politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:

- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Your comment has almost nothing to do with what was the substance of my comment so I'm not gonna take the bait. I'm not here to debate with a doomer about dialectical materialism. Something you're very clearly not capable of understanding. Because you described it as some sort of mass pshycosis for some reason. Which just tells me you don't actually know what you're talking about.
If you'd like to be more specific about what PART of my comment's analysis is wrong. Or somehow leading to "dictatorships"? But you basically saw the words "dialectical materialism" and then regurgitated shit completely unrelated to the substance of my comment.
It was explicitly outlined in Marx’s writing. The dictatorship of the proletariat. As Žižek wrote in The Sublime Object of Ideology, “ideological fantasy creates social reality.” However, that social reality does not determine objective reality, merely how we interact with it. The Marxist position of achieving class consciousness is a falsehood, it is a presupposition that ignores human nature. There is no deeper philosophical meaning, the surface is the truth, the masses are an inertial force, an object not a subject. In a deterministic universe, all we have to do is look at past results to predict future outcomes.
A quote from my copy of Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit, “What is universally valid is also universally effective; what ought to be, in fact also is, and what ought to be without [actually] being, has no truth.”
What conversation are you hoping to have here? Because my comment was about Israel and its relationship to American imperialism fueling antisemitism. I really can't be bothered to engage with someone who's entire argument revolves around an appeal to "human nature". My friend, we have fucking planes and skyscrapers and we're communicating instantly from anywhere in the planet either of us might be right now. Part of being human is literally about overcoming nature. If you ever hear yourself saying "this is wrong because its against human nature to " you should probably get a better foundation for your argument. Because an appeal to some vague idea of "human nature" is about as good as appealing to some deity.
Wanna talk about my criticism of American Imperialism and Israel? Because that's what you replied to.
You’re entire comment comes from a flawed position, I don’t need to focus on particulars when your entire premise is wrong.
Instead of engaging my comment, you fall back on logical fallacies. Your pseudoscientific analysis points to a lack of understanding of reality itself. It’s almost like your entire worldview was formed by propaganda coming through a screen.
Go ahead and explain how people in general are going to spontaneously evolve beyond the human condition. I do not ascribe good or bad to it, I just find it important to maybe you know, start from an accurate position.
Signifying chains may appear contradictory, but they are not. There is no commitment to any previous meaning, it can simply be resignified.
This is what makes my previous comments relevant. The tools you used are inadequate, it’s pseudoscience. I did not make an “appeal to nature,” I made empirical observation showing that your argument is invalid.
From your (il)logical position, you build an argument based on fallacy after fallacy. Strawman, hasty generalization, post hoc, appeal to emotion, slippery slope.
Fuentes is not gaining traction because material conditions deteriorate, its because his message was amplified in right wing media circles, and his message is seductive. Social media has somewhat decentralized control over messaging, so regardless of material conditions, a seductive message would gain popularity.
The left also lacks “class consciousness,” so why are they not seduced by rascist, xenophobic messages? Maybe because their signifying chains take an inverse position?
Here is evidence that disproves your assertions and renders your argument invalid:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Soviet_Union
Incorrect. American popular support for Israel is projected to decline, there is a threshold of tolerance that overrides “profit incentives and Imperialism.”
America will always support Israel? That’s a long time. You make this prediction based on your cognitive bias and (il)logical reasoning.
If the right wing is the “nazi party,” why do they support Israel? The establishment uses parafascism to bring extremist elements to their side, but has no interest in transforming society into some mythical utopia of the past.
Most leftists don’t either. Most leftists only take an adversarial position of America and ignore the rest of the world and history.
Your entire worldview is built on logical fallacy and propaganda. The extreme right is the group being placed on the altar of sacrifice, they are unleashed for the purpose of making them so intolerable, everyday Americans will accept any draconian measures to be rid of them.
Welcome to the society of the spectacle, its not the working class who are stupid, but the “intellectual” (you) who doesn’t understand them or even the basic fundamentals of reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circulation_of_elites
You clearly don't understand what I'm even talking about in the context you quoted. If you did you'd realize you're just repeating what I said. You aren't even disagreeing with me. I was literally explaining how they appear as contradictions to the current narrative of the right wing at the moment. Which results in a shift of the narrative to align it closer to their true ideology (something they usually hide the totality of). I wasn't saying it was a contradiction to right wing ideology at it's core.
I think you're so ready to disagree with me you didn't even understand what I wrote. It's clear you're not actually looking to have a conversation. You decided you disagree with me when you read the words "historical materialism" and didn't even bother trying to understand what was written. Do better.
Also, you sound like a 12 year old debate lord listing off logical fallacies they learned last week without actually doing any of the work logically to conclude them. You might think it sounds smart. But it really just makes you sound childish. Especially when you didn't actually do any logical analysis to conclude to them in the first place. Logical fallacies aren't a shopping list mate. You wrote so much and said so little.
Geez if you think that's bad wait until you find out how many people capitalist dictators have killed in just the last year
Dumbass lmao and I don't even buy Marx
The ideology is irrelevant in dominance hierarchies, they all follow similar patterns. Maybe read a book instead of spewing logical fallacies ad hominem, red herring, false equivalency.
🤡