Race and Capitalism

What is racism? This is clearly not a simple question. And there will be many different opinions. In my view, "racism" is a doctrine associated with the complex of  European imperialism, capitalism, and Christianity.

For the last 600 years, Europeans have rampaged around the world, stealing land (on a continental scale), plundering natural resources, and murdering or enslaving all those who resisted. And everyone resisted.

All that genocide, enslaving, and looting ought to have been seen as reprehensible and contrary to the religion that Europeans spread, along with smallpox, wherever they went. Three of the Ten Commandments of the Christian religion are:

• Thou shalt not steal
• Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house/as
• Thou shalt not kill

These commandments are not vague or ambiguous. They are not open to exceptions or interpretations. God said, Do not steal. They stole. God said, Do not covet. They coveted. God said, Do not kill. They killed.

So the European imperialist project was fundamentally immoral by European's own standards.  

However, the religious establishment (including the Protestants) that preached this morality was itself very much in favour of imperialism and made common cause with capitalists. The Christian establishment benefited in two ways. Firstly, the survivors of European invasion often converted, expanding the sphere of political influence of the church. And secondly, in return for absolution, the murderous, looting capitalists made lavish donations to the churches, making them unimaginably wealthy.

Still, all that covetousness, stealing, and murder required some kind of rationalisation. The brightest minds of the British Empire bent to the task, and the philosophy of liberalism was one product of this. But liberalism alone doesn't justify all that immorality. 

The idea that there are distinct "races" of human beings isn’t simply about difference. "Race" was always a hierarchy, with pale-skinned Europeans at the top and people with dark skin on the bottom. In the racist mind-set, dark-skinned people were human enough to be raped, but somehow not human enough to be protected by the Ten Commandments.

The irony of judging people by their skin colour in brought out in the many aphorisms that we have in English that counsel against superficial judgements:

• Don't judge a book by it's cover
• Beauty is skin deep.
• All that glitters is not gold.
• Appearances can be deceiving.
• All fur coat and no knickers
• Still waters run deep.
• The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

“Race” was never about race. It was always about justifying capitalist immorality. The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount didn't apply if "the other races" were less than human. The "race" doctrine allowed Europeans to convince themselves that this was the case. Which in turn allowed them to act without any moral constraints: genocide, murder, rape, theft. There was no sin that European capitalists would not commit to in pursuit of profits.  

When it comes to European history, everything is about a handful of psychopaths greedy for wealth and power; using the rest of us as pawns in their vicious games. 

Consumption

Consuming less is an act of rebellion. Consuming the minimum is revolutionary. 

In Marx's view, 150 years ago, the economic contribution of working people was their labour. Sometimes called "the labour theory of value". 

Marx was not prescient. He could not have envisaged was how capitalism would define (or redefine) the contribution of working people in terms of the goods and services they consume. It is out consumption that drives demand, which drives profit. And profit is the raison d'etre of capitalism. 

Our desire to consume is ignited and fanned by constant and intense propaganda (aka advertising). We have never been exposed to more advertising than right now. 

Capitalists see labour as an overhead, not a contribution. We are supposed to "work hard" because that keeps overheads low and maximises profit for the capitalists. Lets face it, working hard has no benefits to us since they don't pay us extra for working hard and it leaves us with no energy for, e.g., our families. The exception is those who have been shouldered into the so-called "gig economy" (formerly known as "piece work" an unfair and outdated system that unions managed to virtually eliminate 100 years ago). 

Since consuming is our great contribution to society, it makes sense that products have a limited lifespan and have to be replaced often. People with money will tell you it's better to buy quality because it lasts. But if you don't have money you don't have the choice. The poor are stuck with the shoddy ersatz knockoffs that breaks as soon as you get them home. Low quality goods drive ongoing consumption.

There is no more working class or middle class. Everyone is "consumer class" now. And we are now further from the levers of power than we have been since our ancestors were serfs in a feudal state. The main parties in Britain all have the same economic view, the only view that is taught in universities. It literally does not matter who we vote for in the UK anymore. 

And yet over-consumption and planned obsolescence seem likely to make the earth unfit for human habitation in our lifetimes. 

Consuming less is an act of rebellion. Consuming the minimum is revolutionary. 

