The idea that democracy already failed and americans are already serving oligarchs is more common than you might think.

It’s certainly difficult to see how anti-trump people are anti-democracy: the mechanism with which trump won is distinctly NOT democratic.

To some extent, democracy (and a republic to a far greater extent) only works because of fear of violence. This was discussed heavily in the early days of the republic (well, both the us and rome).

But then it didn't fail because the version that was implemented started off with oligarchs we have been slowly moving in the right direction

Ehh, you win some you lose some. If you look throughout history, our rights and needs are constantly defended. You could look at that as progress, or you could look at it as a constant rebuffing of powerful forces trying to change the direction of the country. It’s a matter of perspective. Personally i’ve found judging social progress to be a rather fruitless task in a general sense; only when we try to solve specific problems are there clear cut victories and losses.

That’s what they teach in the classrooms you faithfully attended. Gotta love the raptured eyes of the pupils, so alike those wondering about the virtues of Stalinism...

The ex-Soviets I've talked to about this pretty unanimously relate that they were raised to think the USSR was the best country on earth, just like we are in the US. They also tend to agree that life here is way, way better. In other words, just because we both had to recite a Pledge of Allegiance every morning doesn't mean we both had exile, mass murder, man-made famines, etc., on the same scale.

Just because some country in the past had it worse doesn't mean our country now doesn't have massive structural issues. A republic requires the trust of its people to function properly, and the fact that this trust is nearly gone in America should be worrying to everyone.

Ah yes, The Gulag Archipelago

I don't want violence, and getting things done by voting is obviously much better, but for protests to work I think there has to be a threat of impending violence. A bit like how the nuclear deterrence works but on a smaller scale. I think the idea that the government should be afraid of its people is not a strange idea in his country. Now let's think when is the last time that happened?

I am thinking during the Vietnam War protests or Civil Right Movement. I have heard that one reason MLK's protests worked is because there was a credible threat from Malcom X and Nation of Islam, which encouraged gun ownership and self defense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ballot_or_the_Bullet

Yielding and accepting MLK's ideas was only possible as a compromise to preventing a more violent outcome from other groups.

I am sorry, but you are misunderstanding or deliberately distorting history. I admired a number of things about Malcom X and his movement, but he was always a marginal figure across the whole society. MLK "won" because he and his allies got the federal government, the establishment media and many liberal Republicans (the convention then) in Congress on his side. Bannon and his ilk want nothing more than for violent left wing people to act like it's 1968 in Paris. They will be branded as terrorists and the real destruction of our democratic institutions will follow. We need to attack this clown cult by voting and the courts when, as he is trying to do now, Trump goes after the census, voting rights, and the rule of law.

> I am sorry, but you are misunderstanding

Quite possibly, I only remember stuff I read a while back and don't know the details.

> he was always a marginal figure across the whole society

I don't disagree that he wasn't marginal, he was. But he wasn't unknown. He advocated violence for self defense. Read "The Ballot or the Bullet" speech

http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/speeches/malcolm_x_bal...

He doesn't say that people should go and commit indiscriminate violence but there is warning that violence might happen if violence against blacks continues. He mentions someone throwing a Molotov cocktail and how unheard of it was for black people to do that. The implication is, this stuff will start spreading fast and quick if the current course continues. There is also an interesting parallel made how the US Army was defeated by guerrilla fighters in Asia, that was a very pertinent remark and appeals to what was on many people's minds at that time.

I think those who were in power certainly knew and were aware of Black Nationalism, Black Panthers, them buying and training to use firearms.

> MLK "won" because he and his allies got the federal government, the establishment media and many liberal Republicans (the convention then) in Congress on his side.

I posit that it happened because there was threat of something like Malcom X was saying happening. I am probably wrong as am only am amateur, you seem to know a bit more about it. So I'd like to hear more on this if you have time or patience.

Unexpected words from the devil himself!

But the threat of violence is what seems to work:

https://www.vox.com/2015/4/30/8518681/protests-riots-work

Many Americans like to whine about their gun rights because they need the guns to fight an oppressive government! But it seems the U.S. government has gotten away with quite a lot lately in terms of how corrupt they've become and the fact that so many Americans own guns doesn't seem to have deterred them too much.

In fact, every protest seems to be met with increasingly more violence from the government. Something tells me they aren't too scared at all about people's guns. I can only imagine how they will act when they start allowing police departments to launch drones against protesters in the future (taser-armed, pepper spray-armed, whatever).

