The Labour Management Party

In capitalism, a 'Labour Party' can easily become just another part of the ruling apparatus. In its more radical moments, such a Party will itself acknowledge that it inhabits hostile terrain. Hence, all it ultimately does is take the 'keys' to Labour and hand them to capital, give capital a chance to represent Labour and speak for it. Hence, it is essentially a managerial organ in places like the UK, although leaders like Corbyn have attempted to undo the grossest abuses of this status. This means that it is potentially more dangerous than the rather bemused-sounding UK 'Conservatives,' who at least acknowledge that in maintaining capital a ruling Party does not represent 'Labour' but merely weasels its way into it like a dangerous spy.

Capitalist Parties are eventually based on categories and issues which distract from the real ones, they are hence built on constructing false senses of community and coherence between opposed elements. They blur the lines between actual political views. Hence, the US system, where the Parties elect new candidates for the election cycle, is more effective: it does not attempt to treat Parties as coherent entities with an identity across long periods of time. Parties there can be experienced like a 'gun,' which shoots out bullets, etc., every electoral cycle and demands a response, while British Parties are usually mere drama and fake struggles but now dragged out until the fanfare disappears. Hence, it selects for leaders like Corbyn, and things like the anti-EU movement, more easily: Corbyn is constantly discussed and pulls up trees, while the EU is generally a force which dampens or mediates a nation's political system, and hence both of them stand a chance of sticking around in the UK. Corbyn is a clearly divergent political strand, and hence despite being 'opposed' has managed to rein in the negative tendencies in the Labour Party and display clear and powerful opposition to the 'New Labour' movement when any hope of this seemed evapourated away.

Appeals to a 'Labour Party' and what it should do with Corbyn are illusory in angle. The 'Labour Party' has changed recently, and made several dramatic changes in its stated political views. Hence, the only 'politics' of Labour are those which are held right now, primarily in the form of its leader and authority figure Corbyn. Legitimately, they should continue to stand by this politics each cycle, as that is the only concrete stance the Labour Party now has. This Labour Party does at least attempt to avoid speaking against the interests of labour for cheap support and bourgeois sanction. Nonetheless, this lack of a coherent politics is inherent in capitalistic Parties, who are led by the economy and not by politics, and hence the general appeal to a 'Labour Party' (and its 'politics') apart from that which exists is illusory. The attempt to get the 'Labour Party' to espouse comfortable capitalistic policies is not merely a struggle against Corbyn, it is an attack on the labour movement and attempt to paint a new picture of 'labour' which is safely accommodated within the system. It has nothing to do with concern for the 'Labour Party,' whose current politics this opposition within Labour would have the Party speak against and attack. That Blair is shocked about Corbyn disrupting Britain's politics, while they themselves had few qualms about killing Iraqis and invading their country, does not seem like a considered position. It goes without saying that Corbyn would rather the 'Labour Party' not pull the trigger on such countries, however members of other Parties might respond.

Although a 'Labour Party' is a useful form for capital, it is ultimately too caught up in smoke and mirrors for a more fast-paced political system like the USA. Managing Labour is more important in places like the UK, where it also has to be subordinate to US politics and so on. The USA can claim slightly more independence from such things. Nonetheless, by making its politicians and bourgeois spokesmen the representatives of various minorities, while espousing average pseudo-liberal politics, it has also attempted to manage minorities via the Democrats. However, the Democrats also took on a pseudo-Labour role (though not explicitly claiming the same place), which for instance promoted Obama's drawing on 'hope' for 'change' while UK's 'Labour' Party was trying to live down its advocacy of the Iraq War and alliance with Bush. Given the official criticism of the Iraq War in Britain, we can assume that any attempt to return to that form of 'New Labour' would just be a parody abstracting from such central issues in favour of marginal haggling. The 'Labour Party' should forget about elections, and focus on penitence - for, as Jesus reminds us, the lily like the Labour Party does not represent labour but through divine grace can be more splendidly arrayed.

The Democrats opted to hold in the political resistance to Bush and so on by promoting identity politics instead. By the Clinton bid, even the attempt at presenting a radical hope under Obama had been abandoned in favour of dynasties and political mildness. Even liberalism seems to have given up this strategy, with the near-Democratic Trump running against them. Identity politics could hardly offer much resistance to a quasi-celebrity running, as it merely turned more attention to these things. In general, the opposition of these political Parties is generally meaningless except in times of mutual opposition - when both sides will become radicalised. Capital will generally get its way, nonetheless, in these times of polarity. This is to be expected, but not applauded or hurried.

