Chomsky on Trump

[Serial_Apologist]

Hugh, Pugh, Barley, McGrew, Chomsky, Brexit and Trump. (Sorry.)

Brilliant!

[Serial_Apologist]

I am not sure whether I agree that mass destruction is cyclical. It implies that the phenomenon is dictated by mathematics or it's an astrological impact from a supermoon. Events are to some extent haphazard. In contrast, it is possible to speak reasonably about patterns - or lines - of progress. Part of the latter is simply narrative but for the most part it is - and needs to be - believable. In any case, the nuclear dimension is such that any substantial beliefs in a long term cycle of mass destruction have had to be made obsolete since WW2.

I wouldn't be too sure about that any more, given that what we now have, outside what has previously been only the figments of overinflamed disaster movie plot makers, and maybe for the first time ever, is a death cult with potential mitts on nuclear weapons. At least (it has been argued) in the past we had Mutually Assured Destruction [sic] and Games Theoreticians accounting for maintaining self-regulating tendencies between the Great Powers. Added to which, terrorist organisations such as the IRA or Baader Meinhof ostensibly had a better future for humankind in mind.

The fragility has always been in the fact the shield is also the sword. That isn't a choice. And the emphasis on non-proliferation, while wise, has always insisted on an ongoing inequality of power. Reliance of smaller countries on nuclear powers for their protection has been required of them as well as being the best they could hope for economically.

Yes but one has always to remember that "The West" (i.e. the US bourgeoisie and its allies such as Britain) has always fostered client interests in the "developing world" as manipulable elements for its own ends, and it is in that framework that sourcing materials goods and cheap labour takes precedence over military strategic placements. These client interests are given inducements to keep their own populations under control.

At times, similarities and differences in ideologies may be overstated. All one needs to do is recall the number of times the main objective has been to remove individuals from positions of power to know that they are principally the reason why military might needs to be in the hands of the few. For all of the grand democratic principles on which modern politics may appear to have been based, leadership is a magnet to messianic mavericks even in the west - see Blair and Juncker and Trump and Farage. Arguably, many of them are subconsciously motivated by a denial of their own mortality and consequently have an other worldly way with humanity in general. One of the more distinctive aspects of the past one hundred years is the manner in which those traits have been apparent not only in leaders but the commonweal. Democracy, wealth and - especially since the sixties - popular culture suggested to the masses that they had far greater power as individuals than was possible. Those who wished to change the world were often of good intention but - and I say this sadly - it is impossible to overlook that there is an undercurrent even there of megalomania. What strikes me is the lack of gratitude from all those who want more.

Isn't it the fact that in the end power is always expressed in terms of economic control, and that howevermuch the cultural consensus of the West has moved in the direction of freedom of thought, what is wished for is always shaped in terms the system can accommodate, this in turn being dependent on its needs at any particular juncture? Generally speaking, those systemic needs have gravitated towards the short term because that is the way companies have to behave to survive; it was once thought possible to make adjustments, but the whole thing has become so skewed by virtue of the tenuous relationship between wealth creation and distribution and money supply that anything resembling interventionism to reduce the maleffects, ie environmentally unsustainable energy dependence, overpopulation, unemployment, insufficient home building, is seen as questioning the previously unquestionable and threatening the given order.

The biggest problem with neoliberalism isn't located in economic or social inequality. Rather it is in the aggressive nature of competition which would ultimately places too much strain on collaborative approaches. In isolation, it might have - or have had - greater longevity but it is required to work with democracy. Some of us who favoured the latter - and a European Economic Community of nine or twelve countries as rather quaintly now I still do - have been deeply troubled by the minimal accountability of EU institutions at a time when they have been in cahoots with American big business. There has also been alarm at the sabre rattling against Russia. I did vote for ongoing EU membership and I would also have voted for Clinton but my heart wasn't genuinely in either of those stances. Given that the majority of people are to the right of me politically, the outcomes were inevitable.

