Entirely-Dëvoid of Interest

Engels is sometimes capable of rather notable oversights.

"The simpleton [...] will certainly not have to complain of “gaps entirely devoid of interest”. It will take him all his time to prepare his pleasures and get them in the right order, so that he will not have a moment left to enjoy them."

Engels once married someone as they were dying, a marriage which indeed lasted for a rather brief time and may be adjudged something of a triumph of the ideal over the real. In any case, it would appear that Dühring here has hijacked Engels' own 'polemic' to ridicule Engels. This is merely the shadow of a polemic, one which cannot ascertain that its whole point is not to attack its 'author.'

In general, however, it is a poor polemic that illustrates nothing that Marx has not dealt with far better elsewhere; that continually presumes to have an understanding of a topic where no such understanding is presented or explained. Poor Eugen does not in all this time come to stand for anything particularly notable, in this light it's a descent from the earlier polemics (somehow) to just name-calling accompanied with vague platitudes. It often merely agrees with the 'target' of the polemic, but then says 'but,' as though this word in its hallowed isolation were sufficient to make it 'polemical.'

The whole piece in its manic tone has less the appeal of a Hamlet and more the tone of an illiterate Lizzie Burns' erratic flails before death.

[From Юрий Хохлов's video on Youtube.]

A Poem about Tay Bridge

Every age of poetry has a certain calling. What the world of poetry needs most now is a poem about Tay Bridge, which was once the calling of all the illuminated Muses that could be found. And the age itself seems to bay for it, as a vampiric coven bays for blood. So we shall furnish it one.

Tay Bridge

I have seen you here sometimes,
you have been nearby sometimes,
yet never have you felt
the sound of the bridge falling
the sound of the Tay Bridge falling
the sound of its fall
the sound of its revival -
you have not heard it sing
its brief songs.

It fell beneath like a rock,
fallen into the river,
and then it was loudest.
When it fell.

Only Calamity and Trouble were on hand
to re-build it, but then it fell again,
for they were not firm foundations.
The others said it was a liability,
eventually even Calamity gave up in fury.

For has not the Muse come once
to where this bridge lay -
lay, indeed, in every way -
lay prone to the elements,
which shifted it to sing only,
'Welcome to this bustling city —
But this bridge is cursed.'

As it falls, the city shifted into
blurring, blinding colours like the
cataclysmic sound of falling hail.

Yet the bridge saw the colours blur
eventually to blinding white.
For this bridge is bride to its slaughter,
its excursion is its demise,
its hopes are crushed by each edge
of a grinding wheel.
The blood it wears it weaves,
like a spider in a broken palace,
but how good is the blood
which it weaves?

As the Bridge falls, the city's scenes
become more frantic, but the water shields its eyes,
and shields the city's bride from its groom,
wipes them clean with its own hands,
with the violent waves and the grey mist waters.
As the water envelopes,
there is a red shift in the scene,
and the Bridge's noise -
which they all hear -
says that they shall break apart,
and each set against each,
until a kingdom refracts from the depth of ruins.

They do not all see.

An Old Poem (from around early 2012)

Maoism

Once by this house, and on this street,
We debated about the peasantry.
We used to quote the small, red book, and try
To hold up half the sky.

We fought for hours, next to the station,
About the right to national liberation;
And, calming down while walking home –
Through the fields – read Lenin’s tomes.

And though it might seem a contradiction,
Yet, said Mao, a life without contradictions
Was like a word rhymed unto itself;
Yet though it might seem that, between yourself

And I, that words were only spoken
Without affection, yet they broke
The silence that now consumes this street;
This street, like murdered peasantry.

Perhaps the mass line was a myth,
Yet, though myth, at least there was a line
Between us, between where we each would sit;
Now split apart, like Trotskyists.

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?'

US Politics: The Nation of the Fad

Some pop singers have more longevity than American Presidents.

American politics is the manufacturing of fads.

The media hence has to treat such politicians not only in terms of their notability, but also their brief duration. It also has to take into account their capability of losing the election, and possibly fading out. As such, a lot of the hype around candidates is precisely what will fade away or be cleared out - they have to be covered in such a way if the whole process of the election cycle is to be covered in a continuous manner, with the next election also reprising these themes, and also to avoid this seeming like a coup. This hence means that each candidate's coverage is in some measure a betrayal.

Fads tend to mean little. Sometimes, as with Rebecca Black, they might be subject to derision. Other bands, like Jack Black's, tend to be slightly more humorous about their faddish tendencies and being out of the norm - although not necessarily a werewolf. It might seem peculiar if Stephenie Meyer (not Marx's famous opponent) later clarifies that Jacob Black was actually scared of being indoctrinated into rock music, and it was all a metaphor. It would be even stranger if, alongside using chess pieces on their covers, they also noted that it was a metaphor for the King's Gambit when a Knight up - which goes in a nightmarish fashion. Like, Bella considers Forks boring and so loses the Knight. Eventually she check-mates Cullen, which Meyer misinterprets as a relationship.

It's a dark and miserable place because the vampire had the temerity to use the English opening.

