not) to that end. It might involve Parliamentary party politics, but it need not.

I believe, from my experience, that representative democracy is neither representative nor democracy. That’s a point of view and you may not share it. However, whether you do or not is not really germain here.

What matters is that when we become in local activity away from the ballot box. In the workplace or the community, in base union organising, in repairing a local path, in organising a community hall community, in arranging a breakfast club, in organising social events involving refugees and others in the community in a cultural exchange of food and music perhaps. Whatever form it takes, through those experiences your community will start to repair its natural solidarity; the practical sense of community, of mutual aid, that has been eroded by decades of neoliberal attrition. And that renewed solidarity will lead on to other things.

This sort of constructive self-activity is a demonstration that the power we have is derived from us, from our communities, from the social impulse inherent in our species. That power isn’t someone else’s to give: it is ours to use now. We don’t need anyone’s permission to use it.

Their power over us depends upon us being passive. That’s why society’s structures depend upon us using the “correct channels”. It saps our power by putting in place the expectation that our options consist in asking other people to do things for us, and waiting to see if requests are fulfilled.

Those processes are political. And, in my view and experience, they’re more empowering than voting once every four years. But even if you disagree, you have to admit that politics is much more than “what political parties do”.

If so then I apologise, redquirrel. But saying you were stupefied by my saying we need to make people aware of the basics of how Trump and Farage are the WORST for inequality. With a lesser focus on believing we can get enough voters to engage with the more complex nuances of politics and the parties. It was a fairly vanilla comment tbh, not needing such pickiness.

If you think we can somehow in the next 10 years, get tens of millions of people way more engaged with Politics and the detail. I would argue that is naive, and will ensure hard right rhetoric continues to win even more people over with simpler strategies. That's all I was trying to say.

 

[danny la rouge]

Re: Reeves etc. The Labour front bench are acting in their financial interests, the interests of their class, which is capital.

Look at the way they are all entangled in the financial interests of private health concerns. They are not to be trusted with the NHS.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

If you think we can somehow in the next 10 years, get tens of millions of people way more engaged with Politics and the detail. I would argue that is naive, and will ensure hard right rhetoric continues to win even more people over with simpler strategies. That's all I was trying to say.

Well, to repeat an earlier point, we've got three elections worth now of the Democrats leaning on 'look at how awful he is' with very little success. What you seem to be suggesting is basically 'do that harder' as far as I can tell. What's going to make it different?

 

[Kris Silver]

Well, to repeat an earlier point, we've got three elections worth now of the Democrats leaning on 'look at how awful he is' with very little success. What you seem to be suggesting is basically 'do that harder' as far as I can tell. What's going to make it different?

Fair point.

The Democrats failed to simply underline how clear past and future Policies of the Republicans, make things worse for low-middle earners, or even those not fortunate enough to be earning.

They did here and there, but not well. Bernie was good there, Corbyn was, but most of us know they get bullied out by our highly corporate fuelled media and politics.

Some in Labour had some analysis, speeches, cases, messaging that addressed this of the Tories a fair bit. But not enough, and rarely on Reform who could make real inroads.

As I say, there's a variety of ways to address ignorance of the impacts on people of hard right policies. It depends who you are, where you are, who you're engaging with and the environment.

 

[HeAthen]

If so then I apologise, redquirrel. But saying you were stupefied by my saying we need to make people aware of the basics of how Trump and Farage are the WORST for inequality. With a lesser focus on believing we can get enough voters to engage with the more complex nuances of politics and the parties. It was a fairly vanilla comment tbh, not needing such pickiness.

If you think we can somehow in the next 10 years, get tens of millions of people way more engaged with Politics and the detail. I would argue that is naive, and will ensure hard right rhetoric continues to win even more people over with simpler strategies. That's all I was trying to say.

That's the thing isn't it? Trump, Farage, Badenoch and her many recent predecessors are very different from the Republicans and Tories of the 80s and 90s (and they were bad enough). They are also extremely successful at fucking people over and then convincing them that it's 'others' who are to blame for the situation people fine themselves in. That's what needs to be countered and challenged.

 

[teuchter]

It's naive to think that Reeves isn't fully aware of what she is doing. She believes in this shit. She is an ideological right winger who believes that the best way to help everyone is to help the rich.

An extraordinary thing to believe, I know. But there it is.

If she thinks that increasing inequality is necessary to improve things for the less wealthy, it's a bit of a stretch to say that increasing inequality is the "intended outcome". If she thinks that "the best way to help everyone is to help the rich" then the intended outcome - the outcome that is being targetted - is improvements for everyone. An increase in inequality is then a side effect of the means to reach the intended outcome.

It's like saying that the "intended outcome" of an amputation is to end up with one less limb, when the purpose of the operation is to prevent gangrene from killing the patient. The doctor is fully aware of the implications of the operation but the intended outcome of the operation is to stop the gangrene. Whether or not you agree with the doctor's assessment of what is necessary, is independent of the "intended outcome" from the doctor's perspective.