Hence, the capitalist political apparatus can be double-edged for the orthodox 'Labour Party,' which can eventually become the more dangerously capitalistic part of the apparatus. In the US, most socialist Parties have either been obscured, or turned to liberal or Stalinist organisations across the 20th Century. The Cold War also required most 'Labour Parties' in the West to officially come out as less radical than the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, as in brief liberals deceiving their nation. German Social Democracy's 'socialism' died off like a glass dodo dropped from Trump Tower. It was never meant to be. While less formal organisations of socialists were a trend propped up by the Soviet Union which would occasionally take them as allies, they are also less notable now. What must be looked for is not such organisations, crippled by a thousand forces and usually distorted, but forces which express actual opposition to the tendencies of a world capitalist system. While socialist Parties that remain clearly so can easily be impressive, they are often obscure - nonetheless, they can express in a significant way the unity of these various movements against capital. It is a better fate than to attack and seek to undermine anything which the Party advocated previously.

Capitalistic Parties are often not based on coherent political categories but rather on capitalistic 'appearances,' and hence are ruled by the economy. Usually, you might expect that a political 'Party' surrounding itself with things like Katy Perry is likely to fall prey to other uses of the word. However, the Democratic Party usually has insubstantial politics, so in which sense it is a 'party' is strictly optional. Major label pop musicians and so on also tend to draw on these illusory 'appearances' for their appeal, or just attempt to make things look better. They are tasked with serving capital, and so unless they are deaf, dumb and blind by that point that is what they do. Hence, they tend to be more harmonious with the official Democrats and liberals, who try to put a smiling face on a corrupt system, than with the more straightforward Republicans. When people like Corbyn disrupt the capitalist festivities, even slightly, they are anathematised. Of course, the Party is still in many ways unclear, as in local elections people are often not voting for someone like Corbyn but instead a maudlin imperialist like Jo Cox. It's strange to hold to the class-collaborationist dogma of the British people having little that differentiates them when someone walks up to the advocate and stabs them to death. Capitalist politics can be slightly slow in catching on to such things, however, and will eventually realise that their continual promotion of Jo Cox's statements is really just a more morbid form of the 'Rick Roll.' At the least on pressing domestic issues, Corbyn's almost 'scorched Earth' policy of eliminating dissenters or pushing on through resignations means that attempts to change his Labour Party will lack a pre-existent political apparatus to do so. The longer he can keep his authority in the Party and hence shut these elements out, the more he is frustrating and clawing at their political organisation. Along with Corbyn's supporters, who are disliked for their 'stubbornness,' this forms a fairly impressive political move despite taking a stance which is clearly against the grain of a primitive nation which has not even abolished the Windsor monarchy.

The Elections: Aftermath and Fallout

In general, Bernie Sanders at least initially attempted to hijack the Democratic Party for a given, relatively radical political programme. However, this is complicated by several factors. The Democratic Party is a Party with a long history and which has several complex inter-relations with the Republican Party - especially after Obama's 'bipartisanship' binge - which moderate its action and its running of the state in harmony with these others. In general, in a two-Party state where each Party is fairly stable (and in this case similar), both Parties will eventually come to consider themselves essentially the ruler of the state in harmony - that is, as essentially one harmonised ruling Party. They are both fluid, and the government frequently passes from one to the other, which each attempts to make as easy a transition as possible to ensure the stability of the government - as Americans seemingly change their opinion on the state they would prefer every few years. In general, however, the Democrats are hence not a vehicle that can easily accommodate use by a political programme, or be assimilated into use as a vehicle for a vaguely radical political agenda simpliciter. There are many obstacles to this use, and obligations which the Party has habitually fulfilled and is formed around.

Hence, Bernie Sanders was eventually given trouble by someone who essentially represents a fairly hollow 'establishment' - the Clinton campaign, run mostly based on being a notable 'name' in the Democratic Party. This is dynastic politics, and quite blatant about it. Compared to Sanders, their politics were loosely sketched and have generally not remained constant - they were merely holding ground, as Sanders was so to speak entering their 'house.' It seems absurd that a political Party also forms a 'house, 'in the gambling sense, that others must take on despite a political hollowness - nonetheless this is the case. However, Sanders generally speaking did not seek to combat this directly, and hence was generally speaking unwilling to challenge the agendas of the Democratic Party or agitate for its general renewal. Instead, their campaign opted to merely promote Sanders and opt for more or less generic forms of campaigning with the main difference being the slogans and name - their campaign was in most things not distinguished from the others, and hence could hardly fuel resistance to the others. They needed some distinction to allow them to engage in 'negative,' critical takes on politics as it was and the Democratic Party, and they did not gain this. By the end, the campaign took on a high emphasis on donors - and of course a notable donation requires sufficient money - such that their eventual capitulation to the business-favouring Democratic Party was not that much of a surprise, nor something which Sanders' supporters can merely displace blame over. It eventually, later on, had the general properties of a pessimistic gambling den.

