|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 29 2025 04:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2025 03:19 Jankisa wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I don't get the optimism honestly, to me, it seems like Trump has enough semi competent people who co-opted his movement and have no need to be in the spotlight but are rather dismantling things in the background and moving things in a direction where nothing can be done after their plans are completed.
The federalist society and other ghouls behind project 2025 who joined hands with the broligarchs are just competent enough that in combination with Democratic leadership being cowards and morons and American public being completely apathetic and susceptible to propaganda they will lock everything down to the point where elections might happen but they sure as fuck won't be fair and even if they are they will make sure that the results that come out of them are good for them.
This new executive order is a perfect example, it's a blimp on a radar and it's basically neutering any sort of attempt at protesting before they even happen in a step that in any other country would be taken as a huge authoritarian overreach. In the USA of 2025 it doesn't even make the front page news. It's a bizarre balance of ranting about how Trump is in the midst of an authoritarian takeover, but how the solution is obviously to vote for incompetent cowards to tell us they're doing the best they can while they basically do nothing to stop it. Eventually that will fix it somehow, is basically the plan of Democrat supporters in the US.
I mean its a better plan than "start a violent civil war in the hope that history will be different this time and things will be better". If you think that the political infrastructure is incompetent and cowards now what do you imagine would be the replacement? Do you think there is an entirely new establishment of politicians capable of taking over the apparatus of state that is just waiting around for the opportunity? That when you create a massive power vacuum in the aftermath of the conflict, it won't be seized by bad actors supported by the same people who support the current leaders?
Simply not liking the situation you are in isn't a hot take my guy. The real world has consequences for your actions that you can't just hand wave away beacuse its hard to think about.
On August 29 2025 04:40 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2025 04:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 29 2025 03:19 Jankisa wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I don't get the optimism honestly, to me, it seems like Trump has enough semi competent people who co-opted his movement and have no need to be in the spotlight but are rather dismantling things in the background and moving things in a direction where nothing can be done after their plans are completed.
The federalist society and other ghouls behind project 2025 who joined hands with the broligarchs are just competent enough that in combination with Democratic leadership being cowards and morons and American public being completely apathetic and susceptible to propaganda they will lock everything down to the point where elections might happen but they sure as fuck won't be fair and even if they are they will make sure that the results that come out of them are good for them.
This new executive order is a perfect example, it's a blimp on a radar and it's basically neutering any sort of attempt at protesting before they even happen in a step that in any other country would be taken as a huge authoritarian overreach. In the USA of 2025 it doesn't even make the front page news. It's a bizarre balance of ranting about how Trump is in the midst of an authoritarian takeover, but how the solution is obviously to vote for incompetent cowards to tell us they're doing the best they can while they basically do nothing to stop it. Eventually that will fix it somehow, is basically the plan of Democrat supporters in the US. The Democrat version of Thoughts and Prayers
Yeah but the GH option is "fight any attempt to stop the kids from being shot in schools until people are willing to burn down all the schools in an attempt to stop school shootings".
Sandy hook showed that conservatives don't give a shit about dead kids and Uvalde showed that conservatives won't change their political viewpoints if their local police will stand around while their children are shot. You're not going to magic away these people from the country if you tell them that they're wrong and you've got guns so we're doing things different now.
|
Yeah but the GH option is "fight any attempt to stop the kids from being shot in schools until people are willing to burn down all the schools in an attempt to stop school shootings".
I don't see GH having said that
Sandy hook showed that conservatives don't give a shit about dead kids and Uvalde showed that conservatives won't change their political viewpoints if their local police will stand around while their children are shot. You're not going to magic away these people from the country if you tell them that they're wrong and you've got guns so we're doing things different now.
Okay, I mostly agree with this, my question then is why you expect electoral politics to keep these people in a deep and consistent state or marginalization?
We've seen that Americans feel pretty discontented living in what is basically a halved society curated by media corporations, so unless these people are constantly marginalized in such a way that they dont have power we're going to keep getting fascists.
Or we can have politics that actually work for the people instead of the ever concentration of wealth towards the top strata of society.
The problem people on the left would identify here is that there appears to be no interest from either party is doing that, both parties are happier to let the elites accumulate wealth than to try anything outside of fascism on the Republican side or 1990s neoliberalism on the Democrat side, and both of these things are unacceptable. Fascism for obvious reasons, and Neoliberalism because it not only helps enable fascism, but because it also causes stratification of wealth because at the end of the day Capitalism wants wealth concentration and when you have enough wealth concentration you will have rampant societal discontent and desperation, leading people to feel like anything is worth a try (fascism, in the US' case.)
I would rather society simply recalibrate itself, wages and cost of living to enter a comfortable satisfying equilibrium where everyone who works can afford apartments or homes near where they work, where we have strong social safety nets so people aren't food insecure or homeless, where everyone shares in the wealth that they create, etc. etc.
We dont have anyone in power who actually wants that though, because at the end of the day Money is Power in the US and both parties serve that power.
So in my case I examine what I think are possible outs,
1. Democracy, Democrats manage to win the House, Senate, and Presidency, they manage to not be up their own asses and wield power super aggressively, add more Supreme Court justices so they control the court, gerrymander Republicans out of existence, implement massive reforms that make life significantly more comfortable and affordable for people.
