So what does a bipartisan "secessionist" movement look like?

originally posted by: rounda

You think the ultra wealthy technocrats are pushing socialism so they can give their money away to you?

...

Socialism leads to fascism. Every time.

...

Good luck with that required Marxist revolution when you’re throwing rocks at the people with machine guns.

You think the ultra wealthy technocrats are pushing socialism? Do you know what socialism is?

Obviously not because you think it leads to fascism every time. If you're thinking of the Counterrevolution in Spain in 1936 and 1937 you might have a point, but elsewhere? Seriously?

Obviously not because you confuse socialism and liberalism and Marxism.

And you don't see the irony in your last sentence.

originally posted by: rounda


You know why? Because the ruling class will never give away their wealth and power.

That's why they co-opt the middle class. It's been happening for centuries before the concept of "manufacturing consent" was ever articulated.

No revolution has ever succeeded, no dictatorship (with one exception I can think of) has ever maintained power without the support of the middle class.

If you look into how they co-opt the middle class, you'll find it's not what you think.

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

originally posted by: rounda

You think the ultra wealthy technocrats are pushing socialism so they can give their money away to you?

...

Socialism leads to fascism. Every time.

...

Good luck with that required Marxist revolution when you’re throwing rocks at the people with machine guns.

You think the ultra wealthy technocrats are pushing socialism? Do you know what socialism is?

Obviously not because you think it leads to fascism every time. If you're thinking of the Counterrevolution in Spain in 1936 and 1937 you might have a point, but elsewhere? Seriously?

Obviously not because you confuse socialism and liberalism and Marxism.

And you don't see the irony in your last sentence.

Lenin. Used nationalism to rally the poor to overthrow the monarchy through genocide.

Stalin. Used nationalism to push the communist party, then used genocide to silence his opposition.

Hitler. Used nationalism to justify genocide against the whole world, including his fascist allies.

Chavez. Another nationalist guilty of genocide.

China. ‘Nuff said.

You can’t have a one-party state without nationalism and genocide... which is fascism, in a nutshell.

And how do we know that’s fascism? Because Mussolini did it, and he was the “original” fascist.

Who, coincidentally, was also a Socialist.

a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese

Maybe you haven't been keeping up, but they're currently doing their very best to crush the middle class using lockdowns. The middle class that survives will be entirely dependent on corporations and the government as employers, meaning they are owned by the top of society and often those pushing the new technocratic party line the most.

Independent small business owners are the ones least liable to top down control, and they're the ones being pushed out.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese



Independent small business owners are the ones least liable to top down control, and they're the ones being pushed out.

I've already lost one retail business because of the shutdown, but I will not be deterred. I'm going to take advantage of the govt. stimulus package and in the American spirit of entrepreneurialism, I'll be back in business by Spring, bigger and better than ever in a new store and online;
Unless there's a depression then I'll just have to revise my plans. It's a distinct possibility....

originally posted by: rounda


Lenin. Used nationalism to rally the poor to overthrow the monarchy through genocide.

Stalin. Used nationalism to push the communist party, then used genocide to silence his opposition.

Hitler. Used nationalism to justify genocide against the whole world, including his fascist allies.

Chavez. Another nationalist guilty of genocide.

China. ‘Nuff said.

You can’t have a one-party state without nationalism and genocide... which is fascism, in a nutshell.

And how do we know that’s fascism? Because Mussolini did it, and he was the “original” fascist.

Who, coincidentally, was also a Socialist.

Jump around much?

You have not addressed my questions. You haven't even developed your original points. You've just given a list of cherry picked, decontextualised and erroneous historical examples that prove nothing beyond your own confusion.

How do you square these examples with Trump's nationalism?

And no, Mussolini was not a socialist. Hitler a socialist? That was a stupid idea when people started saying it about twenty years ago and it hasn't aged well.

I'm starting to think you don't know what fascism is either. You seem to conflate it with totalitarianism.

That would surprise socialists like Ernest Bevin, who arguably did more to stop Communism in 1945 than any other politician. And George Orwell.

Just like your assertion that socialism always leads to fascism would surprise Boris Johnson, the Conservative Prime Minister of Britain. He spent some time in a National Health Service ICU earlier in the year.

I ask again. Apart from possibly Spain in 1936/7, when has actual socialism - not the online imaginary socialism - led to fascism? It's OK not to know but it isn't OK to make so much noise to hide it.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese

Maybe you haven't been keeping up, but they're currently doing their very best to crush the middle class using lockdowns. The middle class that survives will be entirely dependent on corporations and the government as employers, meaning they are owned by the top of society and often those pushing the new technocratic party line the most.

Independent small business owners are the ones least liable to top down control, and they're the ones being pushed out.

Maybe you haven't been keeping up but the middle class is much deeper and broader than you assume.

I don't know where you get the idea that we are heading for a fascist dystopia, no matter which team you support in the election, because we ain't.

This is a huge economic readjustment, brought to you by people who told us in advance they were going to do it. They've been doing it since the 1970s and have always carried the middle classes with them.

originally posted by: tridentblue
a reply to: Lumenari

My point is you're attacking the richest businessmen in the country if you attack cities. I can't live in many cities, because so many people want to live there, housing prices are through the roof. Supply and demand.

But the larger picture is, any solution you all see is based on attacks on US citizens and their supply chains huh?

What a weak argument. Because you feel that the top 1% lives in cities, you can’t point out the complete failure that is liberal governing that’s taken place there? Are you going to say it’s racist too because there are minorities who live in cities? No, you admit by trying to deflect that the cities and their leaders have failed. It’s not because of a 1% having a high rise apartment. But it’s this type of mental gymnastic arguments refusing to see fault within your own party that’s caused the total failure of the Democratic Party, just look at the house and senate races for 2020...

