How safe is the world with Putin Trump and Johnson in charge?

Chris_Heilong

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Shot in the face with rubber bullets? Pepper sprayed? Beaten? Arrested by unknowns and taken away?

Oh wait....that's happening in America.

There seems to be a lot of fake news and conspiracy theories about this whole arrested by unknowns, You know they are federal agents, they have badges and are marked as police and are arresting rioters.
Watch this video and be sure it is more factual than twitter or the left wing American media.

Gentlemanne

Unbelievable to me that people on here lap up content by dishonest propagandists like Andy Ngo and Tim Pool

Tea drinker

Deleted User wrote: »

When the much revered Obama was in charge, Libya and Syria had succesful uprisings (aided by Hillary) and this led to the growth of Isis and their many random attacks on the West from 15-17.

Your listening to too much Marxist garbage on the mainstream channels. Turn them off and any irrational worries disasppear

Yes! NATO attacks on Libya to bring freedom and democracy... they have slave markets now! And the lies about Iraq WMD, and the lies that ambassador Stevens was killed in Libya because those guys in Norway drew a cartoon.
A constant stream of war mongering or war excusing lies. I'm not worried with Trump, maybe Kanye? Definitely Hilary would have worried me, glad trump won against her.

bmc58 wrote: »

You're talking rubbish.The UK would be almost the last Nation on earth to launch a nuclear weapon.They have them as as deterrent as do most civilised countries.

They were fairly civilised when they killed people on bloody Sunday, or were torturing people in prisons in NI, or when they had shoot to kill policy, or when they bombed Serb civilians. OK we're not talking North Korea here but lets not cravenly doff our caps to the lads with the "civilised" accents.

Irishman80

RWCNT wrote: »

I don't know why you're presenting these as three options I have to choose from. It's a big yes to all three.

1 - Yes, what the poster describes as cultural marxism is un-marxist

2 - Yes, it is used that way, which I disagree with as those movements are thoroughly un-Marxist for reasons previously explained

3- Yes, Cultural Marxism is a made up conspiracy theory - as in, that's what the term actually refers to -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory.

That's fair enough. We will use the umbrella term 'Cultural Marxism" for our discussion so.

What exactly is un-Marxist about these ideas? Is it the philosophy behind the ideas? Is it the entry-points they take into the debate? Is it the outcomes that lead to division in the working class?

Does Marxism actually reject these ideas or can it accept them as smaller issues within the structure of the working class struggle in the capitalist system?

Have Marxists not considered weaknesses in their initial theories related to cultural institutions that help propagate the social theft inherent in their view of the capitalist system?

Did some Marxists not deviate from central Marxist theory in the 1960's and 1970's to consider postmodernism as an attack on Western culture - when they realised Marxism was a failure at that stage?

Is it a conspiracy theory to suggest these things?

JJayoo

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Trump does a lot of good, but makes a lot of silly stances. Biden is a few sandwiches short of a picnic . He's not even fit to be President.
It's a poor choice, but Trump is better at so many things that he wins. At least with Trump people are making money and the economy is strong.

But remember you vote for the party, the actual president is just a figurehead. Now trump is very different in that he hasn't acted like a politician.

I wonder how different things would be if trump didnt have twitter and if he would didn't ramble on, just kept to the scripts that are carefully prepared for him.

Chris_Heilong

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Trump does a lot of good, but makes a lot of silly stances. Biden is a few sandwiches short of a picnic . He's not even fit to be President.
It's a poor choice, but Trump is better at so many things that he wins. At least with Trump people are making money and the economy is strong.

Agree, Trump is the safest option at the moment, I thought the Democrats had one or two sane people like Tulsi Gabbard or Andrew Yang but they did not get the backing they should have. The only downside to Trump will be another 4 years of crap comedy from all the late night hosts and SNL about how much they dislike Trump.

Muahahaha

bnt wrote: »

In the latter case, not much has happened, a good thing, but we can’t rule that out. The #1 thing to understand about Putin is that his own self-preservation drives most of what he does. We don’t normally talk about him as an oligarch, because he is very good at hiding the billions he made during the Yeltsin years in particular, in the grab for post-Soviet resources. We don’t know exactly how much of Rosneft he owns or owned, for example. We don’t know how much he has squirrelled away in foreign bank accounts or property. He can’t just retire and enjoy his wealth, partly because of his personality, and partly because of the risk that the next people to take charge in Russia would come after him.