I see this kind of statement quite often from those who are angry that Labour (or whoever) are not doing what they think they should be doing. A disagreement about the validity of the strategy gets translated into a view that the intent is malign. That may or may not be true, but to demonstrate that the intent is malign, you need more than just saying that a bad thing is happening as a result of the policy being pursued.

 

[Kris Silver]

If she thinks that increasing inequality is necessary to improve things for the less wealthy, it's a bit of a stretch to say that increasing inequality is the "intended outcome". If she thinks that "the best way to help everyone is to help the rich" then the intended outcome - the outcome that is being targetted - is improvements for everyone. An increase in inequality is then a side effect of the means to reach the intended outcome.

It's like saying that the "intended outcome" of an amputation is to end up with one less limb, when the purpose of the operation is to prevent gangrene from killing the patient. The doctor is fully aware of the implications of the operation but the intended outcome of the operation is to stop the gangrene. Whether or not you agree with the doctor's assessment of what is necessary, is independent of the "intended outcome" from the doctor's perspective.

I see this kind of statement quite often from those who are angry that Labour (or whoever) are not doing what they think they should be doing. A disagreement about the validity of the strategy gets translated into a view that the intent is malign. That may or may not be true, but to demonstrate that the intent is malign, you need more than just saying that a bad thing is happening as a result of the policy being pursued.

I agree here.

If bolder, further left, hard anti inequality policies were seen to be seriously spiking in popularity and awareness.

I actually think Reeves and Starmer would then be more inclined to drift that way.

That's out of some selfishness, sure. To keep in power. But I think it'd also be welcomed since they want those things to be popular and want to be in power to keep the Tories out doing much worse.

 

[redsquirrel]

If so then I apologise, redquirrel. But saying you were stupefied by my saying we need to make people aware of the basics of how Trump and Farage are the WORST for inequality. With a lesser focus on believing we can get enough voters to engage with the more complex nuances of politics and the parties.

I think people are engaged with politics - indeed it is their engagement with politics that is driving some to vote for the hard right. Politics is not knowing the names of party leaders/cabinets, or watching NewsNight. Politics is the actions of people living and working together - you don't stop the hard right by putting politics to one side, you fight it by recognising it is at the core of what is happening to them everyday.

As for being the worst for inequality well that certainly is not true of Farage, it was/is the Labour and Tory parties that are having the greatest effect on increasing the inequality in our societies, that are increasing poverty and worsening the working conditions for people. (I'd have to check the data but I'd suspect that inequality rose more during Reagan/Bush/Clinton than it did under Trump.)

 

[chandlerp]

Leaves thread

 

[danny la rouge]

Leaves thread

https://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/pictures-of-autumn.379515/

 

[redsquirrel]

Incidentally Three Way Fight have a sale on at the moment

Three Way fight book on sale from PM Press

Three Way Fight: Revolutionary Politics and Antifascism and all books, e-Books, DVDs, and CDs are 50% off from PM Press through January 3, 2025, with coupon code GIFT at PMPress.org.

threewayfight.org

I'd really suggest that people do read the summary of their politics - you might not agree with it, but if anyone is actually interested in arresting the growth of the hard right then it is something that you should at least engage with.

Three Way Fight is a project that promotes revolutionary anti-fascist analysis, strategy, and activism. Unlike liberal anti-fascists, we believe that “defending democracy” is an illusion, as long as that “democracy” is based on a socio-economic order that exploits and oppresses human beings. Global capitalism and the related structures of patriarchy, heterosexism, racial and national oppression represent the main source of violence and human suffering in the world today. Far right supremacism and terrorism grow out of this system and cannot be eradicated as long as it remains in place.

At the same time, unlike many on the revolutionary left, we believe that fascists and other far rightists aren’t simply tools of the ruling class. They can also form an autonomous political force that clashes with the established order in real ways, or even seeks to overthrow global capitalism and replace it with a radically different oppressive system. We believe that in this period fascism poses several different kinds of threats: fomenting physical attacks on oppressed communities, bolstering supremacist and authoritarian tendencies among mainstream conservatives and liberals, and—a threat often overlooked—exploiting popular grievances and mis-directing anti-elite, anti-system anger away from liberatory politics.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If she thinks that increasing inequality is necessary to improve things for the less wealthy, it's a bit of a stretch to say that increasing inequality is the "intended outcome".

Making the already rich even richer is the intended outcome of Reeves' supply-side economic policies. She has admitted as much. Private sector investment is 'the engine of growth' for Reeves. It's no different from Thatcherite 'trickle down' or earlier incarnations of this despicable philosophy such as the horse and the sparrow, which is my favoured metaphor.

It's an old r/w idea and it has been proven time and again to be really rather rotten at 'tricking down' wealth, but Reeves thinks she can do it better. And increased inequality is the intended outcome. It's what is worked for. Inequality is not seen as something to be avoided or to be reduced. It is seen as something to be increased.

