Should the Republican Party be regarded as a criminal organization?

[The Romulan Republic]

Purely hypothetical- I know perfectly well that treating them as such in practice would be impossible, short of them being on the losing side of a civil war. However, as a hypothetical/moral question, leaving aside practical consideration, do the actions of Republican leadership across various levels of government in inciting and condoning extremist violence, and protecting Trump's corruption, obstruction of justice, and attacks on American institutions, justifying regarding the Republican party as a criminal enterprise? Can these actions still be dismissed as just the offenses of individual bad actors (after all, if we judged every organization by its worst members and actions, we'd have to condemn pretty much every organization humans have ever created)? Or are they so systemic in the party that the entire party must be regarded as a criminal enterprise, more akin to a mafia or an extremist organization than what we would normally expect from a major political party in a first world nation?

[Ritterin Sophia]

I don't think they should be regarded as simply criminal, all fascist groups should be regarded as hostis humani generis since their ideology calls for the eradication of everyone not like them and since their ideology relies upon the idea that certain groups or kind of people are by some criteria predisposed or deserve to rule over others and others deserve only to be ruled or exterminated, they will keep making these distinctions ad nauseum. Fascists like Republicans have no space in any decent society, their every action and word is for the purpose of exterminating those of us who aren't of their kyriarchic elite.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Purely hypothetical- I know perfectly well that treating them as such in practice would be impossible, short of them being on the losing side of a civil war. However, as a hypothetical/moral question, leaving aside practical consideration, do the actions of Republican leadership across various levels of government in inciting and condoning extremist violence, and protecting Trump's corruption, obstruction of justice, and attacks on American institutions, justifying regarding the Republican party as a criminal enterprise? Can these actions still be dismissed as just the offenses of individual bad actors (after all, if we judged every organization by its worst members and actions, we'd have to condemn pretty much every organization humans have ever created)? Or are they so systemic in the party that the entire party must be regarded as a criminal enterprise, more akin to a mafia or an extremist organization than what we would normally expect from a major political party in a first world nation?

They are unlawful enemy combatants, and should be treated as such. Like we did to a similar criminal syndicate over seventy years ago, they need to be bombed, until they don't have a pot to piss in, and their leadership driven to either suicide or the gallows.

And, this thread, I think, should be shifted to OT.

[The Romulan Republic]

Purely hypothetical- I know perfectly well that treating them as such in practice would be impossible, short of them being on the losing side of a civil war. However, as a hypothetical/moral question, leaving aside practical consideration, do the actions of Republican leadership across various levels of government in inciting and condoning extremist violence, and protecting Trump's corruption, obstruction of justice, and attacks on American institutions, justifying regarding the Republican party as a criminal enterprise? Can these actions still be dismissed as just the offenses of individual bad actors (after all, if we judged every organization by its worst members and actions, we'd have to condemn pretty much every organization humans have ever created)? Or are they so systemic in the party that the entire party must be regarded as a criminal enterprise, more akin to a mafia or an extremist organization than what we would normally expect from a major political party in a first world nation?

They are unlawful enemy combatants, and should be treated as such. Like we did to a similar criminal syndicate over seventy years ago, they need to be bombed, until they don't have a pot to piss in, and their leadership driven to either suicide or the gallows.

The key difference here is that the Republicans are operating in our own country, within our own system, which makes them far more difficult to deal with. If we bomb them, we're bombing our own country, and we will be the "collateral damage".

It may come to that (I do not believe that any country is so stable that a complete breakdown of the rule of law is impossible), but after 2018 and the results of the Mueller investigation thus far, and the initial steps being taken toward impeachment, and the demographic shifts which continue to weaken the Republicans and white supremacists long-term, I am still hopeful that the threat can be contained without needing to bomb our own country.

If it does come to that, as I've said before, I hope very much that it is not our side who start the fighting. We would need as much moral and legal legitimacy as we could get to ensure that enough of the armed forces came down on our side to make fighting anything but a last stand.

And, this thread, I think, should be shifted to OT.

Perhaps- I'll leave that to the mods discretion.

[Solauren]

No, it should not.

While individual members of the party probably have criminal assocations/actions in their past, the party in of itself does not meet the definition of a being organized crime.