Its not just billions Putin made during the Yeltsin years, he has been making billions while President in the Kremlin too. No one knows how wealthy he is for sure but by some analysts estimates he is the worlds richest man and far exceeds the wealth of Jeff Bezos who is officially the wealthiest man. A figure of $200 billion has been mentioned.

From Fortune magazine in 2017

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos made waves this week when he briefly unseated Bill Gates as the wealthiest person in the world, according to Bloomberg’s tracker. The two U.S. tech titans are jockeying for the lead at around $90 billion each. But according to Hermitage Capital Management CEO Bill Browder, they’re nothing compared to Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose personal fortune Browder “believes” to be $200 billion.
Browder, who made the claim before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, is one of the best authorities on Putin’s business dealings. Browder was a major investor in Russia during the chaotic 1990s, when, according to Newsweek, he took stakes in former state-run enterprises such as Gazprom.

https://fortune.com/2017/07/29/vladimir-putin-russia-jeff-bezos-bill-gates-worlds-richest-man/

Putins wealth comes not just from taxing billionaire oligarchs he is also taxing the Russian mafia. The mafia operate with his consent and he has the FSB to make sure they pay their slice to him. He controls everything inside that country and no one makes millions or billions without Vlad getting his piece of the action. Go up against him and you end up in prison as billionaires have found out in the past. This gives him ultimate control and puts manners on all the other billionaires who know to work with him rather than challenge him

There is no doubt Putin is a multi billionaire, it is only a question of how wealthy he is. Its not bad for a man who is on an official salary of $133k a year and officially lives in a small apartment rather than his $1bn compound outside Moscow along with the $500m superyacht.

Del.Monte

Deleted User wrote: »

I reckon they are regretting colonialism big time as it has led to mass unsustainable levels of immigration.

Bit like Ireland so but then again I supposed they actively participated in colonialism too.

Tea drinker

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

Agree, Trump is the safest option at the moment, I thought the Democrats had one or two sane people like Tulsi Gabbard .

The anti war candidate like Tulsi would have been the young vote previously, and she is young enough herself. But today unless you are willing to go to war over genders / metoo / blm etc you aren't at the races.
The next president could be the one that panders to the above, but sends the kids off to war. A confused scared populace are great for throwing uniforms on.

Del.Monte wrote: »

Bit like Ireland so but then again I supposed they actively participated in colonialism too.

You are losing the run of yourself if you are putting UK and IRL in the same place in colonialism, like you just did.

RWCNT

Irishman80 wrote: »

That's fair enough. We will use the umbrella term 'Cultural Marxism" for our discussion so.

What exactly is un-Marxist about these ideas? Is it the philosophy behind the ideas? Is it the entry-points they take into the debate? Is it the outcomes that lead to division in the working class?

Does Marxism actually reject these ideas or can it accept them as smaller issues within the structure of the working class struggle in the capitalist system?

Have Marxists not considered weaknesses in their initial theories related to cultural institutions that help propagate the social theft inherent in their view of the capitalist system?

Did some Marxists not deviate from central Marxist theory in the 1960's and 1970's to consider postmodernism as an attack on Western culture - when they realised Marxism was a failure at that stage?

Is it a conspiracy theory to suggest these things?

I won't be using the name of a far right antisemitic conspiracy theory for anything other than referring to that theory, because that's what it means. "Identity politics movements" would be a better umbrella term for the sort of stuff the other poster put under the heading "cultural marxism".

To put it simply, I consider the modern identity politics movements not be Marxist as they tend to divide and analyse society on the basis of characteristics like race, gender, sexual orientation etc whereas Marxist theory divides and analyses society on the basis of class.

I don't believe Marxism necessarily rejects these ideas. They're not "anti-Marxist", they're just not Marxist. Apologies if my use of "un-Marxist" made it sound like I was suggesting that. I appreciate my view actually differs from what Tyrant! said in the post that I quoted, I should have edited it down, I just thought they hit the nail on the head in terms of Marxism's specific focus on class Sorry for any confusion.

The theories of Marx and Engels have been analysed and criticised over and over again by subsequent generations of Marxists, so yes, almost certainly.

I'm not entirely sure I understand your last question because of the wording. Are you asking me if a group of Marxists, presumably connected to the Frankfurt school, set out to attack Western culture via postmodernism? If so, no, they did not and that idea is what's referred to as the cultural marxist conspiracy theory, yes.

YellowBucket

Oh when's it ever been safe?

20th century : WWI, WWII and then then two blocs threatening each other with mutually assured destruction for decades with ridiculously dangerous weapons.

I'd be more worried about something like an unplanned for pandemic happening again, with something nastier than COVID-19 (and I'm not saying that it isn't nasty).