And if you consume less, you don't need to work hard. You can put energy into what matters to you. 

So... Grow your own and make your own. Do without. Recycle. Reuse. Buy second hand. 

Liberal Values Part of the Problem

A big part of the problem in the USA seems to be that US liberals believe their views on morality are absolute and universal. There are parallels in the UK as well, though they are generally less clear because of class, history, and other local factors.

Liberals seem to think, "we love diversity, so everyone must love diversity (eventually)". We just need to enforce diversity and they will see how great it is and fall into line. But people are not falling into line, are they? Instead they are abandoning democracy and following dictators.

At least 1/3 of any population does not love diversity and never will. They crave sameness (conformity) and oneness (group authority).

And this is not a moral or philosophical stance. It's not a reasoned position. They haven't thought about it and in all likelihood they cannot think clearly about it. It's a cognitive limit. Authoritarians lack the cognitive capacity to cope with diversity. They find diversity confusing, frustrating, overwhelming, etc. And no amount of talking about it, or rubbing their noses in it, will change this about them.

The authoritarian personality is something you are born with. While certain things can mitigate this personality type—e.g. urban setting, education—this is not something authoritarians can be expected to change.

This means that liberal arguments in favour of diversity apply. If you are born that way, if it is genetic, then you cannot be expected to change. Yes?

This is a powerful argument for acceptance, but it should be applied evenly. If someone cannot substantially change their personality, then (according to liberals themselves) we have an obligation to embrace those people as they are.

This also means that political correctness applies. Insulting and mocking people who lack a capacity we value is not politically correct. Yes? Maybe MAGA are stupid. How does pointing this out help? Have you ever responded positively to be labelled "stupid"? Has anyone?

If we accept this argument, and I do, then we should also apply it to people with the authoritarian personality. Because this is the right thing to do, by our values. And if that is not enough motivation, then consider that the alternative is that they feel an existential threat and start promoting authoritarian parties and leaders. And this allows them to impose their values on us without compromise.

So while the idea that we make peace with authoritarians is likely to a be very unpopular opinion, I cannot see any way to avoid fascism if we don't listen to them and find a compromise.

And after all, not all of the authoritarians' complaints are wackadoodle. Things are genuinely shitty for working people under neoliberalism. And billionaires are a cancer on our societies. So why not address these complaints?

Standards of living have been declining for 50 years. So why not address this problem?

Communities have been disrupted and in places gutted by unnecessary economic changes such as exporting jobs to the third world. So why not address this problem?

Politicians seem not only to lack vision, but also to lack a moral compass that prioritizes people. This is what happens when the business community take control of the apparatus of state. So why not address this problem?

No, the Authoritarians are not the most articulate people. Yes, sometimes their ideas seem silly, naive, etc. Yes, they sometimes express themselves in ways we find offensive. And yes, sometimes it does seem awfully personal and it makes me angry. So what? Demonising them doesn't help. And arguing doesn't change anything.

The only thing that will help is that their needs are met to the extent that they do not believe it is necessary abandon democracy to get what they need.

Politics is the art of compromise. And, folks, we have to compromise or we're going to lose it all.

Capitalism: The Bottom Line.

Either something replaces capitalism or we’re all dead in the medium term. 

Capitalists are like locusts. They see a resource, use violence to claim it as individual property, exploit it until it is exhausted, and then move on to the next resource, benefitting only themselves.

Capitalists are currently committed to:

• heating up the atmosphere with disastrous consequences for global climate/weather, including rising sea levels.
• poisoning land, water, and air with toxins, carcinogens, and mutagens.
• killing off all the pollinating insects with pesticides, destroying our ability to grow food to feed billions.
• burning down all the world’s forests and replacing them with monocrops.
• emptying the oceans of fish
• encouraging us all to adopt fascism (citizens serve the state).
• profiting from war, famine, drought, and plague
• destroying democracy

While there is a profit to be made, they won’t stop.

Unless we take power away from the wealthy, we’re doomed.

Eat the rich, before the rich eat you. 

Prognostication

I hope this won't come true. But a scifi book I read planted the idea in my head and I can't get it out. 

