Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
This is notably how the end of the Communist Party in the United States happened as an effective force. Prior to WW 2, the Communist Party had made a large amount of inroads in the United States through promises of racial reform and equality. The organization collapsed in support due to a number of factors (including throwing equality under the bus to try to get the United States to enter WW 2 on behalf of the Soviet Union) but one of the biggest was the fact that its members were ordered to vote against Roosvelt and the New Deal. It was believed it posed a dire threat to communist takeover of the country.
Faced with unemployment, debt, and suffering NOW vs. well, a Stalinist dream of world domination, unsurprisingly large numbers of people went from communism to Democrat. Black and white. It also laid the groundwork for the splintering of the Democratic Party between North and South.
Democrats don't like to talk about it but I consider it as important a political shift as the Southern Strategy (in reverse).
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Sep 7th 2020 at 2:31:52 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
I've heard about that in a few places, likely here in this thread or another.
![]()
Some arguments that get brought up is how the amount of suffering, civil unrest, economic grief, and death that communism, socialism, etc., have caused, pale in comparison to capitalism or something to that effect and that ccapitalism being destroyed and replaced with those systems is the only way to deal with those issues along with growing climate change.
The thing they mention about living outside the country in question is that US politics is a globalnissue that directly impacts them as well or something to that effect.
Edited by FinestArts on Sep 7th 2020 at 6:33:08 AM
Yes, but they still rapidly become a global issue with how much power the US holds over global politics.
Multiple nations rely on you for defense, You have the most powerful economy in the world, and your soft power is insane... and then thats not even touching more niche issues like how over 70% of all trafic that goes through the internet passes through West Virginia, meaning US net policies are in practice global policies.
So while they are going to affect US residents more, US politics is very much a global issue.
That doesn't exactly make accelerationisim any smarter though, it just makes it dumber since it means any collapse in the US is going to take every one down with it.
Edited by Imca on Sep 7th 2020 at 4:07:03 AM
Accelerationism became a discredited philosophy the moment that the collapse of governments gained the possibility of leading to human extinction. Not that it was a smart idea to begin with.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Sep 7th 2020 at 4:45:33 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.@ Everyone with regards to Accelerationism,
That's my point about why I don't get it. Do they no realise the absolute pandemonium that it would cause? Not just here, but globally? On top of that, no amount of insulation will be enough to avoid the blast radius of that mess so why the ardent support by some.
And that's assuming that the forms of socioeconomic governance they intend to replace the current ones are even viable(out with capitalism in with the previous ones mentioned).
Edited by FinestArts on Sep 7th 2020 at 7:47:44 AM
It's very easy to understand if you realize one thing about these people:
They're idiots.
A less pithy answer is the good old Original Position Fallacy. These people imagine they will be the ones to reap the benefits of whatever revolution they want, and don't think they will suffer the consequences. It's easy to talk about breaking omelettes to make eggs if you don't think you're gonna be the egg.
See also: people who supported Communist revolutions who ended up purged by said Communists. Or people who voted for Trump who ended up having relatives deported.
Something something leopards and faces.
Edited by M84 on Sep 7th 2020 at 7:53:25 PM
Disgusted, but not surprisedI'm all for abolishing capitalism in its current neoliberal and increasingly Objectivist form in favor of market socialism, or at least willing to settle for a more social democratic system, and I'm also in support of revolution once all electoral alternatives have been rendered utterly unviable. But unless we're forced into that incredibly extreme situation (i.e. the worst case scenario of Trump transitioning the nation beyond an incredibly illiberal democracy into a straight-up fascist dictatorship, which frankly he is just too stupid to do on his own, no matter how much he wants to) I see no reason why we can't make progress on the former with the mechanisms we currently have, difficult as the bourgeoisie may try to make it.
