The silence from Muslim leaders on the president’s 2024 reelection bid is speaking volumes as Biden continues to back Israel in its war against Hamas in Gaza.
Nah, you’re too credulous. The parties collaborate. Winning and losing is just part of the game. The small people care. The leaders golf together, vacation together, etc. They collaborate in the management of empire. No one actually cares who wins and loses. If they cared, they would behave differently.
What you’re talking about is exemplified by Bush v Gore, when the Supreme Court decided the election it was Gore that happily conceded because he and Bush were just having a friendly competition. That was before the empire began its decline, what used to be collaboration between friendly rivals is turning into infighting. The partisanship we see is actually a side effect of deeper troubles.
That’s certainly still true to a degree, but the way the US’s political system is set up means that the True Believers of the theater bullshit are now the ones getting elected. They get elected to city, county, and state level offices as well as the federal House. It hasn’t gotten to the point where the brain rot has reached the Senate (yet), but every level below that is filled with up-and-comers who really believe the partisanship is real. The old guard of the empire is all in their 80s and dying off, these younger politicians are completely disconnected from realpolitik because they grew up in the neoliberal End of History. That’s why we have shit like Texas having a showdown with the feds over the border lol
Transmission of empire happens in universities, in big business, and in the halls of power. The new guard has gone through that process just like their predecessors. That their behavior is more erratic, again, speaks to the psychology of the voters more than the psychology of the officials.
Their predecessors cut their teeth on the Cold War, this new cohort did so on the War on Terror. Rather than having experience competing with a world power, their only experience is in colonial management. It’s like how the Zionist army only has experience managing the occupation and has no experience in actual warfare. They’re ideologically similar, but their actual professional experiences are far different. Psychology is irrelevant imo
Even during the cold war the USA lost constantly. I don’t think it’s incompetence. I think guerilla warfare is simply superior. It’s not like the USA was effect during the cold war. The USSR was famous for it’s ability to hunt Western spies far more effectively than the reverse. The USSR defeated the most powerful Western army ever fielded while they were still trying to modernize their agriculture to stop the centuries-long cycle of famine. The USSR failed not because of the West but because of their own failures to manage reaction and revision in the party.
The cold war was colonial management. So I don’t see why you think managing empire back then made our politicians strong but managing empire now has made them weak. You’re over indexing on present-day failures and last generations successes. They were just as loony in the 70s as they are today, we just don’t keep that stuff in the forefront.
The most significant and most important difference is global financialization and the outsourcing that came with it. The politicians from the 30s to the 70s had to manage domestic industry and the business leaders did too. Since the 70s, with new economic policies allowing freer movement of capital, more financialization and abstract derivatives, and then China identifying the economic angle to kill the empire, todays politicians have never had to deal with real productive forces. I don’t think that makes them better or worse in this case. I think it makes them more prone to abstract thinking with fewer moments of contact with reality.
But both parties have that problem and it manifests not fundamentally as forgetting they are on the same team but rather deepening the contradictions inherent in the system through their domestic policy and rhetoric.
The USSR failed not because of the West but because of their own failures to manage reaction and revision in the party.
I must disagree. Reaction and revision in the party were consequences of Western actions taken against them. It wasn’t some internal failure of the USSR that caused it to collapse, it was the Cold War and Western aggression. Back then, the West was actually a formidable colonial power - they weren’t just managers, it was a shrewd and effective system of colonial conquest.
That’s why the new imperial age with the War on Terror is different. Yes, the West lost battles before, but today they can’t even present a unified front. Now other colonial actors and capital interests act in defiance of the empire to make their own rogue moves for power. Brexit, for example. I think this shows internal divisions within the empire and that this is reflected in partisanship. The material base has changed and this has changed the political superstructure, the voters didn’t just choose to become partisan on their own. While you’re right that much of this partisanship is coming from voters, the voters’ partisanship is actually a reflection of the changing material interests of the ruling class coming into contradiction with each other.
You’re right that this comes back to financialization but this, too, is a shift from conquest to management. They don’t run real industrial forces, they manage imaginary money.
I must disagree. Reaction and revision in the party were consequences of Western actions taken against them.
