I speculated this wrecking ball approach to the US economy was an attempt to destabilize the world and marshall the forces of violent fascism, and make the battle for hegemony one of attrition since the Us no longer sees itself capable of competing with China’s manufacturing capabilities.

So, like, what does the average Joe think? That while everything around him comes crumbling down, all the trans and blacks will at least be put in their place?

I’m wondering if the debate around the seemingly confusing motivations are due to…too much of a materialist approach? I think it’s either that or absolutism when it comes to the dialectic and taking these thoughts to their logical conclusions

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Barabas@hexbear.net 19 points 4 days ago (1 children)

People will hang on for a long time as long as there is a ‘common sense’ narrative for why it has to be so. Just look at Mileil, he is still popular despite running the Argentinian economy into the ground since there is a narrative that it needs to be done.

[–] SloppilyFloss@lemmy.ml 11 points 4 days ago

Oh man, this remided me of a thread on Hacker News from a couple of months ago when Mileil rugpulled a memecoin. So many people defending him on the grounds that he's "done good for the Argentinian economy." He can't do bad in these people's eyes, truly. One commenter even praised him getting rid of erroneous spending like rent control.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43072790