15 ms·

If past history is anything to go by they will support "moderate and conservative" status quo politicians until the point where the people have given up on them

If past history is anything to go by they will support "moderate and conservative" status quo politicians until the point where the people have given up on them and started seeking more radical change - from ever more extreme versions of the right and the left. At that point the ultrawealthy will seek to form an alliance with the growing popularity of the far right and seek to annihilate the left. This is simple self preservation. The far left will, after all, seek to destroy billionaires whereas the far right will seek out easier targets who look/sound different (muslims, immigrants, jews, gays, people of color, etc.). The point where things start to become terrifying will be the point where billionaires give up on status quo politicians and start to throw their weight behind the far right. That's when the far right switch from being a bunch of racist, loser skinhead misfits into a well funded, slick and violent ultranationalist nightmare. As far as I can tell, the current weimaresque neoliberal age is sputtering to a close and we're seeing the beginnings of this pattern re-emerging.

javajosh 7y ago
>will seek out easier targets who look/sound different (muslims, immigrants, jews, gays, people of color, etc.) We assume the 1% is white, christian and male, but is it? And insofar as it isn't, I think it's unlikely that scapegoats will be picked in the traditional (e.g. racist) way. One non-racial scapegoat category be criminals -- the right is already successful scapegoating illegal immigrants for a remarkable variety of issues.
- jacobush 7y ago
  It wouldn't matter. As a 0.01 percenter, you have immunity from being gay or whatever, as you are bankrolling and in symbiosis with the nationalists.
- alxjrvs 7y ago
  I think it is fair to say that targeting "illegal immigrants" satisfies both racial and "criminal" requirements. Criminality itself is fairly racial.
- pytester 7y ago
  I think it's quite hard to pick out which groups will end up being the scapegoat du jour, although there are some hints. I think the hammer is much more likely to come down on Muslims than Jews in the west, for instance. Whichever group it is, some wealthy people will probably get caught up in it and flee the country.
claudeganon 7y ago
> The point where things start to become terrifying will be the point where billionaires give up on status quo politicians and start to throw their weight behind the far right. That's when the far right switch from being a bunch of racist, loser skinhead misfits into a well funded, slick and violent ultranationalist nightmare. Haven’t they already done through new forms of mass culture? Many of these “conservative intellectuals” are little more than bought and sold mouthpieces of the ruling class whose voices are then algorithmically targeted and boosted through platforms like YouTube and Facebook. And in many cases, what they’re serving up is actually little more than warmed over Nazism. Few people, for example, know that hatred of trans people was something first cultivated by the Nazis, who claimed that their existence was a disease of “Talmudic abstraction” of gender from sex. [0] How many of the “superstars” on the right have built a career on or parrot this kind of talk today? [0] https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/4188-the-eradication-of-talmudic-abstractions-anti-semitism-transmisogyny-and-the-national-socialist-project https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/4188-the-eradication-of-tal...
maxaf 7y ago
> If past history is anything to go by they will support "moderate and conservative" status quo politicians until the point where the people have given up on them and started seeking more radical change - from ever more extreme versions of the right and the left. Could you point to some reading that would help one become educated on this past history?
- claudeganon 7y ago
  You should start with the history of the Weimar Republic, as the parent indicated, and it’s slide into Nazism. Fascism is more multifaceted than this specific manifestation, but its circumstance most parallel our own age.
- AlexB138 7y ago
  I'd suggest reading up on the rise the Bolsheviks in Russia and Mao in China if you want to have some context for what these people are talking about. The Great Courses offers some great lectures on both subjects.
  - freeflight 7y ago
    If one really wants to summon the Bolsheviks to explain fascism, it might as well be trough the Bavarian Soviet Republic [0]. Because that's some regularly overlooked context to the rise of Hitler, with his brand of fascism focused on anti-Bolshevik/communist sentiments which neatly played into racial theories [1] and stereotypes [2] that were rather common back then. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarian_Soviet_Republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarian_Soviet_Republic [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untermensch#Etymology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untermensch#Etymology [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_International_Jew https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_International_Jew
- Fnoord 7y ago
  > Could you point to some reading that would help one become educated on this past history? You might want to look into the Weimar Republic (the period of the region what is approx known as Germany between WWI and WWII). I'd start with Wikipedia. Babylon Berlin is a (fiction) series about that period. I guess you meant a historic book reading though.
rayiner 7y ago