I think this is terribly mistaken. Reaction is inherent in any society undergoing change. It’s not something imposed from the outside. There IS international reaction, but that reaction is based on the international community’s relationship to the change. Kruschev represented the reactionary forces within Russia, not Western reactionaries. Revisionism in the USSR had nothing to do with the West and everything to do with the reactionary elements within the USSR that wanted to make socialism compatible with enterprise for profit and individual enrichment. It’s completely naive to assume that all of the USSR was ideologically aligned and that the only reason the USSR went the way it did was because of the West.
It wasn’t some internal failure of the USSR that caused it to collapse
It absolutely was.
it was the Cold War and Western aggression
The Cold War was the way that the US created pressures on the USSR without engaging them in nation-state war. The USSR needed to manage these pressures, and they failed to do so. The counter-revolutionaries within the USSR outmaneuvered the revolutionaries, and Stalin had no one to pass the torch to when he died. Kruschev launched the anti-Stalin campaign and from that point forward there was an attempt to build a new world power that allowed for private wealth accumulation and would compete with the West on economic and hard power grounds instead of ideological ones.
Back then, the West was actually a formidable colonial power - they weren’t just managers, it was a shrewd and effective system of colonial conquest.
It still is. The problem isn’t that the USA got soft from it’s success. It’s that there’s no other empires to inherit from. The USA finished taking over for the others empires after WW2. That doesn’t exist anymore. So the empire has been trying to figure out what to do, but there’s no room to expand into anymore. This is the contradiction of achieving unipolarity through displacement - once you achieve it, you cannot maintain with displacement, and the only solution is for you yourself to be displaced by the next empire. The USA has been trying to figure out a new strategy for decades, and the blowback strategy (War on Terror) has been the most effective and promising it’s come up with. You can call them soft for not coming up with an answer, but there’s also the possibility that there is no answer to be found.
Yes, the West lost battles before, but today they can’t even present a unified front
I don’t think this is a mistake. The apparent divisions politically are really useful rhetorically. You can easily see this because there’s clearly continuity in the USA’s behavior, despite the appearances of lacking a united front. The way the USA prosecuted the proxy war in Ukraine is identical to how to it prosecuted other proxy wars, but this time they did while putting out an image of division. The image and the reality don’t match up. The reality belies the continuity and consistency. The only conclusion to be drawn, then, is that the image is artifice.
Now other colonial actors and capital interests act in defiance of the empire to make their own rogue moves for power
What other colonial actors and capital interests are acting in defiance of empire? The international bourgeoisie is firmly in control of the empire. There are no wars between billionaires. And just to pre-empt the obvious - Russia and China are not colonial powers.
Brexit, for example
How is this defying empire? The UK participated in a project to create a European economic union and then backed out to protect some of its interests. In no way is this a defiance of empire.
I think this shows internal divisions within the empire and that this is reflected in partisanship.
It shows contradictions within the logic of empire, not division within the empire. The partisanship is the current strategy of the owning class to manage those contradictions to avoid revolutionary conditions.
The material base has changed and this has changed the political superstructure
The political superstructure hasn’t changed at all towards polarization and partisanship. The superstructure changes that have happened have been about power projection through treaties and NGOs. The much larger superstructural changes have been the rise of BRICS, alternate currency trades, and the neutering of sanctions, all against empire.
the voters didn’t just choose to become partisan on their own
They were manipulated into it through the propaganda arm of empire. The empire chose to make them extremely partisan. It serves the interests of empire.
the voters’ partisanship is actually a reflection of the changing material interests of the ruling class coming into contradiction with each other.
You haven’t shown any subgroups of the ruling class being in contradiction with each other. You keep pointing to the partisan divide, but they all party together, they send their kids to the same schools, they live in the same neighborhoods, they get donations from the same corporations, they vote together for everything the empire actually needs to survive. The Ds fucking obviated the filibuster last year to raise the debt ceiling, FFS. You’re getting confused by the image of conflict. There’s no real conflict within the ruling class. The contradiction is between the ruling class and the working class, and that contradiction is getting harder and harder to manage due to the changing material reality, which is itself a contradiction in that the bourgeoisie needed these changes to material reality for their own interests but the changes are making it harder to manage the class basis of society. The partisanship is yet another attempt to divide the working class against itself and defuse revolutionary potential. Is this going to result in some actual politicians reifying the narrative and living in a fantasy land? Yes. But that’s not terribly important, and in fact, it would be really hard to tell the difference between someone who’s a true believer and someone who’s merely behaving in accordance with the conditions created by polarizing the working class.
