this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2024
55 points (100.0% liked)

GenZedong

4300 readers
129 users here now

This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.

This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.

We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
55
Hot take: unless U.S's foreign "blowback" reaches home, I don't think any internal problems, such as an attempt on Trump, would really affect the U.S.A (lemmygrad.ml)
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
41 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Unless something more material like a whole continent turning anti-imperialist, if not socialist, and deciding collectively to nationalize the fruit and veg produce, and thus disrupts U.S's produce imports -

I don't think any internal problems in America would reach to a boiling point, as to end on a conclusive note

So what if it's a big deal to you, huh, America is the most armed-country, and has a lot of guns, yet no civil war(s) has occurred recently... it's just reactionary settler business as usual

Im America, nichts neues

all 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 36 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

The inflation is coming from the sanctions and dedollatization. That's the biggest material reason I could see the internal contradictions boiling over as paychecks and savings don't go far enough to keep people housed.

Then there's the Supreme Court's war on the administrative state, looking to gut everything from the NLRB to the DoE to the EPA. Those institutions are one of the ways superprofits are redistributed to the labor aristocracy; my pet theory is they're going to be debourgeoisified by the one-two punch of declining superprofit and declining distribution of superprofit.

And then, of course, there's climate change and ageing infrastructure. The way those will interact in the US, combined with a weaker dollar and no administrative state, could lead to cities becoming nearly ungovernable.

Things are going to get rough.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

In American style, it'll just be the new normal, and then the cycle continues into a downward spiral...

[–] [email protected] 17 points 4 months ago

I also expect that economic conditions will ultimately serve as the primary catalyst for internal strife. Incidents such as the attempt on Trump act as catalysts that exacerbate tensions, and that can escalate into actual civil unrest. Another contributing factor is the pervasive mythology of American exceptionalism which is essentially a religious doctrine positing that the US is essentially a perfect nation. Consequently, any issues arising within the system are perceived as external threats rather than inherent flaws. This mentality fuels the polarization between mainstream Republicans and Democrats, much like a religious schism. Both sides view each other as heretic traitors intent on destroying the nation.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago

Things are going to get rough, but unfortunately the Amerikkkan people have no fucking spine or tolerance for an actually good standard of living, which might make them less likely to rebel

[–] [email protected] 18 points 4 months ago (5 children)

Reminds me of an exchange earlier today between Caitlin Johnstone and Scott Ritter.

Ritter seems to believe that a successful assassination would mean civil war in the USA, and this would be very bad for the rest of the world, for some unspecified reason.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Scott Ritter believes that when America's existence is threatened by any source, they'll launch nukes at the rest of the world, to prevent any other nation from overtaking their primacy.

He bases this on American nuclear doctrine: He says that America's goal in a nuclear war is to be the nation that retains the biggest capacity for civilization on Earth. Therefore their nukes are aimed at everybody.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Honestly, for all of Scott Ritter's American brain worms- he might just be right (that a US civil war would bring on the very real possibility of nuclear strikes on every other relevant state). This kind of sociopathic, malevolent behavior is exactly what the US track record suggests it would resort to, and exactly what anyone with sense expects from it.

That said, IMO- this just further goes to show how necessary it is for the US regime to be overthrown, and American society to be de-Nazified (or rather- de-Americanized). A maniacal regime that banks on forever wars, constant destabilization and suppression of the rest of humanity through funding (or creating) terrorists, settlers, and fascists wherever they go, which sustains itself off of exporting its debt and thus inflation, and which is dominated by a hegemonic, totalitarian mentality, is incompatible with humanity- either we destroy it, or it will destroy us all, likely sooner than later.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Scott Ritter is a bit of an Amerikkkan apologist, but he is scarily accurate on things like this.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Agreed. FWIW I've not anything meaningful against Scott, I like his contributions/work towards peace and the truth. If all Americans were like him, the country would be a hell of a lot better off- maybe (definitely) not an AES state, sure, but it would at least stop being such a sociopathic hellhole, and could instead be a meaningful partner towards a better world.

My mention of the brain worms at the start of the comment was because of what you described, and the context of discussion. But through it all- with people like Scott- I think that his innate character is predominantly good, and he is not only a rather sensible person but an empathetic one- and whatever the disagreements I might have with his (minor) brain worms, that shines through, in all the times I've watched him.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I think that Scott Ritter is definitely way more sensible than most Amerikkkans (which probably isn't saying much, but regardless) and I also get your sentiment with the brain worms comment, but I'm still not a huge fan of him.