2. Fascists win, they're too stupid and incompetent and implode on themselves trying to move too fast to take power before theyve meaningfully consolidated control over the military etc. so Fascism cures itself by virtue of overwhelming stupidity.
3. Fascists win, Democrats don't change, they win an election here or there and over time Fascists firmly consolidate power because Democrats offer no meaningful resistance and a decidedly unsatisfying, untrustworthy alternative one too many times.
4. Fascists win, the rest of the world does a WW2 on the US and we do the Germany thing (but probably more of the Japan thing, since I see us denying what we did wrong rather than owning it for any meaningful length of time.)
5. Political violence, Fascists get killed/ousted by force of the populous. They cross too many lines and people start to remember that protests are fucking worthless unless you have the threat of violence, in this case people in power know this and understand that protests nowadays don't have that threat of violence, but in this case what they've done is so heinous that violence is back on the menu and they get violence'd out of power.
And when I think about these outs the only ones that seem likely are the ones that are violent in nature, and if Im going to be left with only violent likely outcomes Id at least prefer to have the violent outcome where the Fascists lose.
It would be nice if society could change on it's own and Democrats could do their fucking jobs well, but I have been given absolutely no indication that these things are likely and have absolutely no interest in pretending that they are.
So I go to the gym, save money, apply for citizenship in sane countries, and hope to take out at least two Nazis before I go out.
|
On August 29 2025 10:13 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +Yeah but the GH option is "fight any attempt to stop the kids from being shot in schools until people are willing to burn down all the schools in an attempt to stop school shootings". I don't see GH having said that Show nested quote +Sandy hook showed that conservatives don't give a shit about dead kids and Uvalde showed that conservatives won't change their political viewpoints if their local police will stand around while their children are shot. You're not going to magic away these people from the country if you tell them that they're wrong and you've got guns so we're doing things different now. Okay, I mostly agree with this, my question then is why you expect electoral politics to keep these people in a deep and consistent state or marginalization? We've seen that Americans feel pretty discontented living in what is basically a halved society curated by media corporations, so unless these people are constantly marginalized in such a way that they dont have power we're going to keep getting fascists. Or we can have politics that actually work for the people instead of the ever concentration of wealth towards the top strata of society. The problem people on the left would identify here is that there appears to be no interest from either party is doing that, both parties are happier to let the elites accumulate wealth than to try anything outside of fascism on the Republican side or 1990s neoliberalism on the Democrat side, and both of these things are unacceptable. Fascism for obvious reasons, and Neoliberalism because it not only helps enable fascism, but because it also causes stratification of wealth because at the end of the day Capitalism wants wealth concentration and when you have enough wealth concentration you will have rampant societal discontent and desperation, leading people to feel like anything is worth a try (fascism, in the US' case.) I would rather society simply recalibrate itself, wages and cost of living to enter a comfortable satisfying equilibrium where everyone who works can afford apartments or homes near where they work, where we have strong social safety nets so people aren't food insecure or homeless, where everyone shares in the wealth that they create, etc. etc. We dont have anyone in power who actually wants that though, because at the end of the day Money is Power in the US and both parties serve that power. So in my case I examine what I think are possible outs, 1. Democracy, Democrats manage to win the House, Senate, and Presidency, they manage to not be up their own asses and wield power super aggressively, add more Supreme Court justices so they control the court, gerrymander Republicans out of existence, implement massive reforms that make life significantly more comfortable and affordable for people. 2. Fascists win, they're too stupid and incompetent and implode on themselves trying to move too fast to take power before theyve meaningfully consolidated control over the military etc. so Fascism cures itself by virtue of overwhelming stupidity. 3. Fascists win, Democrats don't change, they win an election here or there and over time Fascists firmly consolidate power because Democrats offer no meaningful resistance and a decidedly unsatisfying, untrustworthy alternative one too many times. 4. Fascists win, the rest of the world does a WW2 on the US and we do the Germany thing (but probably more of the Japan thing, since I see us denying what we did wrong rather than owning it for any meaningful length of time.) 5. Political violence, Fascists get killed/ousted by force of the populous. They cross too many lines and people start to remember that protests are fucking worthless unless you have the threat of violence, in this case people in power know this and understand that protests nowadays don't have that threat of violence, but in this case what they've done is so heinous that violence is back on the menu and they get violence'd out of power. And when I think about these outs the only ones that seem likely are the ones that are violent in nature, and if Im going to be left with only violent likely outcomes Id at least prefer to have the violent outcome where the Fascists lose. It would be nice if society could change on it's own and Democrats could do their fucking jobs well, but I have been given absolutely no indication that these things are likely and have absolutely no interest in pretending that they are. So I go to the gym, save money, apply for citizenship in sane countries, and hope to take out at least two Nazis before I go out.
No he didn't say that but you quoted the thoughts and prayers line from school shootings. I'm positing what his proposal otherwise is.
We are going to keep getting fascists, and we're going to have to keep fighting them back. The fascists don't just go away if you ask them nicely or kill a lot of them. They'll always be back in new forms, the same as they were before we had a name for facists. You are always going to have bad actors trying to take advantage of the systems you make to twist it for their ends. That isn't going to go away with some magical "politics that actually work for the people".
