Trump most popular Republican among Latinos & Blacks

[Captain_Vietnam]

Ted Cruz is pretty damn bad on foreign policy, yes. I highly doubt Trump would do the slightest thing to fix corruption. He would probably tackle corruption the way Putin tackled corruption if anything (which is basically to make everything so corrupt that people stop talking about it). Overall, I find Trump to be a spontaneous dimwit. It's scary to have people like that ruling a nation. I don't want another leader like Bush who creates ideas off the top of his head and commits to them regardless of future revelations. 

The poor are what I'm concerned about, being poor. And none of the Republican candidates will do anything for them. I don't think Hillary would either. The only candidate I'd even entertain the idea of in this election is Bernie Sanders and I'm pretty sure he won't be our next president. 

trump is going to rebuild americas millitary. he will fix the problems to make america great again

[Hereno]

the problem: big businesses are destroying the working class

 

trump's solution: divide the working class along national lines

sanders solution: unite the working class against the capitalists

everyone else's solution: there's no problem

 

this is what's going on here.

[Rozalia]

Ted Cruz is pretty damn bad on foreign policy, yes. I highly doubt Trump would do the slightest thing to fix corruption. He would probably tackle corruption the way Putin tackled corruption if anything (which is basically to make everything so corrupt that people stop talking about it). Overall, I find Trump to be a spontaneous dimwit. It's scary to have people like that ruling a nation. I don't want another leader like Bush who creates ideas off the top of his head and commits to them regardless of future revelations. 

The poor are what I'm concerned about, being poor. And none of the Republican candidates will do anything for them. I don't think Hillary would either. The only candidate I'd even entertain the idea of in this election is Bernie Sanders and I'm pretty sure he won't be our next president. 

 

I disagree. Cruz is an ideologue that has drunk his religious kool-aid far too much so he simply will not compromise on anything. Rubio and Clinton are professional politicians and will do whatever their think tanks and polls tell them, but as it's been seen that doesn't exactly reflect people's wants and just ultimately hurts people (them being bought and paid by big business is also a thing naturally). Trump however perhaps not a few things but on others seems willing to compromise if he has to and he has many "left wing" positions too (there is a reason some people say him and Sanders are so alike beyond simply the anti-establishment stance), positions the rest of the republicans would never dare put forward (e.g Cruz thinking he nailed Trump with a big right hook by exposing that Trump isn't completely against Planned Parenthood, or that he thinks Israel doesn't want to solve their problem in Palestine).

 

Sanders is good yeah but his chances are lower than Trump, at least from what it looks like at the moment. Trump could be super bad or good, but to people that risk is worth taking. Better than the same old and hey, if he at least fixes immigration then thats something. Only reason the likes of Clinton opposes him and goes full on the other direction (making all the illegals citizens I believe it was) is because it's a nice play to turn the country into a one party state. 

 

the problem: big businesses are destroying the working class

 

trump's solution: divide the working class along national lines

sanders solution: unite the working class against the capitalists

everyone else's solution: there's no problem

 

this is what's going on here.

 

My issue with Socialism in general is how can you succeed if you let immigration be as it is? All that means is eventually all the giving you give to them will strain the system and the Conservatives will successfully argue that we give too much to the populace... and instead of then taking away from simply the parties they've attacked they'll simply take away from everybody and then slowly start rolling everything back bit by bit.

 

Sorry but I see the rolling back that has gone on from the gains made after WWII and I have no belief in such "nice" Socialism. 

[Hereno]

welfare queen argument is tired

[Rozalia]

welfare queen argument is tired

 

Uh... welfare queens argument? You'll have to expand on that. You aware I support giving unconditional benefits to every citizen, that they all have a home and can live their lives, slothfully if they so wish to? If a women wanted to just pump out babies for her whole life (well as long as the fertility holds) then that is fine, heck I'd support giving her money for each one she pops out to put in better funded orphanages. It'd sort of be like a job I suppose wouldn't it? 

 

However with nice socialism that wouldn't be possible, they'd overload the system and then it'd get rolled back/taken apart which will then hurt everybody. I believe in great benevolence but you cannot give that to everybody, stretching it too thin is simply wrong. Socialists by the large do not understand who is and isn't important. As long as they can't work that out they will never achieve their goals and what little they gain will be snatched from them by the Conservatives. 

