I think you might be onto something there, still remains in favour of individual capitalists against national capital - and is usually something, the state is supposed to prevent (it’s jobs in capitalism are mostly preventing class conflict between bourgeoisie and proletariat just as much as conflict between individual capitalists hurting the economy at large).

But this now feels like 19th century economics from before understanding the nature of crises, and 19th century “sphere of influence” geopolitics all in one.

Here’s hoping they end up shooting themselves in the foot by underestimating the consequences of their actions.

The Nixon-era Richardson Waiver came about amid a push for more public engagement, with the waiver acting essentially as a workaround to amending the APA’s exemptions. As Richard Brady, the assistant secretary for administration, wrote in the Federal Register at the time, implementing the Richardson Waiver “should result in greater participation by the public in the formulation of this Department’s rules and regulations.”

“The public benefit from such participation should outweigh any administrative inconvenience or delay which may result from use of the APA procedures in the five exempt categories,” Brady wrote. The waiver also noted that the Health Department should use the “good cause” exception “sparingly.”

Kennedy’s new policy rescinds the Richardson Waiver entirely. He writes in stark contrast: “The extra-statutory obligations of the Richardson Waiver impose costs on the Department and the public, are contrary to the efficient operation of the Department, and impede the Department’s flexibility to adapt quickly to legal and policy mandates.”

So, just to make this clear, they didn’t just not really implement their fabled transparency, they also walked back on the control mechanisms that were already in place.

It’s fascinating, because the people behind him are genuine grifters and/or delusional ideologues, he can’t even make proper politics in the interest of capitalists. (Just in the interests of some individual capitalists, against the interests of national capital accumulation).

Article without paywall:

https://archive.is/PEiOq

It really isn’t, but as long as those resources are distributed through a market, there are problems even if you add money. Say the billionaires truly are incorruptible angels and put all their money to providing food and shelter, the not-yet-billionaires in the market suddenly have incentives to raise prices, withhold food to the market while prices are rising as a speculative gambit, stuff like that.

That’s one of the mechanisms through which the system itself, that produces billionaires, makes it at least hard or - imo - even impossible to truly undo the damage it does to create such billionaires, even when you have those billions. Another example is corruption: As soon as you put a lot of money into an issue, it creates an incentive there to funnel money away in secret, to provide false solutions that don’t solve anything, to scam, etc. A friend of mine worked on projects providing water infrastructure in countries in Africa from philanthropic and international aid funds, and he did get often frustrated telling how some projects simply vanish halfway through, because someone down the line had basically run off with the money (not that the projects were wholly useless, either, but they failed to fundamentally solve things by just throwing money at them). Someone like Bill Gates, as another example, has been unironically doing a lot of good as a philanthropist, but all his money still wasn’t able to truly tackle the root causes of the problems in the countries where he supports healthcare and such things - and inevitably, some of the funds he provided were used on glamour projects or ineffectual, nice-sounding strategies, or ended up in outright corruption. And at the same time, the question remains, what the system that made him a billionaire caused in damages to begin with.

That’s why I still think you can’t really tackle all these problems without doing away with a market structure, exchange value, capital accumulation, etc. - i.e., why I remain a dirty commie, instead of just arguing for redistribution (redistribution and more social-democratic, beneficial investment is still good, but you gotta always aim for the abolition of private property and capital accumulation as an end goal, imo).

Oh, and I just realised my ramble kind of missed OP’s point, which is also important: All the money caught up in the three-digit multi-billionaires net worth? It’s not representative of true goods and labour, it is what Marx would have called “dead” capital. As soon as it is used for anything but as financial capital, it can drive inflation massively, which connects to part of my first point.

EDIT: Another example that just came to my mind for how this can impact things - Mansa Musa and the stories surrounding his lavish spending during his Hajj, basically crashing the local economies. So, even pre-capitalist systems had to deal with these dynamics.

This is an interesting conundrum, actually. The big question at its core being:

Can you ever do enough good through philanthropy, so that it offsets the damage you had to do, in order to become a billionaire? Can even all the billionaires in the world do enough good with their money, to offset the damage done by a system, that allowed for them to become billionaires?