The problem with people on the left is that instead of using their agency to work to create the pressure to become represented and influence, they would rather have tantrums and work against any change in the country. You cannot work against and advocate against the people you need on your side to enact any change in the country, then bitch why there is no change in the country. Making the people who vote democrat your enemy is not how you make your dreams come true. At some point you're going to need to hold elections again, like what happened in Ukraine, or continue an oppressive dictatorship.
The problem with your "5 outs" is that he fascists win with 5 as well. Once you show that you're willing to just use violence, then you justify the fascists to use even more violence, then you get the civil war and a power vacuum. If the "left" refuses to build a coalition with the democrats, they will lose, just like what happened in Weimar Germany. Seeing the Nazi rise to power and wanting to follow that example isn't good. 5 is literaly what caused the nazis to take power, beacuse they were more willing and eager to use violence than anyone else. Antifa was a failure; they didn't win in the end, following their example is bad when its very easy to find out what happened to them.
Can we agree that 1 is the "best" outcome and talk about how we get to that outcome? That a violent civil war is a bad thing, will lead to worse things, and has little to no chance of having a good outcome based on the many examples we have in history?
|
No he didn't say that but you quoted the thoughts and prayers line from school shootings. I'm positing what his proposal otherwise is.
I know, its why I hate when certain people interact with GH.
We are going to keep getting fascists, and we're going to have to keep fighting them back. The fascists don't just go away if you ask them nicely or kill a lot of them. They'll always be back in new forms, the same as they were before we had a name for facists. You are always going to have bad actors trying to take advantage of the systems you make to twist it for their ends. That isn't going to go away with some magical "politics that actually work for the people".
We made them go away half-decently after WW2. Mostly by killing them. Would've been better if we had killed significantly more of them.
While I agree they will always be around in some form, we can keep them firmly out of power by meeting people's needs, preventing people from feeling desperation to such a degree where they turn to fringe political ideologies. We also need to have much firmer controls on media, letting billionaires control media is a huge mistake, but its a mistake that Capitalism is always going to bend towards because Capitalism likes billionaires and billionaires can buy power. Its something neither Democrats nor Republicans have any interest in curbing, Democrats are happy to let shit ride so long as their billionaire donors are making bank and Republicans only shut it down when they cant exert control over it.
The problem with people on the left is that instead of using their agency to work to create the pressure to become represented and influence
We had a good Bernie moment and the DNC ubiquitously told us all to go fuck ourselves. The current candidate for VA Governor sent me a fucking email after Hillary lost blaming AOC. Progressives and leftists can try as much as we want to push for policies that we want, and we will always get told to fuck ourselves by the DNC.
Because at the end of the day, centrists would prefer fascism to anything to the left of Richard Nixon. The constant screeching to moderate moderate moderate is idiotic, moronic, I can't say enough mean things about that brain dead impulse. Kamala Harris was more likely to win when she was letting Tim Walz run wild than when she sidelined him for the fucking Cheneys.
Moderate and centrist campaign dipshits are more responsible for Democrat losses than leftists will ever be.
You cannot work against and advocate against the people you need on your side to enact any change in the country, then bitch why there is no change in the country.
Holy shit this is literally the Democrat playbook as soon as they lose an election
Making the people who vote democrat your enemy is not how you make your dreams come true.
I didn't make the Democrats my enemy, the Democrats make the Democrats my enemy by virtue of doing things like propping Donald Trump up in the first fucking place because they thought hed be an easy win. They are my enemy because Nancy Pelosi thinks that we need a Strong Republican Party. They are my enemy because they are the plumbing through which Fascists have flowed to power. If they want to stop making me their enemy then they can fucking do better.
The problem with your "5 outs" is that he fascists win with 5 as well. Once you show that you're willing to just use violence, then you justify the fascists to use even more violence, then you get the civil war and a power vacuum.
Fascists didn't win WW2. They lost actually. In the scenarios where I said Fascists lose its because Fascists are no longer in power and are no longer alive/in position to acquire power and the power structures in play have taken steps to plant their feet on Fascism's throat.
Also, I hate this dumb argument, "once they exercise power and you exercise power in return, then you justify them exercising power!" as if Fascists arent going to do that shit anyways. Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. Better to try to use power to get them the fuck out than to just wave your hands in some vigil as they mow you down with guns because they're going to do that because they're Fascists.
If the "left" refuses to build a coalition with the democrats,
Maybe Democrats could try building a coalition with the left instead? Maybe Democrats could take a little responsibility for their wild unpopularity?
5 is literaly what caused the nazis to take power, beacuse they were more willing and eager to use violence than anyone else. Antifa was a failure; they didn't win in the end, following their example is bad when its very easy to find out what happened to them.
I would define the Allied powers as Antifa and they beat the Nazis, thus winning in the end.
Can we agree that 1 is the "best" outcome and talk about how we get to that outcome? That a violent civil war is a bad thing, will lead to worse things, and has little to no chance of having a good outcome based on the many examples we have in history?
I have talked about how to get to that outcome and Ive illustrated why I think its the most unlikely of the outcomes because Ive watched Democrats be completely and absolutely obstinate. They refuse to change, they refuse to meet the will of the electorate, they refuse to change campaign strategy, they refuse to do fucking anything that might lead to Outcome 1.