Their continuing promotion of the campaign well after they stood a notable chance of the nomination perhaps suggests that their figures concerning the amount of voluntary promotion done were in part fictionalised. Otherwise, there was little to encourage it, apart from the occasional recreational bout of cold-calling. Such forms of promotion are often treated with scorn in other fields, regardless.

In any case, the Sanders campaign attempted to import a foreign content into the field of major political Parties, without displacing what was already there - hence, they ran into issues in these circumstances. The Democratic Party went stubbornly with a 'conventional,' name-based candidate, Clinton, who was possibly the closest thing to apolitical of most recent politicians. However, Clinton was saddled with several hits to their reputation, which would have been debilitating to most other candidates. They did, however, have some borrowed momentum from a previous campaign in a time when politics was a more major and pressing concern - as opposed to now when official politics is just staffed with celebs and people with familiar names and media ruckus - and, also notably, had significant backing among somewhat tiresomely mild-liberal celebrities and such. They hence at least had the momentum to carry through a campaign which mostly disregarded politics and could try to ignore Sanders' beliefs; identity politics then served to seal this modus operandi and secure indifference to the content of the Sanders campaign.

Identity politics in official politics can be harmful, as people are essentially locked in as soon as they are accused of violating it - to defend themselves from the accusation is counted as yet another violation. In any case, the accusation by itself - in the present-tense - is seen as a notable slight. However, in most circumstances, this has several limitations and this form of aggravated identity politics evaded official politics so far as the political had to be taken seriously. Past a certain point, it is an accusation where the validity and hence content of the accusation is not something which is of interest, and hence on the one hand is generally only possible in an overall situation which is something of a rig, and on the other hand can easily dissolve into nothing without a notable and artificial infrastructure and atmosphere to back it up.

Nonetheless, there were positive aspects to the Sanders campaign. For one thing, as much as their attempt to smuggle a foreign content into the Democratic Party while letting it be was problematic, it was at the same time a manifestation of a certain level of indifference to official politics. They merely tried to drift their politics into the Democratic Party, as if it was insubstantial or they did not care to consider it. While they were not as a movement 'negative' enough, there was a certain sense of being liberated from this realm as well. Further, among both the Trump and Clinton campaigns based on 'name,' dynastic politics, reality TV and shallow controversy, the Sanders campaign was one of the few identified with the political and hence which was strictly speaking in place in the area. We have discussed this previously. This is a notable divergence from the others, and although hemmed in is quite impressive.

However, Trump by contrast frequently attempted to distract attention from domestic politics by raising issues like immgration almost to the exclusion of such politics. In lieu of a particular political direction, they substituted generic slogans like 'Make America Great Again,' and relied on the media to make something out of this. However, we may ask: why does Trump, who is not usually held responsible for many problems of domestic politics, feel such a pressing need to constantly distract attention elsewhere? Before dealing with this question, we must note that Trump essentially started the wave which Clinton rode of essentially apolitical or media-based candidacy, and hence that in riding this to nomination Clinton was essentially benefitting Trump.

In any case, it must be noted that so far as his politics do turn up, he is often much closer to the usual Democrat than to Republicans. His views on major social issues are generally highly liberal, and would disenfranchise many traditional conservatives of the Bush-era and similar. In an era where traditional conservatives would usually want urgent support, the Republican choice of Donald Trump is a capitulation. The Republican Party no longer represents its previous political core, it has no real political importance any more. However, apart from being close to the Democrats in terms of politics, he is also trying hard to distract attention from domestic politics and hence cover the tracks - of the Democrats. What candidate would need to hesitate to make specious promises, and then mostly idle when in office, if they had someone like Donald Trump to distract all attention from these misdemeanours and the nation generally? Hence, considering the state as a whole, Donald Trump is often serving the Democrats and working in their interests - which is highly useful in such a two-Party context. He has also accompanied a crippling of the opposition to the Democrats. To reprise some of the low-brow humour prominent around the time of the 2008 election, if Obama isn't a Republi-can, Trump can certainly seem like a Democ-rat.

