Apech

Nation States are more and more becoming lackeys of the corporations.

@Brian, I think the fight is really totalitarianism versus individual liberty. Whether the totalitarianism expresses itself from the left or right is almost immaterial. There are both left and right positions which oppose the idea of the supremacy of the State. So there would be more agreement between some forms of left and right activists. The swing towards the Republican right coupled with low turnout is actually, probably a symptom of general disaffection with the system as a whole. Many people are just plain confused and others are not so much apathetic but without any motivation to get involved because of perceived sameness. In fact the 'democratic' system which we are so keen to export is running out of steam. One reason is that nobody really supports the set of values that Cameron spoke about.

You american chaps don't do irony do you. Here's the point of that article: British prime minister David Cameron recited them perfectly before the Australian parliament on Friday: “open economies - UK economy far from open and as protectivist as it can get while still in Europe and open societies - surveillance society and various measures to curb freedoms justified by war on terror and fighting pornography and so on”, a free press, - press owned by media barons actively encouraged and courted by PM and senior politicians and “real democracy and the rule of law” - democratic standards on the wane and massive interference in judicial freedoms safeguarded by liberal institutions - all institutions under attack unless owned by corporate business.

Getting back on to topic (or what was behind my original question)... i.e. why are the right wing in ascendancy everywhere in the 'West' ... this article is worth reading... http://http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/14/the-right-has-won-control-of-the-english-speaking-world-thanks-to-the-weakness-of-the-left ...

Well I did read his wiki page and I was very impressed that there did indeed exist a radical progressive in America. he wanted to organise to give power to the 'have-nots' ... well I'm all for that. Seems to me the 'haves' are getting more and more these days and the 'have nots' are getting less and less. In the UK and Europe he would be regarded as a lefty but perfectly normal and rational in his views as far as I can see. This is the problem ... the US has no left wing at all ... just different shades of right wing ... so when it pops its head up you get all scared and start calling them national socialists and communists all in one breath cos you don't understand what the fuck they are. This is the secret ... in democratic politics there is supposed to be a spectrum of views ... communist is ok ..it doesn't have to hold power but it has it's point of view. I would be stunned if Hillary is really how you characterise her. To me ... if I were to be critical she looks like a chancer .... she wants power ... and she'll say anything, do anything, to get it. If I really thought she was genuinely committed to community organisation I would pray she got elected. There I've said it. LOL.

I wasn't trying to put you on the spot. I just wondered what particularly she believes in, or has stated as policy or perhaps her personality which makes her a bad idea.

what happens next is ... ... your guess. An estimation that's as good as mine.

What's wrong with Hillary? Would she make a bad president?

I suppose Hillary is front runner then? I always found it hard to have much against Bill C. (the impeachment thing made me feel sorry for him ... not sure why). But when I read Christopher Hitchens on the Clintons I had to change my opinion. So the Republicans have no good candidates? That's probably a good thing I would guess.

of eternity... I just cannot really speak Do not have the time.

and Marblehead who is in a category of his own ...

No I get it, thanks.

Could you explain this in simple terms for me?

Lets not argue about constitutional law ... what I want to understand is what the appeal of the Republican Party is. I mean the appeal to people who previously voted in Democrat Governors. What would make them switch sides like that?

Maybe the problem is that the terms communism and fascism are very much contextualised by the 20th Century. Indeed also the term 'democracy' ... as in the sense of periodically elected representatives governing by consent ... of which there are several models. I think all the 20th century systems of government have been undermined by the ascendancy of global capital and the power of corporations/financial institutions. What I see in Obama (getting back to the original point) is exactly this. It doesn't matter whether he was a bit of lefty in his youth (many are) by the time he gets into power he has become actually powerless. Things change in the world, economies, society and individuals change and grow. While the system serves the needs of the population all is well and good. But when the institutions and mechanism of government fail to be able to respond then we have a problem. Voters are confused (often deliberately by commentators, spin doctors and the media generally) ... they vote Obama in hoping for something better and then rush to the GOP when it doesn't happen. In fact ... the most worrying fact ... no one seems to offer genuine alternative visions for how we might live. Everything is either shallow and unappealing or ephemeral like the occupy movement.

Look forward to reading this.

We always seem to come to this point, that when discussing American politics the words communist and fascist get used without any clear justification. I think this is because in America the word 'communist' is just an insult or is used for anyone of the political 'left'. For instance I found this definition of communism: "a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs." I'm not saying it is complete ... but for instance to say Obama is a communist you would have to show that he believes in collective ownership of the means of production and so on. I don't think he does, does he?

Here are the demands of the Communist Manifesto: Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. Abolition of all right of inheritance. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form and combination of education with industrial production. ... which of these did he introduce or try to introduce?

Obama seemed to start out being for some kind of progressive agenda, ending wars, getting some kind of vision for the future that supported people ... but now he is just Mr. Dronestrikes ... I think he got scared by the far right and tried to shift in their direction completely losing his way. He's clearly an intelligent man ... especially compared to George W. (who wouldn't be) ... but somehow this is a disadvantage ... people like certainty ... they don't like to see someone uncertain or 'visibly' thinking about what to do. There's too much focus group/ spin going on. Anyway that's what it looks like from my distant viewpoint.

in debased nature. is making a neat ruin of an irate nun.

and the farmer's greed ... accumulates sheep and grass, hoards tons of turnips.

The thing about fighting in the ring is you always have a set of rules, a restricted space, an artificial goal, an adjudicator, an audience, protective gear (not always), grading opponents by weight and so on, sometimes commercial interests ... and so on. Not saying that there's anything wrong with any one or all of those but they do change everything. It's the same when martial arts become competitive sports, sometimes Olympic sports ... they change.

Just posting this for general interest: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/prehistoric-rock-art-visit-around-world-180952989/?no-ist ... I went to Altamira (pic number 3 on slideshow) a few months ago ... you can only see replicas of the caves but still impressive. Just thinking how universal this thing of making a hand imprint is ... wonder why. Keep the pics of places near you coming ... (please)!!!!

who watches in silence? Yes, I mean you! Who are you? The cat got your tongue?