You're free to try to convince me Outcome 1 is likely, but Ive been watching the Democrats since Trump lost and youre going to have to do an unbelievable job making an argument that the Democrats are anything more than lazy feckless morons.
Violent civil war is not always a bad thing, personally Im a fan of the civil war we had in the US, Im pretty glad we put that slavery thing down there and the only regret I have for the outcome is that the South got off too easy. I also look at the aftermath of the French Revolution and other revolutions and no, I dont agree that violent civil war is inherently bad, I think that violence has been a key and fundamental aspect of major societal shifts and that if violence wasnt routinely exercised in history we'd still have Kings and be fucking serfs.
|
Violent civil war is not always a bad thing, personally Im a fan of the civil war we had in the US, Im pretty glad we put that slavery thing down there and the only regret I have for the outcome is that the South got off too easy. I also look at the aftermath of the French Revolution and other revolutions and no, I dont agree that violent civil war is inherently bad, I think that violence has been a key and fundamental aspect of major societal shifts and that if violence wasnt routinely exercised in history we'd still have Kings and be fucking serfs.
I think you can only say this in retrospect, when you know how everything unfolded decades later. For the people who live through it and do not know the outcome, civil war is always a disaster, and should be avoided almost at any cost.
You also cherrypick your examples too much. You can could also point to the Russian Revolution and the Balkan civil war and say the outcome was not necessarily "good", or the whole war was unnecessary.
The communist block falling and the Arab spring happened without much blood spilled.
|
On August 29 2025 13:15 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +Violent civil war is not always a bad thing, personally Im a fan of the civil war we had in the US, Im pretty glad we put that slavery thing down there and the only regret I have for the outcome is that the South got off too easy. I also look at the aftermath of the French Revolution and other revolutions and no, I dont agree that violent civil war is inherently bad, I think that violence has been a key and fundamental aspect of major societal shifts and that if violence wasnt routinely exercised in history we'd still have Kings and be fucking serfs. I think you can only say this in retrospect, when you know how everything unfolded decades later. For the people who live through it and do not know the outcome, civil war is always a disaster, and should be avoided almost at any cost. You also cherrypick your examples too much. You can could also point to the Russian Revolution and the Balkan civil war and say the outcome was not necessarily "good", or the whole war was unnecessary. The communist block falling and the Arab spring happened without much blood spilled.
Ive never said violence is always great, I was only refuting the idea that violent civil war is bad, because while it can be bad it can also be an important aspect of societal change.
And yes, we look at history in retrospect in the hopes that we can take what we see in history and get some possible glimpse into the future. If retrospective insight wasn't valuable the field of history probably wouldnt exist. From what I understand of history things like Civil Rights, worker's rights, and the broad spread of democratic form of government were achieved through violence or the direct threat of violence.
Do I know the future? Of course not, but I can look at history and at least conclude that violence has been a persistent and crucial effector for change in many important instances and that the situation we are in now seems like one where violence may wind up being the crucial effector for change as opposed to voting.
|
On August 29 2025 13:30 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2025 13:15 Slydie wrote:Violent civil war is not always a bad thing, personally Im a fan of the civil war we had in the US, Im pretty glad we put that slavery thing down there and the only regret I have for the outcome is that the South got off too easy. I also look at the aftermath of the French Revolution and other revolutions and no, I dont agree that violent civil war is inherently bad, I think that violence has been a key and fundamental aspect of major societal shifts and that if violence wasnt routinely exercised in history we'd still have Kings and be fucking serfs. I think you can only say this in retrospect, when you know how everything unfolded decades later. For the people who live through it and do not know the outcome, civil war is always a disaster, and should be avoided almost at any cost. You also cherrypick your examples too much. You can could also point to the Russian Revolution and the Balkan civil war and say the outcome was not necessarily "good", or the whole war was unnecessary. The communist block falling and the Arab spring happened without much blood spilled. Ive never said violence is always great, I was only refuting the idea that violent civil war is bad, because while it can be bad it can also be an important aspect of societal change. And yes, we look at history in retrospect in the hopes that we can take what we see in history and get some possible glimpse into the future. If retrospective insight wasn't valuable the field of history probably wouldnt exist. From what I understand of history things like Civil Rights, worker's rights, and the broad spread of democratic form of government were achieved through violence or the direct threat of violence. Do I know the future? Of course not, but I can look at history and at least conclude that violence has been a persistent and crucial effector for change in many important instances and that the situation we are in now seems like one where violence may wind up being the crucial effector for change as opposed to voting.
When Spain fought its civil war, the fascists won. The transition away from fascism occurred without violence.
As far as I recall, it was similar for Portugal.