In 2028 there will be a US Presidential election as usual. Of course, the present incumbent cannot stand, so the Republicans will go through the motions of finding and fielding a candidate. 

However, on the day, rumours of election subversion (including faked video footage) will begin from early on. There will be little time for fact checking. 

Late that the night, just as it looks like a winner is emerging, the president will solemnly announce to the world that the election has been interfered with and the results cannot be accepted. The counting will have to cease. He will point to the history of interference in recent US elections and say that this is just the next level of attack on US Democracy. He will say 

"Never fear, good citizens, I am announcing a new election on [some date in the near future]. Let the planning and logistics commence immediately. Democracy will win! And in the meantime, I will graciously stay on as a caretaker, just till the next election. I'm so gracious." 

The liberal media will report strong scepticism or even outright hostility but it won't matter. The authoritarian media will say "We told you there was election interference." After all, they helped to create the lies about election interference to begin with. There will be so much going on that no one will be able to focus.

Foreign leaders are clearly terrified of the President, they will wring their hands over the obviously faked election tampering, and sternly state that the President must hold an election as soon as possible. In fact they have no leverage on him and he knows he can safely ignore them when it comes to domestic policy. And he's called an election anyway. 

At the same time, lawsuits will rain down to try stop the President. But, as President, the incumbent has the high ground already. And he has already announced a new election, so can say he has done the right thing. And the fake evidence will be the best that money can buy. 

He is also now a hardened veteran of the US court system that can run rings around any liberal lawyer. As before, he doesn't have to win in court, he just has to delay until he gets more leverage. 

The day of the new election comes and people rush out to vote, again. However, once again the enemies of democracy will mysteriously strike and the election will have to be set aside. Now the President says,

"Well, we will have to look into this before we can announce another election. But we will be having a joint commission of the legislature (run by his cronies there) and the Justice department will also deputise 3 supreme court justices (appointed by the incumbent) to run a parallel investigation. Once we hear back from them, we'll announce a new election. I promise you we will get to the bottom of this blatant election tampering. And you know I always keep my promises."

Then nothing much happens for a year or two. The commissions are lived-streamed and become morbidly fascinating. But the picture that emerges will be confusing and no one will really understand what officials are saying. The initial adrenaline will have worn off. The media cannot help themselves and will have moved on to more exciting news. And sections of the media wildly contradict each other anyway, so no one knows what to think.

The situation starts to normalise.

People are still complaining and courts cases mount, but the backlog is huge and none will be decided within 2 years. The President doesn't have to win, as long as he doesn't lose. A delay is all that he  needs. 

If another date is announced, something will go wrong with that one also. If a new election is not announced, then a new diversion, will be announced. Perhaps the USA will need to go to war with another country? Maybe China? Or more likely a smaller fish. Maybe it's time to liberate Cuba from communism and turn it back into a casino for wealthy Americans? 

Whatever it is, the President will throw something hugely divisive on the table and let people fight it out, while privately not giving a shit about it. 

The President is a master of delaying and avoiding consequences. As long as the President has support from the Republicans and Christians, which he does, he could stay in power this way indefinitely. Without even declaring martial law. And that's a possibility too, if the "threat to democracy" is serious enough. 

Although it is still de rigueur to treat the President as a joke, an idiot, and an embarrassment, the man has been President of the United States, twice. Fool me once... 

We need to wise up and start treating him as what he is: a dangerous sociopath. A threat to society and to civilisation. 

He is not Hitler, but he is our "Hitler". Yes? 

Is Capitalism Better Than Other Systems?

 Let’s start with a few definitions.

Capital is accumulated wealth above and beyond what one needs to live well (and have a nest egg). Most rich people inherited their (initial) capital.

A capitalist is someone whose income depends not on work, but on gambling with some part of their hoard of accumulated wealth (aka “investments”).

Capitalism is the ideology that holds

1. the accumulation of wealth is the highest good; and thus leads to the greatest happiness (utilitarianism)
2. Commerce is the highest form of human culture (plutolatry: “wealth worship”).
3. those with the most wealth are most competent and temperamentally suited to rule (plutocracy “rule by the wealthy”)
4. all human interactions are transactions (transactionalism)

As far as the question goes:

Capitalism—the combination of plutolatry, plutocracy, utilitarianism, and transactionalism—is best for people who have capital. Because they are the only ones who can come out on top. They have all the influence and power.