[Hereno]

Uh... welfare queens argument? You'll have to expand on that. You aware I support giving unconditional benefits to every citizen, that they all have a home and can live their lives, slothfully if they so wish to? If a women wanted to just pump out babies for her whole life (well as long as the fertility holds) then that is fine, heck I'd support giving her money for each one she pops out to put in better funded orphanages. It'd sort of be like a job I suppose wouldn't it? 

 

However with nice socialism that wouldn't be possible, they'd overload the system and then it'd get rolled back/taken apart which will then hurt everybody. I believe in great benevolence but you cannot give that to everybody, stretching it too thin is simply wrong. Socialists by the large do not understand who is and isn't important. As long as they can't work that out they will never achieve their goals and what little they gain will be snatched from them by the Conservatives.

reagan said the welfare queens were american (black) citizens

 

you're saying they're immigrants

 

it's the same argument.

 

if it works for all of us within one country, and it can work for every country internally if they act like we do, then you don't need countries at all.

[Rozalia]

reagan said the welfare queens were american (black) citizens

 

you're saying they're immigrants

 

it's the same argument.

 

if it works for all of us within one country, and it can work for every country internally if they act like we do, then you don't need countries at all.

 

I said black people are immigrants? Welfare Queens isn't a term I'd use to begin with and as I said, I don't attack people on Welfare and are in fact far far softer than the majority of people on the issue. When asked on here what I'd think if some people then decided to do nothing for the rest of their life. I stated I don't believe many would live such a life for a couple of reasons but if they decided to then that was fine. 

In regards to a black person if they are just off the boat from wherever then they're immigrants. If they decide to naturalise themselves or have had their family in the country for generations and are listed as citizens than they deserve to be treated like any other citizen. Race has nothing to do with National Fraternity though obviously one dominating the % is expected.

 

I disagree, such a view is fantasy. Everything has effects and in many cases for us to prosper others must suffer, likewise in reverse our suffering improves somebodies lives. Many in the east have seen improvements which have come at the cost of those in the west. If we use protectionism to help our own then that will then have the effect of harming those in the east (well and in places like Mexico and such in cases like America).

I want my own people to prosper and you can't do that if you keep letting in more and more and give them it all too. By stretching and stretching you increase the strain which will make it all eventually snap and then in will come the Conservatives, the Reactionaries, those who think people deserve nothing and should die in the streets if they commit the crime of being poor. So in my mind your view as nice as you may think it is... is actually an attack on your poor, and your people in general.

[francesca]

 

 

Hey

 

Check out Anti-Donald Trump! Available

 

https://tspr.ng/WYdrHtsc 

 

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/23/3127941/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/25/how-black-voters-could-help-trump-win.html

 

 

[Hereno]

I said black people are immigrants? Welfare Queens isn't a term I'd use to begin with and as I said, I don't attack people on Welfare and are in fact far far softer than the majority of people on the issue. When asked on here what I'd think if some people then decided to do nothing for the rest of their life. I stated I don't believe many would live such a life for a couple of reasons but if they decided to then that was fine. 

In regards to a black person if they are just off the boat from wherever then they're immigrants. If they decide to naturalise themselves or have had their family in the country for generations and are listed as citizens than they deserve to be treated like any other citizen. Race has nothing to do with National Fraternity though obviously one dominating the % is expected.

 

I disagree, such a view is fantasy. Everything has effects and in many cases for us to prosper others must suffer, likewise in reverse our suffering improves somebodies lives. Many in the east have seen improvements which have come at the cost of those in the west. If we use protectionism to help our own then that will then have the effect of harming those in the east (well and in places like Mexico and such in cases like America).

I want my own people to prosper and you can't do that if you keep letting in more and more and give them it all too. By stretching and stretching you increase the strain which will make it all eventually snap and then in will come the Conservatives, the Reactionaries, those who think people deserve nothing and should die in the streets if they commit the crime of being poor. So in my mind your view as nice as you may think it is... is actually an attack on your poor, and your people in general.

it doesn't have to be us vs. them, competing for capitalist exploitation

 

you want to play their game, i don't

[Kim Jong-Il]

it doesn't have to be us vs. them, competing for capitalist exploitation

 

you want to play their game, i don't

 

Loving the constant backless claims you keep making after Rozalia gives you a lengthy, decent counterclaim to your bullshit.