Why do you and GH believe so strongly that the progressive coalition is going to win the civil war?
|
On August 29 2025 15:39 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2025 13:30 Zambrah wrote:On August 29 2025 13:15 Slydie wrote:Violent civil war is not always a bad thing, personally Im a fan of the civil war we had in the US, Im pretty glad we put that slavery thing down there and the only regret I have for the outcome is that the South got off too easy. I also look at the aftermath of the French Revolution and other revolutions and no, I dont agree that violent civil war is inherently bad, I think that violence has been a key and fundamental aspect of major societal shifts and that if violence wasnt routinely exercised in history we'd still have Kings and be fucking serfs. I think you can only say this in retrospect, when you know how everything unfolded decades later. For the people who live through it and do not know the outcome, civil war is always a disaster, and should be avoided almost at any cost. You also cherrypick your examples too much. You can could also point to the Russian Revolution and the Balkan civil war and say the outcome was not necessarily "good", or the whole war was unnecessary. The communist block falling and the Arab spring happened without much blood spilled. Ive never said violence is always great, I was only refuting the idea that violent civil war is bad, because while it can be bad it can also be an important aspect of societal change. And yes, we look at history in retrospect in the hopes that we can take what we see in history and get some possible glimpse into the future. If retrospective insight wasn't valuable the field of history probably wouldnt exist. From what I understand of history things like Civil Rights, worker's rights, and the broad spread of democratic form of government were achieved through violence or the direct threat of violence. Do I know the future? Of course not, but I can look at history and at least conclude that violence has been a persistent and crucial effector for change in many important instances and that the situation we are in now seems like one where violence may wind up being the crucial effector for change as opposed to voting. When Spain fought its civil war, the fascists won. The transition away from fascism occurred without violence. As far as I recall, it was similar for Portugal. Why do you and GH believe so strongly that the progressive coalition is going to win the civil war?
You are being obtuse. Would you had prefered the República didn't fight that war ?
|
On August 29 2025 12:43 Zambrah wrote:
I didn't make the Democrats my enemy, the Democrats make the Democrats my enemy by virtue of doing things like propping Donald Trump up in the first fucking place because they thought hed be an easy win. They are my enemy because Nancy Pelosi thinks that we need a Strong Republican Party. They are my enemy because they are the plumbing through which Fascists have flowed to power. If they want to stop making me their enemy then they can fucking do better.
I just wanna interject here. Nancy Pelosi said that because Republicans appealed to more fringe right-wing (i.e. far-right) groups for support. To strengthen the party means - in her mind - to strengthen non-radical Republican support so that the far-right won't be offered a seat at the table.
|
On August 29 2025 13:15 Slydie wrote:
The communist block falling and the Arab spring happened without much blood spilled.
This is something that is often misunderstood. The USSR fell apart both peacefully and violently. Violence against increasingly upset populations was the norm and cost many people their lives. The "peaceful" part was a rare exception, where the leadership was so fractured that it couldn't prevent the collapse. The final collapse was peaceful because there was insufficient cohesion in leadership that could've upheld the status quo - violently or otherwise.
When power/leadership is consolidated, then I don't see much hope of a successful peaceful revolution. Then again, I also don't see much hope of a successful violent revolution. Basically I think people should throw the idea of revolution out of the window altogether. The thing that actually works is an undermining of leadership.
|
On August 29 2025 15:56 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2025 15:39 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 29 2025 13:30 Zambrah wrote:On August 29 2025 13:15 Slydie wrote:Violent civil war is not always a bad thing, personally Im a fan of the civil war we had in the US, Im pretty glad we put that slavery thing down there and the only regret I have for the outcome is that the South got off too easy. I also look at the aftermath of the French Revolution and other revolutions and no, I dont agree that violent civil war is inherently bad, I think that violence has been a key and fundamental aspect of major societal shifts and that if violence wasnt routinely exercised in history we'd still have Kings and be fucking serfs. I think you can only say this in retrospect, when you know how everything unfolded decades later. For the people who live through it and do not know the outcome, civil war is always a disaster, and should be avoided almost at any cost. You also cherrypick your examples too much. You can could also point to the Russian Revolution and the Balkan civil war and say the outcome was not necessarily "good", or the whole war was unnecessary. The communist block falling and the Arab spring happened without much blood spilled. Ive never said violence is always great, I was only refuting the idea that violent civil war is bad, because while it can be bad it can also be an important aspect of societal change. And yes, we look at history in retrospect in the hopes that we can take what we see in history and get some possible glimpse into the future. If retrospective insight wasn't valuable the field of history probably wouldnt exist. From what I understand of history things like Civil Rights, worker's rights, and the broad spread of democratic form of government were achieved through violence or the direct threat of violence. Do I know the future? Of course not, but I can look at history and at least conclude that violence has been a persistent and crucial effector for change in many important instances and that the situation we are in now seems like one where violence may wind up being the crucial effector for change as opposed to voting. When Spain fought its civil war, the fascists won. The transition away from fascism occurred without violence. As far as I recall, it was similar for Portugal. Why do you and GH believe so strongly that the progressive coalition is going to win the civil war? You are being obtuse. Would you had prefered the República didn't fight that war ?
My point is that advocating for violence is unlikely to lead to a better outcome, and good outcomes can be achieved without violence. What is your point?
|
On August 29 2025 16:05 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2025 13:15 Slydie wrote:
The communist block falling and the Arab spring happened without much blood spilled. This is something that is often misunderstood. The USSR fell apart both peacefully and violently. Violence against increasingly upset populations was the norm and cost many people their lives. The "peaceful" part was a rare exception, where the leadership was so fractured that it couldn't prevent the collapse. The final collapse was peaceful because there was insufficient cohesion in leadership that could've upheld the status quo - violently or otherwise. When power/leadership is consolidated, then I don't see much hope of a successful peaceful revolution. Then again, I also don't see much hope of a successful violent revolution. Basically I think people should throw the idea of revolution out of the window altogether. The thing that actually works is an undermining of leadership.