Historically, the ruling class (assuming one accepts there is one) always depended for its freedom to control the making of money on the existence of the nation state, with its laws, courts and other institutions, police and armed forces. The generalising internationalisation of capital led to the great power blocs needed to secure dependable and, within practicable reason, balanced trade relations - in particular in the wake of the progressive removal of large exploitable tracts of land and sea initiated by the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 from access to Western business. Hence the rhetorical pull of nationalism - already exposed by the Left in the 1930s as the last refuge of discredited capitalism: Farage, Le Pen & co don't really believe they can take us back to a future of self-sufficient little states that can show their muscle power and bully each other. The oft-repeated mantra of business that we are in it not to make the world a better place but to make money for our shareholders was omnipresent in the goal of re-gaining the post-capitalist world - not primarily, I would argue, to save those peoples from totalitarianism, but to re-open their lands and seas to capitalist exploitation. Yes, not all capitalists are evil money-grubbers - liberal democracy and the freedoms of thought and movement it fosters rebound positively on what we call human nature - but capitalism as a self-perpetuating system is systemically wanting. The problem is that those who benefit most by having arrogated to themselves the power to control and shape the popular will to their advantage - the fact which defines them as the ruling class - won't countenance a challenge to their position. And from merely looking at them, it clearly isn't a question of innate capacities to rule by virtue of intelligence, let alone virtue, because if the system wasn't set up to limit fostering the fullest capacity of human intelligence to be brought to bear on all our problems, it wouldn't be in need of replacement!

[Conchis]

Trump is not a 'real' conservative - he has previously identified himself as both a Democrat and a Republican and has adopted varying positions on abortion and LGBT rights. On both of the latter, he has recently made statements that directly contradicted earlier statements, to bring himself into line with mainstream GOP thinking.

From this, I infer that Trump has few, if any, solid political convictions, apart from going where the money is.

His VP (who, if all goes according to plan, will serve nothing but a decorative function) IS a genuine conservative, who went into public office to serve (his) God's whims.

Trump is also close to several personalities from the 'alt right' movement - and has just appointed one such personality to his cabinet; others may follow. This may effectively mean that Trump's government will be an 'alt right' government rather than a Republican one, although until now the 'alt right' movement has not been taken seriously (even, arguably, by itself) - being largely a bunch of funsters and tricksters playing games online.

Despite being a self-made billionaire, Trump comes across as economically illiterate; mentally, he still seems to be living in the gilded age. Most of what he wants to do, I'd argue, is unachievable, even by someone a lot more competent than he is. But a lot of damage will be done to America by his making the attempt.

Trump will be a truly terrible CEO and the worst President that the USA has ever had - even worse (and more corrupt) than Warren Harding. The danger for a Brexited-UK is that it will find itself in the embrace of an America that just wants to use it as Air Strip One; and it will have to take that role, for want of any other appropriate role. Meanwhile, Putin can get on with his plans for carving up a weakened Europe; with a pal in the White House, he'll be able to do this with relative impunity.

[Lat-Literal]

I wouldn't be too sure about that any more, given that what we now have, outside what has previously been only the figments of overinflamed disaster movie plot makers, and maybe for the first time ever, is a death cult with potential mitts on nuclear weapons. At least (it has been argued) in the past we had Mutually Assured Destruction [sic] and Games Theoreticians accounting for maintaining self-regulating tendencies between the Great Powers. Added to which, terrorist organisations such as the IRA or Baader Meinhof ostensibly had a better future for humankind in mind.

I don't disagree with your death cult point but I would see it as mainly subconscious and inadvertent, hence my use of the wording "have had to be made" which was to be read in more than one way. There are more doubts now. The crazier leaders in history have always lived in a virtual reality but in this century almost everyone does to a certain extent from the electorate to the elected. Clarity on cause and consequence is increasingly watered down even when any impacts should via the mainstream media be acutely apparent to all. The reducing of reality has been exacerbated by a growing emphasis on international litigation which while appropriate in many cases encourages denial. See Blair and the Iraq War. Plus there is that point above about the number of years since WW2 and the generations who are more distant from it for that is most people now. I may disagree with the idea of historical cycles but I am not dismissing that specific truth out of hand.