In any case, manufactured fads also have a peculiar movement. American politics does not by itself know any other kind of movement. Their movement must also in part betray them. Hence, there is always a certain sense of futility around such movements, as with Obama's - they are noise without content, phrases which are merely used for effect. To construct an effect more sequinned than the content is to construct promises that will be broken.

Fads tend to involve broken promises - Clinton cheated and lied to the nation (they did not steal as much, in an official sense, except if you count taxes as this), George W. declared war with little reason and promoted this among politicians and the public. The general sense of Democrats betraying everyone and themselves was present both in the Sanders and Trump campaigns, while Bush's social conservatism (if moderate) was an attempt to right the image of the Presidency and restore a sense of authority. Hence, through all of the web of deception, if one cares to check, one has not clear sides or political genres but personal struggles. Capitalist atomisation means that there is no other available way to put forwards a political view.

The left tends to deal in panics. Bush hence aided Obama's Presidency, perhaps more than they needed to. The American left tends also to fads, and hence has so many different and new Satans - 'fascism,' whatever that is, Reagan, neocons - that Dante would require a few hundred circles of Hell just to accommodate this model. It is hence mostly non-functional, in this form. With Sanders it took on a slightly different form, more focussed around creating panics than fearing them - as it had to, against a feminist-favoured rival who was offended by everything.

The left hence tries to quiet panics. Terrorists aim to create them. Conservatives tend towards liberalism, but might occasionally try to speak despite panics, promptly apologising by having a go at terrorists. They both serve the same side in the fundamental social struggle, so it's one step forwards and two steps back. Conservatism is hence apologetics, and needs more notably the power of a God or religious figures to reconcile it with its liberal tendencies or snow over its non-liberal tendencies with reconciliation and chanting 'Kumbaya.' Hence, organisations like the WBC, which use religion as an abrasive force, are a bit too far for American politics - although most of what they say is quite straightforwards conservatism, only with the religion taken along with this rather than serving as a 'balm.' It's not really like an opiate for them, is it. Hence, if religion is used to 'heal' a sick society that it might remain sick (which is a mere placebo or empty re-assurance), it is forced into contact with elements which find this society problematic and must moderate this, and hence in general comes into contact with opposed forces and finds a situation hostile to this society. It hence is also adapted to this. If, as Marx said, the happy religious has as their religion the Judaism of practical life, then religion as such only comes up when discontent must be dealt with, and hence it might appear that the discontent have a monopoly on religion. The religions themselves hence tend to be quite distant from the society, or fall behind these non-liberal elements. But this is deceptive - these religions must also allow for such treatment, and hence like Marxism simplify things to the point where the Soviet Union or America can easily claim them. Christianity betrays Christians, and hence Marx locates it in another religion which is less centred around the same themes - and in the cultural and communal aspect of this.

While there are many different leftist organisations - the SPUSA should have merged with the Greens by now, as should the CPUSA - this can at least give the illusion that the left is plausibly represented. Two Parties is like two different people, and hence it creates the sense of a left when realistically apart from a few Stalinists it's just Greens and other pseudo-Democrats. That's a very shallow bay. Elsewhere, the right is more varied, but tends to be if anything closer to liberalism outside of the Republicans - even Trump is a RINO. It's a treacherous terrain for conservatives, but this might be in part because conservatives so often go in incompatible directions each with stress, attack Islam for not being liberalism - an easy way of gaining popular appeal - and then attempt to avoid liberalism, attack liberalism for being too dissolute and then attempt to allow for more dissolution. Still, you'd suppose that socially conservative tendencies would have to find some home over there, as they are continually brought into circulation. Perhaps it is a more obscure or offensive Party - the more one's opponents are dissolute liberals by comparison, the more offence one will tend to cause.

In general, American political Parties cannot trust in their base, only treat them as a form of support. They are always content with this. Hence, people who fund them and such count moreso as their base. They thus can only subsist so long as there is a division from this mass in society. However, the dishonesty runs both ways. Hence, there is only the semblance of elevation in this general area or social structure.

American politics should not be trusted. Its enthusiasm of one day is the decline of the next. It circles within this realm of finitude. To paraphrase Psychotic Waltz, its order is its anarchy, its violence its peace; destruction is its architect, its woman and its priest. A new Presidency is already a new upheaval in someone else's nation, a fall and rise. America lives on the destruction of its leaders and their decline. It has not found the energy, within this role on the world stage, for a 'revolution.'

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.

Observations on Marx in History: Das Thrace Marx (VI)

VI.

It is often overlooked that Petrarch's characterisation of himself as having been reduced to an 'old tale' amongst the people is strangely reminiscent of, not only the Holocaust which for many was nothing but, a faux-moral sermon in lieu of an event to be described - this was often the feminist viewpoint on Petrarch, as also Kierkegaard -, and also not only Kierkegaard, but also a humorous reflection on his other poetry which is not 'scattered rhymes,' but rather about such as 'Scipio,' and ancient themes, etc., and generally was supposed to be higher reputed. More on this in a following post about Kierkegaard.

Despite which, "Ma ben veggio or sí come al popol tutto favola fui gran tempo," is a fairly unwieldy phrase.