 

Classic Hereno 

[Rozalia]

it doesn't have to be us vs. them, competing for capitalist exploitation

 

you want to play their game, i don't

 

It's always "us vs them" even for yourself, exactly who "us" and "them" is depends on the person. 

 

So you think but your types only helps the game continue. Left wingers love for immigrants and their hatred of nation states only hurt the people they are supposedly for the most (the poor), and benefits those they are supposedly against (the rich). They should learn to prioritise better. Thinking everyone is equally valuable sounds all very nice but it's not true, has never been true, and never will be true. 

[Hereno]

Loving the constant backless claims you keep making after Rozalia gives you a lengthy, decent counterclaim to your bullshit.

 

Classic Hereno

 

nothing wrong with a bit of brevity

 

not really my fault if you're not educated enough to understand what i'm talking about

 

classic politics & war forums

 

It's always "us vs them" even for yourself, exactly who "us" and "them" is depends on the person. 

 

So you think but your types only helps the game continue. Left wingers love for immigrants and their hatred of nation states only hurt the people they are supposedly for the most (the poor), and benefits those they are supposedly against (the rich). They should learn to prioritise better. Thinking everyone is equally valuable sounds all very nice but it's not true, has never been true, and never will be true.

you didn't actually reply to what i said. stop making moral platitudes - not all conflict is the same.

 

my opposition to capitalists is not the same thing as your opposition to immigrants

 

you tacitly admit this much in your second paragraph, which makes me wonder about you. really, this post is magical thinking.

 

PS marx was pretty adamant about people not being equal, but why would i expect anybody who talks about marx to actually have read him?

Edited March 9, 2016 by Hierophant

[Rozalia]

you didn't actually reply to what i said. stop making moral platitudes - not all conflict is the same.

 

my opposition to capitalists is not the same thing as your opposition to immigrants

 

you tacitly admit this much in your second paragraph, which makes me wonder about you. really, this post is magical thinking.

 

PS marx was pretty adamant about people not being equal, but why would i expect anybody who talks about marx to actually have read him?

 

I'd think moral platitudes would be more your thing. 

 

Please do explain. As for myself I don't oppose immigrants out of some hatred, simply being pragmatic. The establishment loves immigrants. Cheap labour for them to get richer off and as a bonus they can make use of it to strip more and more away from the people.

 

And where exactly did I mention Marx? Odd, wasn't even on my mind. I assume perhaps you think this because I referred to yourself and you're a Marxist? Well you are internationalist and hate the nation state from what I gathered, however if I was going to attack Marx I'd you know, just mention it directly. I mean if you want I can attack Marx but... Marx is an irrelevance so it'd just be a waste of time.

[Hereno]

I'd think moral platitudes would be more your thing. 

 

Please do explain. As for myself I don't oppose immigrants out of some hatred, simply being pragmatic. The establishment loves immigrants. Cheap labour for them to get richer off and as a bonus they can make use of it to strip more and more away from the people.

 

And where exactly did I mention Marx? Odd, wasn't even on my mind. I assume perhaps you think this because I referred to yourself and you're a Marxist? Well you are internationalist and hate the nation state from what I gathered, however if I was going to attack Marx I'd you know, just mention it directly. I mean if you want I can attack Marx but... Marx is an irrelevance so it'd just be a waste of time.

but we live in a global economy. it isn't so simple as just "this is what we do to make our nation better". if you deport your heinous criminals rather than incarcerating or killing them, you're making them someone else's problem. if you're "taking all the jobs" and crushing the backbone of your own labor movement to appeal to multinational corporations for jobs, you are not helping your poor people, and you're also !@#$ing over the entire rest of the world. you want to divide us based on national lines - you think you have something in common with the rich cocksuckers who are exploiting you because they speak the same language as you do. it's a farce. we went a long time without nation-states, and we will go a long time without them again.

