RE: The Last Word
That's a well thought out and eloquent response, which I appreciate a lot @distantsignal, thanks :-)
There are problems though, nuances your response doesn't take into account. As you rightly point out, if we attempt to dive into the deepest motivations of human beings, it's nigh impossible to deny that there's a scale for everything, and that no one individual resides at the very extremes of these scales; there's shades of gray, no black and white, and this goes for racism as much as for any other idea or idealism we hold on to. I like that nuanced approach, it shows a willingness to not reduce these complex issues to simple, and easily marketable memes.
I also agree that the darker and lighter shades of gray are both guilty of reducing the discussion to mere slogans and generalizations; I do not exclude myself from that observation. We're also all equally affected by the usual restrictions where it comes to form a truly objective opinion on anything; cognitive biases, cognitive dissonance or the mere fact that we operate on auto-pilot 95% of the time. This is all to say that there are no singular one size fits all truths, certainly when we try to creep inside the minds of the people who reside in a different shade of grey.
Having said all that, it is my strong opinion still that Trump is a racist. Or just even dumber than I thought. And you've given no argument I haven't heard a thousand times before. Of course Trump follows up any racist remark with a strong remark in the exact opposite direction. It's his instance of the "some of my best friends are immigrants" ploy. In my book that's a far cry from a "debunking" of anything. And it's no surprise that Trump isn't aware of his own racist biases; most of us aren't aware of our own biases, most crazy people don't think they're crazy, most racists don't think they're racist. And those who are aware don't, as you claim, routinely show their true faces, which brings me to the false dichotomy between white nationalism and racism. The term "white nationalism" itself was invented as a euphemism for "white supremacy," and white supremacists are simply white racists; yes there are racists with other complexions as well. It's the same creative use of words underlying that other dreadful term, "race-realism." Now they're just concerned with protecting their culture, or afraid they will become a minority, be replaced... Give me a break...
And besides all that, what is the threshold for calling someone racist? Do we believe someone is a racist only when they go around shooting people with different skin-color? Or when they shout out "I'm a racist"? Look, Trump was already at the front-lines in the birther movement that sought to defame Obama by publicly painting him a Muslim from Kenya, demanding he shows his birth-certificate and implying his position as the POTUS was illegitimate. A position consequently championed by the likes of Ben Shapiro, Stefan Molinieux and many prominent members of the GOP. To be honest to Crowder here: I believe he went against all that at the time. In his political as well as his business-life he has sufficiently shown to have no qualms whatsoever about lying with a straight face in front of a large international audience. He is not just some guy; higher standards should apply to him than to just some guy. I gave one example and that one example should be enough to disqualify this man from the position he holds, but unfortunately he's a regular avalanche of speech and policies that comfort white nationalists and strengthen them in their ill conceived convictions. Even if Trump doesn't believe he's a white nationalist or racist, don't you think he should then at least be concerned about the way these fascists seem to gather around him? When your supporters start chanting "send her back" you should take a step back and meditate on where you took a wrong turn. Or not, if you indeed agree...
As for your remarks about socialism, well I won't go there, but you're severely mistaken there too in my opinion. Let me just say that the fact that a person or a country calls itself, or is called by others, socialist or communist, doesn't make it so. Just like Trump claiming to condemn fascists doesn't exempt him in any way from all the other things he says and tweets. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea isn't democratic, isn't for the people or from the people, and isn't a republic. The National Socialist Democratic Party from Germany wasn't socialist. Stalin's USSR, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia were not communist, not Marxist, not socialist. Sweden today is more socialist than China has ever been, even though it's a capitalist country. Only shades of grey, right?
So, when you say "Antifa may not be fascist but many are certainly communist and authoritarian", I don't understand what you're saying. Fascists are authoritarian, yes, but communists and socialists are the exact opposite, yet you go on to say that "both those variants of socialism are violent and tyrannical". The definition of communism, the imagined society of the Guru for socialists all over the world, is as follows: a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money, and the state. No state. No classes. Collective ownership. Nothing in there suggests the use of violence or any other form of exercising economical or social power. Communists are the only true anarchists, and many Antifa members are just that: anarchists. ... Okay... now I did go there... ;-)
Like anyone else I too have my own biases and strongly anchored convictions, and I'm aware that I may be wrong about all of this, and that I'm wrong about this for sure in many other people's minds. It's difficult for anyone, myself included, to discuss topics that touch so closely on our deepest convictions, and not fall prey to the many pitfalls that go hand in hand with political and ideological discourse. All we can do as individuals is try to navigate the treacherous quicksand, but at the same time treasure trove of well meaning souls that all strive for their version of a better tomorrow, that is this marketplace of ideas. And you've navigated it very well my friend, even if we don't see eye-to-eye :-) I'm grateful for your response, and apologize for ranting on...
No worries.
RE: socialism. Any form of it necessitates total economic control from a central authority once you scale it up. Socialism, i.e. common ownership, works very well on small scales because everyone is very close to the decision making. Families, farms, collectives, et al. However, once you scale it up a central authority has to materialize to coordinate the economy and that's where you really run into its totalitarian nature. Socialism is really economic totalitarianism, and since all our decisions routinely interact with the economy centralizing those decisions leads to total control over our lives, and since all of us are different and have different priorities, socialism requires the forceful homogenization of economic choice. Fascism adds the dimension of centering its socialist ideology - or flavor if you will - around a race / people / nation to that equation. That's it's big distinguishing feature.
As for the Nazis vs Communists, they are definitely variants of socialism, just veering off into different forms. In Europe at the time of fascism's and communism's rise, my understanding of the political zeitgeist was a debate about what kind of socialism was desirable, not between free markets and socialism. One centered around a global, proletariat or the worker, and the other into race and the nation. What makes them the same is that they both desired total control over individuals, so the hairs I'm splitting here don't really matter. Every form of large scale, applied socialism has led to authoritarianism, starvation and mass murder. I don't really care if it's communism or fascism. The experiments have been run. They're both violent, oppressive garbage.
The Nordic countries you speak of are definitely not socialist. They're market economies with large welfare states. That's totally different.
My problem with your arguments when it comes to Trump's racism, or racism in general, is that you exclude the evidence that speaks contrary to your conclusion. If someone says "I think we should limit immigration" but then follows it up by saying, "and I have a lot of immigrant friends" you blatantly state that it's the former response the one that truly matters. That reveals their true nature, their racism, etc.
Both statements can be true. My family emigrated to the US in the 20th century so I recognize not only the importance of allowing immigrants into our country but ALSO the need to strictly control borders.
Trump will say he condemns white nationalists TOTALLY, but that's dismissed because of the other things he says. You're either being dismissive or attempting to divine the true meaning of his soul, when it could be that he's a shit communicator - obviously - or you are only hearing what you want to hear. He can be both against white nationalism and be pro nationalism, and while there are racists and white nationalists that have rallied around him, there are others that dismiss him, like Richard Spencer, an avowed white nationalist. There is also a lot of regular people rally around him too. Working folks of all stripes, rich people, republicans, nationalists, hispanics and blacks, so I'm not willing to dismiss him or the people that support him outright as racists. I mean, there ARE, but the same goes for the left. Identity politics has morphed the liberal minded democrats into a mess of racists and sexists. Everything is related to your identity now and how oppressed you are. If Trump is tapping into that then so is the Left at every level.
I reject both sides of this manifestation. Racism is stupid, white supremacists are assholes and identity politics is for suckers.