In general, the Democrats might seem slightly polite this election, content to elect a candidate who effectively rides off their place in the Party rather than adding much to it - unlike their campaign behind Obama, where they ran a fairly pronounced political campaign. However, if on the one hand they are settling for minimalism rather than focussing on a general story, this is compensated for by their focus on the other side of things - by the Democratic turn of the Republicans. Clinton's 'story' is merely that they were established, and breezed through into the candidacy (sort of), essentially because they were favourites: this betrays a lack of focus here. Democratic liberalism is spread too thinly in this election, and cannot conjure the same focussed and pseudo-partisan campaign. Hence, in another sense, Clinton was one of the recent candidates most open to threat: they were faced with continual interrogations and attacks, although their status was mobilised to get around this. While they might do decently, their campaign was unlikely to disqualify their opponent completely because they did not have that that level of trust. Hence, despite a few slips, Trump was ultimately able to return to a challenging position and eventually get past Clinton, who did not have the cleanliness or sense of immunity that would maintain their advantages. Bernie Sanders, who was generally viewed as somewhat trust-worthy, and even praised by such as Trump for it, might have avoided this obstacle. However, they would have had to rely on a Democratic infrastructure quite unsuited to promoting their half-radical cause, which is just as much an obstacle. They eventually did not get that far. This is in some ways unfortunate, but in some ways the suggestion that they wouldn't have done worse at the elections might spur further movements in this direction.

Recent times have also seen some slightly strange political commentary, such as Obama being compared to the villain of the 'Hunger Games' because they use 'hope' followed by 'fear' or threat. Peculiar. One always figured that the villain of the Hunger Games must be Slenderman. In any case, this slightly vague designation of using 'hope' followed by 'fear' could characterise the state or political movements generally, or indeed any body that enforces nation-wide law (ie. generally the primary characteristic of the state.) First they promote a cause or hope for it, then they enforce it. In general, being the villain of the Hunger Games and indeed most Russia-invoking dystopian novels is an honour only fit for socialists, and while Obama is occasionally confused with one this is not enough for them to claim the title.

In general, it was not necessarily a surprise that Sanders was not Democratic candidate, although they are the least empty candidate. Meanwhile, the two-Party rule continues, with people assuming that there is a more significant division while the Parties themselves are aware that they have near-completely ruled the state. Hence, after the appearance of a division, as a sort of minor pittance, things generally settle into a sort of uniformity punctuated by occasional 'issues' that quickly dissipate. Conservatives could not, as it now appears, trust the Republicans to put forward their political qualms. In trusting the Republicans over time, they have increasingly accepted capitulation on social issues. The Christian religion is increasingly reducing to the hatred of Islam, and both candidates' Christianity is taken for granted and no longer needs the notable displays of the Bush era. It is still pernicious, but no longer concerned about political agendas or social change - it is hence neutralised in this realm. Contemporary Christianity has as its spiritual home only the funeral, where religious praise is heaped on various people for little reason other than their celebrity. People's affection is so much for the dead, that the living who wish for such praise would do better to join the dead. The Trump-Clinton division was always likely to be uncertain, but Trump had sufficient lee-way due to Clinton's uncertain reputation. Eventually that was enough in this case. Nonetheless, there is a notable level at which this election involves a promotion of status and media promotion over politics, to the point that the latter becomes irrelevant. This problem would subsist regardless of which candidate won, and this indifference to political actors gives them some freedom to push through their apparent agenda.

US Politics: An Incubated Disease?

Famously, the somewhat milder HIV turns into the feared and here primary AIDS. AIDS makes diseases harsher, including of course HIV. There is a poetic flair to this - HIV, which is known for worsening the effects of diseases, can itself worsen into something more deadly.

This election was competed between Hillary Clinton and Donald 'Trump,' from 'The Apprentice' and now apparently occupying a suspiciously similarly-named role, and unsurprisingly Clinton was the less controversial - although still notably so, due to various scandals. Clinton attempted to run a campaign based on a secure reputation despite all of this, which seems unhelpful. Bernie Sanders may have contributed to this enforced mildness of the Clinton campaign, which was so far departed from their situation, by Sanders' more extreme campaign leading to Clinton having to identify with something different and more mild and hence by the point of the election most of their momentum involving running against more radical tendencies. Hence, they had little to go on but name, and their name was continually tarnished. This suggests that the Sanders campaign was at least somewhat effective in its claim to represent a more radical tendency.