We collectively, almost globally proved we are terrible at handling a pandemic. Very few countries had adequate PPE, plans in place, or took it seriously until the coffins started piling up.

Humans are short term thinkers, greedy and often morons a lot of the time, so if we get through the next few hundred years without wiping ourselves out, who knows maybe we'll end up being a long term thing.

I'd say the way things are going, you'd never know though. We could well be a blip on some galactic chart of advanced civilisations that had self-limiting tendencies.

_Brian

Trump and Johnson are cowards at the back of it all.

Putin, now there’s a guy I’d be afraid of.

Frankx

_Brian wrote: »

Trump and Johnson are cowards at the back of it all.

Putin, now there’s a guy I’d be afraid of.

Can you imagine Johnson sending a team to Moscow to poison someone

Pa ElGrande

I'll throw one here for you to chew on. Like the League of nations before it the collapse of the United Nations by the end of the decade. The reason will be the failure of its play to become the world government on the back of a virus and climate change. Consider that the United States & China, Russia and many others are not inclined to cede power and The US will reduce its contribution and if China becomes their biggest sponsor . . .

The current contributions scale, valid for 2019 to 2021, was adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 2018. The four largest contributors to the United Nations – the US (22% of the UN budget), China (12.005%), Japan (8.564%) and Germany (6.090%) – together finance some 49% of the entire UN budget.

source

The US plays a unique role in UN solvency


There will be a re-alignment to a multipolar world where the United States is still important but no longer the sole dominant super power.


The Collapse of the UN?

Indeed, the problem may have to do with the structure and functions of the UN more generally. The UN has, through accretion, picked up duties it is not necessarily capable of fulfilling. In particular, the UN has annexed responsibility for nuclear nonproliferation and peacekeeping. Its record on these issues is, to understate things a little, far from excellent. On peacekeeping, the UN’s record is becoming increasingly bleak. It has moved from Lebanon and Sierra Leone to Srebrenica, Rwanda, and South Sudan.

source

Britain and Johnson have ensured that Britain has little to play in world affairs for the next decade or two. The British will be messing around with dealing with either parliamentary reform or social unrest due to the lack of reform.. (along with multiculturalism conflict as they become poorer) so, nah. We can pretty much forget Johnson, except for how he screws with Ireland (which he will)

Trump...

I love the way so many posters are assigning complete responsibility over to Trump for how the US handled Covid. The State Governors are the real power in how States manage a crisis like Covid, and there was widespread mismanagement throughout the period. Sure, Trump contributed with his idiotic behavior, but people have been ignoring him for months before this. Look at the vids of the protestors, BLM, or activists, where many of them are without masks, mingling and shouting slogans in close proximity to each other... they brought about the spread of covid as much as anyone..

In terms of world peace, Trump is doing pretty well. China needs to be stood up to, which no other US president has bothered to do in decades. The previous policy didn't work even slightly, and Trump called it. It was the right call, and while, he's doing it in his instinctive moronic way, he's actually pulling together an alliance against China, both economically and militarily. Strange that he didn't need to lie to everyone to get the alliance either. He's also pushed for the withdrawal of US forces in the M.East, and has also done more than other presidents in doing so.

Sure, I get the distate for the man. He's a creep... but he's also done quite a lot of good.

And Putin? Dangerous man. Imagine if Russia managed to ally with China? China isn't too much of a risk alone, if they keep their fingers away from the Nuclear options... but China and Russia in a military alliance? Nasty. And I wouldn't put it past Putin and Xi to discuss such a thing. Between them, they could seriously hamper any US led alliance in Asia, especially, if Russian naval forces were transferred to Chinese ports..

In any case, all of this has been coming since Bush invaded Iraq. China needed to be dealt with at some stage. That's not Trumps fault. Putin/Russia will need to be humbled some way, otherwise they'll continue to expand in little jumps. It's simply time for another world war...

Junkyard Tom

Deleted User wrote: »

What is going on with left leaning fringe groups today is described as cultural marxism as it as all the hallmarks of traditional marxism in its premise. 'You are a victim, you are oppressed, you should rise up, the people who accumulated wealth done so on the back of your struggle'. The BLM founder even publicly stated he is a 'trained marxist'

What in the name of pseudo-intellectual muppetry is a 'trained Marxist'? Is it like a form or Martial Arts?

BorneTobyWilde

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Trump does a lot of good, but makes a lot of silly stances. Biden is a few sandwiches short of a picnic . He's not even fit to be President.
It's a poor choice, but Trump is better at so many things that he wins. At least with Trump people are making money and the economy is strong.

