Definitely something missing imo. The right has the monopoly on violence, and even though I’d say the left can ultimately appeal to more people and have strength in numbers, a willingness to use violence can overcome that. I think it is as you said: it sounds very LARP-y until it isn’t. This is probably by design though, as any leftist group that does pick up arms or does combat training will be a target for repression.
I was in a similar position. Best advice I can give is to try to find a local Marxist org if you can. Luckily there was one for me, but I know not everyone has one. I think isolating ourselves is probably the worst thing we can do right now, even though the capitalist system makes it easy to do so.
I used to think that I could convince my more lib/conservative minded friends since I read so much, but it’s not that easy even if you have all the knowledge needed for making a point. I have never successfully converted someone, but I think I at least made them think a little bit more critically and even have them agree with me on some things.
Even in the context of Trump being in charge of the US right now, I still feel somewhat alone when talking to liberal-resistance-minded people about it because it’s like they’re approaching it from another universe of belief about how things work.
Yea I feel this too, and imo it’s because they are not against the system but the individuals running the system.
I been getting clips of her too. I could only watch for a couple seconds before I had to stop because I couldn’t stand her smugness
I feel like there’s no theory behind what kind of revolution can take place in the global north, at least none that I’m aware of. We’re still going off of past revolutions which happened in times where the societies were much different and the technological level was alot lower. Curious what others think could be a possible avenue for revolution.
My thoughts are that the consciousness of people are not at the level where a true proletarian revolution can take place (at least in my country in the global north). This is mainly due to neoliberal brainwashing and the fact that people don’t view China as socialist. Im seeing more pull towards neoliberalism as the material conditions degrade, partly because people don’t realize there is any other option. They all think it’s a tradeoff between having a good economy and letting everyone have their basic needs met.
So much can change between now and 2050, I would not rely on that (plus we’ll all be old or dead by then)
Eugene is great!
This leaves us with “join them”, and here Trump’s calculation seems to be that if the U.S. does so first, it undoubtedly can negotiate much better terms for the U.S.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I dont think the US wants to “join” in an alliance with China-Russia. America will not join anything if they are not the leader of it and have the ultimate say on decisions.
Still, the fundamental reality remains that Trump, for all his faults, seems to have understood earlier than Europeans that the world has changed and he’d better be the first to adapt. This was clear from Rubio’s very first major interview in his new role as Secretary of State when he declared that we’re now in a multipolar world with “multi-great powers in different parts of the planet”.
This is giving Trump too much credit no? The Rubio quote sounds more like trying to manufacture consent for war than building an alliance between multiple great powers.
True. There needs to be some vanguard of the revolution though.
I think it’s a result of declining material conditions and concessions being given to oppressed minorities coinciding at the same time. The two are separate things, but timing wise they coincide so it’s really easy to falsely link them as cause and effect.
I was thinking in the sense that America creates surplus value from its workers and because domestically they cannot “absorb” that surplus (e.g. workers do not make enough to buy the goods/services) they need to export it abroad. Somewhat similar with what happened with Intel, where the Biden government gave them billions in subsidies, but there was no market that could buy all the chips they produced (because of the sanctions on China). However now that I kind of thought about it more, that might be an incorrect understanding of what is going on (or an outdated one).
America does flood the world with USD through its trade deficits and their aid programs which makes it function as a sort of global reserve currency that the US benefits off of in seigniorage. And I do think programs like USAID encourage use of USD. However the contradiction from Trump I see is that he doesn’t want deficits with these countries, but also doesn’t want them to get off of USD.
At risk of sounding like a lib, I really do feel we are missing some kinda strong and intellectual leader type that goes against the status quo. Unfortunately the only leaders willing to go against the status quo are people like Trump and Milei, who I dont really consider strong. Even the status quo they go against is in more of a backwards cultural way rather than economic, because economically the status quo is already trending towards neoliberalism. This could also just be me being western biased, there are things going on in the Sahel states that I’m not too informed on.
Putin maybe? But he seems to be another capitalist at the end of the day. China is off doing their own thing. The whole Gaza genocide and Syria collapse just made Iran look really weak to me, but idk Im just an amateur looking at the situation from afar. Guess the west is literally just going to collapse through its own contradictions with no one there to pick up the pieces 
I do wonder what the economics of these crypto scams are like. Like it’s not poor working class people getting scammed, but wealthier middle classes (landlords?) who then, to compensate for losing money, increase their rents/squeeze the working class for more value.
I kinda believe this one. Occam’s razor and all. Doesn’t mean he’s going to pull out army bases from those countries that we were previously providing aid for.
I also don’t think he realizes these countries need USD to absorb America’s surplus. Well he does to some extent, but doesn’t realize it’s because we give them loans and “aid” in USD that allows them to do this.
I feel you, it’s difficult as hell. The most success I’ve ever had was someone admitting I was right about something. Never actually “converted” someone though.
I guess we just have to accept there’s not going to be a single conversation that’s going to change someone’s opinion. Mostly we have to meet people where they are at, otherwise they aren’t even going to listen to what you have to say. Some form of Socratic dialogue I think is a good approach. I see the best I can do is plant seeds in their minds, and whether they grow into something will depend on the contradictions playing out in society and onto their consciousness.
Another thing I’ve noticed is people seem to be most open for solutions in places they are most vulnerable.
He definitely feels more like what people were saying Ron Desantis would be like. I think his main weakness (politically speaking) is he’s not very charismatic, but it didnt matter since he ran on the Trump ticket which doesnt require him to be charismatic.
Not surprising, Vance was made Trump’s VP pick specifically to represent silicon valley interests.
Vance mocked the notion that such campaigns could derail elections. “If your democracy can be destroyed with a few hundred thousand dollars from a foreign country, then it wasn’t very strong to begin with.”
Vance is more dangerous than Trump. He has clear goals and knows what language to use to hide them.
EU needs to grow a backbone and stop thinking they can go back to the good ol’ days of being America’s lapdog against Russia
It’s the root of their success. I don’t expect them ever to change while the American empire exists (even in a diminished state).
I mean alot of the people who will suffer are not the ones who have committed the evil of the empire.
But what sucks is you are still kind of right. There is no path I see to a revolution where the material conditions are comfy for the masses. Revolutions happen when the oppressed can longer stand their oppression. I don’t know what the theory behind accelerationism is any further than material conditions getting rapidly worse creating a revolution. The system under the democrats was what seemed like a boiling frog situation. We were going to destroy human civilization while exploiting the rest of the world with a moral guise. And because of how the system individuates and pushes us towards consumption to alleviate our alienation, I never thought it could result in any meaningful revolution. Ironically it’s the fascists that changed this slow decline, but by replacing it with a faster one.
I do think accelerationism, or maybe just a small taste of accelerationism, is what gets us to build an actual socialist future.
I agree with you, but I also believe people can change. A change in conscious towards unionizing won’t happen overnight. It happens as the workplace and job market conditions change, and that is what we are seeing right now in Silicon Valley. Tech workers have been used to rising salaries and benefits for so long, and we know that can’t last forever. I think now we are going to see the decline. As the article mentions, AI is the hope for the owner class to de-skill tech workers and thus make them a more exploitable worker that won’t be given a salary that is enough to live a materially comfortable life.
Perhaps one unionization can inspire another?