Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Is America heading towards dictatorship?

Well he did attempt a pustch, he talks about immigrants 'poisoning the blood of the nation', he calls his domestic enemies 'vermin' and is currently talking about annexing and invading three neighbouring countries to name just a tiny selection of the fascist-type shit he's done. I'm afraid most of the left are wide off the mark when it comes to Trump, he's not just some slightly worse common or garden right-winger, he represents something far darker. We need to heed the warnings of history.

His putsch was shit. Embarrassingly so. He neither had the deep state support or the numbers on the streets to get anywhere close to something that might be called a coup. If the March on Rome had turned out like that Mussolini would have slinked away in shame. It was little more than a protest, albeit it a very violent one containing a small number of agitators with insurrectionist aspirations.

His language is not that far off the kind of rhetoric Thatcher and others employed in the past. It's easy to forget just how virulent some of the language used back then was, when LGB people were routinely smeared as perverts, the loony left was destroying the fabric of society and miners were the enemy within who had to be crushed at all costs.

Don't get me wrong though. I'm not undermining the threat he represents. Worse than Thatcher is bad, really bad. But he hasn't really behaved in the way radical wannabe dictators have in the past - most of them were already up to their neck in murders by the time they got to the stage Trump is at, and he hasn't got long left, electorally or literally. And his ideology is not out of step with mainstream capitalist thought, albeit at it's most extreme end.

But that doesn't mean I don't think the next four years won't be a nightmare, or that Trump doesn't have the capacity to veer off in a totalitarian direction depending on how events unfold, or that there might be something much worse waiting in the wings if Trump fails in his ambitions or drops dead.
 
Times like this I wish I paid more attention to current events in India, so I could weigh in with a well-considered remark about how far Trump does or doesn't resemble Modi. I suspect Modi and Netanyahu are probably better comparisons than Hitler though, for what that's worth.
 
But that doesn't mean I don't think the next four years won't be a nightmare, or that Trump doesn't have the capacity to veer off in a totalitarian direction depending on how events unfold, or that there might be something much worse waiting in the wings if Trump fails in his ambitions or drops dead.

On that much at least, we agree.

Have a nice weekend.
 
I think he genuinely believe that tax cuts, deregulation and slashing social spending will usher in an era of prosperity just the same as any other neoliberal - and it might for the rich. Where he breaks with the consensus is his desire to use the power of the state to regulate free movement of goods and labour and boost what he sees as the national economic interest using tools such as border controls and tariffs - and possibly using state or military power to break organised labour, protest movements and anyone who he believes might hamper his plans. But none of this is really outside of capitalist orthodoxy.
I think this para in your post is crucial to understanding the place of Trump within the neoliberal project. I think some people mistake MAGA for a purely nationalist notion and fail to appreciate how US corporate interests are so effectively global neoliberal interests. I suspect that we will see much of (neoliberal) consensus breaking elements toned down markedly and ultimately exposed for the populist electoral positioning that they are. Trump II is just part of the neoliberal acceleration.
 
His putsch was shit. Embarrassingly so. He neither had the deep state support or the numbers on the streets to get anywhere close to something that might be called a coup. If the March on Rome had turned out like that Mussolini would have slinked away in shame. It was little more than a protest, albeit it a very violent one containing a small number of agitators with insurrectionist aspirations.

His language is not that far off the kind of rhetoric Thatcher and others employed in the past. It's easy to forget just how virulent some of the language used back then was, when LGB people were routinely smeared as perverts, the loony left was destroying the fabric of society and miners were the enemy within who had to be crushed at all costs.

Don't get me wrong though. I'm not undermining the threat he represents. Worse than Thatcher is bad, really bad. But he hasn't really behaved in the way radical wannabe dictators have in the past - most of them were already up to their neck in murders by the time they got to the stage Trump is at, and he hasn't got long left, electorally or literally. And his ideology is not out of step with mainstream capitalist thought, albeit at it's most extreme end.

But that doesn't mean I don't think the next four years won't be a nightmare, or that Trump doesn't have the capacity to veer off in a totalitarian direction depending on how events unfold, or that there might be something much worse waiting in the wings if Trump fails in his ambitions or drops dead.
What is the deep state? According to SM the MAGAs claim Trump will destroy it. According to project 2025 their aim is to destroy it. So what do you mean Trump didn’t have support of the deep state?
 
Deep state means the perminent cival service and the military as i understand the term.
Looking at that from the MAGAS or Trump’s point of view, plus, project 2025, I guess it could be civil war. I always thought the deep state was a go at liberals. I didn’t know it included the military.
 
Looking at that from the MAGAS or Trump’s point of view, plus, project 2025, I guess it could be civil war. I always thought the deep state was a go at liberals. I didn’t know it included the military.

The idea of the Deep State, certainly as used by MAGA enthusiasts, is basically a conspiracy theory.

According to an American political conspiracy theory, the deep state is a clandestine network of members of the federal government (especially within the FBI and CIA), working in conjunction with high-level financial and industrial entities and leaders, to exercise power alongside or within the elected United States government. The term deep state originated in the 1990s as a reference to an alleged longtime deep state in Turkey, but began to be used to refer to the American government as well, including during the Obama administration. However, the theory reached mainstream recognition under the presidency of Donald Trump, who referenced an alleged "deep state" working against him and his administration's agenda
 
His putsch was shit. Embarrassingly so.
was a long time ago now that. they've moved on. we'll soon see how far

50dc28e5-5646-4ca7-82e5-e8a7b34a3096_text.gif
 
What is the deep state? According to SM the MAGAs claim Trump will destroy it. According to project 2025 their aim is to destroy it. So what do you mean Trump didn’t have support of the deep state?