For anyone who has no capital—who has to work for a living—capitalism is the worst possible alternative. Because without capital a person has no influence, let alone power.

Like all tyrants, the plutocrats fear being outnumbered and overwhelmed by the workers. So they keep us divided and confused. As ought to be evident from the internet.

My Answer to the Question: Who owns property in socialism?

Trying to discuss socialism in terms drawn from the capitalist ideology—whence terms like “own” and “property”—is not that easy. It’s like trying to discuss science using Biblical terminology.

Although you’ve never known anything else, the jargon of capitalism is not neutral.

The jargon you use is based on an ideology. In that ideology, working people are just another resource to be exploited. And thus the ideas that such terms represent are entirely foreign to socialism.

What we generally mean by “owning” is this: Using violence or the threat of it to exclude other people from using something valuable, for the life time of the person claiming exclusive rights. The owner class have set up institutions and systems—laws, police, courts—to normalise their violence and protect their ownership from their neighbours. Violence is normalised and institutionalised in capitalism.

By the way, this is also why capitalism has produced a discourse of “individual rights”. It’s fundamentally about the right of the owner class to own everything and their right to be the ruling class.

Socialists often emphasise our mutual obligations rather than our individual rights. And vest rulership in the collective.

The people who own things for a living and the people who work for a living tend to define “property” differently. The owning class require exclusive use of a good, because that is their livelihood and they make no other contribution. In this way, the thing owned becomes an “asset”. And

The socialist critique of capitalism is really centred around “property” in the sense of assets that fund the luxurious lifestyle of the owner class. We aren’t concerned with the tools of your trade, your clothing, or your knickknacks. Your stuff, your essentially worthless stuff, is yours, for all the good it will do you. Our focus is on assets and the system that the owner class have set up to protect their assets.

The working class tend not to own assets because the start-up costs are prohibitive. The owning class generally inherit their stake. For example, it used to be that working people could afford to buy a house with a mortgage - a long term loan in which one pays 100% or more of the cost of the house in interest, so the bank doubles their money with no work. This is what my father did (mother did not work and in those days that was affordable). But this is being taken away in order to fund more billionaires. And keep in mind that one autistic American billionaire just spent $250 million to help get Trump elected and thus get a seat at the table deciding how the violence of the state will be employed against citizens.

So most of the stuff that the worker class “own” is not the same kind of “property” because they can derive no income from it. Indeed, for non-asset goods the value usually declines over time.

For most socialists, certain things that are currently considered “property”, are thought of differently. Land is not something one can legitimately “own” for example. As a socialist society we would collectively negotiate the best use of the land. And we might divide it up, on a temporary basis, between people based on need and capacity. One may have exclusive access to land only by the consent of everyone. And it would be nuts not to grant exclusive use to farmers, for example, because they need it to grow food. But it would mean that incompetent farmers might be moved on to some other form of livelihood, by general agreement.

Just as the land itself is a good whose exploitation should benefit everyone. Similarly with what comes out of the land. Things such as oil, minerals, and diamonds cannot be legitimately owned by anyone merely on the basis of their willingness to use violence or the violence inherent in the system to exclude others.

These things exist whether someone owns them or not. And simply owning them contributes nothing to society. Indeed, exclusive ownership of assets is generally to detriment of the society. In the USA, for example, some 44 million live in poverty. Some 26 million don’t have any health insurance. And some 2 million people are incarcerated (the highest proportion in the industrialised world). All this in the richest country in the world.

In capitalism, people have no value unless they work to make the owner class richer. And since they are only ever willing to pay the minimum, for working people capitalism is a race to the bottom. At the end of the game of Monopoly, one person owns everything and everyone else is dead. It’s a quite a vision of society.

In socialism, the owner class make no contribution to society despite their evident capacity to do so. Therefore, they should get no benefit from society. And society should definitely not agree to their having exclusive access to a vast hoard of wealth while their neighbours starve or die of treatable illnesses. 

Why did Trump win? (For anyone who hasn't got it yet).