I, personally, don’t think it is possible.

To give an actual answer: I think, the world would definitely be better, but unless those billionaires collectively used all the power their money provides, to do away with money and the possibility of billionaires altogether, I don’t think it would amount to all that much.

“But I voted for Trump, not Musk. If only Trump knew what was going on. Yes, they are taking my farm and deporting my wife, but that’s just a mistake. Okay, it wasn’t a mistake, but I am ready to suffer, for my king president and country. Okay, that country is going down the shitter, but that’s because the migrants and left sabotaged my emperor!”

Oh, thanks for the info, that is great to know!

As far as I know, from when this was discussed after the first Reddit exodus, only commenting and posting makes you an active user. So the number is somewhat deceivingly small, as the vast majority on platforms like this are lurkers who maybe post/comment every once in a while at most.

If these are two of the most powerful men on Earth, it’s surely time to jump on the next SpaceX rocket to Mars.

That is a weird way to spell “get out the guillotines”

There is actually a huge thing to consider with any kind of authoritarian system ideologically: Basically without fail, they will have a “rules for thee, not for me” dynamic behind the scenes. Make abortion illegal? It will still be possible to skirt the rules for the powerful, and pervert the right to control your own body as a woman into the privilege of powerful people - mostly men - to decide if they allow a pregnancy to continue.

Authoritarianism lives, psychologically, from having the people on top, the ones “worthy” in the eyes of ideology, being able to bend or fully circumvent the rules. Even today, this is clearly visible in how rich people, and even more so rich organisations, are treated differently in front of a court, where proper consequences seem to be an exception instead of the rule. This also shows in more fundamental, everyday mechanics of society, think of how the violence monopoly of the state more often than not rests on the tacit acceptance of excessive police violence. Where often, cops and paramilitaries in police roles within states are developing a self-image and identity, along the lines of “to protect society from itself and its horrendous violence, I must become a violent badass” - consciously or unconsciously enjoying the violence and control they can enact, or turning their heads when their colleagues do it, and reserving for themselves and their in-group the privilege to do so.

So, having someone like Trump, a clear narcissistic rapist, being both openly against abortion rights in his political platform while personally holding the belief of abortions being allowed, is no real contradiction at all. He can rest assured that if in power, he would have the privilege to force both consensual mistresses and victims of his assaults to have abortions anyway.

Exactly, it’s not like Trump himself is a fundamental Christian with misguided but deeply held convictions. He is a narcissist that wants adoration, power and to be in a special position where you can dodge consequences.

Mayo + Ketchup combined, the classic “Rot-Weis”-combo in Germany.

That or, preferrably, mayo + a good chilli sauce

Polls are shit and only snapshots of an overall vibe-like probability - but this is still a very, very good sign.

I hope the people that were adamant about claiming that criticising Biden and urging him to drop out was in some way “bot”-behaviour or traitorous, or just claimed by tankie accelerationists, or whatever, realise that it was more often than not really based on concern of Biden not being able to win. The energy that suddenly got unleashed in this election campaign in just a few days and these new polls clearly show, that there was something to the concerns we had with Biden.

Not saying you were stupid or something for having the perspective you had, there were arguments to be had after all, incumbency bonus and the risk of having a new candidate so close to the election were things to be considered. But from what I witnessed, the discourse got really toxic at times and from at least some people. No, not everyone that wanted to replace Biden was a useful idiot or someone acting in bad faith. There were clear reasons, and in this case, things are very much starting to look like they were valid and good reasons, too. Enthusiasm is really fucking important in election campaigns, and Biden was a black hole sucking any enthusiasm out of any potential campaign.

Of course, there’s still work to be had ahead. But things are looking a lot better right now, and maybe another Trump presidency, this time with his fascist cronies being prepared fto properly enact fundamental changes for the worse, can be avoided yet. I’m still fairly pessimistic for the future, and would advise anyone to organise along radical leftist lines (IWW, SRA and local mutual help groups look to me like some of the best organisations at the moment in the US, speaking as a European outsider who may not have the full picture) and connect in networks that are prepared to react to the repression and chaos still on the horizon, but getting a few more years to do that organising while the global crises continue to march on is worth a lot.