I don't think he has any intention of destroying it. Just re-organising it and purging it of anyone who opposes him. Which tbf all governments attempt to do to a lesser or greater extent.
 
The idea of the Deep State, certainly as used by MAGA enthusiasts, is basically a conspiracy theory.
Thank you. That’s what I thought.

I remember when Qanon came about, two MAGAS on their way to a Trump rally wearing Qanon t-shirts were asked what it was? They said um erm um I don’t know. I read a report that someone made it up for a laugh. Michael Flynn sacked by Trump in his first administration due to Russian links, does silly vids presupposing he belongs to Qanon, saying something like when we go one we go all with a salute sounding like Ninja Turtles.

Conspiracies to turn everything on its head so people can’t tell what’s real or not. Very dangerous.
 
So, in other words, your "answer" to my question is "I am not going to tell you, look it up."
Why bother replying with such a non-answer?
If you had read said document, you would be able to quote a little bit of it. I have not read it myself.

Iirc, there's a summary on Wiki. The only bits that I can remember are putting state departments directly under presidential control and making loads of public sector staff jobs political appointments.
 
Well he did attempt a pustch, he talks about immigrants 'poisoning the blood of the nation', he calls his domestic enemies 'vermin' and is currently talking about annexing and invading three neighbouring countries to name just a tiny selection of the fascist-type shit he's done. I'm afraid most of the left are wide off the mark when it comes to Trump, he's not just some slightly worse common or garden right-winger, he represents something far darker. We need to heed the warnings of history.
We will have to change the memes if that’s the case
 
He was in serious danger of going to prison if he did not win the election. They gave him immunity from his crap, against what legal scholars have said is legitimate, so he is where he is now. Having the facade of a SC which is supposedly independent, all helps with the image. How can he be a dictator when the law carries on as usual (but it doesn't?). The rest of the world can look on as he promulgates his takeover, and he can gaslight any questions with that bs.

Are you really serious about not knowing any of this?

Maybe we'll see a resurgence of legal positivism.
 
I think it's right to be concerned about what Trump will do, particularly (for non-Americans) wrt the environment, and it's understandable to be fearful. And I have myself called him a wannabe dictator. I still think he is that.

But there are huge obstacles in his way in terms of a power grab. The Weimar constitution was only a few years old. The US constitution has deep institutional roots in the US, and Trump himself relies upon it to exercise power. It's not a comparable situation.

I really hope you're right, littlebabyjesus. And I wish I had your confidence.
 
His putsch was shit. Embarrassingly so. He neither had the deep state support or the numbers on the streets to get anywhere close to something that might be called a coup. If the March on Rome had turned out like that Mussolini would have slinked away in shame. It was little more than a protest, albeit it a very violent one containing a small number of agitators with insurrectionist aspirations.

His language is not that far off the kind of rhetoric Thatcher and others employed in the past. It's easy to forget just how virulent some of the language used back then was, when LGB people were routinely smeared as perverts, the loony left was destroying the fabric of society and miners were the enemy within who had to be crushed at all costs.

Don't get me wrong though. I'm not undermining the threat he represents. Worse than Thatcher is bad, really bad. But he hasn't really behaved in the way radical wannabe dictators have in the past - most of them were already up to their neck in murders by the time they got to the stage Trump is at, and he hasn't got long left, electorally or literally. And his ideology is not out of step with mainstream capitalist thought, albeit at it's most extreme end.

But that doesn't mean I don't think the next four years won't be a nightmare, or that Trump doesn't have the capacity to veer off in a totalitarian direction depending on how events unfold, or that there might be something much worse waiting in the wings if Trump fails in his ambitions or drops dead.
Yep, agree with all of this. And of course, for Thatcher read Reagan in the US. Trump consciously tries to copy Reagan with his MAGA shit, and Reagan is the closest historical parallel. Trump's manner is very different, but his targets are not so different, and his 'cut taxes for the rich, slash provision for everyone else, fuck the environment' agenda is the same.

He'll do a lot of damage without ever needing to become a dictator.
 
Like dominic cummings in this country.
And drawing heavily on the oeuvre of Vladislav Surkov

In contemporary Russia, unlike the old USSR or present-day North Korea, the stage is constantly changing: the country is a dictatorship in the morning, a democracy at lunch, an oligarchy by suppertime, while, backstage, oil companies are expropriated, journalists killed, billions siphoned away. Surkov is at the centre of the show, sponsoring nationalist skinheads one moment, backing human rights groups the next. It's a strategy of power based on keeping any opposition there may be constantly confused, a ceaseless shape-shifting that is unstoppable because it's indefinable.

— Peter Pomerantsev, in "Putin's Rasputin", London Review of Books issue of 20 October 2011
 
I don't think he has any intention of destroying it. Just re-organising it and purging it of anyone who opposes him. Which tbf all governments attempt to do to a lesser or greater extent.
I don’t think he’s a Hitler, he’s not clever enough. He has no respect for America or anyone, even his family. He’s only interested in himself. His only strategy is to make money. Useful idiot to the right though but he doesn’t care. So long as he’s praised and making money.
 
This is an interesting one I never heard for until this evening: House Republicans to Prioritize Controversial SAVE Act in New Session

This act demands proof of citizenship, apparently from birth certificates that matches your current name... so that rules out, y'know, any married woman who has taken her husband's surname and anyone who can't find their birth certificate. It is, fortunately, unlikely to pass, but the GOP are clearly trying their darndest to use non-existent illegal-forriner voting to disenfranchise as many people as possible.

TBH if it was going to disenfranchise women who have taken their husband's name it'd be an own goal as it would take out more of the female GOP vote than the Dems.
 
Back
Top Bottom