US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4104

On December 13 2023 07:37 BlackJack wrote:


The crux of the issue, imo. GH's posts very often lack the substance of what the revolution looks like, or really any details of any kind. The vast majority of his posts are just "look at this disagreeable thing your party did that you're complicit in, whereas I'm above the fray because I don't support either party or even the political system they exist in." I haven't been following this thread since its inception. It's possible he has shared more details of what he's hoping to accomplish beyond trying to get people on a gaming forum to agree with him.

On December 13 2023 07:51 Fleetfeet wrote:
Refusing to participate seems consistent with revolutionary socialism, as the party currently more likely to incite a level of revolution necessary to give socialism any hold is the party further from his political ideals. The argument that dems will largely maintain status quo seems fair. However, the path to socialism being "Let Repubs win, enstate a fascist revolution, lose to a socialist counterpush and then hooray socialism" seems like an idea worthy of ridicule. I don't know what Gh's plan is or if he even has one (I lean towards no?), but if it's revolution you're after, then I see that coming through Repubs one way or another sooner than dems.

Also I fully reject any notions that GH is stupid and/or lazy. I know how much activism GH has done as well as I know how many hugs Kwark gets in a month.

On December 13 2023 09:03 KwarK wrote:

If GH had done any successful socialist revolutions in the US I feel like I’d have noticed. I’m reasonably certain he’s still at zero.

On December 13 2023 09:46 Fleetfeet wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +

@GH (too lazy to quote more via mobile)

How DO you want it to get resolved? I ask this very reluctantly, because I do not expect a concrete answer. If you were willing or able to give one, I expect we would not be here.

On December 13 2023 10:11 GreenHorizons wrote:


By agreeing that the "dysfunctional capitalist democracy that is the US governmental structure" is irreparably broken + Show Spoiler + within the bounds of its own framework and for folks to stop arguing it isn't. Ideally before we get hit by this reality via a fascist bus to the face.

I honestly thought being forced to vote for a Zionist that's openly aiding and abetting Israel's ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign would be a bridge too far to rationalize for more people around here.

Which is why I'm starting to worry Trump literally entrenching himself as dictator for life (whatever odds people want to assign to that possibility) somehow might still not be enough for people to agree that actually, we're not going to vote our way out of this, because the people that control our voting process won't allow us (because they are fascists, led by a megalomaniacal dictator)

On December 13 2023 10:11 GreenHorizons wrote:


By agreeing that the "dysfunctional capitalist democracy that is the US governmental structure" is irreparably broken + Show Spoiler + within the bounds of its own framework and for folks to stop arguing it isn't. Ideally before we get hit by this reality via a fascist bus to the face.

I honestly thought being forced to vote for a Zionist that's openly aiding and abetting Israel's ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign would be a bridge too far to rationalize for more people around here.

Which is why I'm starting to worry Trump literally entrenching himself as dictator for life (whatever odds people want to assign to that possibility) somehow might still not be enough for people to agree that actually, we're not going to vote our way out of this, because the people that control our voting process won't allow us (because they are fascists, led by a megalomaniacal dictator)

On December 13 2023 11:35 Fleetfeet wrote:


I think it'd be interesting for you and Kwark (Or whichever educated party is willing) to debate WHY it is broken. I don't have a lot of insight into those particulars, being largely detached from the US and its structures.

From my perspective, others are very willing to indicate that the US is busted, but I feel like getting to the root of it would end in a nature vs nurture style disagreement - my instinct is to say that the people of the US are a major part of the brokenness, likely by decades of reinforced 'american dream' capitalism, institutionalized racism, implicit and explicit prejudice honed through the inflexible lens of a two-party structure. I do not see a revolution that removes these flawed structures (it couldn't.) as enough. The issues are baked into the populace. With that as preface, I would at best hope for a 'revolution' that better allows incremental change to dismantle these structures. More realistically, I'd just do what I do here, which is recognize that my needs are met and values protected, and toss my vote to someone I care about whose needs and values aren't as secure.

the people of the US are a major part of the brokenness, likely by decades of reinforced 'american dream' capitalism, institutionalized racism, implicit and explicit prejudice honed through the inflexible lens of a two-party structure.