From Wikipedia

Organized crime is a category of transnational, national, or local groupings of highly centralized enterprises run by criminals who intend to engage in illegal activity, most commonly for profit. Some criminal organizations, such as terrorist groups, are politically motivated. Sometimes criminal organizations force people to do business with them, such as when a gang extorts money from shopkeepers for "protection".

Gangs may become disciplined enough to be considered organized. A criminal organization or gang can also be referred to as a mafia, mob, or crime syndicate; the network, subculture and community of criminals may be referred to as the underworld.

European sociologists (e.g. Diego Gambetta) define the mafia as a type of organized crime group that specializes in the supply of extra-legal protection and quasi law enforcement. Gambetta's classic work on the Sicilian Mafia generates an economic study of the mafia, which exerts great influence on studies of the Russian Mafia, the Chinese Mafia, Hong Kong Triads and the Japanese Yakuza.

Other organizations—including states, churches, militaries, police forces, and corporations—may sometimes use organized-crime methods to conduct their activities, but their powers derive from their status as formal social institutions.

There is a tendency to distinguish organized crime from other forms of crime, such as white-collar crime, financial crimes, political crimes, war crime, state crimes, and treason. This distinction is not always apparent and academics continue to debate the matter.

For example, in failed states that can no longer perform basic functions such as education, security, or governance (usually due to fractious violence or to extreme poverty), organized crime, governance and war sometimes complement each other. The term "Oligarchy" has been used to describe democratic countries whose political, social and economic institutions come under the control of a few families and business oligarchs.

Bolding mine.

I have no doubt that the Republican party, via individual members, have used criminal methods to achieve their goals.

However, I would argue that the Republican Party is not a criminal organization, but one that wants to put a Oligarchy in place. And with them in place, they'll legalize whatever means they want to use to achieve their ends, so long as it's done 'by the State'.

In short, they're not crooks. Their psychopaths.

[Zaune]

I don't think they should be regarded as simply criminal, all fascist groups should be regarded as hostis humani generis since their ideology calls for the eradication of everyone not like them and since their ideology relies upon the idea that certain groups or kind of people are by some criteria predisposed or deserve to rule over others and others deserve only to be ruled or exterminated, they will keep making these distinctions ad nauseum. Fascists like Republicans have no space in any decent society, their every action and word is for the purpose of exterminating those of us who aren't of their kyriarchic elite.

I feel obliged to point out that it's only a fairly small leap of reasoning from that last sentence to "the only good Republican is a dead one".

I'm not saying you're wrong about fascists and the people who consider them the lesser of two evils compared to socialism, but I just thought we ought to be clear about the ramifications of the position you're taking.

[K. A. Pital]

Silly question.

How is it „criminal“, if the law allows it to exist, under what law?

The law itself has no basis to judge them. A post-facto trial like Nürnberg? That takes a supranational authority to judge the US government (a bipartisan institution) for 1st and 2nd types of crimes, ie crimes against peace, crimes of conspiracy to commit wars of aggression and such.

But what else is „criminal“ here? It just shows the limits of bourgeois „law“ as such.

Legalism is no substitute for own critical judgment...

[The Romulan Republic]

Silly question.

How is it „criminal“, if the law allows it to exist, under what law?

The law itself has no basis to judge them. A post-facto trial like Nürnberg? That takes a supranational authority to judge the US government (a bipartisan institution) for 1st and 2nd types of crimes, ie crimes against peace, crimes of conspiracy to commit wars of aggression and such.

But what else is „criminal“ here? It just shows the limits of bourgeois „law“ as such.

Legalism is no substitute for own critical judgment...

I mean, there are numerous acts engaged in and condoned by Republican leadership which are at best legally questionable and in some cases outright criminal under US law.

Sure, the organization isn't illegal (obviously). But its not a huge stretch to liken it at this point to an organized crime syndicate, especially if some of the theories about the 2016 election prove valid.

[K. A. Pital]

Organizations have been considered criminal in entirety very rarely, even in post-war Germany this has been extended to only select elements of Nazi power, ie those structures directly responsible for crimes against peace & crimes against humanity (SS, etc)

Under national law this is downright impossible.

