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 not 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.

So much can change between now and 2050, I would not rely on that (plus we’ll all be old or dead by then)

To add on, if there is a character who comes from the lower class they are usually portrayed as a villain or just plain unlikable (like the high sparrow from asoiaf) and they usually have a Darwinist mentality of survival of the fittest. Not only do they not display people of the lower class in prominent roles, but they can’t even display solidarity between the “commoners”

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).

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

I don’t really have a well fleshed out idea to add, but you made me see a parallel of applying dialectics to itself and Godel’s incompleteness theorem. Though I’m not sure if Godel’s theorem applies as it is for axiomatic systems, which I’m not sure if dialectics is one?

It does make me think though, what is the natural outcome of applying dialectics to itself and does it result in some paradox?

Feels bad 😞

I think the symptoms analogy is pretty apt, especially as I’ve seen people on the left refer to Trump as a symptom. If you view Trump as the core problem as liberals do, then yea you won’t abandon the status quo since it can be solved by simply removing Trump. That’s what in theory the laws are supposed to do. But Trump still exists despite the laws, because he is not the problem, but a symptom of the problem.

I feel like European leaders are basically the Democratic party. They want to keep up the existing relationship with America to preserve the “norms”, but are ignoring that radical change is needed because of how the material conditions are changing and Trump’s new style of imperialism/isolationism.

Been reading Hudson’s Super Imperialism and I found the British refusing to default on their debt to US after ww1 interesting and maybe a parallel to today how Europe refuses to stop being lap dogs for the US.

Yea that’s what I’m thinking. We shouldn’t forget that he hasn’t done anything to close military bases overseas (yet?), so he’s not completely pulling out of these vassals.

But keeping these countries inline with threats only and no economic incentives will probably make them reconsider their relationship to the US especially if they can’t placate their population while the US puts pressure on them with tariffs, annexation etc.

Idk I feel Trump doesn’t understand that America already pretty much owns Canada. Given all the things he says, I don’t think he understands how American imperialism works in general. Otherwise I can’t comprehend why cutting USAID, defunding CIA, tariffing Taiwan etc. helps his class other than some short term gains that will be long term disasters (for the US)