On December 13 2023 12:26 GreenHorizons wrote:

Unclear whether that answer was "concrete" enough to upset your assumption that I didn't have one or wasn't willing to share it, but I hope it was.

"busted, shit, trash, broken, dysfunctional, etc." That's not really the dispute, it's whether that "busted, shit, trash, broken, dysfunctional, etc" system can fix itself within the context of the US, particularly amid the odds favoring Trump to win and him openly musing about being a dictator.

As to the idea about a discussion around "Why it is this way" I've done a lot of that over the last ~7 years. A lot of it was around explaining to Hillary supporters how actually the US could very well choose Trump over her. Not despite shit like his, "grab her by the pussy" and "I prefer war heroes that don't get captured", but because of it.

People have forgotten, but the idea that the US was too decent to elect Trump was pretty widely held well into the general and even pretty widely held up to election day. I don't want to go on a diatribe, but I will say I agree that


Though I wouldn't say the people themselves are broken, just mislead with deeply held bad ideas. I'd add a bunch of things I've discussed over the years (though many could arguably fit under those umbrellas) . I also don't think there's an adjective-capitalism that avoids the core problems with any adaptation of capitalism generally.

Capitalism didn't happen overnight and it wasn't till the eve of the 1900's that something as obvious as legislating against monopolies became a thing in the US. Moving beyond it will likely have similar growing pains.

Lastly to the nature vs nurture debate. It's generally brought up because it underpins the rationale that we have to stick with some form of capitalism. Essentially because it accepts the myth that capitalism takes people's competing rational self-interests and places them into a fair market to arrive at mutually (albeit sometimes skewed) beneficial conclusions thanks to the "invisible hand".

The other is that greed/selfishness (and other negative traits) are inextricable from human nature, which to a degree I agree with (in that we're all capable of covering a wide spectrum of intrinsic capacity to "sin" so to speak). There the dispute is more about whether we should tailor society to incentivize our best traits or our worst. Capitalism incentivizes mostly the worst parts of us and can be considered a sort of fountain for the problematic " institutionalized racism, implicit and explicit prejudice honed through the inflexible lens of a two-party structure." and so on.

On December 13 2023 12:26 GreenHorizons wrote:

Unclear whether that answer was "concrete" enough to upset your assumption that I didn't have one or wasn't willing to share it, but I hope it was.

"busted, shit, trash, broken, dysfunctional, etc." That's not really the dispute, it's whether that "busted, shit, trash, broken, dysfunctional, etc" system can fix itself within the context of the US, particularly amid the odds favoring Trump to win and him openly musing about being a dictator.

As to the idea about a discussion around "Why it is this way" I've done a lot of that over the last ~7 years. A lot of it was around explaining to Hillary supporters how actually the US could very well choose Trump over her. Not despite shit like his, "grab her by the pussy" and "I prefer war heroes that don't get captured", but because of it.

People have forgotten, but the idea that the US was too decent to elect Trump was pretty widely held well into the general and even pretty widely held up to election day. I don't want to go on a diatribe, but I will say I agree that


Though I wouldn't say the people themselves are broken, just mislead with deeply held bad ideas. I'd add a bunch of things I've discussed over the years (though many could arguably fit under those umbrellas) . I also don't think there's an adjective-capitalism that avoids the core problems with any adaptation of capitalism generally.

Capitalism didn't happen overnight and it wasn't till the eve of the 1900's that something as obvious as legislating against monopolies became a thing in the US. Moving beyond it will likely have similar growing pains.

Lastly to the nature vs nurture debate. It's generally brought up because it underpins the rationale that we have to stick with some form of capitalism. Essentially because it accepts the myth that capitalism takes people's competing rational self-interests and places them into a fair market to arrive at mutually (albeit sometimes skewed) beneficial conclusions thanks to the "invisible hand".