> At that point the ultrawealthy will seek to form an alliance with the growing popularity of the far right and seek to annihilate the left. That’s a weird characterization, given that the trend has been in the opposite direction: https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2016/6/3/11843780/democrats-wealthy-party https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2016/6/3/11843780/democrats-we... Also, frankly, the attempt to make it seem like the “left” has a monopoly on “people of color” and “immigrants” is offensive. Trump got almost 30% of the Hispanic vote, and it’s not because of the lovely things he said about Hispanic people. Abbott got over 40% of the Hispanic vote in Texas. The idea that billionaires are going to form a coalition with nazis to oppress “people of color” is a leftist fever dream.
- claudeganon 7y ago
  I would say the ultrawealthy’s cooption of the Democratic Party, moving it away from anything like a class-based politics, has actually been one of the more effective forms of undermining and destroying the left.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - mark_l_watson 7y ago
    +1 I almost totally agree with you. We may differ in opinion somewhat because I think that both the DNC and RNC cater to the ultra wealthy, and the democrat and republican machines compete to get votes and more support from the ultra wealthy by both doing anything the ultra wealthy want them to. For the Democrats, I am not talking about AOC and Bernie Sanders (who will always be demonized in the media) but referring to most democratic politicians (and Republicans, of course) who bend over backwards to protect corporate interests.
    - Amygaz 7y ago
      AOC isn't anti-wealth, she is anti-greed, and with good reason, because greedy people are psychopaths. If you align your MO with hers, you'll be just fine, even as an ultra wealthy. Currently, the billionaires in this country are split pretty much equally between the two sides, the same way the country is split pretty much equally. They are a good representation of the society we created here. While many on HN know that model is flawed, unsustainable, and that we need to try something new, we also know that dinosaurs have a hard them to let go. The movie, music, and video game industries are example of groups led by greedy dinosaurs who resisted changes brought by the internet. With AOC, we should be promoting and rewarding community success, as opposed to that of an individual like we do with the current pseudo-merit travesty system that we have. I do not see how this conflict with being highly profitable. I actually think that more people would be more motivated and more profitable with a more inclusive system.
j_m_b 7y ago
It's funny you reference the 'neoliberal age' because in the 'pre-neoliberal age' totalitarian regimes were nationalistic and far right e.g. Nazi Germany. However, in this 'neoliberal age' the most totalitarian regimes are actually far left with noticeable examples being the PRC and DPRK. A far more concerning trend is the radicalization of far left ideology and the zero tolerance shown by its members. Cancel-culture is a symptom, lack of diversity in speakers on campus are a symptom. This isn't just me saying it, Dave Chappelle highlighted the cancel culture and Barack Obama has noted this trend on college campuses. Right-wing neonazi groups are on the fringe of society whereas left-wing ideology is mainstream culture.
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  > However, in this 'neoliberal age' the most totalitarian regimes are actually far left with noticeable examples being the PRC and DPRK. While there is absolutely no denying that the PRC and DPRK are totalitarian regimes, many scholars of political economy and sociology would argue that they are simply totalitarian in a different way; for instance, one common theme is that the notion of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia has conditioned us to think of totalitarianism in a very specific way with specific consequences. The issue is that totalitarianism can acutally be conceived of in terms of totality, a concept critics of neoliberalism use a lot. See the work of Herbert Marcuse, who, while before the time of neoliberalism, argued the notion of totality in the West, while quantitatively not as bad as the regimes you name, was still more pernicious in the fact that we don't consider them totalitarian. Orwell was somewhat of a break in this style of thinking, but now we conceive of totalitarianism as Orwellian rather than otherwise. I have a comment here[0] with more about this. In short, we tend to start from the assumption that are own societies are not totalitarian because the totalitarianism is natural to us. But it's also a mistake to assume that there is a "view from nowhere" which can tell us which societies are tolatitarian and which are not. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20187622 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20187622
- tonyedgecombe 7y ago
  I'm not sure I'd call China far left, autocratic certainly but they have embraced capitalism.
dls2016 7y ago
Bret Stephens (nytimes) and Rahm Emanuel (politico) had some banger op eds on this topic yesterday. Absolute brain worms.
- NorthOf33rd 7y ago
  https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/11/08/democrats-2020-advice-rahm-emanuel-229909 https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/11/08/democrats... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/opinion/bloomberg-running-for-president-2020.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/opinion/bloomberg-running...
lowiqprogrammer 7y ago
You ignore the fact that Jews make up a massive percent of billionaires. I would venture to guess that white christains have a smaller portion compared to their population size. If the far right takes out Jews it would be equivalent to taking out a large size of billionaires. Not a popular talking point, but a true talking point.
Fnoord 7y ago
The lack of a middle class is indeed a characteristic of a fascist (e.g. national socialist) society.
