What the “Trump Phenomenon” Says About the State of Class Consciousness in America

No.
Of course, I'm not a Trump supporter.

 

Hilarious! Absolutely hilarious. Rudolph Giuliani helping Mr. Trump to raise the issue of Bill Clinton’s history of adultery, when Mr. Giuliani is himself guilty of carrying on a long-lasting adulterous affair back when he was in office. Let’s see, being a conservative family man, and calling out another politician on his philandering, despite being a cheater oneself, I suppose that that could be called compounded hypocrisy. But certainly this doesn’t bother Mr. Trump, who apparently doesn’t get that hypocrisy is a bad thing, and that associating more hypocrisy with his “brand” won’t win him the votes of anyone who isn’t already a Trump supporter.

And, btw, let us not forget that Mr. Trump himself suffers from a severe character deficit in the marriage department. Once upon a time his own long-term adulterous affair received quite a lot of media coverage (do you recall the name Marla Maples), and yet he doesn’t hesitate to convict himself of chutzpah and shameless hypocrisy by playing the Bill Clinton adultery card. Mr. Trump likes to claim that he’s a man of strong character, and that that’s what we’ll have in the White House if we elect him, but to make such a claim while doing the hypocritical thing and dredging up Bill Clinton’s adultery is itself an example of somewhat depraved duplicity. But then Mr. Trump is all about brazen hypocrisy, hyperbolic hype, and thinly-veiled forms of hate (misogyny, anti-Hispanic bigotry, anti-Muslim bigotry, etc.), but unfortunately the anger of his supporters is such that it has them glibly glossing over these quite serious flaws in his mentality.

Well, for anyone still on the fence, and capable of recognizing Mr. Trumps glaring characterological deficiencies, and residing in a state that's still on the fence, I would humbly suggest that you not cast your vote for him. My vote here in California won't really count, because it's a foregone conclusion that the state of California is not going to Mr. Trump (well, the way the American faux democratic electoral system is designed, the outcome of a presidential election is not determined by the national popular vote, therefore since my vote won't really make a difference in my particular state, and won't be counted in a national vote count that decides the race, my vote won't have any effect – yes, alas, the American system, like Mr. Trump, is a grievous fraud, i.e. not at all the shinning example of a government of, by, and for the people that it advertises itself to be), but if you're in one of those states that's still up for grabs your vote can indeed make a difference, and it would be a genuine shame if you helped The Donald further bloat his already sufficiently flatulent ego by becoming president.

P.S. To give equal time to someone on the other side of the aisle, yes, Mrs. Clinton's #1 endorser, Mr. Obama, is also quite the hypocrite. Today he's honoring this country's military veterans, after making them veterans of its most recent unjust, imperialistic, morally criminal aggressions. The crimes that they've been tasked to carry out should truly have them hanging their heads in shame, not lapping up words of praise, but virtually everyone plays the bad faith game of honoring their mock “service” (even though deep down many of us secretly realize that their only real service has been rendered to the corporate elites whose ulterior interests in fact dictated the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan), of spouting tired and trite, hackneyed and hokey patriotic, moralistic, and pro-veteran rhetoric that serves to conceal the damning truth of American militarism (that it's imperialistic in nature, to be perfectly blunt with you). Mr. Obama is no exception, today he's participating in the hypocrisy and dishonesty of lauding military “service” personnel whom he has reprehensibly exploited to secure the interests and hegemony of America's elites overseas. But at least, in distinction from Mr. Trump, Mr. Obama, and the candidate whom he supports, are not misogynistic, racist, fear-mongering, demagogic pigs.

 

But, once again, may I point out that at least Mrs. Clinton is not a misogynistic racist. If there's ever been an election that has featured a candidate who's a lesser, and a candidate who's a greater evil, it's certainly the current election.

 

Typical class warfare of the left. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

"Typical class warfare of the left. Nothing more, nothing less."

Ah, a response that in fact nicely illustrates my point about how we're socioculturally conditioned in the United States to knee-jerk fashion dismiss and demonize any reference to class as the promotion of class warfare, when it's actually the reality of class and the conflicting interests of the working and the ruling classes that accounts for class conflict. Yes, thanks Hoosier8, for inadvertently helping to illustrate one of the fundamental points of the OP.

 

Demonizing class is part and parcel of the left. Class stratification has always been part of the US.

 

And has always been something that needs to be abolished.

 

You can't unless you want to try Pol Pot's methods.

 

You realize even if you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are knowingly voting for evil nonetheless. There are other options than wanting evil to reign even if that evil isn't to the degree you think the other guy is. I will never vote for evil, I opted for another option and as for the moment that option is Gary Johnson.

Your choice is like driving a car into a concrete barrier at 140 MPH instead of driving one into that same barrier at 150 MPH. You end up just as dead. No one in my opinion should be voting or choosing evil no matter what the degree is. I do understand the die hard Democrats or Republicans, the avid Trump and avid Clinton supporters doing so, they do not view their candidate as evil. It is the rest of us who have the choice between evil and good. Apparently you made your choice, so be it. I have made mine too.

It is like the two major parties gave us a chance of picking our own poison. Arsenic Trump or Cyanide Clinton. Drinking either poison will also leave you dead, I am making another choice, the cool beer. Let others drink the poison, I really don't care one iota which one wins, if Americans are dumb enough to elect either one, they deserve to be ruled by the one they elect. What is that old saying? You get the government you deserve. It is so true in this case.

 

Oh, is that really the only option?! LOL! And, btw, Pol Pot was virtually an illiterate when it came to Marxist theory. He certainly did not operate according to any communist manual, so to speak, and he can't very well be used effectively to demonize anti-capitalism or communism. I would say nice try, but it doesn't qualify. Try harder my friend.