I think he is very smarmy (not the biggest deal in the world, and he is a former nuclear weapons expert, so it slightly makes sense) but I get the feeling he would be willing to sellout or backstab to the side with the biggest deal (again, speculation on my part, and probably an unfair but still reasonable assumption) and the fact that he is most likely a pedophile.

Yes, it is very well possible that the charges of him being a pedophile are completely false and fabricated by the U.S. government, but him deflecting from it and downplaying the charges as opposed to completely dismissing them is completely disgusting.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yes, it is very well possible that the charges of him being a pedophile are completely false and fabricated by the U.S. government, but him deflecting from it and downplaying the charges as opposed to completely dismissing them is completely disgusting.

Personally I've only ever seen him completely and vehemently dismiss the charges- maybe he deflected in the past, but if so I'd think that he must have stopped doing so sometime in the last... year or more(?) that I've been aware of him and listening to his content.

My assumption as such was and still is, from what I've seen of him- well, maybe he's suspect. Certainly I don't think that he should be trusted with anything vital- not due to the charges, which considering the circumstances I dismiss entirely until proven otherwise (as we all know the empire loves its smears), but due to the fact he served in the US army, and the amount of US brain worms he has (even if he comes off as halfways decent at least, a risk is a risk). But overall- from what I've seen- I haven't seen anything to dislike.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I will say, that compared to most other U.S. officials, he seems nice and intelligent enough to talk and dine with at a restaurant.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That's my take on him too. A decent enough sort also that I'd be perfectly down to do so.

TBH, having looked his history up a bit more now, if anything I've come to respect him more. Just the wiki page alone (while of course, copiously slandering him with references to the pedo charges- charges to which he rejected even a plea deal) speaks volumes, as to just how much he's suffered (I was aware of some of it), and to how utterly suspicious the charges against him are. Seriously, you can look it up for yourself (while of course knowing that wiki is biased as all hell- and yet the cases made against him come off as stinking to high hell).

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

I thought he agreed to the charges but he said he only did because he had no other options?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

jfc

[–] [email protected] 19 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

Read "Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner" by Daniel Elsberg for more details.

Essentially the US nuclear war plan is:

1. Strike first if:

  • the US is about to be wiped out as a state
  • the US is about to lose its capability to strike first or lose its capability to defend itself from a nuclear strike or lose its capability to effectively retaliate in a nuclear exchange
  • the US is about to lose its capability to effectively defend itself in a conventional conflict

2. Retaliate if:

  • nuclear-capable missiles are en route to US soil
  • US assets anywhere in the world were hit with nuclear weapons

3. Ensure in the aftermath that the US has the biggest capacity to rebuild civilization among all survivors. Which means that nuclear targets are in order:

  • enemy nuclear weapons launch assets, nuclear weapon defense assets, global surveillance and communication assets
  • other military targets and possible areas of military concentration
  • enemy civilian infrastructure that would support military capacities (i.e. industries) and nearby workforce (i.e. cities, towns, neighborhoods where workers live)
  • enemy civilian population centers in descending order of size and density
  • enemy economic, resource-rich or food-producing areas to destroy infrastructure and use radiation to prevent enemy access to these areas (meaning, they plan to hit fields, seas, forests and mountains, just to prevent others from using them for survival and rebuilding)
  • neutral population centers, civilian infrastructure and economic areas
  • allied population centers, civilian infrastructure and economic areas, if it seems like the enemy is not targeting those. The logic being that in the aftermath of a nuclear exchange, nobody will know who struck what, therefore the US will not be blamed.

So Scott Ritter's argument here is that in a civil war, the US will lose its capability to effectively defend itself in a conventional conflict, in which case a first-strike policy will likely be activated. And in that case, the US will most likely carry out its full strike plan (for which it has ample nukes).

The thing is, it's not just Scott Ritter who is worried (who is already a nuclear weapons expert and a former member of US nuclear forces). Other nuclear war experts are equally worried, including the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, who handle the famous Doomsday Clock, which is currently set at a record 90 seconds to midnight.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

the US is about to lose its capability to effectively defend itself in a conventional conflict

This one in particular always worries me when it comes to the US war-seeking behavior with China.

