Yes because never questioning has worked out great for us so far

I agree with a lot of your analysis, but I think a lot of these conclusions are highly contingent on historical circumstance. For example, I think Trump is a lot more unpopular than the current narrative regarding Trump. The Dems do not want to be so wrong about Trump’s chance of winning as they were in 2016. A dynamic that could play out in this election is that many of the groups you identified (and were right to do so) feel so threatened by a Trump presidency (in part because of Dems successful and good organizing against him) causes those groups to unite and keep him out of office. This could lead to a split between the pragmatic republican movement concerned with maintaining the status quo, and the pro-Trump MAGA militants who are not as homogenous of a group as may first appear.

But feel free to “neener neener” about it if I end up being wrong in a few hours. My point is, things change, a disparate group of different interests can unite into an unbreakable bloc, and vice versa, in a traumatizingly short amount of time if recent years can be a teacher

Least vile and predatory Navy SEAL

He’s a Navy SEAL, many of them are effectively drug trafficking warlords

So you’re looking at a criticism of liberalism, from the left of liberalism. Namely the socialist left, I am assuming. Socialists can be very critical of liberals, as liberalism is a part of the establishment, and has a long history of caving to right wing framing of issues (since the right wing is also (largely) liberalism, albeit “classical liberal.” In this case critical of the “its not practical” preconception that gives ground (literally) to the perpetuators of this genocide.

Way to stay on message

No she committed to do everything in her power to end the war. Very different. Sometimes “splitting hairs” isn’t just semantically, especially when it is political. Tell People.

I understand how politics works, and I can understand some of the many complications and consequences involved, but words have meaning, and meaning conveys truth.

So if you want to represent the nuanced, complex (one sided) world of real politik, then that is certainly a good exercise. “in my power” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, especially since she’s committed to, let’s say, bend the truth quite a bit with this sentence.

But skepticism alone isn’t analysis. I think by saying this she is trying to lure over “Uncommitted” conscientious objectors who are on the fence and may withhold their vote. But by not speaking strongly enough, she will never reach the vast majority of those people. This assurance feels empty to me. She’s not an ardent supporter of Palestinians, but who can see the future? Events are rapid and things change, "We exist in a context, all that.

But there are disadvantages to people only taking political action by way of their votes, and maybe this is one of them.

I hope she wins. But if she doesn’t the dems will blame those same voters, along with Greens (which, whatever) and any other third party voters instead of coming to grips with their many many failings over the last 8 - 10 years.

The genocide in Gaza.

I think its most likely that these orgs have factions competing for power and personal advantage,some people are going to think Trump is going to further their interests, others not so much. Some real ghouls probably recognize that Trump only wants power for himself which is a threat to their power.

I’m not an expert though, I just had a very interesting conversation with a civilian Air Force consultant, who said that his org wasn’t very factional, but was very hierarchical. He was worried about very regressive figures coming to power because it affected the whole org, saying that the military had to stay cutting edge or we would face defeat, and hardcore conservative ideologues, or people like Trump who only care about their own wealth and status, tend to resist advancements and new methods.

Fuck Trump, Fuck Russia, Fuck the CIA.

Its wild how a very rational anger and fear and concern about a Trump presidency becomes a very irrational support for many corrupt and downright evil organizations responsible for millions of deaths in the name of imperialism and profit.

Except they mean you are better dead than red

Right I was just joking. I’ve seen a lot of cases of this, not as pronounced as “husband loses his shit over wife’s vote” but def the situation where two young people fall in love, have kids, and then the guy becomes very conservative whereas the woman is like normal-conservative where maybe she doesn’t have all the right “takes” but she has a shred of common sense and maybe even decency to realize that women bleeding out in ERs due to complications from a miscarriage is not just cruel and pointless but unsustainable if certain theories of historical development are to be trusted.

you get into these things when you’re younger.

What, chauvanistic conservativism?

Anarchist socialist antifa liberal democrats have infiltrated MAGA, die mad about it

God you can’t even have colonies anymore, another victim of wokeness

I’m still learning so I’m a student myself!

I did on another thread!

Hegelian phenomenology is dialectics but dialectics isn’t phenomenology.

Thanks for the article, It does a good job of describing Hegelian historical analysis, via Marx’s materialist dialectics, but isn’t more than a superficial understanding of either. I’m no Hegel scholar, but “thesis, antithesis, synthesis” isn’t Hegel, its Ficte’s description of Hegel’s dialectic, and its an over simplification. The author isnt an expert but superficially on Marx and Hegel. Read Karl Marx and Human Self Creation by Cyril Smith you can skip to the bit about Hegel and Marx, but the pre history is interesting.

Marxist historical materialism is scientific, but most importantly, and what the author doesn’t seem to get, probably due to my superficial reading of the article, is that in historical materialist analysis, the subject and object are united into a single system. His dualist presuppositions in the Implications section (and likely those of his readers) are exactly what prevent access to understanding dialectics.

the appearance of pairs of diametric opposites, united by their contradictions toward one another isn’t too difficult to grapple with as an abstract concept. But in order to apply this consistently we have to radically alter our perspective, we have to unite the subject and object, the ego and the other, the body and the mind. Uniting subject and object is actually extremely difficult within even an abstract conception of post enlightenment rationality. But its one of the only way to connect understanding to truth, humanity to justice and production.

Also a better quick primer on Marxist Hegelianism might be Thesis on Feuerbach by the man himself. Also Plekhanov’s the Materialist Conception of History but that’s way out of the scope of what we are discussing.

The “rational enlightenment” and its consequences