Honestly I think the Democrats are far, far worse at this point- but not in ways that anyone should support, even for accelerationism's sake, unless they're a deranged Posadist. Their idea of decline is sending the world spiraling into likely WW3, and their domestic policies are moving forward into fascism with far less pushback, far more competence and efficiency, than the Republicans. As I see it there are two competing forces of fascism within the west today- the "establishment," which is generally unified in a common imperialist cause and represents the overwhelming forces of capital and colonial institutions and influence- and the varying "Trumpists," "far-right," and brownshirts whose only route to power is either usurping, or being blatantly welcomed into power by said establishment, as was historically done in Weimar Germany.
The modern brownshirts are rabble, just as their historical counterparts were rabble. Their demagoguery is terrifying, sure, and they do maintain some organization and power in their own right, but they are rabble- and there is no serious terror they might commit, that is not done without effective sanction by capital, and which the establishment- the core of capital and its forces- has not proven itself equally willing to commit, and worse. And as I see it- the old "brownshirt" routine is far less effective today, than it was in the 1930s- today's brownshirts primarily are boogeymen, and even if and when they are brought to power, their blatantly repugnant nature works against their attempts to maintain effective government.
IMO- the real threat is the establishment which has discarded the modern brownshirts, which is to blame for sanctioning their actions to begin with, which historically is what empowered and opened the way for the historical brownshirts (Nazis) to establish their own government; and which is capable of (and presently doing) as much evil as the modern brownshirts have ever done (and then some) and far worse. That's not to say that the brownshirts aren't enemies- because they are- but IMO the more odious forces of fascism, the more competent forces, the more organized and unified forces, are presently the Democrats.
For sure, the scariest part about the dems is that the whole party has now been hijacked by neocons who are actively trying to start WW3 now.
"now been hijacked"?
Been a long time since once could say Dems are an anti-war party with a straight face
I believe I read a Chinese article or maybe it was Russian. Anyways they were talking about reversal of roles for China and the US, a need for the US to retreat inward with politics like Trump's, um paleocon isolationists (well professed politics, actual politics of course is more complicated but just having that kind of thinking in the air and popular with the hogs can cause movement eventually) rather than neo-con interventionists and contrasting it to China's increasing turn away from insular stance towards an outwards, global one. And that if the US didn't adopt such a stance it would mean horrible conflict.
Basically that the best thing for the US and world is for people to come to power who are willing to take our toys and go home and build a wall and peer out from behind it. Rather than the Biden/J. Sullivan/Bolton/Pomeo types who are trying desperately to preserve empire and are willing to do anything. Who cannot imagine and may not be able to accept a world without US hegemony and domination and may be tempted to burn the whole thing down to prevent it or at least run around pouring lots of gas and tossing off plenty of lit matches.
My new favorate is libs seeing this as evidence that Putin is all in on Trump and if you say otherwise you are a russian bot
Jesus christ FT prices are nuts. 19k INR for a year of subscription? Would really like to meet an idiot one day who pays for this shit. Archived link.
Putin suggested on Wednesday that concerns over Biden’s age and mental acuity were part of the US election campaign “getting more and more vicious” and said he had seen no evidence his counterpart was not fit for office.
Alright he is taking the piss
That is weird considering that republicans are pushing to normalize relations with Russia and focus on waging war on China. Democrats are the ones insisting on demonizing Russia too. At least in rhetoric.
The reason i prefer democrats is precisely that, they're spreading too thin.
Let them do, they're bringing the two closer to each other, it's strategically nonsensical
I wouldn't say it's nonsensical, if Russia collapses then China would be left in a very bad spot. Out of the two, Russia is definitely the more vulnerable. Part of too is them trying to keep the EU in their orbit, no better way for them to do that then to foster and uphold Russophobia.
Alright that's true, but clearly the most successful strategy would be to abuse China's willingness to compromise and be their friends to torpedo Russia first and backstab them later
Joe Biden if you're reading this please proceed to forget about it
My view is that different aspects of the decline will be emphasized depending on whether repubs or dems get into office. Dems are more likely to stir up geopolitical conflict, and repubs will likely have even more deranged domestic policy.