Revolution works too. The French monarchy was overthrown. The immediate result was awful, but the French still commemorate the storming of the Bastille proudly, because in the long run, despite the Reign of Terror and even the Napoleonic wars, eventually the republics that followed were worth it.
More recently, Syria revolted violently against Assad and, once again, over a decade later, succeeded. There's probably still years of turmoil ahead in which the country may very well return to some form.of totalitarianism.
Revolution can definitely work, it's just often really messy. Can you give examples of this "undermining" you advocate instead? I wouldn't say the Soviet Union's leadership was undermined. Just that they failed. There was no serious opposition in the Soviet Union. It's mainly just that the political and economic policy failed for decades to do what it set out to do. Eventually it had failed enough that even the leadership knew it. They weren't undermined, they were just bad at their jobs. Unsurprising, given the sheer size and scope of running a top-down planned economy.
|
Is there any reason to assume a revolution in the US would result in "saner" people ruling?
If anything I would assume it goes even more authoritarian, maybe just with another flavor to it than under Trump.
|
On August 29 2025 16:26 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2025 16:05 Magic Powers wrote:On August 29 2025 13:15 Slydie wrote:
The communist block falling and the Arab spring happened without much blood spilled. This is something that is often misunderstood. The USSR fell apart both peacefully and violently. Violence against increasingly upset populations was the norm and cost many people their lives. The "peaceful" part was a rare exception, where the leadership was so fractured that it couldn't prevent the collapse. The final collapse was peaceful because there was insufficient cohesion in leadership that could've upheld the status quo - violently or otherwise. When power/leadership is consolidated, then I don't see much hope of a successful peaceful revolution. Then again, I also don't see much hope of a successful violent revolution. Basically I think people should throw the idea of revolution out of the window altogether. The thing that actually works is an undermining of leadership. Revolution works too. The French monarchy was overthrown. The immediate result was awful, but the French still commemorate the storming of the Bastille proudly, because in the long run, despite the Reign of Terror and even the Napoleonic wars, eventually the republics that followed were worth it. More recently, Syria revolted violently against Assad and, once again, over a decade later, succeeded. There's probably still years of turmoil ahead in which the country may very well return to some form.of totalitarianism. Revolution can definitely work, it's just often really messy. Can you give examples of this "undermining" you advocate instead? I wouldn't say the Soviet Union's leadership was undermined. Just that they failed. There was no serious opposition in the Soviet Union. It's mainly just that the political and economic policy failed for decades to do what it set out to do. Eventually it had failed enough that even the leadership knew it. They weren't undermined, they were just bad at their jobs. Unsurprising, given the sheer size and scope of running a top-down planned economy.
I guess revolution works a bit more often when it's combined with other factors.
Undermining leadership can be accidental or purposeful. A change in leadership is often the deciding factor. What causes that change though is always different.
For example three SCOTUS judges being replaced by Trump, possible through years long defiance by Ruth Bader Ginsburg who refused to step down until it was too late and Obama had left office. One more of the current judges could be progressive in an alternate universe. No guarantees, but there would be more hope for a better future.
Biden could've stepped down a year before election day and given way to a different candidate. I argue his stubborness undermined the Democrat chances of winning. But then he made it even worse when he did finally step down far too late, at a point when he should've probably just stumbled on through the finishing line. Democrats are equally to blame by coercing him to step down when it was too late. I think as a result Harris was in way over her head and her task was insurmountable, despite being perfectly qualified for the job.
Just a few examples. History isn't kind to unstable leadership. Timing is often the key to a successful continuation.
|
On August 29 2025 15:39 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2025 13:30 Zambrah wrote:On August 29 2025 13:15 Slydie wrote:Violent civil war is not always a bad thing, personally Im a fan of the civil war we had in the US, Im pretty glad we put that slavery thing down there and the only regret I have for the outcome is that the South got off too easy. I also look at the aftermath of the French Revolution and other revolutions and no, I dont agree that violent civil war is inherently bad, I think that violence has been a key and fundamental aspect of major societal shifts and that if violence wasnt routinely exercised in history we'd still have Kings and be fucking serfs. I think you can only say this in retrospect, when you know how everything unfolded decades later. For the people who live through it and do not know the outcome, civil war is always a disaster, and should be avoided almost at any cost. You also cherrypick your examples too much. You can could also point to the Russian Revolution and the Balkan civil war and say the outcome was not necessarily "good", or the whole war was unnecessary. The communist block falling and the Arab spring happened without much blood spilled. Ive never said violence is always great, I was only refuting the idea that violent civil war is bad, because while it can be bad it can also be an important aspect of societal change. And yes, we look at history in retrospect in the hopes that we can take what we see in history and get some possible glimpse into the future. If retrospective insight wasn't valuable the field of history probably wouldnt exist. From what I understand of history things like Civil Rights, worker's rights, and the broad spread of democratic form of government were achieved through violence or the direct threat of violence. Do I know the future? Of course not, but I can look at history and at least conclude that violence has been a persistent and crucial effector for change in many important instances and that the situation we are in now seems like one where violence may wind up being the crucial effector for change as opposed to voting. When Spain fought its civil war, the fascists won. The transition away from fascism occurred without violence. As far as I recall, it was similar for Portugal. Why do you and GH believe so strongly that the progressive coalition is going to win the civil war?
