I think some leftist accelerationists believe that electing Trump will galvanize resistance the way it did 2017-2020. The ways that regular folks joined us, marched, and actually paid attention to things besides soccer practice was legit heartening and often helpful. I'm thinking about popular demonstrations against the migrant camps, organizing Covid relief and mutual aid, and generally saying "fuck this guy and his policies."
But if Trump returns, none of that shit is going to happen.
-
Those would-be allies might conclude that all that resistance was for nothing, and give up. Especially if he wins an outright majority.
-
Trump is pretty open that he intends to use violence against his political opponents, and this time he likely won't be constrained by any sort of deep state. Especially if he wins an outright majority.
That's my thinking, but any accelerationists want to tell me where I'm wrong?
I think we should be able to all agree that voting for Trump is not a legitimate strategy for leftists. We've talked the issue to death when it comes to not voting for Harris, but I understand the impulse for a post like this to make sure we're also on the same page of not voting for Trump.
Comrades, it should go without saying, but do not under any circumstances vote for Donald Trump
yep, as usual, nobody is doing that or advocating for it but you shit on dems enough and people just assume
Trump in power: democrats oppose his rhetoric and actions
Trump out of power: democrats oppose his rhetoric while continuing his actions
Liberals are judas goats no matter the situation, but they're forced to pretend that they aren't demons when they aren't in power. When given power they're just demons. I don't understand what would be more accelerationist than doing the fucking holocaust but you tell me. I'm voting PSL as a non-demon.
sorry, I'm not understanding – what're you getting at? is there a thesis here, other than "another Trump term might discourage people from organizing" and "Trump intends to use violence"?
afaict, those are both problems currently (people being disheartened about organizing, violence being used by the state against those who oppose its aims) – in what way are you voting, and how do you expect that to positively impact those issues?
for the record, I do not plan to vote for Trump
I just want to quibble with the "accelerationist" thing: I have been arguing that Biden/Harris are worse because they got the libs to go from joining the left to actively supporting fascism, and that at least under Trump we had some of their support.
That doesn't mean I expect libs would once again swing left if Trump won. No, once they've rationalized fascism under the Dem team I believe they'll happily accept fascism under the GOP team.
But furthermore, I think Holocaust Harris is the accelerationist choice, because the Democrats selling Fascism to the Libs has advanced fascism much more quickly than if the Libs had continued putting up some resistance during a 2nd Trump term.
I am not an accelerationist, by the way.
Trump is pretty open that he intends to use violence against his political opponents, and this time he likely won't be constrained by any sort of deep state. Especially if he wins an outright majority.
Also wtf lmao? That's nothing new. Democrats already use violence against political opponents. The cops and the national guard violently and brutally put down the George Floyd Uprising under Democrat Tim Walz's reign.
Edit: Also no leftists are saying to elect Trump. If we endorse anyone at all it's a leftist party like the PSL or some other splinter group, or a socdem party like the Green Party
Edit2: Oh I responded without reading your other comments. Sorry for assuming you were acting in good faith but it sounds like you're actually just trying to convince people to vote for the Nazis, so fuck off.
and this time he likely won't be constrained by any sort of deep state.
can you expand on this assertion?
There are reports that Trump, while president, wanted to shoot protestors. Reports say that Trump toned down his requests "after Attorney General William Barr and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley pushed back on his initial request." There are similar reports about McMaster and other chumps who reined in the absolute worst dogshit instincts of Trump.
I don't think these guys disagreed with Trump because they're good people with good values. I think they did it because they're authoritarians who got high on the pop Americana of Top Gun and Air Force One and believe America Is Freedom, and "You don't shoot people who are protesting*" is one of those freedoms. Or, at the very least, it's supposed to distinguish us from the international foes that these guys have always whined about.
(*Depending on who is protesting and what they even count as a protest. But I have been to dozens of protest marches, I was just at a Gaza march with thousands of people in New York, and I've never once worried about being shot for holding a sign and chanting.)
It's worth noting that a lot of these guys, like Milley, predated Trump's time in office. I think part of the reason Trump kept these guys around is because he straight-up sucks at hiring. This report highlights the difficulties of passing his loyalty test, but I recall another one (I can't find it now) that said that during the transition, the Trump team was shocked to learn that they had to hire hundreds of people. They thought everyone came with the office. Trump was so inexperienced at it that he ended up asking Obama for advice.
None of that is the case the second time around. The folks who stay on do it knowing what Trump wants, and knowing that he'll be empowered to get it. And unlike 2016, there's a plan. Project 2025 has been vetting people for civil service roles, and Schedule F means that Trump could effectively sideline or fire any civil servants who want to slow-walk his agenda. The Supreme Court has already given him the greenlight with the Trump v. U.S. ruling. And, just earlier today, Trump again spoke of deploying the military against his political foes. No one who is joining this administration is doing it because they have some Jerry Bruckheimer view of America's freedom. They all know the score this time around.