 

He certainly got rid of class distinctions. Why don't you lay out how to get rid of class without use of government force.

 

In the absence of class stratification, how do you propose rewarding someone that routinely produces more than the average ?

 

Hmm, Gary Johnson, one of those dear "libertarians" whose perverted conception of freedom is the total unfettering of capitalists; i.e. granting them absolute license to do their exploitative, expropriating, predatory, dominating, oppressive thing; to enjoy the liberty to be unabashed capitalists at the expense of everyone else, of all of the workers whom they would consign to the lot of precarized wage slaves, and all the consumers whom they would rip off and endanger the well-being of (yes, if people of the "libertarian" mindset ran society there once again would not even be any laws requiring capitalists to produce our food under sanitary conditions, seat belt laws, helmet laws, warnings on packs of cigarettes, etc., because such regulations infringe on the imaginary rights of capitalists, which for the twisted "libertarian" mentality takes precedence over everyone else's rights and welfare). No, electing someone whose whole platform consists of advocating being permissive of the pernicious MO of capitalists is not the answer. As alternative candidates go, Mr. Johnson is pretty dreadful. And isn't he also the candidate who's somewhat illiterate about foreign affairs ("What is Aleppo?")?!

 

"In the absence of class stratification, how do you propose rewarding someone that routinely produces more than the average ?"

Well, dear FAW, the form of economic life and society that I'm in favor of would be based on the principle of "From each according to his (or her) ability, to each according to his (or her) need", not on the egoistic profit motive that a capitalist culture fosters and indoctrinates us to believe is "normal".

 

Does that mean that you do NOT believe that a person should be rewarded for routinely producing more than the average ?

(Hit "reply with quote" when replying so that the other person knows that you have responded)

 

Who says that all uses of force must be mass-murderous, à la the Khmer Rouge?

 

A lot of idiots believe Freud's spewing of opinion to be actual science

 

Yes, thank you, I realize that one can select "reply with quote", not doing so was merely an oversight. And no, I in fact don't believe in egoism, in individuals operating out of the illusion that they're absolute individuals, and out of the dangerous sense of self-interest that results from such an illusion. And no, I don't support a form of society that condones and promotes such economic individualism. Nor am I in favor of some individuals privately "owning" a disproportionate share of economic wealth, as this always ipso facto entails expropriating their fellow man/woman, depriving others of access to economic wealth and resources that would promote their well-being. Rather, I'm fully in favor of a form of society that would explicitly encourage and embody a sense of our interconnectedness, and the interconnectedness of everyone's well-being. And a form of society in which wealth would be distributed accordingly, i.e. communally, and according to the already referenced principle of "From each according to his/her ability, to each according to his/her need", as this would better guarantee a decent measure of well-being to everyone than the alternative, a society foolhardily based on the slogan "Greed is good". In short, despite what "libertarians" and other doctrinaire proponents of laissez faire capitalism would have us believe, selfishness and the profit motive are not the best core principles to orient a civilization around. Quite obviously, a foundation of more pro-social values would do a significantly better job, then we would be far less likely to have a society in such a grave state of social and moral decline.

 

Well, I'm not exactly a Freudian either, but the good doctor's insight that our false beliefs are often shaped by a need for wish fulfillment is virtually common sense.

 

I think I finally get it. Liberals are so worried about Trump because they forgot he's running for president, not king. The actions of that horrendous loser Obama and HIS blatant disregard for the rule of law, the Constitution, and service to America has convinced liberals that the presidency is more like a kingship while they hold the office and now fear what will happen when they lose the throne. I'm going to have a good laugh when liberal heads explode and Trump wins in Nov...

 

I am going to take this ramble to mean that no you do not believe that a person should be rewarded for producing more than the average. The primary problem with this notion is that you are taking away the incentive to produce, and as a result, production will NECESSARILY decrease. When you decrease production, the standard of living will NECESSARILY decrease. You may be able to achieve your goal of equality with such a system, but unfortunately it would result in everyone being equally POOR. I fail to see the attraction to equal poverty.

This is undoubtedly the reason that actual Socialism has never succeeded in any of its iterations.

 

Well, for those folks out there who are fans of the idea of pure capitalism, and whose cop-out regarding the sorry state of American capitalism is that it simply isn't pure enough, let me point out that the principle of self-interest that's at the core of capitalist doctrine, when given free expression and reign will invariably lead to a state of affairs in which a few alpha capitalists, so to speak, driven all too powerfully by good ole "enlightened self-interest", have forgone playing according to Hoyle (or Hayek), and have deeply rigged the game and the government in their own favor, i.e. individuals motivated by self-interest will always, inexorably subvert capitalism and create a system that is far from the ivory-tower ideal that free-market fundamentalists envision. Yes, the most fundamental principle of capitalism, economic individualism, will forever thwart the realization of a pure form of capitalism. In short, capitalism is self-negating, its own ethos ironically negates/nixes its realization and viability. But free-marketeers are so deeply ensconced in their brand of ideology that they can't grasp or admit this damning reality and move on to trying to envision a different form of economic organization. No, they apparently would prefer to simply pigheadedly cling, in bad faith, to an unattainable utopian image of a free market that can exist only in the deluded mind's eye of pro-capitalist dogmatists.

 

Once again, we have here the typical bleak idea of human nature that characterizes the thinking of free-marketarians. I'll simply refer you to my immediately above post.

 

Liberals have been dumbing down America for 50+ years, trying to get us dependent on government.

 

Until you and those dear to you begin to suffer the consequences of him winning, that is. And, btw, I'm not a liberal, I'm an actual-to-goodness socialist.