 

as for the marx stuff, i'm essentially arguing in favor of international communism. i sort of expect people to understand that my position is largely informed by persons such as marx, and that positions such as mine always tend to be informed by persons such as marx, even when those persons, like myself, do not consider themselves "marxists" and have disagreements with marx.

[Guest hawkeye]

the best bet is to demolish all forms of tech and return to tribalism

Edited March 9, 2016 by hawkeye

[Hereno]

the best bet is to demolish all forms of tech and return to tribalism

be the change you wish to see

 

you can start by turning off your computer, mr. kaczynski

Edited March 9, 2016 by Hierophant

[Rozalia]

but we live in a global economy. it isn't so simple as just "this is what we do to make our nation better". if you deport your heinous criminals rather than incarcerating or killing them, you're making them someone else's problem. if you're "taking all the jobs" and crushing the backbone of your own labor movement to appeal to multinational corporations for jobs, you are not helping your poor people, and you're also !@#$ over the entire rest of the world. you want to divide us based on national lines - you think you have something in common with the rich cocksuckers who are exploiting you because they speak the same language as you do. it's a farce. we went a long time without nation-states, and we will go a long time without them again.

 

as for the marx stuff, i'm essentially arguing in favor of international communism. i sort of expect people to understand that my position is largely informed by persons such as marx, and that positions such as mine always tend to be informed by persons such as marx, even when those persons, like myself, do not consider themselves "marxists" and have disagreements with marx.

 

Living in a "global" world doesn't mean you have to screw your own people over. You think I support the rich if they speak the same tongue as me? Let me be clear here. I support the nationalising of a great deal of business, no paying those who have exploited us for it either but simply take it off them and leaving them grateful they ain't in a prison at the end of the day (and many deserve it). Trust me when I say me and multinational corporations have no love for each other. As for dividing among national lines I have my reasons, one of which is that nationalism and the nation state is ultimately if wielded for the people (and not the special interests) the best tool against the villains that exploit people. Your stance about wanting countries to end and such? The rich love that just fine, they laugh if you think that somehow hurts them.

 

Such a stance does not work. The poor rightly see immigration as something that hurts them the most and benefits the rich the most. The Right Wing (not those centre right villains) are the only ones who they see who'll do something about it so many of them will then support them (look how popular UKIP is getting among the poor for example). By caring so much about everyone else many of the poor see it all as you value them less than those people and they're right ultimately. Only when the fight is won at home and the "centre ground" cabal is totally crushed might we then perhaps think about others. Doing so while the fight is still totally in the favour of the enemies of the people is ineffectual and just what they want. 

Edited March 10, 2016 by Rozalia

[Hereno]

Living in a "global" world doesn't mean you have to screw your own people over. You think I support the rich if they speak the same tongue as me? Let me be clear here. I support the nationalising of a great deal of business, no paying those who have exploited us for it either but simply take it off them and leaving them grateful they ain't in a prison at the end of the day (and many deserve it). Trust me when I say me and multinational corporations have no love for each other. As for dividing among national lines I have my reasons, one of which is that nationalism and the nation state is ultimately if wielded for the people (and not the special interests) the best tool against the villains that exploit people. Your stance about wanting countries to end and such? The rich love that just fine, they laugh if you think that somehow hurts them.

 

Such a stance does not work. The poor rightly see immigration as something that hurts them the most and benefits the rich the most. The Right Wing (not those centre right villains) are the only ones who they see who'll do something about it so many of them will then support them (look how popular UKIP is getting among the poor for example). By caring so much about everyone else many of the poor see it all as you value them less than those people and they're right ultimately. Only when the fight is won at home and the "centre ground" cabal is totally crushed might we then perhaps think about others. Doing so while the fight is still totally in the favour of the enemies of the people is ineffectual and just what they want.