If they get their asses kicked badly enough in the south China sea and their arsenals run dry and they believe that if China wanted to, they could counter-attack, invade and overrun the US without a fight (China wouldn't but they don't know this or choose not to believe it) that they might resort to nuclear weapons.

Perhaps even before a defeat to turn the tide of battle in betting on China not responding in kind and backing down (which isn't a bad bet from their perspective given China's history over the past few decades of drawing red lines and letting the US cross them repeatedly because they don't want war or to slow their plans for development by a violent break with the US).

Already one must see all US anti-ICMB systems as attempts to gain supremacy in a way that would allow them to obliterate China while protecting themselves from 99% of retaliation to ensure another century of US domination. I yearn for the end of the empire and yet I fear just how violent it could be, that the world could be destroyed. Of course we cannot submit to such blackmail. Though we must, China must ensure they can counter such blackmail with the assurance that the US will not survive and that they will die with the rest of the world. Which is why I think even 1000 warheads is not enough. They must have enough to ensure to the US that they will wipe out the military, cities, towns, farmland, to poison and salt the earth and leave the US nothing but a wasteland for two centuries to come. And they must ensure they have several thousand of these on the latest hypersonic delivery systems to evade US defenses and they must ensure that they have a chain of command and a back-up system in case of decapitating strike on the leadership that still allows a launch of most of their arsenal. All this is required to deter the US. That and maybe letting it be known through back channels they'll nuke the fuck out of New Zealand with several hundred warheads to kill all the western bourgeoisie there who are hiding in bunkers there to ensure they know they'll go down with the rest of the west.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago

This one in particular always worries me when it comes to the US war-seeking behavior with China.

I was wondering about that as well. My impression is the US knows they'll lose a conventional war in the South China Sea and are willing to do a nuclear first strike

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

The problem is that the US views any build-up in nuclear weapons or development of more advanced delivery methods as a threat that can trigger their first strike policy. Meaning, if China in your example arms hypersonic missiles, that the US can't shoot down, with nuclear warheads, that will be considered justification to trigger a first strike before China finishes the process, because otherwise the US will be vulnerable to a first strike itself.

Similarly, if Russia or China develop technologies that can shoot down most of the US nuclear missiles, that will also trigger a US first strike, before those technologies are implemented. Otherwise, the US will no longer be able to enforce mutual assured destruction on Russia/China and will consider itself vulnerable to a first strike.

Equally worrying for the rest of us is that Russia is currently drifting into adapting a similar first-strike policy as the US (though fortunately without the insane target list).

That's why the answer should be disarmament, not ramping up. Though that's very unlikely considering how bellicose the US is behaving.

In my view, the only way to safely destroy the empire is by playing the long game, which is exactly what Russia and China are doing. Slowly and silently dismantle their economic control of the globe, cause fissures in NATO, wait for the inevitable US economic collapse due to corruption and massive military spending, make the US industries rely on Russian and Chinese suppliers, re-educate Americans politically through their own media, and wait for the eventual political and civil upheaval that will hopefully replace the current establishment with a saner one.

Basically, do to the US what the US did to the USSR.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That’s why the answer should be disarmament, not ramping up.

The Soviets already tried that path, though. We all know how that has ended up, with the events leading up to Ukraine.

There can't be any trust in the genocide-reich, as I see it. Whatever treaties they make, even whatever weapons they genuinely destroy (and even with inspectors it can only be questioned if they have more), whatever gains in disarmament are made, will be ephemeral.

I agree that the long game is the only safe path forward- but a buildup of weapons is the necessary backup plan- and arguably (as I see it) more important, even, than the optimistic safe path that, while theoretically possible, may not succeed (for instance, if the US pre-emptively launches nukes before it declines to such an extent, or even just out of spite).

So long as MAD exists, I see it as more important than anything else to ensure that it exists as a bulwark- and if not a bulwark, as a promise- towards the west. And I don't see it as worrying that Russia is drifting towards a first-strike policy; personally I hope that China and North Korea move towards it too in time (so long as the current US regime which seeks global hegemony is around, anyways).

If humanity is to exist on the precipice of destruction- the risk must be equally shared, and it must be understood that our (humanity's/anti-imperialist's/AES') triggers are just as resolute, just as sensitive, and just as broad in scope as that of the imperialists'. As I see it, that is part of MAD as well- it is not a "sane" course of action, perhaps- it is not the course of action that one would take if self-preservation took priority over all else- but it is the only course of action that sufficiently addresses the circumstances we face; it is the only fully responsible path when faced with such an insane (for lack of a better word), anti-human threat, like that poised over the world since the first genocide-reich and ascendant hegemon became also the first nuclear power.