The left is shooting itself in the foot, by having gun control on its agenda. If Occupy or BLM brought as many guns to their protests as more right-wing protesters do, the police would probably think twice before dispersing them with riot police, beatings, and pepper spray.

At least, that's a theory. It might turn into a bloodbath.

The mass incarceration of African-Americans effectively eliminates the Second Amendment rights of a large segment of that population. (Many have observed that mass incarceration, via the drug war, began soon after segregation became illegal: When one tool of mass oppression became illegal, another was developed. There is some evidence that Nixon intended the drug war to suppress blacks and hippies.)

And more importantly, law enforcement responds much differently to guns possessed by black people and guns possessed by whites. An African-American only has to put their hand in their pocket or reach for something, and they are shot. White Americans are encouraged by some in law enforcement to own guns and to use them to prevent crime. People talk about gun owners stopping criminals; you would have to be insane to be black and draw a firearm anywhere around police officers or white gun owners, and especially at the scene of a crime.

That hasn't worked out so well. For example, Wounded Knee, MOVE, Ruby Ridge and Waco.

A century ago, and the rest were people resisting search/arrest warrants. That's generally an incredibly poor idea.

Right wing protesters/militias regularly parade around with clearly visible guns. Now, perhaps there is a double standard w.r.t. how police deal with them, as opposed to left-wing protesters... But perhaps there isn't.

Violence? Drag his body down the street? Attacking innocent people until everyone does what you say? Those groups get labelled terrorist.

That is the difference between a first world country and a second or third. Some people may hate trump but they also know in a few years people will have the option of voting for someone else.

When you change leaders by dragging them down a street you get the types of leaders who will drag you down the street if need be.

> Violence? Drag his body down the street? Attacking innocent people until everyone does what you say? Those groups get labelled terrorist.

Or, an ICE agent, police officer, border agent, private security guard, etc. etc.

Exactly this is what I meant with "inherent violence in the capitalist system".

> Violence? [...] That is the difference between a first world country and a second or third.

"Third-world" doesn't mean what you think it means. Switzerland is a third-world country.

None of that Cold War pedantry. Language has evolved in the decades since the fall of the USSR. Switzerland is a first world country on the developed-developing-underdeveloped economic axis that most people mean now.

Interesting. I have never met anyone in Europe that uses the term that way, but apparently it was used that way in some contexts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World

I upvoted you for historical merit but the meaning of words change. Third world means poor countries now.

> Third world means poor countries now.

A citation would be nice. Also, what countries would be second-world with that definition?

EDIT: Note that I asked what countries would be SECOND-world with this definition. Not third-world.

>A citation would be nice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World

>Also, what countries would be second-world with that definition?

In present-day English, the Third World is "the developing countries of Europe, Asia, Latin America, and Africa".[1] Third world countries in Europe, Latin America, Asia, and Africa include Russia, Albania, Nigeria, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Dominican Republic, Cuba, South Africa, and Armenia. The term usually suggests poverty and low level of industrial development and thus it is the opposite of the term developed nations. This usage is considered by some to be offensive.

Re-read my comment? I asked what countries would be SECOND-world with that definition.

The Second World used to be the communist block [1] but not necessarily meaning that it was worse off than the First one. Western Europe had many communist/socialist parties looking forward to implementing a socialist kind society. They were thinking about it as an improvement.

About the origin of those terms see [2].

The Second World term was seldom used in Europe even during the 70s as far as I can remember. There is no more second world now. We jump straight from first to third world. It feels sadly right if we agree that the gap is widening.

By the way, nobody in Europe would think Russia is a third world country. It's first world.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_World

[2] http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world_countries....

In parlance 3rd world didn't just mean non aligned as it did in political circles, for the hoi polloi it just meant underdeveloped economy --whether that was misuse of the term is irrelevant because that's how most people used it when a politically bipolar world existed.

Nope, the difference between first, second and third world is whether a country aligns to the USA block, the USSR bloc or remain unaligned and pretend to stay out of the Cold War stand-off. That Third World Non-aligned countries tended to be piss-poor, plundered failed states, and theaters for proxy wars between USA and USSR helped the confusion that the classification is of economic development. It’s not

You're using an old defintion that is very rarely used today. It's now considered archaic, relegated to the dustbin of history. In fact, you're attempting to educate the parent precisely because of how old and out of use that defintion is. Further, it's so out of use, the most common dictionary references to eg first world, are always about level of development / industrialization and not cold war political alignments.