I suggest try and accept the form of government needed for cities and rural communities are quite different, the failure of the modern left is in place of wanting to maintain a balanced system that’s good for all, and they’ve chosen to toss that aside for imposing their will upon the masses. Eh, Join Canada.

There is no provision in the Constitution for secession.

The only historical example we have is that when States committed sedition by taking arms against the United States, the insurrection was put down by conquest.

In every one of the United States, the majority of citizens don't vote. The fiction of red state/blue state is just that.

The idea that urban Blue areas are surrounded by a "sea of red" is a fabrication of the corporate media.

Go to the reddest state and you will find blue voters and people who didn't vote.

Literally, only half of Americans voted in 2020 which was one of the largest turnouts in modern history.

Personally, my feeling is that we call a Constitutional Convention. Those states that wish to rescend their ratification of the Constitution can do so.

The droning on for civil war is ... ridiculous. This is not 1860.

a reply to: olaru12

I think they call that the True American Spirit.

Best of luck to you.

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

originally posted by: rounda


Lenin. Used nationalism to rally the poor to overthrow the monarchy through genocide.

Stalin. Used nationalism to push the communist party, then used genocide to silence his opposition.

Hitler. Used nationalism to justify genocide against the whole world, including his fascist allies.

Chavez. Another nationalist guilty of genocide.

China. ‘Nuff said.

You can’t have a one-party state without nationalism and genocide... which is fascism, in a nutshell.

And how do we know that’s fascism? Because Mussolini did it, and he was the “original” fascist.

Who, coincidentally, was also a Socialist.

Jump around much?

You have not addressed my questions. You haven't even developed your original points. You've just given a list of cherry picked, decontextualised and erroneous historical examples that prove nothing beyond your own confusion.

How do you square these examples with Trump's nationalism?

And no, Mussolini was not a socialist. Hitler a socialist? That was a stupid idea when people started saying it about twenty years ago and it hasn't aged well.

I'm starting to think you don't know what fascism is either. You seem to conflate it with totalitarianism.

That would surprise socialists like Ernest Bevin, who arguably did more to stop Communism in 1945 than any other politician. And George Orwell.

Just like your assertion that socialism always leads to fascism would surprise Boris Johnson, the Conservative Prime Minister of Britain. He spent some time in a National Health Service ICU earlier in the year.

I ask again. Apart from possibly Spain in 1936/7, when has actual socialism - not the online imaginary socialism - led to fascism? It's OK not to know but it isn't OK to make so much noise to hide it.

Trump’s nationalism is different, mainly because at EVERY SINGLE opportunity, he has let the states govern themselves.

The pandemic is a perfect example. He let the governors decide how to handle it, and provided whatever support they requested.

That’s not an authoritarian dictator, hate to break it to you.

I “cherry picked” the worlds best known Socialist regimes... lmao.

Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Chavez were “imaginary” socialists?

Give me some of what you’re smoking. You’re altered state of reality sounds amazing.

Yes, Mussolini was a staunch socialist. Just like his dad.

And the National Socialist party was, in fact, socialist.
They spent something like 80% of their budget on social programs. Is it any wonder the first major “social democracy” party comes from Germany?

You should really research the bullsh# philosophies you push.

www.history.com...

Mussolini The Socialist
Much of Mussolini’s early adulthood was spent traveling around Switzerland, getting involved with that country’s Socialist Party and clashing with police. In 1909, he moved to Austria-Hungary to become editor of a socialist newspaper, but was deported back to Italy, accused of violating laws meant to regulate press freedom. In 1910, Mussolini became the editor for another socialist newspaper, but soon spent six months in jail for inciting violence. During his incarceration, he began to write his autobiography—while still in his twenties—detailing his troubled school years and his many romantic conquests.

You don’t get to pick and choose which socialists you like and which you don’t because they make slavery look bad.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Well, yeah. That's obvious.

America, as an idea, is failing fast.

Splitting it up would seal the deal.

a reply to: tridentblue

Like you said, neither side will budge. In order for conservatives to unite with liberals, conservatives would have to change their views to liberal views and vice versa. Getting away from each other would be the only option, then we don't stand in each other's way of doing what we think needs to be done.

The only thing that would unite this country would be a Red Dawn type of thing happening across the nation.

originally posted by: tridentblue
I'm fairly liberal, and I've been listening to conservatives go on and on about wanting to secede lately. Kind of frustrating, but the more I think about it, the more I like the idea. The bottom line for us is we liberals can't get ANYTHING done in a nation that's half conservatives. No liberal or leftist wants Obamacare for instance, we all want further left universal basic healthcare, but every solution that comes out of Congress is a watered down mess because of conservatives. Everything we want to do takes a stronger state you won't accept, and we will never accept your way of being.

So what if we just admitted that it is no solution and accepted with a handshake the fact that we need to part ways? How does that play out? What does it look like?

One interesting thing is that pot legalization took states rights, once a Republican issue, and made the left embrace it. Is there a way of massively delegating power to states, maybe with new legislative bodies for the union of all blue states and the other union of all red states? I'm looking for a way that technically keeps the US together? Or would it take the end of the US?

What do you think about a bipartisan movement to begin to create areas of government so parties can get things done without opposition?

Yeah, we could go back to a time when the federal government stopped trampling all over states rights. Or when the government in general didn’t tell people what to do, what to think, what to say, etc. I’m going to go slam my head against a wall several times now because it will be less painful than this “conversation”.