The world can move towards disarmament- and I hope by all means it does, though with every precaution taken not to do so prematurely- once the global and hegemonic system of imperialism is done away with. But not before; the risks that come from failing to offer anything but equal and total annihilation are too great as I see it.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

I don't disagree at all. I can understand Russia's position.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

China is building up it's nuclear arsenal though, and I wouldn't be surprised if Russia is too.

I understand and sympathize with your reasoning, but I don't think we can cede ground to the U.S. by automatically saying "but they can nuke instantly", yes, of course that is a possibility, but China is building up it's own arsenal, and China already has and is in the process of getting the latest generation of missiles and weapons and technology to track, shoot down, deflect and scramble drones and other vehicles and weapons.

I think this will be a multi-pronged approach. We can't just wait for the U.S. to possibly never collapse, but China likely can't just destroy the country in one day

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

I agree with that. And yes, both Russia and China are building up their arsenal. Especially after the US pulled out of the non-proliferation treaties.

I think what Russia and China are doing here (besides defending themselves) is to apply pressure on the US to return to the treaties.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

I hope the long game works out

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

I'm worried that you and Ritter are right

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Now I had no doubt the US nuclear war policy is psychopatic and utterly deranged, but my god, I did not expect #3 to be this systematic and spiteful. What the hell are they even hoping to achieve after such a war? And with what people/resources? On what habitable part of the planet??

I swear, this plan sounds like the brainfart of some game theorist locked in an ivory tower for decades. Abstracted so much away from this scenario with the main focus being to ensure everyone else 100% ends up worse than the US, rather than pausing to ask what position will the US be in.

I guess it's going to be those psychopatic oligarch ghouls hiding in their doomsday bunkers who will rebuild civilization... in which case, they can keep it and choke on the ashes.

Thanks for the book recommendation, will check it out!

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 months ago

I swear, this plan sounds like the brainfart of some game theorist locked in an ivory tower for decades.

That pretty much describes the people who draw up these plans. I mean, imagine the mindset you gotta adopt when being asked to come up with a victory condition in a nuclear war.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago

Fuck, the US really is the Heart of Darkness.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Well the first time the US launched nukes, wasn't it the only nuclear-capable country? And that was before anyone had expectations about it or defenses in mind for it. The world is a lot different now in that way. If we look at how the US is doing in direct combat, it doesn't look good, from everything I've read/seen recently. I don't see why the US military's capability to unleash hell with nukes would be dramatically different; they'd be facing obliteration level counter military efforts, if they can even get their nukes to launch in a competent manner in the first place. Not to mention how much the US is dependent on trade, so nuking large parts of the world could tear apart the bread and circuses in short order.

I mean, I'm not saying "view it as insignificant and don't take it seriously," but like, I'm skeptical of how their on paper doctrine type stuff would actually translate to reality.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago

I don't think we should be correlating nuclear capability with conventional military power.

Yeah, the US military is on the decline. They have shit equipment, bad logistics, and not enough soldiers to carry out a global conflict.

But a nuclear exchange does not need any of these things, except equipment/technology, which is largely shrouded in secrecy, so we don't know what exactly their state is. We know that a bunch of their systems are automatic, and I wouldn't put it past them to be implementing AI for targeting.

They also have a bunch of politicians, officers and bureaucrats that seem to be trigger-happy.

At any rate, even if the US is unable to carry out an effective launch, even if 5-10% of their nukes successfully strike anything, we are talking about massive devastation.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

One of my concerns as well.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 months ago

''Ear boo boo''

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago

Born burger brained, always burger brained lmao...

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

What the fuck is ear boo boo?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Boo boo is what ye say, when ye bump your head as a kid silly, and it grows a red bumpy mark...

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Okay. And what does he mean by that here?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

If you're talking about Scott Ritter, he's talking about the "ear boo boo" gunshot wound that could've killed the ex-president Trump and would cause civil war and nuclear annihilation for some reason...

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I get that but why call it ear boo boo? Is he trying to say that the assassination could have caused intergalactic war 69 but Johnstone is trivialising it by thinking of it as an ear boo boo?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago

Yes that's it exactly.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago

Yes... And I believe in Johnstone on that point...

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

A cornered lion is incredibly dangerous