In any case, Donald Trump is a businessman, which might seem like a conflict of interest. Their company is being left to their children. This seems, despite the charade, to merely refigure the conflict of interest. A businessman in charge of a company, who is also President, has an evident conflict of interest - they value a private economic entity and look out for its interests as opposed to that of others, yet they are expected to govern the whole economy in negligence of these. They merely disguise the issue, while still looking out for these interests. Clearly they identify with these 'children's' interests, after giving them the companies - they're keeping the nation 'in the family.' The hands of the company change - the valuation remains the same. It is a concession to ideals, but is otherwise idle.

As such, the general partition of the state has taken on a slightly exaggerated form. It is no longer basically an abstraction formed by the abstraction of capital. If it were, this is at least political - the question of changing it or dealing otherwise is opened. As things are, the Trump administration, as Clinton's would be, is essentially becoming numb to the political. There is still an uncertainty there - the administration does give credence to some sort of division between the state and private sector, by trying to off-load the private in a form, but nonetheless sunders this division ultimately. While not as explicitly non-political as Clinton, it is still going in that direction. The state is an essentially idle figure.

The state in capital is not the state as such - if the expression is permitted. The state is the organisation of society as one entity in an explicit form, the nexus of a given society of a given, uniform form. This is necessary insofar as a society is across its length subject to certain specifications - of whatever form. Hence, if it excludes certain things, for instance, it has a state.

In any case, the state under capital is phased out because it can only represent an intrusion on the essentially private lives of citizens in 'civil society.' It is an unwelcome guest, as Orwell captured in their slightly absurd 1984 with the image of Big Brother enforcing rooms they can look into. In the Reaganite movement and so on, it turned out that some didn't want the state anywhere - others are happy so long as it is only a dressing-up, 'sanctification' of what they do - and hence viewed anything it did as invasive, were hence beset by constant examples of state interference. Orwell's novel was hence in some ways a capitulation to these interests, an attempt to appeal to what they find appealing. In general, its exaggerated imagery was unlikely to devolve into much but a condemnation of the Soviet Union, as they drew on common imagery for it, as well as a limp and undefined swipe at British socialism because it might do the same thing. However, they might have gone too far. The state necessarily exists, but people need to know that it isn't violating these things, a 'sign' or signal via intervention that it is passive and 'normal.' This is a contradiction. Hence, people like Reagan or Thatcher are still departures from the norm, and the ideologues associated with them especially so, private entities would generally not like the state to get so far out of reach that they don't know what it's up to is 'safe.' The state is hence a field which deals with fear, suffering, intrusion, and so on.

When the state becomes as in this election something numb to politics, it hence becomes a realm dealing in basically private suffering or disease. However, it necessarily deals with private suffering of a social kind or which bears the mark of social interaction within it - that is, STDs. The format of the election is hence appropriate, as was Hitler, a fascist's, late identification of 'syphillis' (also identified in Mein Kampf as a clear example of the state's corruption) as one of the 'plagues' of modern society, alongside alcoholism. In general, people don't always begrudge diseases, but they do begrudge people being asocial or value people for having had sex, etc. People with STDs wear this mark explicitly - if you see someone with an STD, you know they're 'normal' in some way or have had such interaction. Otherwise, most would have to admit that they would have to wait before assuming as to these people's social lives. Hence, the assumption that one will meet a 'normal' person with such a 'normal' social life, which may only be violated, basically presupposes something like this. Diseases which touch on social relations can only be transmitted through such means, means like mere proximity are while related not explicitly a form of interaction. Hence, these are notable in society. How are people to remain 'social,' 'socialites,' or so on, when alone, except by wearing such physical marks? Hence, when Marx notes that the wealthy man 'carries his social relations around with him' in the form of money, in a concrete sense or insofar as they are personally claiming these social relations and the struggle around these, they must draw on something similar. Capital can't exist alone, it is always in a relation, always positing an obstacle or hindrance. How, then, is the capitalist to live their necessarily private life, consume within this, except by such a hindrance existing within this privacy? Hence, a capitalist is a manufacturer of their own diseases, and otherwise idle and locked away from society. When the capitalist is alone and yet a capitalist, they are afflicted - one might rather say they all had 'carbuncles.' Hence, all of this affliction is set at the door of the state - hence the ease of accusing them of 'socialism,' or whatever else, as happens periodically and often in a slightly peculiar fashion.