There's one more reason that Trump's hands were partially tied during his admin. Pema Levy at Mother Jones wrote about it in the context of January 6, but I think it applies to his administration generally:
Trump’s coup failed not because he and his allies lacked power, but because President Joe Biden’s margin of victory was big enough that some allies—including his own attorney general and most Senate Republicans—refused to use that power to illegally keep Trump in office.
Trump has never won a popular vote. If that were to change-- if he were to win the election by a majority, rather than just by picking up electoral votes in our shitty system-- then I can't think of a single thing that would stop Trump from getting everything he wants. The small measures of freedom that some people in this country have eked out (the right to form a union, or protest, or publish criticism of the government), the launching pad from which most of our other freedoms and liberties have advanced or been protected, would be totally wiped out, and there would be no one to stop it.
I hope the prosecutor promising to reinforce the genocide finds some way to appeal to voters then I guess, no shortage of Americans who will excuse ethnic cleansing so it should be a slam dunk right
I hope we continue to live in a world where you can criticize the powerful
You literally live in a country where people can be jailed with the justification of 'weaponising free speech'.
The only reason why the core population of Imperial metropoles has not experienced as much silencing as your colonial dominions is that your metropoles do not feel threatened.
In other words, your criticism of the powerful is completely toothless as of currently.Julian Assange didn't demonstrate that you don't live in that world right now?
After spending a decade trying to avoid prosecution by the American justice department for a crime they say he committed fully outside American jurisdiction, and having to admit to guilt. What a victory for free speech and speaking truth to power.
You know Trump wanted to kill him, right?
I enjoy writing and reading critiques of American power (including yours!) on fora like this one, and I think these spaces are valuable for education, radicalization, and organization. I consider this an example of freedom of speech. I also think we risk losing these freedoms under Trump. Do you disagree?
Of course I disagree, I've just told you that I don't think we really have those freedoms to begin with. Liberals just can't get their brains past the binary of red vs blue. I'm not suggesting Trump is better, I'm suggesting there is no practical difference between the two parties. You know Hillary Clinton wanted to kill Assange too, right? https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/1842885/wikileaks-cites-report-saying-clinton-mulled-killing-assange-with-drones/
Muslim electors at the DNC were physically assaulted by other DNC attendees, one got a concussion, because they were holding signs asking for a ceasefire. They were there to vote for Kamala Harris, but hoping to "push her left". There were no consequences for the aggravated assault. Free to speak and get beaten by other Democrats is a real hell of a turd you've chosen to polish.
You seem to still view Trump and his fascist policies as somehow unique, which is understandable for someone without much knowledge of US political history at home and abroad.
The president isn't the soul gem of the US government, the nature and circumstances of the machine means its going to keep being more fascist no matter who you slot in there. To engage with Trump as a unique threat is a waste of energy that only serves power.
Also rights are made up, they'll just fucking kill you the moment you become an inconvenience, like Boogie Smith. If you're not organized, your rights are nothing but soothing hypothetical ideas about how things should be.
Also rights are made up, they'll just fucking kill you the moment you become an inconvenience, like Boogie Smith. If you're not organized, your rights are nothing but soothing hypothetical ideas about how things should be.
So so much this.
he was subjected to solitary confinement for 5+ years...
Your free-speech hand-wringing is despicable; not because I "disagree" with it or don't "value it" as much as you do but because it's based on the premise that any of our speech is actually "free".
For that speech to take place in a forum it's relatively nice to have an unbiased, non-atomized electorate discussing principles and civics. We don't have that. Everybody is atomized. Everybody falls for propaganda; even Marxists sometimes. This "forum" that we exist in does not acknowledge or serve the interests of the working class people. That is where our interest is as Marxists. Kamala, nor Trump has any interests in serving these interests of the working class. In other words, your speech is useless.
When your speech actually does challenge the status quo or the way things are...you get shot. Fred Hampton. You get exiled. Edward Snowden. Or you're on the run for years. Julian Assange. The Communist Control Act of the 50s is still a law on the books that could easily be used to completely legally suppress a communist movement. The Taft-Hartley Act prevents communists from organizing strikes.
So, where exactly is our freedom of speech again? Because "freedom of speech" as the "Founding Fathers" (fuck them) intended it didn't mean the freedom to shitpost about Drumpf on Lemmy. It meant the ability to criticize and invoke change in your governance. Do we have that? Does your vote really count that much? If you think yes, I got a ball right here you can kick.
Go ahead and doot away. Doesn't change the fact Fred Hampton was murdered by the police for exercising his "Freedom of Speech"