Just because someone is poor doesn't mean they're always voting in their best interests, or that they're seeing the world accurately. Not everybody is constantly, always acting in their own rational best interest, or even intending to. My goal isn't to help anybody, it is to allow everybody to help themselves and each other without interference. The right constantly plays the poor against each other by making immigration the issue, but what you're missing is WHY there are immigrants in the first place. Let's look at Mexico. The drug war, that spawned all those cartels? The US started and enforces it. The companies who take advantage of lax Mexican regulations? American companies. The people who employ illegal immigrants? American companies. The people who came up with NAFTA? American companies - who also are the only ones really benefiting from it. Nationalism is false consciousness and leads us to nothing except collaboration with the national bourgeoisie against workers from other countries. Your solutions are false and your answer is fascism, or a double-down on the problem in the first place. Combining state and corporate power is about the dumbest !@#$ thing you could do - at least now they have to lobby other people and work deals. You'd rather just make them one and the same. We saw what happened to Europe when your people got in control - all of the worst parts of capitalism were amplified to 11. No !@#$ing thank you.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Hierophant

[Big Brother]

@Hierophant

 

I mostly agree with what you're saying but I think you're wrong when you say that "nationalism is false consciousness and leads us to nothing except collaboration with the national bourgeoisie against workers from other countries". It certainly can and very often does lead to that, but that's certainly not the only thing it leads to. Nationalism can have a positive influence on society, it's really a matter of what form it takes in the minds of its adherents and which values the nation in question possesses.

 

For example, nationalism in a jingoistic, warlike country can have a very bad outcome but nationalism in a peace loving country can have a very good outcome.

 

It doesn't necessarily or inherently pit workers from different countries against each other either (though I totally get where you're coming from). Workers from Nation A can be proud of their own nation while at the same time be cool with cooperating with and respecting the workers from Nation B.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Big Brother

[Hereno]

@Hierophant

 

I mostly agree with what you're saying but I think you're wrong when you say that "nationalism is false consciousness and leads us to nothing except collaboration with the national bourgeoisie against workers from other countries". It certainly can and very often does lead to that, but that's certainly not the only thing it leads to. Nationalism can have a positive influence on society, it's really a matter of what form it takes in the minds of its adherents and which values the nation in question possesses.

 

For example, nationalism in a jingoistic, warlike country can have a very bad outcome but nationalism in a peace loving country can have a very good outcome.

 

It doesn't necessarily or inherently pit workers from different countries against each other either (though I totally get where you're coming from). Workers from Nation A can be proud of their own nation while at the same time be cool with cooperating with and respecting the workers from Nation B.

this is sort of like saying that government can be good because it's completely possible for obama to give us all a big check for a bunch of money and then come and personally suck every single one of our penises

 

it's not gonna happen, though

 

in reality, any country that exists has class differences. if there are workers in country a and workers in country b and they are not the same country then what is the country made up of except the workers and the ruling class above them? states are anti-worker by design and function as a tool of class oppression of the bourgeoisie against the proletariat.

 

i can tell that you're a nationalist sympathizer because you're one of those people who act like everybody in country A can be "warlike" and in B can be "peace loving", as though all of them have the same ideas about everything and could be considered like one person or personality

 

it's bullshit. it's absolute bullshit. you can call it "culture" or "race" or whatever arbitrary sociological term you want, but at the end of the day, it's just a way to divide the workers rather than have us all working together. there's no reason why two people can't eat different foods and hang out with different people but be in the same country. and if everybody can be in the same country then what, exactly, is the point of them?

 

that's a rhetorical question.

[Big Brother]

this is sort of like saying that government can be good because it's completely possible for obama to give us all a big check for a bunch of money and then come and personally suck every single one of our penises

 

it's not gonna happen, though

 

in reality, any country that exists has class differences. if there are workers in country a and workers in country b and they are not the same country then what is the country made up of except the workers and the ruling class above them? states are anti-worker by design and function as a tool of class oppression of the bourgeoisie against the proletariat.

 

i can tell that you're a nationalist sympathizer because you're one of those people who act like everybody in country A can be "warlike" and in B can be "peace loving", as though all of them have the same ideas about everything and could be considered like one person or personality

 

it's bullshit. it's absolute bullshit. you can call it "culture" or "race" or whatever arbitrary sociological term you want, but at the end of the day, it's just a way to divide the workers rather than have us all working together. there's no reason why two people can't eat different foods and hang out with different people but be in the same country. and if everybody can be in the same country then what, exactly, is the point of them?

