Trump Supporter

Hi, Arminius,

I agree to that, but at the same time, that would indicate a sort of irrelevance of the present topic to one, whose main thesis has been seen as of yet unfocused by Uccisore. Therefore maybe it is premature to not to include this present diversion as not relevant, and it may be ok to go on with it, maybe until further clarification is introduced, while at the same time, pursue Your suggested link as a way to proceed.

Perhaps Carleas, who has agreed to judge over this forum could add further insight into the way to proceed.

In theory, this forum is just for lining up the details for a debate. If you and Arminius/Alf would like to debate communism, we could set that up. Just need to figure out the format (standard is something like 5 posts each, 250 words or so), judges, who goes first, and, of course, a clearly expressed question for debate --could be just arguing for/against the statement “Communism isn’t dead”, but could also be some narrower point of disagreement that comes out of the discussion in the thread Arminius linked to.

Though I said I would earlier in this thread, I don’t really have time to judge a debate right now, but I’m sure we could find someone who could judge, or we could do a non-judged debate, with or without vote buttons in the discussion.

Let me know what you want to do.

Thanks, Carleas. I am open to any and all forms to pursue the more specific debate on Trump, or the more general dialogue relating to Communism and Capitalism. I would like to see all threads relevant to both points of view retained, while maintaining the
one and leaning toward a unified grasp of what they entail.

Sorry You can not judge, if judging is what Arminius and i agree upon. In the case that a judgement is
deemed appropriate,
then be it that.

Arminius,

I think it would only be fair, to agree, first of all, to
the idea of debate including Your link on
Communism, since a mindset occurred perhaps both: first, the introductive similarity to how Trumpism relates to the general framework of ideological
differences, particularly as itcould go deeper into the
very essence of those differences via related it to the ideas presented in Your own suggested link, with which I am not familiar to the extent, that I could use
it without reading it carefully.

What do You think?

As far as Your quote on Hegel, yes the quality of the synthesis befits a newer version, however, this changes most noticeably with Marx, who replaces spirit with a material manifestation. This is probably retrograde, toward the direction of earlier more concrete conflict resolution, for the sake of the proletariat. For to attempt a quest toward a view society is more prone to accept more literally the
idea, is perhaps to his (Marx) credit.

Marx was a Links-Hegelianer (Left-Hegelian). He turned many parts of Hegel’s conception upside down - so, for example, Marx said “das Sein bestimmt das Bewußtsein” (“the Sein [being] determines the consciousness”), which was just the opposite of what Hegel had said before him: “das Bewußtsein bestimmt das Sein” (“the consciousness determines the Sein [being]”).

The reason why I am saying that “communism is not dead” has to do with Hegel’s Dialektik, which is - by the way - not turned upside down by Marx. So we do not have to consider Hegel and Marx separately in this case. I think this is well considered in the thread I linked to. So I would prefer to continue the discussion in that said thread.

I support trump only cause the poor bastard stepped into a straitjacket and I kinda have to support him the same as I kinda have to be an american. Didn’t have much of a choice. All of a sudden it was like, ahhhhh, this guy, gotta support this guy whether I like it or not. Why? Well shit, just another poor bloke like meself stuck in a bad spot. Couldn’t help but feel for the little guy, ya know?

Fair enough yet a debate stylistically more a mirror of a Dialectic. But perhaps, Trump lacking an ideological groumd, such would be , an exploration using hypothetical arguments based on revised information, not that such am endeavor could not mirror a close approximation.

Sorry , the above was meant for Arminius

Yes but he placed himself there, it was not as though someone placed a gun at his head.

Can you honestly say that we place ourselves in places? On our own?

Yes,certainly at times

To defend my position Arminius, is a difficult one,at best
The idea of a material dialectic is certainly a controversial one,even in today’s atmosphere

But a presumption is a presumption, and it is apropos that Trump is a paradigm of revision. Therefore, it would still be convenient to base an argument in its own merit, especially at a time so full of duplicity, since it is of duplicity to deny a formal argument sans for reasons which you pointed to in the manyform usages of significant words. Especially key words relating to Dialectic.

Hence, we go back to the usage pre Hegel, and find a differance.That difference is as significant before as after Hegel’ s use,and as such, a very brief correlation would bear it out, at the very least.

Not that it would. constitute the totally abstracted reflection of its meaning in such a manner, but, it would imply relevance.

Dear Jerkey.

If it is right that “Trump is a paradigm of revision”, what kind of revision is it and where does it exactly lead to?

To times before Hegel, thus: before 1770? Or what do you mean?

Your text does not make this clear.

Hello Arminius,

Again ,revision is such a general term, that to specify its usage, one that literally fits its intended use would be necessary.

Here I am using it in its wide context of trying to implement change, whereas the blueprints and the power and wi behind that change have been clearly outlined prior to election.

In the narrow sense, it can not yet be absolutely and irrevocably inscribed, because, non of it has been implemented.

However, it certainly looks as if it will be. The former homeland security chief himself was quoted in saying that Trump has the potential to be a great President. That said, the narrowest possible interpretation of that idea can only be used in reference to Trump, once he has clearly defined his position in terms of an implementrd, socially proved movement, which now only appears as also a possibility.

The ideas are reactionary and drastic to the point of bravura, yet, bravura at a time requiring as such.

So , revision could be seen as of yet , a movement, albeit a drastic attempt to insure the success of Capitalism, against the backdrop of a social movement not complacent with it.

Hello again.

Yes, but isn’t “reactionary” also a general term?

What exactly makes those ideas you mentioned so “reactionary”?

“Great president” or “implemented, socially proved movement”, a “possibility” or not - that all does not express very much, does it?

I am not a Trump fan but hoping that you will enlighten me. Please clarify! :slight_smile:

You are right on point. The genealogical precedents of meaning are built up from one word to the next.A reactionary is someone who looks for precedents consisting of systems based on models, paradigms that worked before in some context. So you comment is fitting .

I found the following defintion of “reactionary”, but I must say that I do not fully accept it:

The definition is one that refers to the French revolution, and the French revolutionaries were not better than those they fightet against, all other revolutionaries after them have given evidence, because they were even more terroristic. In addition: All revolutionaries react! So they themselves are reactionaries.

What remains if all those definitions of “reactionary” are not really convincing?

There still remains the lurid record of the purges of members of the ancient regime, memorialized by the most famous scene of the murder of Marat.

As far as the foibles of history go, pictures are worth far more then words. Your pictorial representations are very relevant to the motive of the course of this discussion.

Yes, but note that pictures are not always far more worth than words. They too can give you the wrong impression and are used for the purpose of propaganda

The worth of propaganda is not always evaluated in terms of right or wrong, they are mostly seen for what they are worth in terms of being effective or not.

When Trump’s involvement allegedly underlying the conspiracy to stop the investigation is muted by a picture of Trump’s audience with the pope, some die
hard members of his base, some Catholic, interpret
this positively toward the base allegation; whereas Spicer’s exclusion from said meeting may not create a positive image, without the actual photograph.

The thoughts of the former usually creat positive inference, whereas the later, more likely shift toward a
non pictorial reasoning process, as to an absence, a shift from a figurative to a literal basing of cognition.

The goodness or badness of the propaganda value, at first, do not involve the question of which presentation is good or bad, but instead compares
the picture of Trump with the verbal content of the other. Which propaganda is of more value in terms of getting to the truth? The absence of Spicer, literally, or the presence of Trump figuratively?