When Jesus observes that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than the rich man to inherit the kingdom of heaven, they are undermined in part by their own mode of operation. They tend to prefer using extravagant imagery to evoke a sense of wonder around their religion and things like faith - the more extravagant, the more impressive. Hence, saying that the rich man needs to complete this miraculous, impressive operation is merely to say that they are still rich and grandiose - they are now 'rich' not only in wealth, but also in Christianity. While Christianity before capitalism was about going beyond the Mosaic law as commanded, Christianity as capital emerged became merely a question of an essentially idle struggle that nobody expected to go anywhere - hence, the rich merely ended up with a more impressive, religious-sounding version of this 'struggle.' When Hitler named his book 'Mein Kampf,' they were aware no doubt of the posturing of German Social Democracy - a fossilised entity of use to no-one by then - around struggle, as well as Marxist uses of it. They had been through the Bolshevik struggle against Tsar Nicholas, etc., as well. Hence, in proclaiming this book a part of 'national socialism,' they were in a way making a humorous gesture in the vein of 'l'etat, c'est moi.' Hitler, of course, had been poor an imprisoned, like Germany, and hence put a lot of emphasis on the head of the state having to be someone who could do this in a somewhat apt manner. In any case, however, Jesus' observation nonetheless is slightly thorned - a 'camel' passing through the needle is an image of an awkward fit and humps which fit awkwardly, of something like a body with ulcers which is in any case unlikely to get through. Of course, it is also an ironic image of sexual conduct, which they recently said one should avoid if one can resist it - otherwise one is no doubt a sex-bot of some sort and unlikely to care for Christianity. Money is a universal commodity, it represents prostitutes as much as other types of commodities - hence this sort of thing might have been a concern, as indeed it was in Marx's day with the Jack the Ripper killings. Paul also drew on the image of prostitutes as parasitic in-growths on an individual person.

Given that people such as musicians must be promoted for what they have done being impressive or facing inordinate obstacles (eg. they can't make good music and don't know what it is) and prevailing, the 'camel' metaphor is in some ways merely inviting such people to be proclaimed 'extraordinary Christians.' When Kierkegaard criticised a Bishop's representation as such during their funeral period, they would have perhaps been taken aback to hear that not only the Bishop was such a Christian but also a random girl singing about the pleasures of fornication.

As such, the state as it is posited is very much a realm of disease, and the treatment of immigration is very much an image of 'disease' - foreign incursion. Clinton generally deals with immigration in terms of the 'family,' which is merely an apparently milder treatment - when called on it, they are just as quick to attack people who are less anti-immigration. However, unlike in the past, there is no imagery of the Soviet Union to support this or try to isolate politics from it - and in general, accusation of Obama's 'socialism' might simply reflect that the state continues to intervene slightly, but has no-one else to blame it on. Reaganism and so on were in some ways merely a necessarily response to the weak, Gorbachev-era Soviet Union - if the US took on an interventionist or 'normal' garb during that time, the state would immediately find itself targetted, and would be on-set with the dissent of private entities that used to be 'happy citizens.' Nobody finds, 'Actually, I, the Head of the State, will stop doing anything and just sit here and be pathetic,' particularly stimulating politically (who's supposed to get excited about these elections), nor impressive, aggressive, etc., it's merely a temporary garb. It might seem impressive briefly, then it is abandoned. And besides, as stories go an actor taking the state and then deciding that, nah, they aren't really fit to do anything with it, seems slightly underwhelming - everyone else thinks that as well, about most actors. Schwarzeneggar gets by on suggesting conservative, controversial motions sometimes or religious intervention, not by merely going, 'Actually, Arnold Schwarzenggar should have nothing to do with governing,' which is merely a truism. Statecraft may be good, but if people are electing people like Hillary Clinton then why should the state bother? The people betrayed someone like Jimmy Carter, in a humiliating way, then apparently get angry because they got what they asked for - because Carter had some form of vengeance for this.

However, without a fall-back in the form of the Soviet Union, this fall back from politics is merely a dissolution - it does not constitute a real society. Obviously, the more capitalist society shrinks back from 'external' intervention that it itself begets, the more this comes to seem domineering and totalitarian. Hence, along with each USA, a Soviet Union, and so on. Hence, there might come the illusion that one might object to capitalism by just using categories used to characterise the Soviet Union as opposed to the USA. However, these are instruments of US capitalism, not just neutral figures. Hence, one should be cautious about this. In any case, while the 'bureaucratic' nature of the Soviet Union derives from its expressing these tendencies and hence being merely a non-directed channeling of these harsher forces, this at the same time implies that as time has gone on fear has increased and seeped into fictitious, expansive societies as in 'The Hunger Games,' without being clearly faced. If something increases to exaggerated degrees, people might fictionalise it - otherwise, they are usually content to deal with it in a normal situation, where it is presented already. This can work both ways: both social tendencies, and on the other hand things which are rejected and shunned to exaggerated extents in these social and literary tendencies. The more freedom shuns other things, the more it is revealed to merely be fear. Nobody makes a choice for 'freedom,' merely against other things. Yet one must know what one is trying to do, before determining how to go about it.