 

that's a rhetorical question.

 

Governments and states exist to protect and ensure the well-being and growth of their people. That is what a good government does. The American government is only one of many, and to judge all others based on that one government is folly. There are governments that exist as good and productive forces, who actually exist by the people for the people and it's the most common (and I would argue most efficient) tool to solve the societal, economic and political problems of any country. The government is supposed to provide benefits for its people, to ensure that its people have all the opportunities they need to develop and excel as human beings. If a government fails to do this it's certainly a bad government, but that doesn't mean that good governments cannot or do not exist.

 

I understand that based on your own views and experiences you see governments as something negative, but that simply doesn't mean every other government in the world actually are negative entities.

 

You're right, any country that exists does have class differences, some more than others. But these class differences would still exist even if countries did not exist as entities separating different people from each other. People are more separated by class than by country and it's class differences we should primarily work against, not the abolition of borders and countries.

 

States can be anti-worker by design, they can function as a tool of class oppression, but they can also be pro-worker by design, they can also function as tools to reduce class oppression. I don't see what point there is in denying that governments can have different designs and serve different functions, it seems pretty obvious to me.

 

I'm not a nationalist sympathizer and I definitely don't believe that all people within a nation hold the same beliefs and opinions, you and I and everyone else in this thread and on this forum are living proof of that. While people may have different ideas of what their country's nationalism entails, every country's nation, culture, government and history enforces a particular view of which values belong to their country, which values are important to their nation, and so what their particular brand of nationalism consists of. People are taught what being a nationalist within their own country means and if they are taught that nationalism in their country consists of a love of justice, peace, progress and human decency, then that nationalism inevitably enforces and promotes those values and ideas on their populace. In the same way the nationalism of a country that teaches people it has a rich warrior culture and a historical tradition of conquest and waging war could promote these things as positive and as part of their nation's important values. Nationalism is simply not the same and does not have the same effect on every country and despite people having different opinions about nationalism they are inherently subjected to a particular view of nationalism within their country.

 

Countries and nationalism do indeed serve to divide people, but not more so than class does. And while it does divide people, it does not prevent them from friendships, positive relationships and cooperation with people in other countries with their own kind of nationalism, especially not in our current era of history where we all to some degree share a global society.

 

Countries and sovereignty exist to safeguard different people from each other, to protect their different cultures, languages, histories, rights and so on from people who would seek to harm or take advantage of these things. Above I wrote I'm not a nationalist sympathizer. I wrote this because I am in fact a nationalist. I'm proud of my country, and I love my country above all others because we have managed to create a society that is peaceful, that has the highest human development index in the entire world, that allows people to prosper, allows people justice, allows people to live their life in peace and equality with each other. I recognize that other countries could accomplish these things as well and that we're not any better than anyone else or more capable than anyone else, but that doesn't mean I can't be proud of the good things we have accomplished. We, and every other nation have the right to self determination, to seek our own way as a nation, to define ourselves within our borders, to protect our own rights and what we believe is right, even if we don't all agree with each other. Our rightful sovereignty is what protects our rights, it's what allows us to create the society we seek and what allows us to live our lives however we desire. We struggled for centuries, hundreds upon hundreds of years to attain it and to create our own country and while it might mean nothing to you, I cannot think of a greater tragedy than losing it or abandoning it. I would fight in whatever way I can to keep it and I know many, many others would as well.

 

The most important struggle is the class struggle and that is where our efforts to create a better and more just world should lie. Capitalism, exploitation and injustice are the real enemies, not nationalism.

Edited March 11, 2016 by Big Brother

[Hereno]

oh my god, you say you agree with me and then you say? :facepalm:

 

>Governments and states exist to protect and ensure the well-being and growth of their people. That is what a good government does.

 

do you really, actually believe this? have you ever actually interacted with the american government or paid any attention to their actions? this might be what the government-funded school told you about the government, but it doesn't require a conspiracy theory for people with power to use that power to dominate the political system from the inside and out

 

>You're right, any country that exists does have class differences, some more than others. But these class differences would still exist even if countries did not exist as entities separating different people from each other. People are more separated by class than by country and it's class differences we should primarily work against, not the abolition of borders and countries.

