The past influences the present but sadly time is apparently linear so the reverse inherently is not possible. Also bringing up Ford and IBM is kinda well outside the period of the initial 50 years of the US existing, yes the US has had massive ties fascism both in its proto and fully formed variants. I’m not defending the modern US by any means and I’m going to make it explicit and state I consider anything within a 150 years from present to be modern, that’d make something like say The Wounded Knee Massacre modern.
I consider the promises of the revolution and it’s true potential dead by the time Andrew Jackson was president and more or less solidified by the Trail of Tears. Everything good past that point is simply resources and progress to be exploited and taken advantage of by whatever successor states form when the US collapses. There have been multiple points of salvageablity but all of them have been failures.
My point is entirely on the fact that the US wasn’t inherently fascistic in its first 50 years because the ideologies that did more directly lead to fascism were not the big name revolutionaries. By the time of the civil war for example, yeah the Confederates were out and out proto fascists same fucken retoric as well and since they weren’t purged the tainted the rest of the US.
You really need to study the rhetoric and propaganda of the US revolution. I think you may be heavily romanticising a business plot to take over the colonies. It wasn’t even really a revolutionary revolution considering they pretty much adopted the systems of England wholesale. The rhetoric of the revolution was very different than the reality of the Sons of Liberty’s campaign of terror, death, and destruction.
You know your rhetoric isn’t the best when you have to force it with violence. A portion of the wealthy caste of the US made a successful power grab in the end. In order to get there they had to murder, torture their fellow man, and lie about what happened as seen in the numerous amounts of propaganda distorting the facts of the revolution.
The colonies were already well into their genocidal attacks on the Native Americans by this time. Even the best way to look at it, that they advanced the rights of wealthy white men, is pretty hollow when it was at the cost of everyone and everything else. The first President of the US was well on the way to becoming the first billionaire adjusted for inflation. The rot was always there.
Yeah I don’t think we’re going to make too much more progress in this conversation since I can see that we disagree on too many baselines. Namely violence but also how much weight you put on the term revolution. For violence I’ll just say I would happily purge and resettle Utah and large chunks of the south so as you may guess I don’t much care about murder, terror, and torture so long as I agree with the end goal. Also I put basically no weight on the term revolution, revolution is just revolt with some extra letters a monarchist revolt against a republic is still a revolution if successful.
It is okay, you have constructed an elaborate fantasy around what happened during the American revolution. This is very common and a belief I once held decades ago.
The reality is violence is the problem and not the solution. It is a profound weakness as demonstrated by the current administration. When you can’t get what you want diplomatically, you become belligerent and violent just like the founding fathers.
We, of course, reap what what we sow and their is no doubt the violence that started the US has carried on throughout its history destroying countless people in its wake. The fact that you can rationalize this is more along the lines of something like Stockholm Syndrome in my opinion. Or perhaps you could just be a violent monster, but I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt.
A real revolutionary revolution can be seen in Haiti. This is a real example of the people rising up instead of just another wealthy power grab as seen in the American and French revolution. Of course it didn’t turn out so great, but you could argue this had more to do with the international community shunning them than their intent to cast off their oppressors.
Y’know maybe you’d be more convincing if you weren’t being condescending. At no point have I been a particularly ass in this conversation at least by my baseline standard. I’m firmly done with this conversation.
The past influences the present but sadly time is apparently linear so the reverse inherently is not possible. Also bringing up Ford and IBM is kinda well outside the period of the initial 50 years of the US existing, yes the US has had massive ties fascism both in its proto and fully formed variants. I’m not defending the modern US by any means and I’m going to make it explicit and state I consider anything within a 150 years from present to be modern, that’d make something like say The Wounded Knee Massacre modern.
I consider the promises of the revolution and it’s true potential dead by the time Andrew Jackson was president and more or less solidified by the Trail of Tears. Everything good past that point is simply resources and progress to be exploited and taken advantage of by whatever successor states form when the US collapses. There have been multiple points of salvageablity but all of them have been failures.
My point is entirely on the fact that the US wasn’t inherently fascistic in its first 50 years because the ideologies that did more directly lead to fascism were not the big name revolutionaries. By the time of the civil war for example, yeah the Confederates were out and out proto fascists same fucken retoric as well and since they weren’t purged the tainted the rest of the US.
You really need to study the rhetoric and propaganda of the US revolution. I think you may be heavily romanticising a business plot to take over the colonies. It wasn’t even really a revolutionary revolution considering they pretty much adopted the systems of England wholesale. The rhetoric of the revolution was very different than the reality of the Sons of Liberty’s campaign of terror, death, and destruction.
You know your rhetoric isn’t the best when you have to force it with violence. A portion of the wealthy caste of the US made a successful power grab in the end. In order to get there they had to murder, torture their fellow man, and lie about what happened as seen in the numerous amounts of propaganda distorting the facts of the revolution.
The colonies were already well into their genocidal attacks on the Native Americans by this time. Even the best way to look at it, that they advanced the rights of wealthy white men, is pretty hollow when it was at the cost of everyone and everything else. The first President of the US was well on the way to becoming the first billionaire adjusted for inflation. The rot was always there.
Yeah I don’t think we’re going to make too much more progress in this conversation since I can see that we disagree on too many baselines. Namely violence but also how much weight you put on the term revolution. For violence I’ll just say I would happily purge and resettle Utah and large chunks of the south so as you may guess I don’t much care about murder, terror, and torture so long as I agree with the end goal. Also I put basically no weight on the term revolution, revolution is just revolt with some extra letters a monarchist revolt against a republic is still a revolution if successful.
It is okay, you have constructed an elaborate fantasy around what happened during the American revolution. This is very common and a belief I once held decades ago.
The reality is violence is the problem and not the solution. It is a profound weakness as demonstrated by the current administration. When you can’t get what you want diplomatically, you become belligerent and violent just like the founding fathers.
We, of course, reap what what we sow and their is no doubt the violence that started the US has carried on throughout its history destroying countless people in its wake. The fact that you can rationalize this is more along the lines of something like Stockholm Syndrome in my opinion. Or perhaps you could just be a violent monster, but I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt.
A real revolutionary revolution can be seen in Haiti. This is a real example of the people rising up instead of just another wealthy power grab as seen in the American and French revolution. Of course it didn’t turn out so great, but you could argue this had more to do with the international community shunning them than their intent to cast off their oppressors.
Y’know maybe you’d be more convincing if you weren’t being condescending. At no point have I been a particularly ass in this conversation at least by my baseline standard. I’m firmly done with this conversation.