Once again, individual crimes by members of the organization are not a prerequisite for its judgement as an entirely criminal organization. Which is of course hypocrisy, people would easily condemn a drug cartel but fail to condemn the US government...

[Ritterin Sophia]

I feel obliged to point out that it's only a fairly small leap of reasoning from that last sentence to "the only good Republican is a dead one".

I'm not saying you're wrong about fascists and the people who consider them the lesser of two evils compared to socialism, but I just thought we ought to be clear about the ramifications of the position you're taking.

I'm a transgender woman, their policies implicitly advocate and facilitate my oppression and victimization and even death. I'm fine with that.

[Zaune]

I'm a transgender woman, their policies implicitly advocate and facilitate my oppression and victimization and even death. I'm fine with that.

Fair. I'm not too broken up about it myself, even if I don't think everyone in the GOP who's chosen to walk the dark path did it for selfish reasons.

[Starglider]

Much as I would like to believe this represents a nadir of echo chamber insanity on this once flourishing forum, I am fairly confident this is not the case. A third of the population identifies with a political group that promotes marginally harsher criminal penalties and moderately less government assistance, and has no meaningful difference in foreign policy to the other major party, and you are debating whether to imprison them (in a nation that already has the highest incarceration rate in the world) or engage in unprovoked, cold-blooded genocide. Incidentally, murdering all of the currently registered ~37M republican party members would just about top the (state-ordered liquidation) death tolls of Stalin and Hilter combined, an appropriate accolade given that most of you are dreaming of state aparatus capable of a political (and inevitably, racial and agist although surprisingly not gender) purge on a historically unprecedented scale. Which will somehow not continue this behaviour and turn it on the rest of the population one the Republican rolls are executed.

Frankly if you somehow managed to start an insurrection on those grounds you would deserve the consequences. Which would probably include mass starvation of your own side given that US farmers overwhelmingly vote Republican.

[FaxModem1]

So, honestly, who here who is in favor of this was also dismayed when Trump started having ICE keep track of journalists and potential enemies? Because if the hypocrisy isn't apparent to you, then you need to cast the tree out of your own eye while complaining about your neighbor's splinter.

Who here is in honest favor of detaining the majority of men and women who are over 50? How about almost every person living in rural conditions? How about the majority of enlisted individuals? Who here wants to be the one to divide and lock up families?

Here's a good idea, how about we do this on Thanksgiving? Just so that all liberals everywhere who screams about fascism at their family meal can watch in satisfaction as their more conservative relatives are taken away in chains?

Geez, people. Think about what you're talking about.

[Proletarian]

The Republican Party, as such, does not exist (neither does the Democratic Party). It is rather a sockpuppet for certain factional interests of the bourgeoisie and their cross-class collaborators, and these interests are in a permanent state of flux and decay as new elements are introduced into the coalition and adulterate the old. The very name is an attempt to crystallize something that can only be understood in motion.

Indeed, it is not possible to neatly cleave 'good Republicans' from bad, or the 'good' history of the GOP from the evil (whether you start the divide at Hayes ending Reconstruction or the Lily-White Movement of the 1890s of the Southern Strategy under Herbert Hoover or the Southern Strategy under Richard Nixon). Not only American political Parties but all Parties generally - yes, even under Westminster systems with 'hard' membership structures - are essentially amorphous and free-flowing. This fluidity is not incidental to their characters, but essential to them: it's why the Republican Party was able to shift from the 'protectionism' of a Hoover to the 'free-trading' of a Reagan and back again with Trump in under a century. The only permanent purpose of any of these groups is the perpetuation of the capitalist system of production; all other purposes are only temporary. And this is indeed also true of more 'ideological' European parliamentary Parties.

It makes no sense therefore to criminalize the Republican Party even from a milquetoast reformist vantage point - since after all that would mean criminalizing vestigal Northeastern/'liberal' Republicans (e.g. William Weld or Charlie Baker) who are taken to be "the good Republicans" by petit-bourgeois leftists. Far more effective, I should think, to identify the underlying social structures from which the Republicans, and Democrats, emanate, amd stomp them out root and branch.