Since 2000, the median cost of healthcare, education, and housing have all risen by 250-300%. New cars are up ~170%. The median wage has risen by just 25%. 

Something like 3 out of 5 of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. If they lose that paycheck, they're homeless. And US welfare is minimal. 

Since Reaganomics took hold ca 1980, the poor are either in poverty or one small step away. Middle-income earners can no longer afford a middle-class lifestyle, i.e. they are now poor. 

Meanwhile billionaires are ostentatiously flourishing and using their vast wealth to gain political influence. 

Reagan also radicalised the "evangelicals" so that they see a real prospect of a theocracy in the US. A program they associated with Republicans in government. And Trump delivered them the Supreme Court last time. 

Skilled propaganda has the Democrats taking the blame for the failures of neoliberalism (btw... in just the same way that 19th century liberalism failed). Moreover, they seemed to run on "business as usual" platform. They didn't seem to acknowledge how bad things are the majority. 

Add in ongoing paranoia and xenophobia engendered by the 9/11 attacks and Covid. 

Add in the profound and growing distrust in politicians generally... for all the obvious reasons.  

The fact is that for most Americans, and certainly for all of the least affluent, America is not a great place to live anymore. 

Then along came Trump. Promising to make it great again, running against a party who were insisting that "everything is fine", we just need to tweak things a little. 

It's not like this is rocket science. If you don't look after your citizens, they will eventually revolt. This is after all, the founding myth of the USA. Voting Trump may have been the laziest citizen revolt in history, but a revolt it was. 

Unfortunately, as far as replacing failed neoliberalism goes, fascism is the worst possible choice. But fascism was the only choice on offer. And in any culture, there's always a sizeable minority who, when stressed, think a fascist is the best choice. 

My Answer to the question "What does it mean to be on the left"?

Simplifying somewhat, there are people who work for a living and people who own things for a living. The vast majority of people are required by random circumstance to work; while a fortunate few inherit or acquire enough wealth that they don't need to work.

On “the left”, we believe that people who work for a living, the majority, should be in charge, and that public goods (like land, oil, gold etc) should be owned collectively and exploited for the benefit of all.

We believe that people who own things for a living are simply parasites who benefit from the work of others without making any contribution. Political systems designed by and for people who own things for a living are invariably systems of institutionalised violence and tyranny.

We believe that no one ever gets to the point of owning things for a living by "their own efforts" or by "working hard". In reality, a community of humans is interdependent: we all rely on each other. Rich people are invariably born into fortunate circumstances and exploit everyone around them to get into a position of owning stuff for a living. Wealth is not a measure of value, but of luck and cunning.

We believe that work is necessary and that given the necessity, everyone should be able to live a comfortable life by whatever contribution they are capable of making. No one in our society should ever go hungry. 

This can be contrasted with “the right”, who believe that people who own things for a living, the tiny minority, should be in charge. Public goods are amongst the most valuable stuff that the people who own things for a living own and claim exclusive access to. They believe that exploitation of public goods should only benefit the owners.

People who own things for a living are often unwilling or unable to acknowledge the contributions that friends, family, educators, coaches, and especially workers, have made to their success. Indeed, people who own things for a living see workers as a burden and an expense. One result is that they aim to eliminate as many workers as possible, or to replace them with machines and computers.

On the left, we recognise that owning stuff does not lead to contentment or happiness. Nor does owning stuff make anyone wise or trustworthy. Hoarding is a recognised mental illness, if it’s newspapers or string, but if one hoards wealth, it is somehow a measure of “success”. A billionaire is simply someone with a mental illness that used the leverage of their wealth to assert the normality of their pathological condition. No one can earn enough wealth for 1000 or a million lifetimes. And hoards are, in any case, an extremely inefficient distribution and use of resources. Billionaires are economically incoherent in a country that has millions of people living poverty.

On the right they are not bothered by people living in poverty or even starving to death. They will happily pay a worker considerably less than it costs to stay alive; or nothing, if they can get away with it. And at the same time, they are vocally critical of attempts to uplift workers to a position in which they can stay alive. If the government gets involved in helping those who work for a living, those who own things for a living are apt to become apoplectically angry (while with the other hand greedily accepting lucrative government contracts and subsidies).