 

okay, then let's work against class differences by fighting against the bourgeoisie. oh wait. you want to share a nation-state with them and you think that they're not going to fight back against you in their own interests. because ??????????????

 

classes are defined by productive relations. the state enforces private property. it is its primary function. why do you think the founders only wanted the land-owning white men to vote in the first place? like do you think they just hated poor people because "lol !@#$ poor people"? what do you think is the point of laws against theft?

 

>Countries and sovereignty exist to safeguard different people from each other, to protect their different cultures, languages, histories, rights and so on from people who would seek to harm or take advantage of these things. Above I wrote I'm not a nationalist sympathizer. I wrote this because I am in fact a nationalist.

 

L

 

M

 

A

 

O

Edited March 10, 2016 by Hierophant

[Big Brother]

oh my god, you say you agree with me and then you say? :facepalm:

 

>Governments and states exist to protect and ensure the well-being and growth of their people. That is what a good government does.

 

do you really, actually believe this? have you ever actually interacted with the american government or paid any attention to their actions? this might be what the government-funded school told you about the government, but it doesn't require a conspiracy theory for people with power to use that power to dominate the political system from the inside and out

 

>You're right, any country that exists does have class differences, some more than others. But these class differences would still exist even if countries did not exist as entities separating different people from each other. People are more separated by class than by country and it's class differences we should primarily work against, not the abolition of borders and countries.

 

okay, then let's work against class differences by fighting against the bourgeoisie. oh wait. you want to share a nation-state with them and you think that they're not going to fight back against you in their own interests. because ??????????????

 

classes are defined by productive relations. the state enforces private property. it is its primary function. why do you think the founders only wanted the land-owning white men to vote in the first place? like do you think they just hated poor people because "lol !@#$ poor people"? what do you think is the point of laws against theft?

 

>Countries and sovereignty exist to safeguard different people from each other, to protect their different cultures, languages, histories, rights and so on from people who would seek to harm or take advantage of these things. Above I wrote I'm not a nationalist sympathizer. I wrote this because I am in fact a nationalist.

 

L

 

M

 

A

 

O

 

Hey dude, we're just having a discussion. I don't know why you feel the need to debase yourself by being rude. You almost seem kind of.. agitated.

 

Again you're talking about things from your perspective of the American government as (I assume) an American. I'm not American and there's literally hundreds of governments out there that are not the American government. And some of these, even a lot of these governments do good things for their people, because they are chosen and made up by their own people and they actually do what they are supposed to. Just because the American government doesn't do these things doesn't mean that it's the same for every other government out there.

 

The bourgeoisie can be fought and reduced within a nation state. In a good state, a good government, the bourgeoisie is subjected to the government, the government which exists primarily for the benefit of its own people. Again, I understand how your own American view of your American government presents you with a vision of the state as a tool for the bourgeoisie to oppress the workers, because your politicians are practically enslaved to lobbyists and their money, whom act on behalf of private industries and interest. But this just is not the case with every state in every country out there.

 

In many countries around the world, the bourgeoisie is kept in check by the government, even if they do fight for their own interests. Just because your government has failed to accomplish this level of control and regulation does not mean every other government has or will fail to do the same. Your judgmental certainty about every government in the world is completely irrational, you cannot judge them all based on your experiences of the one.

 

Classes are indeed defined by productive relations, finally you're right about something again. The state enforces a great many things, not just private property. It also enforces public property, the rule of law, sovereignty, justice and so on. Sure, the founding fathers of your country (and my own actually) limited the amount of people who could have a say in the rule of the country to protect their own private interests. But that was hundreds of years ago and countries and states have changed during that time period. Regardless of what their original purpose was they serve a whole variety of purposes now, on behalf of many different people. Why you seem to be completely blind to the fact that states can serve the poor, the workers, and can be a tool for equality and against class exploitation is beyond me and strikes me as pure denial.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Big Brother

[Hereno]

i'm not mad, you're just !@#$ing stupid as shit

[Big Brother]

Okay Hierophant, whatever you say

 

I'm not the one making a fool out of myself in this discussion and you still seem pretty agitated to me. But hey, whatever, let's get on with our lives.