[K. A. Pital]

Much as I would like to believe this represents a nadir of echo chamber insanity on this once flourishing forum, I am fairly confident this is not the case. A third of the population identifies with a political group that promotes marginally harsher criminal penalties and moderately less government assistance, and has no meaningful difference in foreign policy to the other major party, and you are debating whether to imprison them (in a nation that already has the highest incarceration rate in the world) or engage in unprovoked, cold-blooded genocide. Incidentally, murdering all of the currently registered ~37M republican party members would just about top the (state-ordered liquidation) death tolls of Stalin and Hilter combined, an appropriate accolade given that most of you are dreaming of state aparatus capable of a political (and inevitably, racial and agist although surprisingly not gender) purge on a historically unprecedented scale. Which will somehow not continue this behaviour and turn it on the rest of the population one the Republican rolls are executed.

Frankly if you somehow managed to start an insurrection on those grounds you would deserve the consequences. Which would probably include mass starvation of your own side given that US farmers overwhelmingly vote Republican.

But it is thinking big within the limits of the rule of law, right, Starglider? *laughs* Note that the idea to convict all Republicans based on membership in a US party is not coming from some dastardly commie agents, but from the US liberal-thinking people. Ie from their own compatriots.

The old hardline left, ie myself, have already mentioned the idea is silly in the extreme.

TRR, on the other hand, has been hyperventilating about Democrats and Republicans since the dawn of his presence here.

[Jub]

Much as I would like to believe this represents a nadir of echo chamber insanity on this once flourishing forum, I am fairly confident this is not the case. A third of the population identifies with a political group that promotes marginally harsher criminal penalties and moderately less government assistance, and has no meaningful difference in foreign policy to the other major party, and you are debating whether to imprison them (in a nation that already has the highest incarceration rate in the world) or engage in unprovoked, cold-blooded genocide. Incidentally, murdering all of the currently registered ~37M republican party members would just about top the (state-ordered liquidation) death tolls of Stalin and Hilter combined, an appropriate accolade given that most of you are dreaming of state aparatus capable of a political (and inevitably, racial and agist although surprisingly not gender) purge on a historically unprecedented scale. Which will somehow not continue this behaviour and turn it on the rest of the population one the Republican rolls are executed.

Frankly if you somehow managed to start an insurrection on those grounds you would deserve the consequences. Which would probably include mass starvation of your own side given that US farmers overwhelmingly vote Republican.

The funny thing is, that even if they got their way and won this petty victory, those advocating for it wouldn't get what they wanted. The system wouldn't change at all, it would just go from a two-party system to a two-party system divided along different lines. Half the population would still be more conservative than the other half and you'd have ~40 million people in prison to care for. Not to mention that you just gutted your military, farming, and transportation sectors, driven away multi-national corporations and killed your economy.

If it wouldn't be so tragic for all involved I'd love for TRR to be right in the middle of the US when the first arrests are made.

[Ralin]

Presumably only a relatively small sub-section of the Republican Party's membership would be arrested. The rest could be disenfranchised (i.e., stripped of their voting rights) and be flagged as former party members with whatever new law enforcement apparatus we set up.

Theoretically speaking.

[Jub]

Presumably only a relatively small sub-section of the Republican Party's membership would be arrested. The rest could be disenfranchised (i.e., stripped of their voting rights) and be flagged as former party members with whatever new law enforcement apparatus we set up.

Theoretically speaking.

Yes, because that is so much better and less authoritarian than the other plan...

Let's just create a second non-voting class who now have an active reason to form an armed uprising because they guy we didn't vote for won the election. That'll fix things...

[K. A. Pital]

Well, it will „fix things“ in that it would definitely destroy the USA as a nation-state. Maybe for thr best?

*shrugs* But as we see, younger liberal generations are more radical than I am. I have not suggested that in many years here. For them, it only took the election of Trump.

[Jub]

Well, it will „fix things“ in that it would definitely destroy the USA as a nation-state. Maybe for thr best?

*shrugs* But as we see, younger liberal generations are more radical than I am. I have not suggested that in many years here. For them, it only took the election of Trump.

I don't think tearing down a nation in a stupid and counterproductive way can ever be for the best.