While as many millions watched "The Apprentice" as "The Simpsons", over 30% of Americans only obtain news from Facebook. This takes traditional media distortions onto another level. The bias isn't in one writer's chosen perceptions of what has occurred but rather in the version of events readers choose. The more "likes" an outright lie receives, the more it becomes seen as the authoritative account. There is some naivety on the damage that can cause but mainly there is either indifference or a childish, malevolent naughtiness in being a part of the manipulation. At its worst, the political drama in it is a revival and extension of the Victorian freak show. As for leaders, the idea of them being actors was rebooted with the packaging of Thatcher and the election of an actual actor in Reagan. With Trump, the Americans had a candidate who played up to a desire not to know what was being said was meant or not and for that to be defined as political authenticity.

I think at the heart of this is a widespread lauding of "the killer instinct". I am probably more inclined than you, s-a, to draw large distinctions between the workings of post war capitalism before 1979 and after it with a measure of the rose tinted about the former. One metaphor I would choose for the latter is the average 30 something who drives into work at 5am so as to travel at 55mph on a road with a 30mph speed limit. That sort of thing is a combination of fierce practical competitiveness and a "virtual gaming" shooting away of obstacles, both of which are tacitly endorsed even though the reality is that there is a greater chance of manslaughter. Trump may have had a need during the campaign to send out "revenge tweets" at that time in the morning but he would need to be very psychologically flawed to wish to demand a nuclear strike. And as someone used to being served by highly competitive foot soldiers he is more likely to require other countries to acquire nuclear weapons to deal with problem people closer to their own back yards. There is a certain sense to it for why should some of the other major players not pay more for their own defence? But, of course, the key point about the range of impacts from nuclear proliferation will be conveniently missed unless he is advised out of it by officials.

That a man in his seventies with a gaming mentality and to whom few have said no can be turned into Jim Hacker is unlikely. Trump is also caught between being the people's representative against the establishment and the establishment. He will probably be brought to heel on the finer points of side-stepping global responsibility. It isn't as if the United States will be getting rid of their weaponry as other parts of the world build up their own. But the man is surviving on two hours sleep per night. He is highly irritable and he takes things unusually personally. As with my own father now his father acquired dementia. It is four minutes between ordering the launching of a missile and its launch which is enough time on awaking to have a half-grasp on the difference between fantasy and reality.

[ardcarp]

Which US playwright could pen something along the lines of Brecht's Resistable Rise of Arturo Ui ? It would be a gift for any dramatist to follow Brecht's idea of making 'fictional' characters (dangerous buffoons) easily identifiable. It could be both hilariously funny and, more to the point, scarily prescient.

[french frank]

I am not sure whether I agree that mass destruction is cyclical. It implies that the phenomenon is dictated by mathematics or it's an astrological impact from a supermoon.

I'm not sure how you arrive at that conclusion. 'Cyclical' can be no more than, for instance, an individual human life: it begins, it develops, it reaches its prime, it begins to fade, it ends. I'm not sure how that depends on mathematics or astrology. Or think of the various empires. And it isn't really a case of 'mass destruction' in any sense in which we use it now.

[Lat-Literal]

I'm not sure how you arrive at that conclusion. 'Cyclical' can be no more than, for instance, an individual human life: it begins, it develops, it reaches its prime, it begins to fade, it ends. I'm not sure how that depends on mathematics or astrology. Or think of the various empires. And it isn't really a case of 'mass destruction' in any sense in which we use it now.

Erm, perhaps......."cyclical events happen in a particular order, one following the other, and are often repeated" - I think I was taking "cyclical" as meaning on a specific time cycle.

I thought the writer implied it in referring to the significance of three generations apart but I may have misread it. In another reading, those called up for duty in WW2 included all those who just avoided the call up in WW1 in age terms - to the year - which hardly seems a coincidence. And the year in question - 1900-01 - marked the end of the Victorian age.

(Those who were 18 plus were called for duty in WW1 ending in 1918 and those who were up to 45 were called for duty in WW2 ending in 1945)

S-A has made a number of other points which could lead to discussion about endings in a non literal sense - sadly I think there are now doubts around beliefs in moral democracy.