Trump is said to be aiming for a 'confrontational' government akin to a corporation's approach. But they might be unlucky if that was ever an intent. They would have to try and make up for or apologise for any of these 'confrontations' before they could initiate such an approach to a government - to an entity which has to deal with all of these. In all likelihood they do not have a cunning plan prepared.

Amusingly, while Trump's campaign is identified as 'us vs. them' (well, it's a campaign, innit), the dichotomy in the 20th Century was often 'USA vs. USSR.' Presumably this sounds more acceptable? In any case, seemingly their campaign pretty much just set off from how their Presidency might sound and went on from there. Clinton, on the other hand, didn't quite have a clean image through most of it, though they did try. It seems to be a slight curse of the Clintons that their clean image deserts them past a certain point. It's somewhat like the band Paramore - although they might start out 'alt' or 'punk,' and gain a clean image from diluting this genre into something acceptable, eventually they are too closely associated with it and hence gain an image which isn't quite as notable as Taylor Swift for instance. However, they can change genres to try to keep up with this - Hillary Clinton is also known for U-turns - but a politician can only be replaced by someone else. In addition, the Clintons are an established political group and not free to depart from this, hence they are forced into a certain dynamic. They try to make something seem safe, and in a dedicated manner, but then can't keep going. In the USA after neo-liberalism, the sense of responsibility around the state vanished - they didn't seem to have any obligations, they were just a private job for their own enjoyment. Eventually this came to a head somewhat, and Bush attempted to restore some sense of governance and drew on Christian conservatism, but was also drawn into several external wars where they attempted to present an image of a 'benevolent' America. An American Republican was, to the Middle East, just a more insistent 'liberal.' The Republicans attempted to promote 'America,' patriotism, and what-not, but they merely ended up with garden liberalism. Capitalism is a circular system: the further you depart from one side, the further you are still a part of the same system and conditioned by them, and hence ultimately in agreement with their views which derive from capital.

The USA likes to make dramas out of little, so that their politics (outside of elections) is still quite dry is a testament to, in the Middle East for instance, both sides basically doing the same thing and continuing or opening wars there, etc. People pretend there are sides briefly, then they obey and esteem the leader and system regardless - it was an illusion, and they are satisfied with this and promote it. The US elections are more of an action than anything. Ultimately, elections can only be as strong as their weakest link - if it's just a brief rising of drama around the election followed by settling in, this hardly has the place to support radical antitheses. Hence the sense of oppression around radical politics in the USA. Radical politics rarely led to revolutions in established democracies, apart from perhaps the Nazis and that only in part. They generally would prefer to concede to this democratic process, and then play merely a subordinate role - or they abstain from politics entirely, or give way completely, generally alongside some ultimately democratic palaver.

Strangely, the 1995 Shamen album 'Axis Mutatis' opens with 'Destination Eschaton,' 'TransAmazonia,' (Trump), then 'Conquistador,' and the strangely named 'MK2A.' MK2A here stands 'Mauna Kea to Andromeda.' Later, 'Heal (The Separation)', which resembles Clinton's approach to immigration and attempting to send people back to their families - which Sanders notably attacked. It somewhat resembles the vaguely amusing Star Wars scene where Anakin Skywalker walks into a closed room only to find Palpatine and Mace Windu fighting alone. The prequels of course end with Obi-Wan warning Anakin that he can't win now that Obi-Wan has the 'higher ground.' Which is an amusing end in really a few ways, although inconsistent with the series so far of course. In any case, this election is sadly not as mystical as The Shamen's music. It also lacks even the grace of such excellent sentences as, 'For the gift of the present, we owe it to the moment,' and, 'Is it only gold you're looking for, / And will you still not see the treasure long concealed within me?'

The Trump Presidency

So apparently the USA has entered a Trump Presidency. Is it that important? Not really. Even the left seem to have bought into the US election line quite thoroughly. Certain leftists object to socialist Parties using the elections (and perhaps also the monetary system), but are now panicking and railing because Clinton didn't win. For them, socialist Parties are going too far, but Heaven help us if people don't vote for - Clinton. We must, of course, dissent from this line.

The Democrats wished to promote their campaign based on name, identity politics, and celebrity, with Clinton as favourite and eventual candidate. However, Trump is obviously a more interesting campaigner than Clinton was, and the Democrats' reliance on celebrity and name instead of politics fell foul to a Trump campaign that out-did them easily on this field of battle.