Nah, you’re too credulous. The parties collaborate. Winning and losing is just part of the game. The small people care. The leaders golf together, vacation together, etc. They collaborate in the management of empire. No one actually cares who wins and loses. If they cared, they would behave differently.
What you’re talking about is exemplified by Bush v Gore, when the Supreme Court decided the election it was Gore that happily conceded because he and Bush were just having a friendly competition. That was before the empire began its decline, what used to be collaboration between friendly rivals is turning into infighting. The partisanship we see is actually a side effect of deeper troubles.
Fundamentally disagree. The political theater is not showing a deep divide between agents. It is reflecting the deep divide between voters.
That’s certainly still true to a degree, but the way the US’s political system is set up means that the True Believers of the theater bullshit are now the ones getting elected. They get elected to city, county, and state level offices as well as the federal House. It hasn’t gotten to the point where the brain rot has reached the Senate (yet), but every level below that is filled with up-and-comers who really believe the partisanship is real. The old guard of the empire is all in their 80s and dying off, these younger politicians are completely disconnected from realpolitik because they grew up in the neoliberal End of History. That’s why we have shit like Texas having a showdown with the feds over the border lol
Transmission of empire happens in universities, in big business, and in the halls of power. The new guard has gone through that process just like their predecessors. That their behavior is more erratic, again, speaks to the psychology of the voters more than the psychology of the officials.
Their predecessors cut their teeth on the Cold War, this new cohort did so on the War on Terror. Rather than having experience competing with a world power, their only experience is in colonial management. It’s like how the Zionist army only has experience managing the occupation and has no experience in actual warfare. They’re ideologically similar, but their actual professional experiences are far different. Psychology is irrelevant imo
Even during the cold war the USA lost constantly. I don’t think it’s incompetence. I think guerilla warfare is simply superior. It’s not like the USA was effect during the cold war. The USSR was famous for it’s ability to hunt Western spies far more effectively than the reverse. The USSR defeated the most powerful Western army ever fielded while they were still trying to modernize their agriculture to stop the centuries-long cycle of famine. The USSR failed not because of the West but because of their own failures to manage reaction and revision in the party.
The cold war was colonial management. So I don’t see why you think managing empire back then made our politicians strong but managing empire now has made them weak. You’re over indexing on present-day failures and last generations successes. They were just as loony in the 70s as they are today, we just don’t keep that stuff in the forefront.
The most significant and most important difference is global financialization and the outsourcing that came with it. The politicians from the 30s to the 70s had to manage domestic industry and the business leaders did too. Since the 70s, with new economic policies allowing freer movement of capital, more financialization and abstract derivatives, and then China identifying the economic angle to kill the empire, todays politicians have never had to deal with real productive forces. I don’t think that makes them better or worse in this case. I think it makes them more prone to abstract thinking with fewer moments of contact with reality.
But both parties have that problem and it manifests not fundamentally as forgetting they are on the same team but rather deepening the contradictions inherent in the system through their domestic policy and rhetoric.
I must disagree. Reaction and revision in the party were consequences of Western actions taken against them. It wasn’t some internal failure of the USSR that caused it to collapse, it was the Cold War and Western aggression. Back then, the West was actually a formidable colonial power - they weren’t just managers, it was a shrewd and effective system of colonial conquest.
That’s why the new imperial age with the War on Terror is different. Yes, the West lost battles before, but today they can’t even present a unified front. Now other colonial actors and capital interests act in defiance of the empire to make their own rogue moves for power. Brexit, for example. I think this shows internal divisions within the empire and that this is reflected in partisanship. The material base has changed and this has changed the political superstructure, the voters didn’t just choose to become partisan on their own. While you’re right that much of this partisanship is coming from voters, the voters’ partisanship is actually a reflection of the changing material interests of the ruling class coming into contradiction with each other.
