[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by Robert Schunk

while Communism is decidedly oriented towards the future, and to the construction of a future society, that Fascism is oriented towards a timeless present, and is devoid of a future orientation.

I'd say it depends how rigid you want to be about something being future oriented. Certainly the Futurists were (needless to say) future-oriented but even they ultimately looked back to Rome as their underlying model for their 'new' society - just as the Nazis may have looked forward to a Master Race, but saw that too as a revival of a kind of Northern European pagan/folkloric past. So while it's too simple to say fascism is devoid of any future orientation, it does seem to always define that future as a rebirth of something from the past. Which I suppose is the very definition of any re-birth. At its core Fascism is a pallngenetic movement but that doesn't stop it also being future orientated.

Being dialectical, Communism is always future orientated.

The only political ideology which might conceivably exist in a 'timeless present' is laissez faire Capitalism, or maybe some branches of Libertarianism.

In any case, Stanley spoke of the white working class as feeling victimized and blaming their problems on minorities, and said that white workers failed to unite their cause with that of the other oppressed peoples of the Progressive movement's "intersectionality" deal, without examining the severely anti-proletarian nature of the Democratic party's policies on international trade agreements and illegal immigration.

I agree. Intersectionality has nothing to do with working class interests. A member of the black or LGBT community can also be a member of the bourgeoisie or an aristocrat, in the way that a member of the working class simply cannot. That's not to say the Working Class should ever seek to separate itself from a member of any of those groups if they happen to be working class, regardless of their race, gender or sexual orientation. Talk of a White Working Class only muddies the water by forcing an unnecessary rift between people with shared class interests and ultimately relegates class politics to the same level as identity politics.

He did, however, point to Putin's Russia of today as a possible template for the United States of tomorrow, which I am concerned has a degree of validity.

The stand off will likely be between an anti-democratic globalist system (typified by the EU, DAVOS, etc) an anti-democratic nationalist system (typified by Russia, China, etc) and an anti-democratic theocracy (typified by Saudi Arabia and the UAE).

I only wish those of his ilk could see what is obvious to me, that the Bernie sanders movement and the Donald trump movement of the 2016 election cycle were two sides of the same coin, which should have recognized that fact and, if possible, joined forces.

I agree. And you can add the Brexit movement to that, and to some degree the rise of Jeremy Corbyn. I don't think they could've ever realistically joined forces but I do think, in their very different (and often conflicting) ways, we might ultimately come to see them as representing what may end up being the last gasp of any kind of meaningful democracy.