One might say that people who own things for a living have a Hobbesian view of humanity as chaotic and requiring tyranny. And people who work tend to a Rousseauean view in which humanity is better off without any form of tyranny.

On the left, we think that if all the people who worked disappeared overnight, the people who own stuff for a living would probably be dead inside a month. But if the people who own stuff for a living all disappeared, it would only benefit those who work for a living. Working serves a purpose and benefits the community. Owning does not serve a purpose and does not benefit the community.  

At best, owning things is a completely and utterly useless activity for any human being to pursue. At worst it is actually threatening life on earth via climate change, pollution, and ecosystem destruction.

Unfortunately a substantial portion of people who work for a living are convinced, by pro-owning-stuff propaganda, that they can pursue happiness through owning stuff. However, this never leads to owning stuff for a living, because the fancy stuff that workers buy—cars, TVs, computers—doesn’t provide them with an income. Indeed, consumer goods are next to worthless almost as soon as get them home,  they are designed to break and/or fail, and they often end up costing the owner money. Still, a lot of workers are enthusiastic supporters of people who own stuff, and of rule by the owners of stuff, because now they too have a lot of stuff.

On the left we don’t see how those people who own things for a living can possibly rule to our benefit, since at best they see us as a burden and an expense; and at worse they see us as resources to be exploited. The phrase human resources is a a chilling reminder of this. Given power, history shows that people who own things for a living arrange whole societies solely to their own benefit. 

And all of this has been blindingly obvious

to those on the left for around 150 years.

The great problem on the left is disagreement over details of how to put workers in charge, leading to militant factionalism. As, (former) Marxist-Lenninist, Alexei Sayle, once put it: “The people we hated the most were the wrong kind of socialists”. This is beautifully illustrated—at least as far as the UK is concerned—in the political satire of Monty Python’s Life of Brian (which has fuck all to do with religion as far as I can see).

This is one way of talking about what it means to me to be “on the left”. I don’t particular identify with labels like “socialist”, “communist”, etc. I’m certainly not a Marxist, though I do think that Marx’s 150 year old articulation of the problems of capitalism are as relevant as ever. 

I’m probably some kind of anarchist, in the sense that I don’t think having a ruling class is necessary at all. We are grown ups and we can govern ourselves, thanks all the same. But if we must be ruled, then let it be workers who rule, not parasites who make no contribution beyond owning things that ought to be public goods anyway.

Responding to the Question of how and when the US Republican Party Embraced Fascism.

Republicans consciously drove the process. This was not an accident, it was a plan. And not a secret plan. It was all done out in the open.

Some key dates are

1971: Nixon solves his Vietnam problem by crashing out of the gold standard and ending the post-war economic consensus. This creates a vacuum that is filled by far-right intellections, notably Hayek and Friedman.

Robert Powell issues his now famous memo—outlining his plan for a neoliberal revolution in the USA which puts business men firmly in control of everything. Something like this plan is eventually implemented by the Republicans and their cronies.

For example, they end up totally controlling how economics is taught at all levels: now all economics students only ever learn Hayek and Friedman and other far-right economists.

1973: The first oil shock caused by oil producing countries in Arabia taking back control of their oil from the US and the UK.

When Iran tries to follow suit it was sentenced to 25 years of rule by US-backed dictator. When Venezuela tries it, they are virtually wiped off the map. The House of Saud prevails, and begins enthusiastically exporting what we now call Islamism to the world in the hope of converting the world to Islam and destroying the unbelievers in the USA.

The first post-war recessions hit and change the economic landscape of the world. And this creates a crisis of confidence in the post-Keynesian consensus. Enter the neoliberals. When economists, journalists, and politicians have all been indoctrinated in the same monoculture, there is no meaningful discussion about alternatives. They all believe that neoliberal economics is the only viable alternative.

This situation never gets better. Wages stagnate, US jobs are exported to Mexico and China (the USA’s bitter enemy), and yet the people who own things for a living become incalculably better off at the expense of literally everyone else.

