10-26-2018, 12:02 PM
(10-25-2018, 05:22 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:(10-25-2018, 01:33 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The millennials don't favor right-wing "populism" (which is not populism). They favor the opposite. So that prediction is based on an incorrect assumption. The millennials oppose Brexit and other right wing alt-right nationalism favored by older generations in Europe and America today.
In Britain, they favour Corbyn. But in many places on the Continent, they favour the nationalists. Younger American millennials (born in the late 90s) also preferred Trump over Hill.
I'm not so sure about that.
Quote:Quote:There is no "authoritarian progressivism." Progressivism and social justice are liberal and create genuine freedom. Only neo-liberals think that pro-business policies are policies of "freedom," and that opposing oligarchy is "authoritarian."
PC is authoritarian. Full stop.
PC is not a very strong element within government and politics. It has its place on campuses, but that is a comparatively trivial arena, and not very influential in congress. PC is mainly asking or requiring people to use respectful language toward all groups. It sometimes goes too far, and some left-wing groups are too focused on limited causes. I consider that poor strategy, but not authoritarian.
Totalitarian communism is certainly authoritarian, but that's not what progressives advocate.
Quote:Quote:If indignation of tyrannical governments rises in the third world against western imperialism, then perhaps neo-cons could rise in The West among those who want to maintain it. But since neo-cons are out of date, so is western imperialism, which is what it is.
Imagine a scale of authoritarianism, from 0 to 100. Western imperialism could be 30, maybe 40, but many of your beloved national liberation movements are close to 100. A combination of Western-educated intelligentsia's left-wing authoritarianism and traditional tribalism seems to be the worst. Neo-cons were right to fight this devilry.
Neo-cons did not fight devilry; they imposed it. It's main product was the unwarranted invasion and occupation of Iraq. It had other ambitions yet to be realized, such as the conquest of Iran, and earlier, a militant approach to communism. The aim in Iraq was to depose Saddam Hussein and secure oil properties and revenues for the USA and The West. That had little to to with overthrowing Iraqi tribalism, nor with Iraqi Western intelligentsia. Saddam was a Sunni Moslem, imposed some degree of egalitarian opportunity, and aspired to be an Assyrian Emperor. The principle result of that adventure was the creation of the Islamic State. At home, USA neo-cons imposed a state that tortures its enemies and spies on its citizens. It's other prime objective was to boost Israel in its mission of suppressing the Palestinians.
Some national liberation movements were communist and authoritarian. I consider this the result of the fact that socialism and communism were the leading liberation movements of those times (early to mid 20th century). These movements in the 3rd world were easily corrupted by ambitious leaders, but so were other nationalist movements that were not communist ones. Many third world governments remain corrupt oligarchies, but there is a range of development among them.