The fix for a broken two-party system isn't trying to turn it into a broken one-party system. It also assumes that Republicans are actually significantly worse than Democrats, and that doesn't have to follow. Sure, we know Trump is awful and has been in bed with criminals, so the top end is bad, but how does a middling Republican actually compare to the average Democrat?

The fix is to tear down the system itself and allow for that to purge the politicians. To do otherwise is shuffling deckchairs.

[Ralin]

Let's just create a second non-voting class who now have an active reason to form an armed uprising because they guy we didn't vote for won the election. That'll fix things...

Not like we don't have millions of felons who can't vote already.

Not worried about the 'armed uprising' thing. Not in a situation where leftist politicians are in a sufficient position of power to actually make this happen. Yeah I'm sure disenfranchised people will try to make trouble and turn violent, same as they have for years. Tiananmen the first few major attempts at it hard enough to set an example for the others and that will lose steam. And eventually they'll die off anyway.

Yeah it would be messy and 'authoritarian,' but what the fuck do all the people talking about 'tearing it down' and shit think that would look like in practice?

The fix for a broken two-party system isn't trying to turn it into a broken one-party system. It also assumes that Republicans are actually significantly worse than Democrats, and that doesn't have to follow.

You're assuming the Democrats would be the ones running this as opposed to me having dictatorial powers and allowing whatever parties I deem suitable to replace the Republicans.

[Jub]

Not like we don't have millions of felons who can't vote already.

You say that as if it's a reasonable thing to have... How very American a world view to hold.

Not worried about the 'armed uprising' thing. Not in a situation where leftist politicians are in a sufficient position of power to actually make this happen. Yeah I'm sure disenfranchised people will try to make trouble and turn violent, same as they have for years. Tiananmen the first few major attempts at it hard enough to set an example for the others and that will lose steam. And eventually they'll die off anyway.

What happens when your new system runs into teething troubles and you get a large faction wanting things to go back to how they were?

Yeah it would be messy and 'authoritarian,' but what the fuck do all the people talking about 'tearing it down' and shit think that would look like in practice?

A long slow collapse as the US loses superpower status and companies and billionaires flee to greener pastures leaving a now much poorer nation to fix a mess that they were complicit in but didn't benefit from.

You're assuming the Democrats would be the ones running this as opposed to me having dictatorial powers and allowing whatever parties I deem suitable to replace the Republicans.

So you're delusional then. Good to know.

[The Romulan Republic]

Presumably only a relatively small sub-section of the Republican Party's membership would be arrested. The rest could be disenfranchised (i.e., stripped of their voting rights) and be flagged as former party members with whatever new law enforcement apparatus we set up.

Theoretically speaking.

Or you could simply break up the party leadership, ban the party, but permit its members to vote for other parties/candidates. Hypothetically.

This does raise the question of whether it should be permissible to ban a political party if its actions are despotic or criminal. But there is precedent for that in the US- the communist party was (and to my knowledge still is) illegal in the United States.

Well, it will „fix things“ in that it would definitely destroy the USA as a nation-state. Maybe for thr best?

*shrugs* But as we see, younger liberal generations are more radical than I am. I have not suggested that in many years here. For them, it only took the election of Trump.

I don't think tearing down a nation in a stupid and counterproductive way can ever be for the best.

The fix for a broken two-party system isn't trying to turn it into a broken one-party system. It also assumes that Republicans are actually significantly worse than Democrats, and that doesn't have to follow. Sure, we know Trump is awful and has been in bed with criminals, so the top end is bad, but how does a middling Republican actually compare to the average Democrat?

The fix is to tear down the system itself and allow for that to purge the politicians. To do otherwise is shuffling deckchairs.

And how exactly do you propose to do that without killing literally millions of people and destabilizing the entire world in the process? Or is that simply "acceptable losses" to you, as to so many of the "burn it all now" crowd? Also, do you have any thought as to what new system would replace the current one or how it would be built, once we'd "purged" all the politicians (because remember, They're All Just As Bad, no nuance or accounting for individual record wanted). Or, like the Marxists or the Libertarians with their Invisible Hand of the market, do you imagine that the new system will just spontaneously come into being and function once we've blown up the old one?

I said it before and I'll say it again: blowing stuff up is easy. Building something on the rubble is hard.