[french frank]

Erm, perhaps......."cyclical events happen in a particular order, one following the other, and are often repeated" - I think I was taking "cyclical" as meaning on a specific time cycle.

Though not quite mathematical, just 'at fairly regular intervals'; and 'generally self-imposed', so not based on astrology: we take actions which harm ourselves (even when we don't mean to!). I don't think a historian would be suggesting anything more than 'history repeats itself', though here it takes a particular form.

[Lat-Literal]

Though not quite mathematical, just 'at fairly regular intervals'; and 'generally self-imposed', so not based on astrology: we take actions which harm ourselves (even when we don't mean to!). I don't think a historian would be suggesting anything more than 'history repeats itself', though here it takes a particular form.

Yes indeed.

The word "biorhythms" is floating in my mind as a defence of the point I was making but I am not going to contest it.

It can all get very mixed up depending on how the cake is cut.

I accept, for example, that the economic depressions of the 1870s, the 1920s and the 2000s were not "mathematical" in time terms.

[Lat-Literal]

This might be of interest to those who have heard upsetting things about the newly appointed Steve Bannon. I note the tone in the piece which doesn't appear to be discriminatory. But given that the thread is ostensibly about Trump's philosophy - or I think it is - I would dearly love to know what it is if Bannon's speech is supposed to be a detailed example. There is an extensive setting out of perceived problems - economic - but hardly a policy here. Consequently I am not convinced that these people are very much more than soap salesmen. Bannon says "right" after almost every sentence which may or may not have a purpose. God help us if it catches on here. Armageddon would be marginally preferable:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BSrJv0IpHY

[ardcarp]

I don't know about Armageddon, but I suspect the West is going to be in Purgatory for a while; and after our roasting who knows whether we shall go down or up?

[Serial_Apologist]

This might be of interest to those who have heard upsetting things about the newly appointed Steve Bannon. I note the tone in the piece which doesn't appear to be discriminatory. But given that the thread is ostensibly about Trump's philosophy - or I think it is - I would dearly love to know what it is if Bannon's speech is supposed to be a detailed example. There is an extensive setting out of perceived problems - economic - but hardly a policy here. Consequently I am not convinced that these people are very much more than soap salesmen. Bannon says "right" after almost every sentence which may or may not have a purpose. God help us if it catches on here. Armageddon would be marginally preferable:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BSrJv0IpHY

There was an extraordinary defense of Bannon by one Joel Pollack on Today this morning, in which said person threatened the BBC with all manner of actionable things for its innocuous line of questioning here that I'd better be careful not to detail. Starts at 1 hr 09 mins:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b082j0n9

[Bryn]

There was an extraordinary defense of Bannon by one Joel Pollack on Today this morning, in which said person threatened the BBC with all manner of actionable things for its innocuous line of questioning here that I'd better be careful not to detail. Starts at 1 hr 09 mins:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b082j0n9

Isn't he basically a third rate shock-jock resorting to the "attack is the best form of defence" routine?

[Serial_Apologist]

Isn't he basically a third rate shock-jock resorting to the "attack is the best form of defence" routine?

I guess so, nevertheless the "shock" part certainly served its purpose on this pair of ears just then awakening to a new day!

[Lat-Literal]

I guess so, nevertheless the "shock" part certainly served its purpose on this pair of ears just then awakening to a new day!

I don't like the man but it appears to me that the accusations of anti-semitism largely emanated from his wife's statements in court. There are broader but related issues about the Orwellian "post-truth" which is to say that definitions about identity or position can be moved to suit political preference. Pollak may be interpreted as Jewish, a US immigrant, a South African by birth or a white South African by birth who left when South Africa was changing. Each of these definitions can place him in a different light. The British media can be dismissed as right wing or left wing depending on the focus even where it strives for neutrality. Russia is communist, post-communist, full of crony capitalism, borderline fascist or ostensibly Christian. To choose a label is to select a position and a policy in an increasingly complex world. There are umpteen other examples. Not all are helpful to solutions.