The other is that greed/selfishness (and other negative traits) are inextricable from human nature, which to a degree I agree with (in that we're all capable of covering a wide spectrum of intrinsic capacity to "sin" so to speak). There the dispute is more about whether we should tailor society to incentivize our best traits or our worst. Capitalism incentivizes mostly the worst parts of us and can be considered a sort of fountain for the problematic " institutionalized racism, implicit and explicit prejudice honed through the inflexible lens of a two-party structure." and so on.

On December 13 2023 17:00 Fleetfeet wrote:


Sorry, yeah, I did you a disservice by not addressing my own concerns of concreteness. Your answer is 'concrete' enough for me, and I appreciate you taking the time. It's shorter of a plan than I'd hope for, but as someone who's been around addiction issues as well as mental health ones, I can very much appreciate "Admit and agree there is a problem" as THE first step.

For it to be regarded as concrete beyond my own perspective, though, I imagine there has to be more steps. In the case of addiction or mental health the next step is rehab/therapy. In the case of governmental structure I see "Harass your local Member of Parliament (If you'll excuse my Canadian)" / "Attend protests" / "Sign petitions" etc as viable options that work currently within democratic structures. I don't understand where the revolution comes in, which might just be me misunderstanding the gravity of the word and not fully agreeing it is beyond repair. For you to be able to convince ME that the system is broken beyond repair, I think you'd have to be able to demonstrate why the above next steps would never be sufficient. Given that I live in a different country that seems like a waste of your energy, but hopefully that stands as insight for how to better convince your fellow americans.

I don't know that it's fair to ask you for a concrete 'next step' past agreeing there is a problem, as I imagine the plan would involve a dialogue between the multitudes of people who have suddenly come to agree there's a problem, and from there discuss solutions.

Ultimately, I think I better understand where you're coming from, and better understand why people disagree with you. Thanks for taking the time to respond, and hopefully this has been useful for others as well!

If you want me to elaborate on any of my conclusions or anything, feel free to ask.

For you to be able to convince ME that the system is broken beyond repair, I think you'd have to be able to demonstrate why the above next steps would never be sufficient.

On December 13 2023 09:10 GreenHorizons wrote:

In this context I'd put the crux of the issue at where we are.

That is to say what you're seeing/describing is my attempt to argue basically that the US system is irreparably broken within the bounds of its own framework. Others argue it isn't.

That makes the substance of the discussion largely "what's broken about it?" and "can it repair itself within its own constraints, and how?". Since I'm on the side that says it is irreparably broken, and that to some degree these exploits are intentionally designed, my focus tends to be on the "what's broken about it?" part. That's accompanied by the belief that it can't repair itself within its own constraints supported by examples of it failing.
.

On December 13 2023 19:52 BlackJack wrote:


I guess I agree. It makes sense that you need people to acknowledge that the US system is irreparably broken before moving on to the details of your socialist revolution that you wish to replace it with. I'm sure that what you're offering is so shitty that you need your audience to be properly hopeless and desperate to be receptive to your pitch. I'm sure we agree that even a broken system with a glimmer of hope for improvement is still preferable to socialism so the "broken beyond repair" concession is actually a crucial first step for your revolution.

On December 14 2023 15:18 gobbledydook wrote:
I think he believes true socialism cannot be achieved without a revolution that overturns the current order, which is trying to do everything it can to stop socialism.

On December 13 2023 12:26 GreenHorizons wrote:
As to the idea about a discussion around "Why it is this way" I've done a lot of that over the last ~7 years. A lot of it was around explaining to Hillary supporters how actually the US could very well choose Trump over her. Not despite shit like his, "grab her by the pussy" and "I prefer war heroes that don't get captured", but because of it.

On December 16 2023 13:04 JimmiC wrote:

No it doesn’t. No revolution has ever created his system, or really came that close.

On December 16 2023 17:08 WombaT wrote:

So the Cold War didn’t happen? Or the US’ rather chequered history in central/South America? Etc

You don’t have to be on the same page as GH to agree that there’s a hell of a lot of pushback against attempts to institute socialism, often external to a state.