First, second and third world is now drastically more commonly used as a reference to the level of development.

It’s not an “old”, it’s “the” definition for this expression. One thing is to make mistakes in genuine good faith and appreciate when something new comes across one’s way. Another is to brush away anything that points to one’s mistakes. It’s called arrogance.

Oh and BTW, understanding that “1, 2, 3rd world” are not a success scale enshrining the winner position to one’s own moral system does help a lot in not coming through as an arrogant fool.

> Some people may hate trump but they also know in a few years people will have the option of voting for someone else.

This is the thing where I am not sure of, and this is the problem. You remember "Lock her up"? Who can guarantee that Trump is not going to follow through on this promise? Who can guarantee that Trump will not again cooperate with the Russians in order to get reelected? Or for what its worth who can guarantee that Trump won't pardon himself (or fire Mueller) when the fire of the Mueller investigations grows too hot - and then, who can guarantee that the Republicans will grow the spine to impeach him?

The perspective of a possibility of change in three years is growing slimmer and slimmer by the day, with each moderate Republican getting replaced by an alt-righter. And you better hope no other Supreme Court justice dies or retires as long as Trump is in power - because then nothing that challenges gerrymandering will pass the SC.

>You remember "Lock her up"? Who can guarantee that Trump is not going to follow through on this promise?

1) He hasn't in over a year of office.

2) He can't do anything that overrides the judicial and legislative branches. Which is why ALL of his major plans go no where. No Muslim ban. No reproductive rights changes. Nothing.

3) If she commits crimes, why should she be above jail time? Shouldn't everyone who major commits crimes be in jail? Trump, Hillary, what's the difference? A crime is a crime--regardless of whether you like that candidate.

And back to #2. That is why your worldview is both insane, and dangerous. Even when you have a "Bad president" the rest of the country keeps ticking along fine because the other branches are designed from the ground up to prevent dictators of all types.

So you basically just want to burn the country to the ground because "your candidate" didn't win. And that's a horrific reason to plunge a country into chaos. You're basically arguing to plunge the country into the very chaos you claim we're already in.

Dragging bodies through the streets? Burning down buildings, and neighborhoods? Smoke bombs? Throwing bottles of piss at veterans? Does that sound like something that brings freedom and liberty and peace? Does utopia come from evil? And how in the world can you be sure "your vision" of utopia is going to be the one that comes when you pull a revolution? You think when you destabilize the most powerful country in the world, that nobody else in the world is going to try and swoop into that power vacuum?

Only if you've been drinking the coolaid.

So let me end with a quote from Bill Clinton:

    They need to be for something specific 
    and not just against something because
    if you’re just against something, 
    somebody else will fill the vacuum 
    you create.”

> 2) He can't do anything that overrides the judicial and legislative branches. Which is why ALL of his major plans go no where ... No reproductive rights changes

https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2017/07/laws-affecting-re...

There have been plenty of changes. They may not have occurred on the Federal level, but at the state level, plenty of things have changed. Both of which are empowered in both positive and negative directions (I leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine which is which) by this administration.

> He can't do anything that overrides the judicial and legislative branches.

For now, they hold. Trump has (more or less) silently nominated huge numbers of federal judges (http://www.businessinsider.de/trump-judges-attorneys-nominat...). Once these go through, or a SC judge dies/retires, these are lifetime positions and will shape US justice for decades.

> 3) If she commits crimes, why should she be above jail time? Shoudln't everyone who major commits crimes be in jail? Trump, Hillary, what's the difference? A crime is a crime--regardless of whether you like that candidate.

"Three felonies a day" and "selective enforcement" are the key points here. Of course it's fine if Hillary really did commit a crime by mishandling her emails - but if his inner circle gets off free for the same offense (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/us/politics/private-email...), it's not fair any more.

> Even when you have a "Bad president" the rest of the country keeps ticking along fine because the other branches are designed from the ground up to prevent dictators of all types.

The Electoral College was designed to keep a unfit person from office, and Trump with his many failures (from bankruptcies over countless accusations of sexual misconduct, some even confessed by himself, to being in collusion with the Russians and the simple fact that many professionals regard him as mentally unfit) still passed. I do not place trust in a system that has been rotting since decades.

> So you basically just want to burn the country to the ground because "your candidate" didn't win.

Burning the country to the ground is what Trump and his destructionist friends (the Bannon circle) are right in the middle of doing! By defunding critical parts of the state, they're eroding public service and thus the trust of the population in the government!