A brave and true republican boy, who got corrupted away from his family by the antifa deep state complex, he would have been such a great person, if only his parents had homeschooled him without interference from the communist atheists, and were allowed to hit him more as a child 😢

Let’s do an EU4 Dithmarschen world conquest run from here on out.

True, thank you for pointing that point out, because this actually does show an important angle of messaging ahead. What makes the article itself cope in my opinion, is its misleading headline and overall presentation. It’s tabloid-level of presenting the message, your interpretation is actually a lot better.

It’s a single focus group of specifically undecided Latino voters. Only more standardised and statistically significant polling will give a better estimation. Could there be an unexpected, seemingly paradoxical effect? Maybe, shit is complicated, yo. Politics are a chaotic system at times. I personally doubt it, but, hey, we will see.

But this article in particular? To be blunt: It is cope.

I think that analysis is missing an important fact: Yes, Trump’s mental decline is visible to anyone taking a closer look. He is a liar who just as much as Biden, more even, can just get things wrong unintenionally on top of that. But one thing that is important about him, is that he is a narcissist. Projecting charisma and using bullshit to shield himself is literally what his pathology and the very core of his unconscious mind is built on, it will be the very last thing to go. That is why the “Biden is old” narrative is still working with people - both are old, both are showing signs of it, but Trump can keep up the optics, because that is the very essence of what his life and psyche is revolving around.

I had a very quick look at post-debate rallies of both Trump and Biden. (Sidenote - where was that energy during the debate, Biden? Your voice actually had proper inflection and power, what happened there?) Trump spewed bullshit, of course, lies, falsehoods, nonsense. But he knew how to interact with the crowd, he knew how to speak, he knew how to adjust his message and demeanor between talking to his supporters and talking to a more general audience. Biden was competent enough with his speech - more competent than during the debate for sure - but he still felt like someone who had lacking dynamism. And in light of the debate that just happened, his enthusiastic supporters and his hype-people trying to build him up felt… surreal to be 100% honest. The chants of “You can do it” did not feel like a powerful message of competence, but like cheering someone on out of pity. His message in light of the current situation also felt confused. Saying both (not direct quotes, from memory) “I know I am not the youngest”, semi-acknowledging that there were problems, while also saying that “Trump is too dangerous” - that definitely sparked the immediate thought of “Yes, Trump is genuinely dangerous. So why are we running with you as our only hope of defeating him?”

I understand, talking about things right now is also about optics, it’s about trying to convince others, and yourself, to go vote, to believe in your chosen team and candidate and all that. But lets not delude ourselves, because that idea of Biden beating Trump on the sole basis of being not Trump has led to this situation. The optics of the mental decline of both candidates are different, and the pushed narrative of Biden being old is far from effectless.

Yeah yeah, heard it all, haha, dae larper revolution lefties playing teenage boy shooters? Okay, I am sleep-deprived, and I am just genuinely concerned about the state of the world, so yeah, I will write out my position a bit more clearer, well, I will try to, because it is not accelerationism.

So, to assume you are arguing in good faith, even with the ad hominem:

Do you think it’s completely impossible that fascist groups might react with violent actions when Biden or another Democrat wins? I think it is very much a possibility, they are deluded and armed. And they would be trounced, they don’t have the proper support and organisation. It would indeed weaken them.

My goal is not accelerationism, accelerationism is a silly concept to begin with. If so, I would support Trump. But that’s the kind of BS some communist groups did in the 30s “Oh yeah, as soon as the mask of capital falls of its face and Hitler gets elected, people will revolt!”. Nope, as soon as the mask of humanity slips from capital, it kills you. Dead. And uses your hair and teeth as resources. I’m German (and before any arguments come about me keeping out of debating US politics: your politics influences the world, so while I won’t be able to vote, I will have a voice in it). I’ve seen Auschwitz, I’ve read the debates that were held in the 30s. I’ve studied how the center-right thought they could outmaneouver and control Hitler and use him to get rid of those pesky socialists and social democrats. Hell, the NSDAP never even won a proper majority, power was handed to them.