Also, anyone who thinks that both parties are just as bad is willfully ignoring evidence. Mind you, I don't think that everyone who says it actually thinks it- for many its just a useful canard for those who want to split the Democratic vote to trot out. That said, while there is not the systemic embrace of authoritarianism and treasonous/terroristic behaviour in the Democratic leadership that there is in the Republican leadership, there are certainly plenty of corrupt individuals and subgroups within the Democratic Party, and they should be purged as well. I have never been a fan of mindless party loyalty- the Democrats should long ago have disavowed Bill Clinton for the sexual predator he is, for example.

Edit: I mean, God knows we have problems, and it may yet get to the point for us where armed revolt is the only recourse, but I just love seeing people from rich, peaceful first world countries go on about how the system they live under is so irredeemably evil that the only recourse is to purge the whole country in fire and blood and slaughter their fellow citizens en mass. Tell you what: how about you take a vacation to Syria for a few months and then, if you're still alive and not a hostage of ISIS, come back and tell me whether you still think social collapse and civil war are things to yearn for, as opposed to grim measures of absolute last resort.

[Jub]

Or you could simply break up the party leadership, ban the party, but permit its members to vote for other parties/candidates. Hypothetically.

This does raise the question of whether it should be permissible to ban a political party if its actions are despotic or criminal. But there is precedent for that in the US- the communist party was (and to my knowledge still is) illegal in the United States.

Yes, fix the issue of a broken system by using the same levors that lead to a broken system in the first place. That'll surely work...

And how exactly do you propose to do that without killing literally millions of people and destabilizing the entire world in the process? Or is that simply "acceptable losses" to you, as to so many of the "burn it all now" crowd?

You say that as if your idea won't require such destabilization to even get to the point where it might be feasible... Try a little self-reflection there TRR.

Also, do you have any thought as to what new system would replace the current one or how it would be built, once we'd "purged" all the politicians (because remember, They're All Just As Bad, no nuance or accounting for individual record wanted). Or, like the Marxists or the Libertarians with their Invisible Hand of the market, do you imagine that the new system will just spontaneously come into being and function once we've blown up the old one?

My idea is increased voter education, voting by a random sampling of people chosen across all demographics combined with single four-year terms for all elected officials followed by a two-term period where they're barred from any political involvement. Stagger elections so that 25% of all seats are open every year. Toss in a dash of boiling political campaigning down to televised debates and written statements only and you change what makes a politician electable and importantly what makes a politician re-electable.

It's a bit far fetched in that nobody within the current system would support it and there's no easy way to get there from here but it's less evil than your desperate fantasy.

Also, anyone who thinks that both parties are just as bad is willfully ignoring evidence. Mind you, I don't think that everyone who says it actually thinks it- for many its just a useful canard for those who want to split the Democratic vote to trot out.

You do realize that I'm not American right? I would like to see the US elect sane officials but I won't suck the Democrats off for being the least smelly turd to make that happen.

That said, while there is not the systemic embrace of authoritarianism and treasonous/terroristic behaviour in the Democratic leadership that there is in the Republican leadership, there are certainly plenty of corrupt individuals and subgroups within the Democratic Party, and they should be purged as well. I have never been a fan of mindless party loyalty- the Democrats should long ago have disavowed Bill Clinton for the sexual predator he is, for example.

I think that purging people for what are ultimately personal issues is a wrong headed way to go about things. Purge people based on bad plans, bad outcomes, and bad policies rather than due to some scandal. Politics shouldn't be a popularity contest but instead a system by which a nation is run effectively. Yet you want to focus on being the good guy rather than being the effective guy, which is a very different thing.

[K. A. Pital]

You suggested millions of people to be convicted as members of a criminal organization, TRR, not any of the actually revolutionary-minded like me.

The only way this would not result in civil war is if the country is occupied already by foreign powers who maintain a massive military presence, possibly for years during the trials and thereafter.

Otherwise this is a huge purge that would, scale-wise, easily exceed the Great Terror and the Cultural Revolution taken together. And such events are in themselves a civil conflict, resolved with the use of the violent machinery of the state.

I think your posturing as an „abstract humanist“ has no basis in reality, since you suggest these things very casually.