We know voting in bourgeois USian democracy is only affected by people in swing states (and even that is "which ghoul do you want to administer the dictatorship of capital") but hear me out.
A comrade recently posted about ironically or unironically (I didn't read enough into the thread) voting for AfD in Germany and it reminded me of a WaPo article that read:
"Several U.S. military leaders have advised Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that prolonging large-scale operations against Iran is unsustainable and risks weakening their ability to confront threats elsewhere, including the U.S. homeland, according to people familiar with a recent assessment prepared for the Pentagon chief."
So it got me thinking, by continuing to overextend the military, as empires do, are we actually seeing "two, three, many Vietnams"? Is the way to exhaust the empire's military into submission to vote for Trump? On one hand we have the King of Hubris (hubris being the guarantor of empire decline) and on the other hand things might have played out this way while wearing a Democrat mask, too, as we know the real driving force is capital accumulation and Epstein island retreats. The down side is the harm that comes to marginalized and oppressed people, which again also happens under Dems when it's their turn to protect capital accumulation and Epstein island retreats. I know in Germany it's different because there are several parties but in the US we're a one party state, but with typical American extravagance, we have two of them (shout out to Julius Nyerere). So would voting for Republicans be a net positive for the world and the demise of capitalism? Should we just abstain from voting? Vote blue for harm reduction?
A big piece of evidence for this theory comes from my personal experience- how many people I know afk that are now (recently) radicalized. People I wouldn't expect in a million years to actually be down with changing the system are now fervent revolutionaries. Comrade Trump is the greatest left wing organizer since Lenin. That's right I said it.
The role of socialists is to side with the working class. Defeat of the empire does not come from losing a war or three, it comes from organizing the working class on the basis of our class interests. Racism and fascism are bourgeois, they divide the working class and seize power for billionaires. The interests of the working class and the capitalists are exactly opposite. Trump is carrying out the agenda of billionaires, enriching himself, and destroying the lives of millions.
No socialist movement has ever succeeded by going against the working class. It's been tried and it never amounts to socialism. Don't be a sucker.
That implies the goal is building socialism in the US instead of just bogging down the imperial hegemony blocking socialism everywhere else.
I can't say this is good strategy, but I'm pretty convinced Trump is the lesser evil (not on purpose either) when compared with the other bourgeois party. But again, voting in bourgeois parliaments is not praxis.
Even by this metric, I don't think that you can make the argument Trump has done Socialism in Venezuela or Cuba any favors
Of course, he is very actively trying to hamstring any socialist projects. He is just slightly less competent at it than the Dems IMO. This is not a material difference, so is negligible overall in terms of importance. No one should be working for Trump thinking it will benefit socialism in any way whatsoever.
No, the working class is international. It exists in the US, it exists in the third world. The working class everywhere, including he US, is terrorized by Trumps admin. What you're proposing is not a viable tactic, it is not a viable strategy.
Lenin advocated participating in bourgeois elections and even wrote a whole book about it, and how people who were absolutists were politically undeveloped. Participating in elections isn't a revolutionary strategy, but it can be a part of one.
Lesser evilism, but for MAGA? How does taking the #1 thing we criticize the democrats for and using it to support Trump make any sense? You are incoherent.
I did not propose anything, certainly not voting for Trump as a harm reduction strategy. I'm just pointing out that Trump has probably done less damage to international socialism than a marginally more intelligent imperial admin run by the Dems would have.
The Vaush argument is not an effective one. Lenin was certainly not suggesting to vote for Dems.
This is an uncharitable read of what I was saying. Do not mistake me for a lib suggesting that you vote for or support the lesser evil. Supporting Trump for this reason is as foolish as when we criticize the dems for it. Our point should be that lesser-evilism is not an effective strategy to achieving our goals. Who tf cares who the lesser evil is if it is evil regardless?
I was merely suggesting that if we look at the actions of bourgeois leaders, Trump is creating an environment more favorable to the objective of liberating the world from American imperialism by overextending the military on strategic blunders while diminishing American soft power on silly threats towards euroklanadian crackkker countries.
Operationally, from the standpoint of building socialism in the US, Trump probably does make things harder. My point is that US hegemony will be destroyed by developing areas in the global south, not expecting some bs white savior syndrome of Marxist revolution in the US before then.
What I said is only incoherent if you are inferring shit that I did not imply. Ffs do I need a dozen asterisks on Hexbear so people dont read this shit as support for Trump? I expect that shit from liberal.world, but not here.
I think you're imagining socialism as something separate from the working class, and imperialism as something essentially USAmerican. The interests of the capitalists and the workers are total opposites. Contradictions abound, and capitalism creates its own grave diggers, but Trump reps the interests of the capitalists, just like the democrats, and inflicts horrible attacks on the working class all over the world.
