A distinction without a difference. There is no need for collusion when you’re moving in the same social circles, meeting the same people, having your campaign funded by the same social class with the same needs and objectives.
And yes, Trump was a mold breaker there, but only as a facade, the reality is not that Trump is “rejecting” neoliberalism, it is that neoliberalism is breaking apart, by its own incoherence, in the US as everywhere else.
Second part first, agree totally. I don’t mean to suggest Trump truly represents some sea change against neoloberalism… but his rhetoric was very much a rejection of a lot of it. He’s absolutely a liar in terms of actually representing change from the status quo… he’s a pure kleptocrat, plain and simple. But the point is that facade is what resonated with people because even those without the knowledge base or words to form why they’re over neoliberalism, are very much over neoliberalism. Regular people, not, not just political nerds.
First part, hard disagree because it informs strategy on how to move past it. If you believe both sides are colluding to keep the masses down and there’s no real electoral path to improvement… well, we’re at the stage of violent revolution and there’s no point faffing about further. Neither of us are out there with rifles yet, so I’d argue neither of us really, truly thinks that’s the case yet. Because that actually does happen in places like Gaza, and for good reason - they literally have no other recourse. We’ve got the table tilted against us, but ultimately we can and do upset the institutional power still. Trump, while he didn’t represent real change, was absolutely totally rejected by institutional power in his initial run and managed to win by establishing a faux-populist cult of personality… that literally could not have worked if electoralism was truly totally dead.
well, we’re at the stage of violent revolution and there’s no point faffing about further
I do believe we are at the stage where this is the only means of change. We’re not doing it because most people are still delusional (or generously, “hopeful”) that we are not, or don’t even think about changing things at all by desperation / capitulation / ignorance.
I just think it pretty clearly isn’t the only way to fight established power when we saw a person that was hated by most establishment powers at the time of his first election and who spent half the money campaigning ended up beating them. Sure, he was obviously not interested in real change, but the fact is they didn’t want him in and he got in anyway. Americans are done with neoliberalism and are desperately looking for alternatives. Even worse ones…
A distinction without a difference. There is no need for collusion when you’re moving in the same social circles, meeting the same people, having your campaign funded by the same social class with the same needs and objectives.
And yes, Trump was a mold breaker there, but only as a facade, the reality is not that Trump is “rejecting” neoliberalism, it is that neoliberalism is breaking apart, by its own incoherence, in the US as everywhere else.
Second part first, agree totally. I don’t mean to suggest Trump truly represents some sea change against neoloberalism… but his rhetoric was very much a rejection of a lot of it. He’s absolutely a liar in terms of actually representing change from the status quo… he’s a pure kleptocrat, plain and simple. But the point is that facade is what resonated with people because even those without the knowledge base or words to form why they’re over neoliberalism, are very much over neoliberalism. Regular people, not, not just political nerds.
First part, hard disagree because it informs strategy on how to move past it. If you believe both sides are colluding to keep the masses down and there’s no real electoral path to improvement… well, we’re at the stage of violent revolution and there’s no point faffing about further. Neither of us are out there with rifles yet, so I’d argue neither of us really, truly thinks that’s the case yet. Because that actually does happen in places like Gaza, and for good reason - they literally have no other recourse. We’ve got the table tilted against us, but ultimately we can and do upset the institutional power still. Trump, while he didn’t represent real change, was absolutely totally rejected by institutional power in his initial run and managed to win by establishing a faux-populist cult of personality… that literally could not have worked if electoralism was truly totally dead.
I do believe we are at the stage where this is the only means of change. We’re not doing it because most people are still delusional (or generously, “hopeful”) that we are not, or don’t even think about changing things at all by desperation / capitulation / ignorance.
Then why aren’t you out there doing it?
I just think it pretty clearly isn’t the only way to fight established power when we saw a person that was hated by most establishment powers at the time of his first election and who spent half the money campaigning ended up beating them. Sure, he was obviously not interested in real change, but the fact is they didn’t want him in and he got in anyway. Americans are done with neoliberalism and are desperately looking for alternatives. Even worse ones…