> You think when you destabilize the most powerful country in the world, that nobody else in the world is going to try and swoop into that power vacuum?

This is the thing that scares me: A President obviously unfit for office and chaos across the world - including, to come back to the original topic, Romania and many other Eastern European countries. A competent president would be literally doing everything to keep the US in influence and the Russians in check - Trump is embroiled in so many scandals that Putin, Xi and Kim Jong-Un have free rein.

And, maybe a bit funny because I identify as far-left, but what Putin has been doing in (Eastern) Europe (not just invading Ukraine, but also supporting right-wing and pro-Russian parties in France, Germany, Poland or Hungary) is really scaring me. Putin is dangerous, Europe is way too far split to be any kind of opposition and the US cannot be relied upon any more. Not really nice prospects.

When the revolution comes for your head, too, you might have a different view on that, and history has shown that to happen time and time again.

History also shows that nobody ever believes that will happen, right up until it does.

The people in power have to fear losing elections. The system was specifically designed so the masses can force change without violence.

Supporting terrorism to override that system is awful, regardless of how you feel about capitalism.

> The system was specifically designed so the masses can force change without violence.

Point is, you need masses. Masses that are interested in politics, and actually have the time to be interested in politics! If I would have to work two (or more) jobs to get by certainly politics were solid bottom of my priority list. Democracy needs an electorate that is interested in democracy or it will get owned by a minority who is, and then dismantled.

since you seem to be replying to everyone else can you please reply to my comment as well? I'm curious where the downvotes come from but no one is addressing me...

>The system was specifically designed so the masses can force change without violence.

It was also specifically stated by the system architects that their safeguards would inevitably become null.

With that being said, I do not advocate such violent measures. The strategies of Dr. King seem to me to be more effective than violence when dealing with an enemy which has a monopoly on violence.

Sure, hate the rich, it doesn't prove you have compassion for the poor. What you are stating as a threat is really the 'protection' of private property. Something that a poor person has access to as well, and in fact the utilization of such could allow them to come out of poverty.

As far as your remarks on power, I hope you also understand it isn't a replacement for a hierarchy built on competence. Something that the Capitalist system seems to reward as well...interesting...

> Something that a poor person has access to as well

I doubt this. When the other side has orders of magnitude more money than you, you don't have access to protection by the legal system - this is the very reason why and how, for example, patent trolls stay in business.

> and in fact the utilization of such could allow them to come out of poverty

You're talking about trickle-down effect, I guess? That's been proven false. When all the employers pay only the least they have to, you won't ever get out of poverty. What could help is strikes, but union busting has taken care of that "problem" for the employers.

> it isn't a replacement for a hierarchy built on competence

Competence does not seem to be rewarded as much as it was in ye olde times. Look at who is in government right now: certainly not the experts that the US needs, and in Europe the situation doesn't look much better...

(for the record, given your question above: I have not downvoted you)

Sorry, when I said access to private property I was referring to the right of having private property in general. A poor person can still have private property, I'm not going to play the game of rich vs poor.

Again for the utilization of private property, a person is still able to use their own property without the interference of ANYONE else. I'm not speaking about rich vs poor, I'm speaking as an individual.

Essentially what my entire post has been is about the dynamic of power and victimization when it comes to the criticism of Capitalism. I'm sorry but I really can't subscribe to the idea that it's inherently violent because poor people are oppressed and then the police are used as the henchmen of the rich when the poor act out. Which is why I raised the concept of competency to begin with. A poor person has the right and if they have the ability, they can try to leverage their own way of acquiring value. It becomes violent when resources are scarce and the 'poor' are victimized into believing that the rich are the oppressors aka Maoist China & Stalinist Russia. As long as opportunities exist to move up and down the class/social ladder I don't again think its concise to say that more 'power' is needed and I'd again say that understanding that hierarchy can be achieved of competency is important to remove the idea of victimization.

Lastly to explain my point simply, you might be for those that throw bricks as a display of 'power', but those bricks can be used not only for the skyscrapers of the 'oppressors', but they can be used for the bricks of small businesses and other uses to enable poor people to make a living and in turn create value for others in a capitalist society. How is this related to President Trump and how he became president/what this means for America? I literally have no idea how American capitalism is to blame?

It seems like you just don't like Trump, that's fine me neither. But I'm not going to start raving about anti-capitalistic ideology while I type all of this on a MacBook am I...