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.
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