You’re right that this comes back to financialization but this, too, is a shift from conquest to management. They don’t run real industrial forces, they manage imaginary money.
I think this is terribly mistaken. Reaction is inherent in any society undergoing change. It’s not something imposed from the outside. There IS international reaction, but that reaction is based on the international community’s relationship to the change. Kruschev represented the reactionary forces within Russia, not Western reactionaries. Revisionism in the USSR had nothing to do with the West and everything to do with the reactionary elements within the USSR that wanted to make socialism compatible with enterprise for profit and individual enrichment. It’s completely naive to assume that all of the USSR was ideologically aligned and that the only reason the USSR went the way it did was because of the West.
It absolutely was.
The Cold War was the way that the US created pressures on the USSR without engaging them in nation-state war. The USSR needed to manage these pressures, and they failed to do so. The counter-revolutionaries within the USSR outmaneuvered the revolutionaries, and Stalin had no one to pass the torch to when he died. Kruschev launched the anti-Stalin campaign and from that point forward there was an attempt to build a new world power that allowed for private wealth accumulation and would compete with the West on economic and hard power grounds instead of ideological ones.
It still is. The problem isn’t that the USA got soft from it’s success. It’s that there’s no other empires to inherit from. The USA finished taking over for the others empires after WW2. That doesn’t exist anymore. So the empire has been trying to figure out what to do, but there’s no room to expand into anymore. This is the contradiction of achieving unipolarity through displacement - once you achieve it, you cannot maintain with displacement, and the only solution is for you yourself to be displaced by the next empire. The USA has been trying to figure out a new strategy for decades, and the blowback strategy (War on Terror) has been the most effective and promising it’s come up with. You can call them soft for not coming up with an answer, but there’s also the possibility that there is no answer to be found.
I don’t think this is a mistake. The apparent divisions politically are really useful rhetorically. You can easily see this because there’s clearly continuity in the USA’s behavior, despite the appearances of lacking a united front. The way the USA prosecuted the proxy war in Ukraine is identical to how to it prosecuted other proxy wars, but this time they did while putting out an image of division. The image and the reality don’t match up. The reality belies the continuity and consistency. The only conclusion to be drawn, then, is that the image is artifice.
What other colonial actors and capital interests are acting in defiance of empire? The international bourgeoisie is firmly in control of the empire. There are no wars between billionaires. And just to pre-empt the obvious - Russia and China are not colonial powers.
How is this defying empire? The UK participated in a project to create a European economic union and then backed out to protect some of its interests. In no way is this a defiance of empire.
It shows contradictions within the logic of empire, not division within the empire. The partisanship is the current strategy of the owning class to manage those contradictions to avoid revolutionary conditions.
The political superstructure hasn’t changed at all towards polarization and partisanship. The superstructure changes that have happened have been about power projection through treaties and NGOs. The much larger superstructural changes have been the rise of BRICS, alternate currency trades, and the neutering of sanctions, all against empire.
They were manipulated into it through the propaganda arm of empire. The empire chose to make them extremely partisan. It serves the interests of empire.
You haven’t shown any subgroups of the ruling class being in contradiction with each other. You keep pointing to the partisan divide, but they all party together, they send their kids to the same schools, they live in the same neighborhoods, they get donations from the same corporations, they vote together for everything the empire actually needs to survive. The Ds fucking obviated the filibuster last year to raise the debt ceiling, FFS. You’re getting confused by the image of conflict. There’s no real conflict within the ruling class. The contradiction is between the ruling class and the working class, and that contradiction is getting harder and harder to manage due to the changing material reality, which is itself a contradiction in that the bourgeoisie needed these changes to material reality for their own interests but the changes are making it harder to manage the class basis of society. The partisanship is yet another attempt to divide the working class against itself and defuse revolutionary potential. Is this going to result in some actual politicians reifying the narrative and living in a fantasy land? Yes. But that’s not terribly important, and in fact, it would be really hard to tell the difference between someone who’s a true believer and someone who’s merely behaving in accordance with the conditions created by polarizing the working class.