I just look at the global net profit rate over the course of one and a half centuries (spoilers: it’s falling, with the only major times it is rising rapidly after destructive wars - almost like there is something to Marx’s theories of capital consolidation and the pressure it creates. The stagnation only slowed for a while, because the profit crisis of the late 70s was mitigated by neoliberal politics - i.e. class warfare), look at how economical consolidation happened before WWI (the economy was enormously globalised through Colonialism, and trusts or even outright monopolies across industries, with integrated production/logistics/distribution in single companies - think Walmart and Amazon as the closest analogues today), look at how Germany looked in the 30s. I look at ever more desperate venture capital adventures to find avenues of profitability for all the stagnant dead capital that has accumulated, like “Big Data” or now “AI”. I look at the statistics and projected models for the future - I think a lot of people just completely underestimate what kind of a complex shitshow climate change will create. It’s even beyond economics, the material reality of nature is changing under our feet, we have been changing it. There will be death. There will be wars. There will be chaos. I won’t be able to change that, you won’t be, at best, we can mitigate it. That is what the logic of growth and capitalism has given us.

I don’t believe in accelerationism because it is nonsense. No one has to accelerate this shit. Capitalism does its job to reach its logical conclusion fine on its own. It’s also delusional - what, me, some German commie autist who just happened to have the misfortune of having philosophy and history as a hyperfocus is going to influence politics towards anything? Politics follows material reality, with idealism only influencing it insofar as it is itself a material force, in a dialectical, reciprocal exchange with material reality. All I can do at this moment is play Cassandra and argue my position, trying to do my best to support those that are building real-life connections and organisations, within the limits of what this body and brain can do - support unions, neighbourhood groups for mutual aid, educational groups, community defence groups, antifacist groups - and yes, even the Democrats, because I do think, again, that it will be good to have a Democrat in office in this historical moment, even though it, as you may have guessed, it’s very much a lesser evil to me, that I view rather cynically, to give people as much time as possible to organise without extremer persecution, before that one will happen eventually - and maybe weaken reactionary forces by getting them to be stupid, they are good at that.

Now, I don’t write this to convince you. Not to convince many people reading it. In my experience, my positions are usually too radical for centrists, too critical of Marxism-Leninism for the tankies (hell, I think the Soviet Union had, essentially, and in a Marxist analysis, a capitalist economy - even Stalin acknowledged the rule of value still being in effect in “The Economic Problems of the Soviet Union”), too Marxist for the anarchists. And reactionaries, well, I am already looking into what to do if AfD wins over here in a few more years/decades. Not a guarantee, thank god, but that it is even a real possibility in fucking Germany is chilling and just hammering home what the current historical moment and current reaction to the changes in economical and material realities are, globally.

So I am writing this to at least make someone, somewhere think. Take a step back. For one moment, forget that there are teams, and I am on the “enemy” team. Do you think the status quo is tenable? Do you think moderate politics will survive the next decades? Not because of some larping agitators you think are destroying them, like with accelerationism (again - as if some accelerationists are influential enough to do anything there at this historical moment), but simply because capitalism has always had crises, they have had horrible consequences in the past, and this one comes with a huge climate catastrophe on top. Do you think it’s people like me, somehow fantasising about violent revolution like some CoD game as you seem to imply, that push for violence - or do you at least acknowledge the possibility that violence will simply happen due to material and socioeconomic changes, globally? Revolutions are not pushed by agitators and propagandists, they are pushed by the price of bread. And agitators and propagandists can only try to structure the way a revolution plays out. And that is why I think we will have to prepare for that reality, and eventually doing away with the system and mode of production that led us to this point - as it really is not the only option, no matter how much ideology has presented it as that.

Doubt a lot of people will read the wall of text, and feel free to downvote and criticise me for the instance I cose (back when it was afaik the only one, but admittedly, it fit my politics at least somewhat as well), but this time, you can at least attack my character on the point of my actual positions, maybe call them delusional or something - or surprise me and develop your own positions dialectically against mine, I have no absolute guarantee I am right, so proper critique is welcome - while maybe some tankie might call out how I am a liberal reactionary. But keep this wall of sleep deprived autism-energy monologue at least somewhere in the back of your mind, as one option to analyse what will be coming up in the future.