Who said I do? I think theres a very reasonable chance that any internal US conflict goes the way of the Fascist, especially if they take the time to have a firm control over some large percentage of the US military.
In that scenario I think its more likely that the world does a WW2 where US is the Germany, though obviously that grossly complicated by nuclear weapons, so maybe its more of a Ukraine situation.
You take me for some sort of positive person, but not a single thing about the US makes me positive right now.
Most routes are fascist wins from where Im standing (thank you Democrats, thank you Billionaires, thank you Republicans, thank you everyone who thinks Capitalism is our only way)
I just wanna interject here. Nancy Pelosi said that because Republicans appealed to more fringe right-wing (i.e. far-right) groups for support. To strengthen the party means - in her mind - to strengthen non-radical Republican support so that the far-right won't be offered a seat at the table.
I would argue that "non-radical" Republicans are just as much of a cancer and given their willful hitching themselves to the Fascism train they are just as vile and evil and worth preventing from holding any sort of power. The institutions that have been planning this shit, the Heritage foundation, etc. predates the MAGA movement. Any support of the Republicans as an institution or their aims is fundamentally a terrible thing, and coming from the opposition I consider it even worse.
The only non-violent solution I see is one where Democrats actually make an effort to crush the Republicans completely and fully. Ive posted about it before, but gerrymander, pack the courts, DC statehood, PR statehood, make life affordable, listen to constituents. Use these things to wipe Republicans from the face of US Politics the same way the Nazi Party was wiped from Germany.
They have to wield power aggressively to crush the Fascists.
|
Theres a lot of things said there that I just disagree with. The problem is just more of the same "I have no agency so nothing is my fault" Ideology. Yes it would be easy to keep the facists out of power if we kept society running well and nothing bad ever happened, but bad things keep happening. You're not going to be able to ideology your way to utopia, good times will follow bad times and bad times will follow good times.
The Arab spring was a terrible event that failed what kind of insanity to you think it was bloodless and non violent? Lybia is an example only worse than Syria which birthed literal ISIS that destabilized the nations around them. Egypt just outright failed to get anywhere and traded one dictator for another. I geuinly don't know off the top of my head any successful result of the arab spring. The French revolution was a failure, it returned to a monarchy after the revolutionary wars, then a republic, then napoleon the third came around to bring it back to a monarchy, They even needed a final military coup beacuse they refused to end their colonial wars in 1958.
Bernie was going to lose the primary, He wasn't popular with black people and was always going to face headwinds from the establishment. The whole groundswell support for him was beacuse he was so radical. The idea that the establishment is going to welcome change and being swept out of power is insane. Going first for the presidency is not how you build a political movement. There are many blue states that an insurgent party could take over to make sure it gets a seat at the table when it does come time to picking a president. Republicans after Bush have shown a great example of how to build up a takeover from their ideological flank, When repubicans don't do what the crazies want, they don't give up on the party they jsut vote the people they don't like out of power.
Antifa wasn't apart of the allied powers, they lost far before the soviets were betrayed by the nazis. Chamberlain wasn't justified because the allies won in the end.
Calling the chechen wars and the various interventions the soviets preformed as the bloc existed being bloodless is silly. The Hungarians tried to rise up in 56 and were put down violently. The checens were brutalized as an example to the states that were left in the "russian" bloc and was a prime result of the collapse of the soviet union.
The american civil war was bad, it was a collection of half measures that neither solved the issue nor justified itself in history. There was slavery in other parts of the world I am told and things went better for them.
I'm not defending the establishment, I am saying that you need to work with the majority of the country if you want to take control of the country. The idea that a violent civil war being a good thing is only a slightly better idea than wanting a violent civil war without any actual replacement plan or establishment to replace it. Denying your agency beacuse its hard to make things better is childish. You have responsibility for the consequences of your actions, you don't get to throw up your hands and give up on the work when you have setbacks. Its this kneejerk withdrawl from any sort of process and fight that causes the left to never be taken seriously in america.
|
United States43232 Posts
|
The problem is just more of the same "I have no agency so nothing is my fault" Ideology.
Prime Democrat ideology. "We dont have 100 Senate seats so we cant do anything and wont do anything expect nothing of us its your fault vote harder next time pleb!" bullshit.
Yes it would be easy to keep the facists out of power if we kept society running well
Christ, the bar is so low that its unreasonable to expect our government to keep society running well?
You're not going to be able to ideology your way to utopia, good times will follow bad times and bad times will follow good times.
What ideology? What is my ideology? Tell me what my ideology is, please.
Bernie was going to lose the primary
'kay
The whole groundswell support for him was beacuse he was so radical. The idea that the establishment is going to welcome change
"The electorate has shown a real want for something, but we like power so fuck them," is acceptable in a democracy to you?...
Going first for the presidency is not how you build a political movement.
Wrong. This is dumb Democrat "wait your turn" bullshit thinking. Bernie built a movement, socialistic thinking didnt meaningfully exist in the US until Bernie Sanders popularized it during his first presidential campaign. It would have been a much more successful movement if Democrats didnt constantly antagonize the left and then bitch at the left when they lose, not a great way to treat people who you expect to be your allies, by the way.
When repubicans don't do what the crazies want, they don't give up on the party they jsut vote the people they don't like out of power.