ossworkerrights 7y ago
Much of the rest of the world is made of countries where people have been exploited long enough to not be able to fight back. The us is just starting to experience this, but unlike in ww2, there is no us to ...save the us. I think there will indeed be a growth in social and political tension, but the majority of the population quickly be put in its place.
- ghemsley 7y ago
  I am very afraid of this. In a sense, we may be the country that is least able to fight back. Imagine the the U.S. military-industrial complex operating at full-strength with its sights set on the resistance, with the support of our world-class surveillance apparatus. What hope do we have against any of it? Without some hivemind-like ability to coordinate ourselves, we are probably pretty doomed. And surely if not, China and Russia will be waiting to take further advantage of a weakened U.S.A. in the event of any inroads made towards dethroning the existing regime. I fear they would be fairly successful. Someone please convince me otherwise?
  - ossworkerrights 7y ago
    IMO this is a good question. It's pretty tempting to hijack an existing infrastructure such as the US army to push back an unhappy people should they become an annoyance, and the US army is by most standards, pretty scary. But I think the US has a few more steps before reaching that stage. Making sure people are obedient is a process that started long ago, by denying them healthcare, housing or education, unless they are disciplined enough to work and not to question the system; while regulating in favor of well entrenched oligarchy. I think the best way to coordinate is by starting cultural trends. Sudden change and revolution almost never lead to anything, and if we look at the history of the US, it's "power" is exactly that: cultural change. The tech "class" is already attempting this, but I think the approach and message are wrong and don't resonate with enough people, to create something at the scale of the hippie era. So the US really needs the US to save itself, but by developing an ever stronger middle class, and mechanisms to protect each other's health, while allowing for money to move around freely. And I think tech can be a part of that solution (no, I am not thinking encrypted chat, AI to hack the gov, or other non american kinds of weapons, but rather genuine solutions). The more power they have, the more they can keep the government in check.
gshdg 7y ago
Huh, that sounds familiar. Koch brothers? Trump? We’re already in that transition.
faissaloo 7y ago
>The far left will, after all, seek to destroy billionaires whereas the far right will seek out easier targets who look/sound different The far right's concern is those who seem different, but there is also an intersection between billionaires and those who seem different. >30% of the people on Forbes 400 are of Jewish ethnicity and the far-right loves to harp on about it.
jarek-foksa 7y ago
I would rather expect them to continue the divide and rule tactics which has worked pretty well so far. You don't have to form any alliances if you control both sides and you have the media and the lumpenproletariat to your disposal. In the worst case scenario, the working class will engage in an ethnic guerrilla warfare (thus making the state even weaker and easier to corrupt) rather that a revolution against the elites.
badrabbit 7y ago
I thought Nazis were leftist? I think your presumptions about left/right are heavily biased by modern US politics. Abe Lincoln and the Union were "right" (republican),many of the modern GOPs initial members were free black people. Of course by 2019 standards everyone of that era is far right in the US. You have to also consider that even now left/right can mean different things in different societies. Here is one way to put it: billionaires will lie in bed with whoever has their best interest. The group that has their best interest is usually the group that can't acheive it's goals through democratic or other preestablished process. The popular side does not need them, and being popular means doing the bidding of the majority non-rich. If republicans are very popular,democrats will be in bed with billionaires to advance their agenda. It is a simple economics of supply and demand. IMO, history actually shows how ideology means little compared to ability to weild power. You like many have this Us vs Them attitude where you've been sociologically engineered to group yourself with certain groups,the same is happening to others. This makes divide and conquer very easy to all available hostile parties. I think there are plenty of forces at work that desire the fall of the west and America's global dominance. Everyone knows that even if major nuclear powers unite,defeating america in nuclear or conventional war is very very hard and expensive. The best way to dismantle such a large and powerful enemy is from the inside out -- similar to what the wesr did to the USSR. The billionaires have money but money means nothing if you can't spend it and keep it. Nation states control billionaires and billionaires exert a lot of influence on nation states. The American lead liberal world order is not beneficial to nation states all over the world and it keeps getting worse from their perspective. Billionaires are good at moving their money elsewhere,the problem is America's reach is far. You can see how so many parties have to gain from the great american division. I think billionaires backed or encouraged by hostile nation states desire to instill division that can be used to control america and if it comes to it,destroy the west. Bear in mind this is just my opinionated analysis.
throwawaysea 7y ago
I’m confused by the use of “weimaresque” here. The Weimar Republic has very different political and economic circumstances than recent America. It feels like a boogeyman.