The Democrats have by this point become merely a shill of identity politics, humorously the same fate as that of modern Marxism, with no political meaning. The Republicans were hence forced to take a negative stand against this, as should be understandable. Why not take on your enemy where they try to derive strength? However, Trump was forced to do this in quite uncertain ways, with occasional forays, rather than an overall approach. Trump caused offence, but only in partial ways. There was a sense of widespread and fundamental political corruption, but this was limited, vague, and had an even more vague relation to the rest of the nation and the economy. Hence, they did not totally paralyse the Democrats, merely trouble them and then ride their luck. Still, they did at least attempt to keep the campaign directed in that manner and allow for hostility towards the Democrats' shallow recent nominations.

Claims that Trump is a fascist are laughable, and should be treated so. 'Trump is a fascist,' 'Obama is a communist,' and so on are merely dramatic slogans. In this case, they did not hinder Trump nearly as much as the Democrats would like. They merely raised the question, 'Then what exactly is Hillary Clinton?' 'Uninteresting' would be the most likely answer. The Democrats attempted a campaign on shallow premises, then Trump forced them to try characterizing things as some sort of epic political struggle, which they quite simply could not support and which undermined their own campaign. This hence played into the hands of the Republicans. As much as Trump's fairly mild stance might have limited this, it was enough to give them a chance at things. When we talk of 'election controversy,' this controversy wasn't two-sided, Clinton had little to do with it, and was hardly mentioned - Trump was all that both sides were talking about, not Clinton, and it was the Republican side's to win or lose.

As much as Trump, like Obama, outdid Clinton with a campaign taking on radical trappings, there might be a lesson of sorts for Sanders supporters. Sanders often tended to down-play any radicalism, and was reluctant to go on the offence against establishment politicians in spite of Sanders' pretence of being 'revolutionary' or 'radical.' Their campaign was keen to present its views as placid and non-confrontational. In general, then, a time when few things are anathema in politics - as we saw with Trump's election - is good for socialists and has seen a rise in anti-capitalist agitation from figures like Corbyn, but the socialists and leftists will probably expend too much energy trying to re-institute these 'anathemas,' and only later realise that they are still as much the victims. Trump hence leaves official socialism in something of a bind, chasing their own tail if you like. Organisations like SPUSA or the Greens have responded in turn by a far less radical or offensive campaign than Trump's, in spite of often claiming to be 'socialist' and 'revolutionary,' which might lead you to conclude that Trump being elected instead of them is fair.

Anyway, more pressing matters.

Sadly, unlike previous elections, the candidates were not as clearly named after a $$$$$nake. While Nader of course resembles 'nadder' (or 'naedre'), a word for snakes later amended to the now popular 'adder,' this election was sadly less prominent in its representation of the United $$$nakes of America, such that despite Trump's claims to making America Great Again he might as well be President of Canada.

People should do something about this.

The common adder is also known as viperus berus, and hence Barack Obama and perhaps Bush may be given a pass here. Trump is hardly going to make a black forest racer, or Drymobius melanotropis, by building a wall across the borders. While there is some effort, it isn't really sufficient. Snakes don't even build walls.

Not that they need walls, which they are known to get past in order to victimise homeowners. In this, snakes - like the black forest racer - resemble Odysseus.

In any case, Trump is probably less alarming in the recent history of the USA than, say, Lyndon B. Johnson. When the overall dynamics of the American government system are taken into account, the space for Trump to influence would be negligible. The USA stays the same between most Presidencies, or it wouldn't seem like the same country. Donald Trump's portrayal of corruption is a stark and positive improvement on Obama's struggle for 'change' - while Obama's portrayal avoided taking issue with much, and so seemed inoffensive, Trump draws on a negative portrayal which draws on a wider criticism of society as rigged and problematic. If anything, Rev. Wright should have run in Trump's stead. Obama's Presidency was always likely to be inert, as the 'positivity' of the campaign came to nothing, such that Obama was in a way reduced to just a performance. In a way, Obama's campaign drew on a sense of cynicism or criticism that they were increasingly forced to avoid, due to PR issues as with Rev. Wright, and hence this movement was limited slightly artificially.

In any case, the elections are over, and hence that periodic drama is over. Most things that happen in official politics between election cycles, apart from wars, will be dwarfed by the prospect of further elections. If the American socialist movement remains - as it now is - a wing of liberal activism, shilling for Clinton, a vocal but comfortable part of the liberal movement, then it is unlikely to lead to anything positive. What is needed, then, is a movement suited to this American political climate that can draw on revolutionary and radical politics while remaining outside of the socialist movement.