 

[danny la rouge]

Politicians rarely if ever think they’re doing the wrong thing. If someone is shooting poison arrows at me, I’m not waiting to find out if their actions are malicious in intent. I’m getting out of the way if I can, dealing with any injuries as soon as possible, and then doing what I can to make them stop. We can deal with what’s going through their head another time.

 

[teuchter]

Making the already rich even richer is the intended outcome of Reeves' supply-side economic policies. She has admitted as much. Private sector investment is 'the engine of growth' for Reeves. It's no different from Thatcherite 'trickle down' or earlier incarnations of this despicable philosophy such as the horse and the sparrow, which is my favoured metaphor.

It's an old r/w idea and it has been proven time and again to be really rather rotten at 'tricking down' wealth, but Reeves thinks she can do it better. And increased inequality is the intended outcome. It's what is worked for. Inequality is not seen as something to be avoided or to be reduced. It is seen as something to be increased.

I'm not sure you've got the point I'm trying to make. I'm not arguing about the merits of trickle down economics, and I'm not arguing about whether the current government's policies amount to that. I'm talking about the motivations of those who implement the policies, whatever they are, and distinguishing the means from the end (from their point of view).

 

[emanymton]

I think people are engaged with politics - indeed it is their engagement with politics that is driving some to vote for the hard right. Politics is not knowing the names of party leaders/cabinets, or watching NewsNight. Politics is the actions of people living and working together - you don't stop the hard right by putting politics to one side, you fight it by recognising it is at the core of what is happening to them everyday.

As for being the worst for inequality well that certainly is not true of Farage, it was/is the Labour and Tory parties that are having the greatest effect on increasing the inequality in our societies, that are increasing poverty and worsening the working conditions for people. (I'd have to check the data but I'd suspect that inequality rose more during Reagan/Bush/Clinton than it did under Trump.)

I don't think looking at when poverty and inequality went up the most tells us much about the politics of the president/PM at the time. They have all been pushing polices that do that for years, when it is highest or lowest is probably more about the general circumstances at the time.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm not sure you've got the point I'm trying to make. I'm not arguing about the merits of trickle down economics, and I'm not arguing about whether the current government's policies amount to that. I'm talking about the motivations of those who implement the policies, whatever they are, and distinguishing the means from the end (from their point of view).

You're not arguing any point. You think that because someone like Reeves says that the only way to help the poor is to make the rich even richer, somehow the policies that are designed to make the rich richer are not intended for that but rather for helping the poor.

I'm pointing out that policies intended to make the rich richer are policies intended to make the rich richer, whatever other aims may come beyond that. That I'm reduced to tautology only highlights the lack of a point in what you are saying.

ETA: And this needs saying precisely to counter ideas such as those above saying that Labour are not being bold enough to tackle inequality. This misses the crucial point that they have no intention of tackling inequality. They are making policies that are intended to increase inequality. I'm actually giving Reeves credit here that she is not an idiot and is well aware of the consequences of her ideas.

 

[redsquirrel]

Politicians rarely if ever think they’re doing the wrong thing. If someone is shooting poison arrows at me, I’m not waiting to find out if their actions are malicious in intent. I’m getting out of the way if I can, dealing with any injuries as soon as possible, and then doing what I can to make them stop. We can deal with what’s going through their head another time.

Yep.
And I'll again use the example of my (and other's) workplace - if we could somehow look into the minds of bosses I suspect that some would not "want" to be making people redundant, increasing workloads, degrading work etc (Hell one of the people who is on our executive board is a former president of our union branch and someone I did consider a friend).
But all of that is irrelevant they are attacking workers, they are engaged in a series of actions that are going to make things worse for the staff, the students, the sector and indeed society as a whole.

 

[redsquirrel]

Fair point.

The Democrats failed to simply underline how clear past and future Policies of the Republicans, make things worse for low-middle earners, or even those not fortunate enough to be earning.

They did here and there, but not well. Bernie was good there, Corbyn was, but most of us know they get bullied out by our highly corporate fuelled media and politics.

Some in Labour had some analysis, speeches, cases, messaging that addressed this of the Tories a fair bit. But not enough, and rarely on Reform who could make real inroads.

As I say, there's a variety of ways to address ignorance of the impacts on people of hard right policies. It depends who you are, where you are, who you're engaging with and the environment.

This strategy has been done even longer in France than it has in the US and UK, yet the RN is still growing - does that not give you any concern that maybe the problem is with the strategy rather that the right magic bullet has not been found yet?

 

[HeAthen]

Yep.
And I'll again use the example of my (and other's) workplace - if we could somehow look into the minds of bosses I suspect that some would not "want" to be making people redundant, increasing workloads, degrading work etc (Hell one of the people who is on our executive board is a former president of our union branch and someone I did consider a friend).
But all of that is irrelevant they are attacking workers, they are engaged in a series of actions that are going to make things worse for the staff, the students, the sector and indeed society as a whole.

What are they doing to make things worse for you all (if that won't identify who you actually work for)?