javajosh 7y ago

>will seek out easier targets who look/sound different (muslims, immigrants, jews, gays, people of color, etc.) We assume the 1% is white, christian and male, but is it? And insofar as it isn't, I think it's unlikely that scapegoats will be picked in the traditional (e.g. racist) way. One non-racial scapegoat category be criminals -- the right is already successful scapegoating illegal immigrants for a remarkable variety of issues.

jacobush 7y ago
It wouldn't matter. As a 0.01 percenter, you have immunity from being gay or whatever, as you are bankrolling and in symbiosis with the nationalists.
alxjrvs 7y ago
I think it is fair to say that targeting "illegal immigrants" satisfies both racial and "criminal" requirements. Criminality itself is fairly racial.
pytester 7y ago
I think it's quite hard to pick out which groups will end up being the scapegoat du jour, although there are some hints. I think the hammer is much more likely to come down on Muslims than Jews in the west, for instance. Whichever group it is, some wealthy people will probably get caught up in it and flee the country.

claudeganon 7y ago

> The point where things start to become terrifying will be the point where billionaires give up on status quo politicians and start to throw their weight behind the far right. That's when the far right switch from being a bunch of racist, loser skinhead misfits into a well funded, slick and violent ultranationalist nightmare. Haven’t they already done through new forms of mass culture? Many of these “conservative intellectuals” are little more than bought and sold mouthpieces of the ruling class whose voices are then algorithmically targeted and boosted through platforms like YouTube and Facebook. And in many cases, what they’re serving up is actually little more than warmed over Nazism. Few people, for example, know that hatred of trans people was something first cultivated by the Nazis, who claimed that their existence was a disease of “Talmudic abstraction” of gender from sex. [0] How many of the “superstars” on the right have built a career on or parrot this kind of talk today? [0] https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/4188-the-eradication-of-talmudic-abstractions-anti-semitism-transmisogyny-and-the-national-socialist-project https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/4188-the-eradication-of-tal...

maxaf 7y ago

> If past history is anything to go by they will support "moderate and conservative" status quo politicians until the point where the people have given up on them and started seeking more radical change - from ever more extreme versions of the right and the left. Could you point to some reading that would help one become educated on this past history?

claudeganon 7y ago
You should start with the history of the Weimar Republic, as the parent indicated, and it’s slide into Nazism. Fascism is more multifaceted than this specific manifestation, but its circumstance most parallel our own age.
AlexB138 7y ago
I'd suggest reading up on the rise the Bolsheviks in Russia and Mao in China if you want to have some context for what these people are talking about. The Great Courses offers some great lectures on both subjects.
- freeflight 7y ago
  If one really wants to summon the Bolsheviks to explain fascism, it might as well be trough the Bavarian Soviet Republic [0]. Because that's some regularly overlooked context to the rise of Hitler, with his brand of fascism focused on anti-Bolshevik/communist sentiments which neatly played into racial theories [1] and stereotypes [2] that were rather common back then. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarian_Soviet_Republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarian_Soviet_Republic [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untermensch#Etymology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untermensch#Etymology [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_International_Jew https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_International_Jew
Fnoord 7y ago
> Could you point to some reading that would help one become educated on this past history? You might want to look into the Weimar Republic (the period of the region what is approx known as Germany between WWI and WWII). I'd start with Wikipedia. Babylon Berlin is a (fiction) series about that period. I guess you meant a historic book reading though.

rayiner 7y ago

> At that point the ultrawealthy will seek to form an alliance with the growing popularity of the far right and seek to annihilate the left. That’s a weird characterization, given that the trend has been in the opposite direction: https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2016/6/3/11843780/democrats-wealthy-party https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2016/6/3/11843780/democrats-we... Also, frankly, the attempt to make it seem like the “left” has a monopoly on “people of color” and “immigrants” is offensive. Trump got almost 30% of the Hispanic vote, and it’s not because of the lovely things he said about Hispanic people. Abbott got over 40% of the Hispanic vote in Texas. The idea that billionaires are going to form a coalition with nazis to oppress “people of color” is a leftist fever dream.