And deliberately allowing Trump to win in the hopes of the miniscule chance that pushing society to the breaking point will immediately foment a revolution that is both successful and won't just empower authoritarians of another stripe in the power vacuum that ensues, disregards the possibility that everyone will probably be trapped in that fascist dictatorship for god knows how long until we might get a revolution down the line that merely restores us back to the pre-fascist status quo, if not also empowering said alternative authoritarians. It's a gamble that I think is frankly not worth entertaining for a second.
Edited by AlleyOop on Sep 7th 2020 at 8:01:15 AM
It's not even something that's really backed up by history. There's a reason we've got a Full-Circle Revolution trope.
Disgusted, but not surprisedI've historically been very much a supporter of revolution in the face of tyranny but I realized that I was missing just how dangerous the idiocy in such movements was from a single early college conversation.
While on a discussion board, I talked about how obviously when a revolution is being planned that you have to have a well-planned government and laws in place to replace the old one. The response I got was a lot of people being very angry about such an idea and how it would defeat the purpose of anarchy "naturally" generating a new government.
Edit:
Whoops, sorry. Posted it while you were.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Sep 7th 2020 at 4:58:35 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.Trump faces surprising cash crunch
The number of states Trump has to worry about has actually grown.
Why it matters: The campaign's view is that Trump will get his message out, and he depends less on paid media than normal politicians. But the number of states Trump has to worry about has actually grown, and Joe Biden's massive August fundraising haul has given his campaign a lift as early voting begins.
The New York Times leads today's paper
with a big Labor Day scene-setter with several intriguing references to money problems for Trump:
- "The light television spending and advertising blackouts in some key states have mystified allies," The Times reports
.
- Trump "is expected to increase television spending next week, but several Republicans said that Bill Stepien, Mr. Trump’s campaign manager since July, was taking a cautious approach after the former leadership spent huge sums on television and digital ads earlier this year, to no discernible effect."
Last Monday, AP's Brian Slodysko reported
that the Trump campaign had pulled most TV ads over the previous week, ceding the airwaves to Biden, who was outspending Trump by more than 10 to 1.
- Biden and DNC raised
a stunning $365 million in August, breaking the record
for one month of presidential fundraising.
- At the end of July,
before the announcement of Sen. Kamala Harris swelled Biden's fundraising, Trump reported slightly more cash on hand.
Trump is not exactly known for his sterling financial management. This doesn't surprise me at all.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Biden's polling lead remains the steadiest on record. Convention bounces were limited and short lived.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/06/politics/biden-lead-steady-new-polls/index.html

I can understand the argument that it's a Sisyphean waste of time and resources to focus on incrementally improving a system that's so fundamentally rotten, instead of starting over from scratch with fresh materials and better blueprints.
But alas in the modern day quite a lot of the utopian types who favor the radical route most heavily have become opposed to reform altogether, treating reform as an outright enemy to "real" change, when reform actually tends tends to make it easier rather than more difficult to create radical change. Basically they've become too fundamentalist with regard to Marx's theories of social change and believe that if it was achieved through electoral over violent means then it somehow doesn't count.
And, while viable for smaller institutions (e.g. ICE, state-based police reform), that kind of all-or-nothing radical restructuring starts to lose its viability once we pull the camera back and think about the collateral damage it costs to dismantle and rebuild. Attempting to revamp an entire society without letting vast swathes of the populace become crushed underheel, in effect causing as much or even more inhuman suffering than the society in need of reform, is nigh impossible, as history demonstrates. The most successful long-term progress requires a combination of both radical passion (the energy and desire to build something beautiful) and pragmatic reformism (having the tools and the know-how to use them), not one at the expense of the other.
I wouldn't be surprised of the kinds of people most sympathetic to accelerationist thought are people who live outside the country in question, people who mostly belong to non-disadvantaged groups, or anyone else who doesn't actually have to confront the full brunt of the not-neglible costs of accelerationism while waiting futilely for the revolution to rise and succeed.
Edited by AlleyOop on Sep 7th 2020 at 5:45:01 AM