• AssortedBiscuits [they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    9 months ago

    I see. Here are my takes:

    1. Unless you live in a battleground state, arguing who should be president is an academic discussion. There’s basically zero difference between someone who isn’t a US citizen and someone who doesn’t live in Ohio and Georgia.

    2. The two parties are just a form of domestic counterinsurgency. Arguing that one is worse than the other is like arguing the good cop is better than the bad cop in a good cop-bad cop routine. In the end, neither parties really control what happens anyways. The national security state, as a “nonpartisan” entity, is what actually controls US politics. They are the means in which the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is enforced to use Marxist terms. US electoral politics is just kabuki theatre.

    3. Electoral figures are unable to meaningfully push back against the national security state. Sanders completely capitulated under the slightest of pressure. Someone like AOC is far worse given her incredibly sus background and should be considered as nothing more than an extension of the national security state. It’s very obvious AOC is being groomed to be the next Obama, and if she plays her cards right to the detriment of the rest of us, she’ll secure the presidency.

    4. Since fascist paramilitaries have been thoroughly infiltrated by the feds, they should be considered the covert branch of the national security state. This makes a “united front” with reactionary paramilitaries like the boogaloo boys completely counterproductive.

    5. Given that the national security state is the primary contradiction, if you’re just focused on what’s going on domestically in the US, every political action should understand this. Voting for either Trump or Biden makes little sense. Trump activated the national guard in 2020 while Biden gave massive funding to the police. Voting for who gets to be president is also pretty pointless since the national security state can always push the scale to get the candidate they want to be president. It’s no coincidence that the vast majority of 2-term presidents did what they’re told (the exception Nixon got hit with Watergate which prematurely ended his second term) and most president who are outsiders like JFK and Carter got 1 term.

    6. The way out is that the national security state has to be sufficiently weakened for both socialist and fascist forces to break free and seize political power. Personally, I think it will be sufficiently weakened through external means by foreign state actors. If there’s going to be a socialist revolution in the US, it’s going lean heavily towards without rather than within. Yes, the right way for revolutions is through within, but think of it like this. The path towards socialism for 1941 Germany was 99.99% without (ie the triumphant Red Army defeating the fascist Nazi hordes and marching through what remained of Berlin). Whatever happens once the US balkanizes is pure alt-history fantasy that is pointless to speculate, but I do believe balkanization has to happen before a socialist revolution. There will, of course, be a massive human cost and a risk of nuclear annihilation fro successor states trying to nuke each other, but those are the breaks.

    • bigboopballs [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      Personally, I think it will be sufficiently weakened through external means by foreign state actors.

      why foreign state actors, rather than just collapsing by itself?