You haven't provided any evidence to the contrary so I dont know why you feel the need to point out that Trump is better for socialism than the democrats, it seems like you're over thinking, trying to have a take. There is clearly a lot of confusion in this post and I dont think you're helping clear up any of it. Like, you throw that Lenin chapter in my face, compare me to Vaush, when Lenin is explicit about strategy and tactics:
You aren't suggesting a tactic or a strat, based on your own defense. So what exactly is the point? You're making a highly controversial claim with no evidence and then get upset when someone takes you at your word. It seems like you're a little too in your head and need to get out and do some actual organizing work.
But I appreciate the lengthier response.
From my reading defeat of empire comes from being overextended militarily, unclear succession, tanking the economy, civil war, or some combination thereof. Lenin's theory banked on turning an imperialist war into a civil war (which supports the second half of your statement), but losing a war or three I think is always part of the forced dismantling of empire. Netanyahu has been trying to get the US to attack Iran since the 90s but no administration until now has taken the bait because this is an exceptionally stupid regime. My idea was to do the most harm to the empire and I think Democrats would do less harm to the empire than Republicans, but the general consensus from the replies here is that accelerationism doesn't work, so I might have to put that idea in the trash.
The basis of Lenin's analysis was not the empire or the war, it was the working class. It was a highly controversial theory, remember, Georgi Plekhanov, the father of Russian Marxism and Lenin's mentor, did not support revolutionary defeatism. Lenin's analysis wasn't just "Russia needs to lose a war to make a civil war," it was based in concrete conditions of the people.
The war had to be ended in order to unseat Tsar Nick. He was sending his political opponents to the front line and losing battles on purpose. The soldiers were terriffied since desertion was punishable by death. Winning the mass of the army over to the revolution was a win condition. The Bolsheviks were able to determine these conditions by having deep roots in the army. Nothing was abstract, Lenin spoke from a place of certainty rather than generalisation and abstraction. After February, the Bolsheviks were the only faction calling for an end to corporal punishment for soldiers, the only ones calling for an end to war, which made them the only group capable of winning the soldiers to the revolution.
Like, I believe we live in an era where revolutionary defeatism of the US is becoming a popular position, and I think it has merit. But the goal is not to weaken the military, it is to seize power for the working class. Weakening or splittinf the military might be a tactic for achieving working class power, but it isn't the strategy. Defeatism isn't a heuristic, it isn't Marxist to be defeatist. Marxism helps us determine the actual conditions of revolution, and directs us to look at class and concretion rather than ideals and abstraction. Defeat of the US empire may very well come from defeat of the US military. But a counter example might be Germany, where they were the most developed economy in the world, lost WW1, the revolution inside Germany failed, and then the Nazis came to power.
If you aren't familiar with the German Revolution, whose revolutionary success was another win condition for Lenin, then check out Pierre Broue's History of the German Revolution.
Learn the difference between revolutionary tactics and strategy. Study the fuck out of Lenin really get into his writings and see the way he builds his arguments and concretizes. To Lenin "The Truth is always concrete". If we are dealing in heuristics and abstractions, we aren't doing Leninism. Even just adopting Lenin's policies is not Leninist, because his demands and policies changed with time, as conditions changed. I wrote above that Lenin promoted participating in bourgeois elections, but there were times he was against it! What matters is how he was able to use Marxism find concrete truth. Leninism and Marxism isn't dogma, it is practical method
This is very clear, thank you.
And no I'm not familiar with the German revolution so thanks for the recommendation.
Edit: The book on the German revolution.
Even though you got like massacred in the comments, considering that you came to this topic in good faith with a willingness to learn and engage, I think it shows a lot of revolutionary courage. Class consciousness is half critical thinking, and half speaking to your own experiences and observations among comrades within the movement. The fact that you witnessed this dynamic with Trump and the military and the project of dismantling empire, means that other people might be reaching the same conclusions. Sure, that conclusion is incorrect, but the basis of it is structural, rather than some personal failing on your part. Revolutionary development is always accompanied by all sorts of left wing chauvinist movements that emerge from objectively confusing developments in the class war.
So you speaking to your own experience and perspective, and receiving feedback on it from the community could very well have helped many other people understand the problems with this perspective. Speaking up and going against the grain is often unpopular, but struggle is the shortest distance between misunderstanding and understanding. Like, they dynamics you are speaking to are objectively real, but the context you wanted to view them with was problematic. That's extremely fixable, that's why revolutionary Marxism places such a heavy emphasis on education.
The way you phrased your assertion was very polemical, which is actually an extremely important skill to bring to the movement, look at all the engagement you got! I see a comrade with talent and courage, don't let this experience dampen your impulse to speak to your experiences. Down the road this experience could end up being vitally important to helping educate someone else. No one comes to the movement fully developed, we all have some strange ideas we have to work through. Even Lenin made mistakes; Marx struggled like hell with idealism and revised his views over time. The key is to stay with the work, be bold, but open to criticism and change.
Anyway, thanks for the discussion!
I appreciate the encouragement, comrade!
Hexbear, never change <3