1979: Reagan, fearing that he will lose to incumbent Jimmy Carter, has his henchmen make a deal with Gerry Falwell and other Televangelists, to radicalise and mobilise their previously apolitical cult members to support the Republicans in return for the Republicans pushing a fundamentalist Christian political agenda. They believe they have been promised a theocracy in the USA and begin agitating to bring about the Apocalypse. (And of course, Trump hands these people their greatest victory in the SCOTUS striking down Roe v Wade).

On taking office, Reagan appoints disciple of the Ayn Rand cult, Alan Greenspan, as Sect of the Treasury. Greenspan is one of the most extreme anarcho-capitalists on the planet. He tears down all impediments to exploiting the shit out of citizens. Later, Greenspan convinces Bill Clinton not to fulfill any of this campaign promises because “there is no money [in the richest country in the world]”.

Throughout this period the USA is constantly at war, but most especially in Central and Southern America. The USA has toppled more democratically elected foreign governments that it has elected presidents.

At this point the writing was already on the wall. And one can find, for example, Frank Zappa already loudly complaining in TV interviews about the USA becoming “a fascist theocracy”.

2001: having fought all their wars in other people’s back yards, the Americans are shocked when a group of Saudi nationals (trained by former US ally Osama bin Laden) carry out a daring plan to fly planes into iconic buildings. Two out of three succeed. About 3000 US citizens are killed. Which is less that domestic terrorism

The USA attacks Afghanistan, kills in the order of 200,000 innocent civilians, summarily executes Bin in Pakistan (where he has lived for many years), then withdraws leaving the Taliban in charge. The total cost of this pointless exercise to the USA was in excess of $2 trillion.

For good measure they utterly destroy the civil infrastructure of Iraq and leave it a smoking ruin. At a cost of $3 trillion.

Government debt goes up, so they “have no choice” but to slash budgets and taxes for people who own things for a living. Cutting taxes for the rich is a central policy platform of neoliberalism (especially in the USA).

Since 2000 the US median wage has risen by 25%. But the median cost of healthcare, medicine, and education has all risen by 250–300%. The median cost of a new car has risen by 177%. Middle income earners can no longer afford a middle class lifestyle

Domestically, 9/11 flips a switch in the hearts of many Americans. They start thinking “We are under attack!” “We are not safe.”

At this point, fascism and the collapse of democracy in the US are more or less certain (though few of us could see it at the time). The paranoia does not subside because far-right agitators are the most paranoid of all. Suddenly xenophobia is the rule in formerly tolerant and welcoming Americans. Now all foreigners are viewed with suspicion.

The police become increasingly militarised. School shootings become an epidemic that the USA seems unable to do anything about. “At the same time, as of 2020, right-wing extremist terrorism accounted for the majority of terrorist attacks and plots in the US and has killed more people in the continental United States since the September 11 attacks than Islamic terrorism” — Wikipedia.

The switch never got flipped back to its peacetime setting. The USA now sees itself as being at war with the rest of the world. And they have elected a leader who wants to lead this war, against worthy Democratic opponents who refuse to acknowledge the problems that obsess Middle America. At around the same time as the US succumbs to the paranoia of 9/11, middle income earners are realising that they cannot afford a middle class lifestyle any more.

The average American can objectively say that their way of life is under attack. What no one ever seems to get is that the problem is imperialism and neoliberalism. By treating everyone with contempt, the Americans have sowed the seeds of their own destruction. But most especially, if you shank the middle classes, they will organise against you.

It was foolish and reprehensible for the Democrats to run a business-as-usual campaign when middle America is both paranoid and broke; while the 1% are becoming ever more ostentatious in their conspicuous consumption and ever less philanthropic.

But you have to remember that Democrats could have defeated fascism at any point along the way, if they had taken it seriously. They did not. They thought Trump running was funny. Then he won, and they were like “how could this happen?”. Even now, after Trump has won a second term, they are like, “this could never happen, so it didn’t happen”. Fool me once…

Meanwhile confirmed drug addled, serial rapist, and fascist bully-boy, Matt Gaetz is set to be AG and thus the principal weapon in Trump’s revenge against the Democrats: key figures and institutions are going to be targeted by the AG and the DOJ. It would not surprise me if, four years from now the Democratic Party is officially denounced as a terrorist organisation and their assets seized by the state. They won’t wait 4 years like the hapless Democrats.