claudeganon 7y ago
I would say the ultrawealthy’s cooption of the Democratic Party, moving it away from anything like a class-based politics, has actually been one of the more effective forms of undermining and destroying the left.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- mark_l_watson 7y ago
  +1 I almost totally agree with you. We may differ in opinion somewhat because I think that both the DNC and RNC cater to the ultra wealthy, and the democrat and republican machines compete to get votes and more support from the ultra wealthy by both doing anything the ultra wealthy want them to. For the Democrats, I am not talking about AOC and Bernie Sanders (who will always be demonized in the media) but referring to most democratic politicians (and Republicans, of course) who bend over backwards to protect corporate interests.
  - Amygaz 7y ago
    AOC isn't anti-wealth, she is anti-greed, and with good reason, because greedy people are psychopaths. If you align your MO with hers, you'll be just fine, even as an ultra wealthy. Currently, the billionaires in this country are split pretty much equally between the two sides, the same way the country is split pretty much equally. They are a good representation of the society we created here. While many on HN know that model is flawed, unsustainable, and that we need to try something new, we also know that dinosaurs have a hard them to let go. The movie, music, and video game industries are example of groups led by greedy dinosaurs who resisted changes brought by the internet. With AOC, we should be promoting and rewarding community success, as opposed to that of an individual like we do with the current pseudo-merit travesty system that we have. I do not see how this conflict with being highly profitable. I actually think that more people would be more motivated and more profitable with a more inclusive system.

j_m_b 7y ago

It's funny you reference the 'neoliberal age' because in the 'pre-neoliberal age' totalitarian regimes were nationalistic and far right e.g. Nazi Germany. However, in this 'neoliberal age' the most totalitarian regimes are actually far left with noticeable examples being the PRC and DPRK. A far more concerning trend is the radicalization of far left ideology and the zero tolerance shown by its members. Cancel-culture is a symptom, lack of diversity in speakers on campus are a symptom. This isn't just me saying it, Dave Chappelle highlighted the cancel culture and Barack Obama has noted this trend on college campuses. Right-wing neonazi groups are on the fringe of society whereas left-wing ideology is mainstream culture.

claudiawerner 7y ago
> However, in this 'neoliberal age' the most totalitarian regimes are actually far left with noticeable examples being the PRC and DPRK. While there is absolutely no denying that the PRC and DPRK are totalitarian regimes, many scholars of political economy and sociology would argue that they are simply totalitarian in a different way; for instance, one common theme is that the notion of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia has conditioned us to think of totalitarianism in a very specific way with specific consequences. The issue is that totalitarianism can acutally be conceived of in terms of totality, a concept critics of neoliberalism use a lot. See the work of Herbert Marcuse, who, while before the time of neoliberalism, argued the notion of totality in the West, while quantitatively not as bad as the regimes you name, was still more pernicious in the fact that we don't consider them totalitarian. Orwell was somewhat of a break in this style of thinking, but now we conceive of totalitarianism as Orwellian rather than otherwise. I have a comment here[0] with more about this. In short, we tend to start from the assumption that are own societies are not totalitarian because the totalitarianism is natural to us. But it's also a mistake to assume that there is a "view from nowhere" which can tell us which societies are tolatitarian and which are not. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20187622 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20187622
tonyedgecombe 7y ago
I'm not sure I'd call China far left, autocratic certainly but they have embraced capitalism.

dls2016 7y ago

Bret Stephens (nytimes) and Rahm Emanuel (politico) had some banger op eds on this topic yesterday. Absolute brain worms.

NorthOf33rd 7y ago
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/11/08/democrats-2020-advice-rahm-emanuel-229909 https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/11/08/democrats... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/opinion/bloomberg-running-for-president-2020.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/opinion/bloomberg-running...

lowiqprogrammer 7y ago

You ignore the fact that Jews make up a massive percent of billionaires. I would venture to guess that white christains have a smaller portion compared to their population size. If the far right takes out Jews it would be equivalent to taking out a large size of billionaires. Not a popular talking point, but a true talking point.

