there's also the very specific policies that the executive can enact when it comes to using military and clandestine power. both parties have always been interested in projecting imperialist power abroad, but the character of it does have concrete although small differences. i might be overstating this aspect considering no american president has been afraid of funding reactionary forces, but a proactive effort to generate death squads has a very real consequence for the third world.
which brings us to trump. a fairly large proportion of leftists seem to take solace in the fact that the president is merely a figurehead and american institutions are such that he could not engage in any particularly drastic changes to the system. or that he's all talk during the primaries and will pivot center during the general. however if he does get elected does this not indicate a change in popular sentiment towards the right akin to reagan? it seems feasible that the right-wing may find far less resistance in pursuing their policies, increased surveillance, increased oppression against leftists and minorities, were he elected. is a new mccarthyism possible? and i mean that term in it's strongest sense.
it's something that the left probably won't experience under a sanders administration, despite the fact that he'll in all likelihood continue imperialist policies overseas and probably fail to enact the most tepid reforms domestically. but his imperialism is important to note. what responsibility do we have as marxists in such a political process? if there's a very real threat of an administration coming to power who will suppress the Left what action do we take? i think we all understand the poverty of lesser evilism, and i doubt most of us will vote for sanders even if given the chance. which is probably the correct approach. But What To Do when a wave of reaction arrives on our shores in the form of an empowered candidate like Trump?
i'd like this to be a safe space to throw out some thoughts on the situation. i'm fearful i just made a very liberal post so please attack it, it could use some criticism.
aerdil posted:but his imperialism is important to note. what responsibility do we have as marxists in such a political process? if there's a very real threat of an administration coming to power who will suppress the Left what action do we take?
What is the value of saving "the Left" in America from suppression if the outcome for the third world is the same?
this is a topic that somebody smarter and a better writer could write about, but i just think its funny how this happens. is this because we as an empire dont want to be obvious about what we do, torturing or at least laying the legal groundwork to justify such activity?
john yoo is a nobody who just happened to write very significant work that was used to justify incredibly significant acts. the bush admin is what pushed for and enacted these guidelines. trump is not saying anything more shocking than what yoo said in 2002. in fact, its more vague and im sure he wouldn't say, 'I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.' when asked if its ok for the US to smash somebody's kid's balls.
Edited by Themselves ()
i think this is important because it's one thing to recognize that everything said by/about a presidential candidate, especially on national television, is Pure Ideology but that doesn't actually mean that they're all actually identical. maybe they are, but you'd need to actually do some research and material analysis to come to that conclusion. it seems to me that this would depend on the individual connections that the president has but at the same time those dramatically underdetermine the actual outcome. anyone know of any good writing in this vein?
c_man posted:i think aerdil brings up something important that ive thought a bit about myself, namely, what sort of agency does a president actually have? obviously they couldnt do much of anything that interferes in any substantial way with the functioning of capital in the country, but how much agency does a president have to promote extreme violence outside what capital would compel any head of the US to do? or, probably more productively, what avenues does a president have/use to pursue their personal agenda?
i think this is important because it's one thing to recognize that everything said by/about a presidential candidate, especially on national television, is Pure Ideology but that doesn't actually mean that they're all actually identical. maybe they are, but you'd need to actually do some research and material analysis to come to that conclusion. it seems to me that this would depend on the individual connections that the president has but at the same time those dramatically underdetermine the actual outcome. anyone know of any good writing in this vein?
i don't think a president has had individual agency since roosevelt withered away into regency. maybe arguably truman wrt the bomb but i don't really believe that a no would have been accepted from any president.
regardless of the actual paper power of a president, it seems like an absolute prerequisite is willingness to go along with the correct line. what political candidate would reach that point without it being crystal clear that if the entire (e.g.) national security council says jump, you jump?
maybe if you had a Trump or some other headstrong wackjob in the chair in the 60s, maybe i could see it mattering, but everything i currently understand about the actual real workings of power in the US suggests that it's really too late. every administration hits more and more roadblocks publicly, and someone like Trump may just force the final stages of total public recognition of the position as impotent figurehead. when the president's dictates are in line with real power, they will be executed without question, when they aren't, we will hear excuses about following the law, checks and balances, etc. it's just more theatre.
HenryKrinkle posted:hi
Profile | Send Message
Reputation:
the biyearly bourgeois electoral spectacle to obscure entrenched institutional and capitalist power thread
there's a legit discussion to be had about the impact of the presidency on the functioning of the US empire and it's too bad this thread got bogged down on the lesser evil voting thing.
Always the pragmatist, Krink can rest easy knowing his vote for Obama was justified
HenryKrinkle posted:there's a legit discussion to be had about the impact of the presidency on the functioning of the US empire and it's too bad this thread got bogged down on the lesser evil voting thing.
half a page in is too early to call a thread bogged down imho. lets talk about the function of the president in the US empire.
HenryKrinkle posted:there's a legit discussion to be had about the impact of the presidency on the functioning of the US empire and it's too bad this thread got bogged down on the lesser evil voting thing.
can you really say a thread has been "bogged down" if its still less than a page long?
thirdplace posted:power does not cease to exist just because it is bounded within certain limits. i.e., of course the american president can't act outside a basic imperialist/capitalist framework, but presidential powers as wielded within that framework can still make meaningful differences in people's lives. capitalism isn't a single-minded conspiracy, either, and although a marxist may not have any reason to care about the various industries and actors' various ups and downs, a struggle being irrelevant to the working class doesn't make the players figureheads
this is why i am asking for everybody's support in my candidacy for commissioner of the yorba linda water district
So someone like Sanders would provide feel-good whitewashing and sugar coating of subversive actions abroad while public services are increasingly suborned to corporate interest (in the same way that obamacare eventually arrived at its "compromise") while Trump would provide a populist bullhorn to justify outright fascism and the ramping up of racist policies at home. Hillary is already so integrated with deep state functions that her foreign policy is just verbatim repetition of what the Empire wants.
How this would combine with the executive powers available to the president? I don't know that much about the formal structure of the position.
shriekingviolet posted:Hillary is already so integrated with deep state functions that her foreign policy is just verbatim repetition of what the Empire wants.
sure but where does this come from? this is my basic question. it makes more sense to say this about israel or saudi or something but when you're talking about the literal president of the US saying "its Empire's bidding" is pretty circular. are the clintons more or less integrated to the Will of Empire than the bushes? they certainly didn't follow identical paths, they had different priorities and dealt with different areas of the world differently. e.g. the clintons have a huge bon0r for haiti and africa which the bushes are more into the mideast. is this because the Will of Empire happened to be different when they were in power, or because they decided to focus in those areas?
gyrofry posted:this is why i am asking for everybody's support in my candidacy for commissioner of the yorba linda water district
I wouldnt make you commissioner of a yorba linda water bottle
gyrofry posted:come here to my home in yorba linda where i live irl and say that to my face buddy
I'm looking to fight someone with half my body weight not half my brain weight
HenryKrinkle posted:there's a legit discussion to be had about the impact of the presidency on the functioning of the US empire and it's too bad this thread got bogged down on the lesser evil voting thing.
thats the topic i was aiming for, should have avoided the idea of voting i suppose which is obviously illegitimate in a system like ours