I have a very hard time imagining that Republicans are a role model for anything other than a fundamentally dysfunctional society. Also, they literally stormed the Capitol. This characterization is clearly just wrong.
Antifa wasn't apart of the allied powers, they lost far before the soviets were betrayed by the nazis. Chamberlain wasn't justified because the allies won in the end.
Okay, you dont understand what Antifa is. Antifa is not an organization. Antifa is literally Anti-Fascist. Being Anti-Fascist means you are Antifa. I would hope everyone in this thread is Antifa, because noone would be Pro-Fascist or Accepting of Fascists. Everyone should be Antifa because Antifa is Anti-Fascism and Fascism is bad. The Allies were Antifa because they fought and beat the Fascists.
The american civil war was bad, it was a collection of half measures that neither solved the issue nor justified itself in history. There was slavery in other parts of the world I am told and things went better for them.
Yes, the American South showed such willingness to part with slavery, Civil Rights totally didnt happen less than 100 years ago and the American South didnt make a massive concerted effort to keep black people in what the American South would consider "their place," and they totally would have naturally phased out slavery because the American South from the 1860s through the 1960s really developed an appreciation for the personhood of black people.
War is obviously bad, but the alternative was fucking slavery. Jesus Christ.
I'm not defending the establishment, I am saying that you need to work with the majority of the country if you want to take control of the country.
The majority of the country wants things like universal healthcare but neither party wants to work with the majority of the country to implement that, so this doesnt strike me as a leftist problem, this strikes me as a Republican and a Democrat problem. I advocate for Democrats to implement popular fucking policy, which is popular because the majority of the country wants it.
Denying your agency beacuse its hard to make things better is childish. You have responsibility for the consequences of your actions, you don't get to throw up your hands and give up on the work when you have setbacks. Its this kneejerk withdrawl from any sort of process and fight that causes the left to never be taken seriously in america.
Bitch, I voted for Kamala Harris, I exercised that extremely minor power. Kamala Harris couldnt be bothered to not parade around with the War Criminal Family and promise to include someone from the Fascist Fucking Party in her cabinet.
Democrats can take some agency for once in their miserable incompetent lives, because its extremely tired shit to constantly give them cover as though they aren't the massive wealthy party who picks and chooses the policies they implement and support. Everything is everyone else's fault, the average beaten down hopeless every day person has to take all of the burden on because the rich comfortable political cadre might have an awkward brunch with Mark Zuckerberg?
|
On August 29 2025 16:24 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2025 15:56 Godwrath wrote:On August 29 2025 15:39 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 29 2025 13:30 Zambrah wrote:On August 29 2025 13:15 Slydie wrote:Violent civil war is not always a bad thing, personally Im a fan of the civil war we had in the US, Im pretty glad we put that slavery thing down there and the only regret I have for the outcome is that the South got off too easy. I also look at the aftermath of the French Revolution and other revolutions and no, I dont agree that violent civil war is inherently bad, I think that violence has been a key and fundamental aspect of major societal shifts and that if violence wasnt routinely exercised in history we'd still have Kings and be fucking serfs. I think you can only say this in retrospect, when you know how everything unfolded decades later. For the people who live through it and do not know the outcome, civil war is always a disaster, and should be avoided almost at any cost. You also cherrypick your examples too much. You can could also point to the Russian Revolution and the Balkan civil war and say the outcome was not necessarily "good", or the whole war was unnecessary. The communist block falling and the Arab spring happened without much blood spilled. Ive never said violence is always great, I was only refuting the idea that violent civil war is bad, because while it can be bad it can also be an important aspect of societal change. And yes, we look at history in retrospect in the hopes that we can take what we see in history and get some possible glimpse into the future. If retrospective insight wasn't valuable the field of history probably wouldnt exist. From what I understand of history things like Civil Rights, worker's rights, and the broad spread of democratic form of government were achieved through violence or the direct threat of violence. Do I know the future? Of course not, but I can look at history and at least conclude that violence has been a persistent and crucial effector for change in many important instances and that the situation we are in now seems like one where violence may wind up being the crucial effector for change as opposed to voting. When Spain fought its civil war, the fascists won. The transition away from fascism occurred without violence. As far as I recall, it was similar for Portugal. Why do you and GH believe so strongly that the progressive coalition is going to win the civil war? You are being obtuse. Would you had prefered the República didn't fight that war ? My point is that advocating for violence is unlikely to lead to a better outcome, and good outcomes can be achieved without violence. What is your point?
Can't answer the question ? I know, it's obvious what your point is, and that is by taking for granted that no violence is better than violence when It comes to dealing with fascists. Only took 40 years to get rid of Franco, and It was because of natural causes, while the damage he did perdures.
We have notable figures such Esperanza Aguirre from the PP nowadays claiming that the coup detat of the second republic was for the better, and that' the "mainstream right".
So again, did you think the second republic should had surrendered because they could lose ?
|
Political Violence:
I think if Trump (and Vance) would get assassinated.. then all of US Allies, apart from Israel, would secretly feel relieved, while Russia and North Korea would be devastated.. along with everyone who already paid bribes (money, jets, daughters) to the whitehouse.
I'd even think the useful idiot GW Bush wasn't that much of a douche to America's allies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
