4 ms·

I'm just wondering what's going to come next. Nature abhors a vacuum.

throwanem 6y ago
It depends who most successfully manages to direct the energy building up behind the demand for some kind, any kind, of substantive change. Historically, that whole process used to typically take a decade or two, maybe more. But we have social media now, so I give it a couple-three years, tops. Maybe a decade if it peters out again this time like it did in 2011. But I don't think that's very likely. Easy to get the idea that a statue of Lincoln got torn down because protestors are historically illiterate, or there's fascist spoilers in among the crowds, or whatever. No. There are no wrong statues to tear down, because who put those statues up? Rich people. Old people. People who've failed to justify their hold on power. I don't think it's quite too late for them to start to do so. But I do think they're far too stupid to realize and act on the necessity. Being as the only reason I'm not getting fucked the same way - not quite so hard, at the moment, anyway - is the luck of having had 20 more years to work with and a chance to make a start in a somewhat less viciously extractive time, my sympathies lie with those who say that either that power will be justified or it will be taken from those who have it now and placed in other hands. Sure, things could end up worse than they are now. But they could also end up better. If anyone could make a convincing case for how they end up better under the status quo, we would not be here. Hell, Bernie Sanders tried twice, and look what happened to him - not that I think he'd have been able to deliver on his promises, but it would've been smart to have given him the chance to try. Could probably have bought a decade or so that way, I suspect, maybe more. But instead, in 2016 the DNC rigged the primary for a candidate decades past electability who ultimately gave us Trump, and in 2020 the boomers just stomped the babies flat and gave us another possibly senile neoliberal has-been for the general, which he may still contrive to lose despite the Republican revolt against Trump - they've made a lot of ads, but we won't really know how it played out until December or maybe January, and no matter which way it goes it'll be the most questionable US presidential election result in living memory. Maybe ever. Even the AOC/Ilhan Omar crew, the best hope of a better future the status quo ante has so far managed to ante up, has started to get some real side-eye: they still have a solid Twitter game, but in policy terms they're moving toward the center, and people have started to suspect, I think rightly, that DC's capturing them. At this point there is basically no credibility left. So it depends on who manages to direct the energy to make some kind of change. We haven't seen them emerge yet. If history is any guide, we won't see them coming, either. How it plays out in the long run is anyone's guess. How it starts is in large part up to them, whoever they turn out to be.
- adammunich 6y ago
  I've been talking to a decent number of wealthy people about this subject and sometimes their responses are deafening. I don't think it's malice but rather plain ignorance. It's hard to understand the frustrations of the poor when you live in a fancy house and make tech money. I'll never forget when I was told by one person, "if people are mad that companies are making all this money they should just buy their stock!" Let them eat cake if there ever was a parallel...
  - throwanem 6y ago
    I didn't say they were evil, I said they were stupid. I don't know if power does that, but I've spent enough time working around and for rich people that I sure as hell know money does.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

It depends who most successfully manages to direct the energy building up behind the demand for some kind, any kind, of substantive change. Historically, that whole process used to typically take a decade or two, maybe more. But we have social media now, so I give it a couple-three years, tops. Maybe a decade if it peters out again this time like it did in 2011. But I don't think that's very likely. Easy to get the idea that a statue of Lincoln got torn down because protestors are historically illiterate, or there's fascist spoilers in among the crowds, or whatever. No. There are no wrong statues to tear down, because who put those statues up? Rich people. Old people. People who've failed to justify their hold on power. I don't think it's quite too late for them to start to do so. But I do think they're far too stupid to realize and act on the necessity. Being as the only reason I'm not getting fucked the same way - not quite so hard, at the moment, anyway - is the luck of having had 20 more years to work with and a chance to make a start in a somewhat less viciously extractive time, my sympathies lie with those who say that either that power will be justified or it will be taken from those who have it now and placed in other hands. Sure, things could end up worse than they are now. But they could also end up better. If anyone could make a convincing case for how they end up better under the status quo, we would not be here. Hell, Bernie Sanders tried twice, and look what happened to him - not that I think he'd have been able to deliver on his promises, but it would've been smart to have given him the chance to try. Could probably have bought a decade or so that way, I suspect, maybe more. But instead, in 2016 the DNC rigged the primary for a candidate decades past electability who ultimately gave us Trump, and in 2020 the boomers just stomped the babies flat and gave us another possibly senile neoliberal has-been for the general, which he may still contrive to lose despite the Republican revolt against Trump - they've made a lot of ads, but we won't really know how it played out until December or maybe January, and no matter which way it goes it'll be the most questionable US presidential election result in living memory. Maybe ever. Even the AOC/Ilhan Omar crew, the best hope of a better future the status quo ante has so far managed to ante up, has started to get some real side-eye: they still have a solid Twitter game, but in policy terms they're moving toward the center, and people have started to suspect, I think rightly, that DC's capturing them. At this point there is basically no credibility left. So it depends on who manages to direct the energy to make some kind of change. We haven't seen them emerge yet. If history is any guide, we won't see them coming, either. How it plays out in the long run is anyone's guess. How it starts is in large part up to them, whoever they turn out to be.

adammunich 6y ago
I've been talking to a decent number of wealthy people about this subject and sometimes their responses are deafening. I don't think it's malice but rather plain ignorance. It's hard to understand the frustrations of the poor when you live in a fancy house and make tech money. I'll never forget when I was told by one person, "if people are mad that companies are making all this money they should just buy their stock!" Let them eat cake if there ever was a parallel...
- throwanem 6y ago
  I didn't say they were evil, I said they were stupid. I don't know if power does that, but I've spent enough time working around and for rich people that I sure as hell know money does.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]