Fnoord 7y ago

The lack of a middle class is indeed a characteristic of a fascist (e.g. national socialist) society.

ossworkerrights 7y ago

Much of the rest of the world is made of countries where people have been exploited long enough to not be able to fight back. The us is just starting to experience this, but unlike in ww2, there is no us to ...save the us. I think there will indeed be a growth in social and political tension, but the majority of the population quickly be put in its place.

ghemsley 7y ago
I am very afraid of this. In a sense, we may be the country that is least able to fight back. Imagine the the U.S. military-industrial complex operating at full-strength with its sights set on the resistance, with the support of our world-class surveillance apparatus. What hope do we have against any of it? Without some hivemind-like ability to coordinate ourselves, we are probably pretty doomed. And surely if not, China and Russia will be waiting to take further advantage of a weakened U.S.A. in the event of any inroads made towards dethroning the existing regime. I fear they would be fairly successful. Someone please convince me otherwise?
- ossworkerrights 7y ago
  IMO this is a good question. It's pretty tempting to hijack an existing infrastructure such as the US army to push back an unhappy people should they become an annoyance, and the US army is by most standards, pretty scary. But I think the US has a few more steps before reaching that stage. Making sure people are obedient is a process that started long ago, by denying them healthcare, housing or education, unless they are disciplined enough to work and not to question the system; while regulating in favor of well entrenched oligarchy. I think the best way to coordinate is by starting cultural trends. Sudden change and revolution almost never lead to anything, and if we look at the history of the US, it's "power" is exactly that: cultural change. The tech "class" is already attempting this, but I think the approach and message are wrong and don't resonate with enough people, to create something at the scale of the hippie era. So the US really needs the US to save itself, but by developing an ever stronger middle class, and mechanisms to protect each other's health, while allowing for money to move around freely. And I think tech can be a part of that solution (no, I am not thinking encrypted chat, AI to hack the gov, or other non american kinds of weapons, but rather genuine solutions). The more power they have, the more they can keep the government in check.

gshdg 7y ago

Huh, that sounds familiar. Koch brothers? Trump? We’re already in that transition.

faissaloo 7y ago

>The far left will, after all, seek to destroy billionaires whereas the far right will seek out easier targets who look/sound different The far right's concern is those who seem different, but there is also an intersection between billionaires and those who seem different. >30% of the people on Forbes 400 are of Jewish ethnicity and the far-right loves to harp on about it.

jarek-foksa 7y ago

I would rather expect them to continue the divide and rule tactics which has worked pretty well so far. You don't have to form any alliances if you control both sides and you have the media and the lumpenproletariat to your disposal. In the worst case scenario, the working class will engage in an ethnic guerrilla warfare (thus making the state even weaker and easier to corrupt) rather that a revolution against the elites.

badrabbit 7y ago

I thought Nazis were leftist? I think your presumptions about left/right are heavily biased by modern US politics. Abe Lincoln and the Union were "right" (republican),many of the modern GOPs initial members were free black people. Of course by 2019 standards everyone of that era is far right in the US. You have to also consider that even now left/right can mean different things in different societies. Here is one way to put it: billionaires will lie in bed with whoever has their best interest. The group that has their best interest is usually the group that can't acheive it's goals through democratic or other preestablished process. The popular side does not need them, and being popular means doing the bidding of the majority non-rich. If republicans are very popular,democrats will be in bed with billionaires to advance their agenda. It is a simple economics of supply and demand. IMO, history actually shows how ideology means little compared to ability to weild power. You like many have this Us vs Them attitude where you've been sociologically engineered to group yourself with certain groups,the same is happening to others. This makes divide and conquer very easy to all available hostile parties. I think there are plenty of forces at work that desire the fall of the west and America's global dominance. Everyone knows that even if major nuclear powers unite,defeating america in nuclear or conventional war is very very hard and expensive. The best way to dismantle such a large and powerful enemy is from the inside out -- similar to what the wesr did to the USSR. The billionaires have money but money means nothing if you can't spend it and keep it. Nation states control billionaires and billionaires exert a lot of influence on nation states. The American lead liberal world order is not beneficial to nation states all over the world and it keeps getting worse from their perspective. Billionaires are good at moving their money elsewhere,the problem is America's reach is far. You can see how so many parties have to gain from the great american division. I think billionaires backed or encouraged by hostile nation states desire to instill division that can be used to control america and if it comes to it,destroy the west. Bear in mind this is just my opinionated analysis.

throwawaysea 7y ago

I’m confused by the use of “weimaresque” here. The Weimar Republic has very different political and economic circumstances than recent America. It feels like a boogeyman.