I feel like Democrats are just plain stupid, the republican party correctly recognizes Russia as an ideological aligned country and thus want to wage war on China not Russia.
as fidel says, we need to be thankfully of our enemies unlimited stupidity. in early 2000 russia put itself out there to join nato and be a integral part of capitalist world, but western racism couldn't fathom nothing beyond balkanize and plumber of russia. today russia could have easily join hands with usa against china, instead they brought churchill and kissinger nightmare to life, a alliance with russia and china.
Dems are more likely to stir up geopolitical conflict
To the extent there's a meaningful difference, I still think this leans Republican. We have essentially a bipartisan consensus on Ukraine and Israel, and the immediate start of those conflicts was not Biden ordering an attack on someone. On the other hand, you had Trump directly ordering acts of war on Iran what, two or three times? The U.S. also sponsored a coup in Bolivia and a Bay of Pigs-style invasion of Bolivia under him.
Historically dems are the party that tends to get involved in wars though https://thebaffler.com/latest/democrats-are-the-real-party-of-war
Indeed, all of the major U.S. wars in the 20th century—World War I, II, Korea and Vietnam—were entered by Democratic administrations.
Some of this is factually questionable (the U.S. had "advisors" in Vietnam since 1955, under Eisenhower), much is more happenstance than a political choice (would a Republican administration have kept us out of WWII after Pearl Harbor?), and I don't think comparing WWI (or even Vietnam) to 2024 and beyond is particularly useful. The framework for modern U.S. foreign policy is the War on Terror -- it's the justification for nearly every U.S. military action since 9/11 and the current rationale for maintaining the empire.
Democrats are imperialists too, of course, but since Vietnam they've avoided the type of boots-on-the-ground invasion/occupation that is most damaging to the country being attacked. Meanwhile Republicans nearly started a war with Iran (a country Democrats had been working with diplomatically) just a few years ago.
I really don't think there's a huge amount of difference in policy because ultimately it's all driven by the permanent bureaucracy. For example, Nuland served under Bush, Obama, then Biden. She doesn't care which party is in charge. Meanwhile, the current admin has probably gotten US closer to a war with Iran than it's ever been. I agree that a lot of it is happenstance, but currently neocons are gravitating towards the dem party.
the current admin has probably gotten US closer to a war with Iran than it’s ever been
...under Trump, the U.S. assassinated an Iranian war hero on a diplomatic mission, then Iran attacked a U.S. base in retaliation. Those are real acts of war from both sides. Apparently further escalation was a matter of how long John Bolton could stay in the same room as Trump. You say neocons are gravitating towards Democrats; they're actually right there in Republican administrations stoking the fire of an already active situation.
I agree 70-80% is the same. But that last chunk is significant -- almost no lib will even admit the U.S. is an empire; meanwhile you have Eric Price openly calling for the U.S. to serve as an empire and the 2008 Republican presidential nominee saying "100 years in Iraq."
I'd argue that that current level of escalation is far beyond Soleimani assassination. We just narrowly avoided US doing a strike directly in Iran, and that might still happen if things keep going the way they are. Libs won't admit to running an empire, but there's no correlation between what libs say and what libs do. I think the fact that people see libs as being more tame is precisely why they're able to get away with more.
I really can't see the "Democrats are actually worse" argument when the two most relevant wars -- Iraq and Afghanistan -- were both started by Republicans, and when Republicans committed (not almost committed, not came close to committing) an act of war against Iran just a few years ago.
As I said, I don't think there's any major difference between the two parties. Importantly, all the actual decisions are made by the permanent bureaucracy. The party that's in charge has little influence over these decisions in the grand scheme of things.
I would say its in the interest of american workers to vote in trump to further the internal war amongst the capitalists there, divest away from the empire which is eating away at the american economy inside-out, and hopefully create a space to establish more working class organizations and capitalize on revolutionary conditions like january 6th
Umm accelerationism?? Don't you know that's dangerous and hateful