Who is making money?

Irishman80

RWCNT wrote: »

I won't be using the name of a far right antisemitic conspiracy theory for anything other than referring to that theory, because that's what it means. "Identity politics movements" would be a better umbrella term for the sort of stuff the other poster put under the heading "cultural marxism".

To put it simply, I consider the modern identity politics movements not be Marxist as they tend to divide and analyse society on the basis of characteristics like race, gender, sexual orientation etc whereas Marxist theory divides and analyses society on the basis of class.

I don't believe Marxism necessarily rejects these ideas. They're not "anti-Marxist", they're just not Marxist. Apologies if my use of "un-Marxist" made it sound like I was suggesting that. I appreciate my view actually differs from what Tyrant! said in the post that I quoted, I should have edited it down, I just thought they hit the nail on the head in terms of Marxism's specific focus on class Sorry for any confusion.

The theories of Marx and Engels have been analysed and criticised over and over again by subsequent generations of Marxists, so yes, almost certainly.

I'm not entirely sure I understand your last question because of the wording. Are you asking me if a group of Marxists, presumably connected to the Frankfurt school, set out to attack Western culture via postmodernism? If so, no, they did not and that idea is what's referred to as the cultural marxist conspiracy theory, yes.

Marxism initially looked at the Capitalist system from an entry point of class, as you say, based on the philosophy of dialect materialism and his concept of the Labour Theory of Value. As the system evolved, it must collapse.

The theory was influenced by people like Smith and Ricardo and has likewise influenced people and thought like Keynes, Post-Keynesians, Leninism, Stalinism, etc.

But it also has a rich history through Marxists such as Gramsci and Althusser who looked at ideas like Cultural Hegemony and ISA's. These people were strong influences on their students such as Derrida who brought these ideas together in the vanguard of postmodern thinking.

So we can reject the name "Cultural Marxism" if we want, but that doesn't negate the clear and definite links between Marxism and postmodernism we see today.

Junkyard Tom

Irishman80 wrote: »

So we can reject the name "Cultural Marxism" if we want, but that doesn't negate the clear and definite links between Marxism and postmodernism we see today.

There is no genealogical style lineage.

Traditional Marxists would claim all relations are class relations divided between owners and workers, and that supposed inter-sectional issues such as racism, homophobia, misogyny, trans-phobia, and whatnot, are meaningless subdivisions of the outworking of the principle imbalance in power.

Conversely intersectionalists (is that a word?) would describe regular oul Marxists as class reductionists. Cultural Marxism is little more than a catch-all term for 'things I don't like' and it's more than likely been picked up from pseudo-intellectual frauds on YouTube.

Junkyard Tom

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Conversely intersectionalists (is that a word?) would describe regular oul Marxists as class reductionists. Cultural Marxism is little more than a catch-all term for 'things I don't like' and it's more than likely been picked up from pseudo-intellectual frauds on YouTube.

Personally, I feel that people try to complicate matters by going into the political science.

Cultural Marxism rose with feminism which started gaining traction in the 60s/70s when the rebel craze (Che Guevara, etc) was happening. Feminists modeled many of their organisations around the Marxist notion through the university campuses, and political speech, but structured their groups around the rebel/freedom fighters of the time. Most of them were based on communist/Marxist ideologies, and so were appealing to those who wanted to fight against the current system. You can see it in a lot of the 2nd and 3rd wave material from feminist thinkers, writers, speakers, etc. (or the way many feminists dressed to represent the militia, or rebel force)

And since Feminism was an amazing success, other groups sought to emulate the organisation, and some of the philosophy, which is why Marxism figures so prominently in leftist movements, civil rights, or racial groups. It's a fight of the "people" against the institution, and the language of Marxism tends to match well with those believing in fighting some kind of "struggle". Which is why we see stuff like Women's power, Black power, etc.

You can go around in circles arguing political science because people have been repeating the same arguments for decades. Or you can look at it in a more simpler way.

Junkyard Tom

Deleted User wrote: »

Or you can look at it in a more simpler way.

Yeah some people have more power than others and it's heavily correlated with your wealth. If that's 'Marxist thinking' then Marx was simply putting words to reality.

'Cultural Marxism' is a bullshit term propagated by frauds and liars.

Chris_Heilong

You can be a lefty and not like Marxism but the crazy leftists are following Marxist ideas whether they know it or not.

ILoveYourVibes

How safe is a baby stuck in a fire?

mouldybiscuits

People hidden in the background pull the strings in those regimes. The president or prime minister is just a spokesperson for the elite's agenda.