gus_fring

OP is oversimplifying a complex situation. I don't see any contradiction in my remarks.

Government bureaucrats can be part of the working class, but this depends on your definition of bureaucrat. I wouldn't consider an NIH scientist to be a bureaucrat, but some would. Most bureaucrats I would consider to be part of the professional managerial class, which should be analyzed separately from the working class due to their reactionary interests.

No, I don't think so. I think that by the end of his term, if he makes it that long, Trump will basically just be a figurehead. A triumvirate of Bessent, Miran, and Vance would be more than capable of ruling. White House reporting already makes it clear that Trump's wishy-washiness on tariffs has basically depended on whether he spends the day talking to Navarro (cuckoo Gordon Chang type guy) or Bessent. At the same time, the deep state and Wall Street are both looking for a steady hand at the helm, which Trump isn't right now.

Allegedly, Elon's departure from the WH is due to an argument with Bessent. If that does turn out to be the case, it wouldn't surprise me if the deep state and Wall street throw their weight behind Bessent, who then allies with Vance to rope in the Tech Right. Elon could be a wildcard that either falls in line or splits with the rest of the Tech right. Wouldn't be surprised if in a year we see tweets calling him "CCP Elon".

There were actually many!

I think this is the key. Previous admins were all reined in by the directives of the deep state (which is a thing, if you can get over the left/right synonym game). But the deep state is faltering, both from internal contradictions and from Trump's administration which has campaigned on an anti-swamp platform. That's opened the floodgates for all sorts of new agendas. Deep state/neocon solidarity has been replaced with a free-for-all. Let a hundred flowers bloom and all that.

Except Trump is a weak ruler, and he's surrounded himself with scheming viziers. Each of them has their own agenda that they want to implement. Each thinks that they can get what they want if they gain Trump's favor. Trump is not mentally prepared for this. It's not that he's necessarily senile, and it's not that he's unused to the attention. Rather, the game being played is just way over his head. He's a reality TV huckster, not a geopolitical grand strategist.

But I would caution against confusing executive branch gridlock with sheer incompetence. The Trump admin is not a monolith. Some of the people around Trump are quite competent. Miran and Bessent stand out as especially dangerous. If either of them manage to consolidate power, there could be trouble.

Development of productive forces is what pushes history itself forward. It's a good thing. Not unique to capitalism.

TBH I think that's the wrong takeaway. That polling result showed something like 25% of those polled would want to work in a factory if they could. If that result were valid for the entire US, that would be something like 50 million (out of ~210 million working age). For reference, peak manufacturing employment in the US was in the late 1970s with around 20 million people working in manufacturing out of ~110 million working age.

Top policymakers are very much aware of the riot tax, in fact, the argument could be made that the current administration was propelled into power by popular resentment. Their strategy, as evidenced by the trade war, is to outsource the rioting to other countries.

These American institutions keeping them in check are also fundamentally liberal-reactionary institutions that should not be defended by leftists. Attacking Harvard and Columbia and higher ed/research funding does suck for many reasons but it's not an attack on "the working class" by any stretch of the imagination. Nor is firing government bureaucrats. The only admin actions that really constitute attacks on the working class are the ongoing attempts to destroy the NIH and the postal service as well as the trade war. Even then, it's not as clear cut as "rich vs. poor". Hedge fund managers and MNCs have been some of the most vocal opponents of the trade war so far. Many of those opposing the university and research cuts are highly privileged, at least in terms of social and cultural capital.

Peter Turchin predicted all of this. It's elite overproduction and intra-elite conflict to a t. Bourgeois solidarity is broken (at least to some degree). That's how you have a cabinet full of billionaires and mega-multi-millionaires starting beef with other billionaires. On a lower but still important level, you have ideologues like Bannon and Rufo and BAP playing their own roles as counter-elites. When things get bad, the rich don't hesitate to eat their own. It's poor people being used as cannon fodder on both sides and poor people suffering the collateral damage.

Barring a geopolitical black swan like Canada invading the US, the Republicans are going to lose in the midterms and probably lose 2028. But it doesn't matter as the game has fundamentally changed. Intractable polarization, delegitimization of central authority, increasing incidence of stochastic terror, etc. Newsom might win in 2028 but it'll hardly matter.

Most of what's coming isn't Trump's doing, he's just the messenger. We started down this path after WWII, Nixon and Reagan stayed the course despite increasing pressure, and Obama put the nail in the coffin.

I think the first question the wrong question to ask. Starting from a perspective of "who should I support" is a type of liberalism in my opinion because "support" really doesn't mean anything to anyone except you.

Who benefits is more relevant, but before we even get to that question, there's coming to an understanding of how we got here in the first place. Now, I don't know if this was a false flag or if this was purposely allowed to happen. The timing is quite convenient, however. With the global trade war underway and America in an increasingly weak position, India has the leverage to back America on the trade war front in exchange for concessions on Pakistan and Kashmir. I don't expect a hot war since both are nuclear armed but since America exerts significant influence over Pakistan, I expect that there are options it can pursue to force Pakistan into agreeing to concessions. If they manage to pull this off, it'll be a win for India and the US and a loss for Pakistan.

If this analysis is correct, the proximate solution for American leftists in my view is to accelerate American capitulation in the current trade war, by organizing around increasing costs, bringing in the petit bourgeoisie if necessary. A weakened American position would make the costs of backing them in the trade war too costly for a country like India that's otherwise highly reliant on Central Asian and East Asian trade networks. Encouraging closer economic ties between India and China would also help resolve the situation but I doubt anyone on this forum is in a position to help make that happen.

that's not really at stake, growth is irrelevant as life itself has an energetic maintenance cost. even if biomass stops increasing after today, resources and energy is being used up, all of which is finite. the sun itself, which is the ultimate source of life energy on this planet, is finite. Growth can effectively be pursued until the heat death of universe, thermodynamics is the limiting factor, not "finite resources"