4376
Comments (335)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
4
Isolated_Patriot 4 points ago +4 / -0

So we're looking at a minimum of 75 years, assuming it works this time?

Not to mention that required the involvement of state actors and multiple massively disruptive wars to tap out their resources. I'm not so sure "accelerationism" is what brought them down so much as just being a failure of a state.

1
Africanus 1 point ago +1 / -0

Disagree - they hit a turning point, but Reagan forced them over the edge by accelerating military spending and forcing them to match him.

Had Carter and a Carter successor remained in office, who knows what happened. I think they could have easily weathered the storm.

2
Isolated_Patriot 2 points ago +2 / -0

If we accept that premise, that accelerationism worked via the nuclear arms race, it still requires a state actor on par with the United States to successfully goad them into overextending themselves.

I don't think that applies to our current situation. I mean, sure it could work, but we're still looking at that 75 year timeline of letting the Democratic Republic of Soviet America drive itself into the ground, and then our grandkids will stand a chance to take it back.

1
MehNahMehNah 1 point ago +1 / -0

Interesting perspective there. I'll have to ponder it.

If Carter's attempt at rescuing the Iranian hostages had succeeded I think he would have been re-elected.

His failure to recognize the power if the petrol dollar in absence of the gold standard due to Nixon taking us off of it (a controversial but inevitable move in my view) and embrace other measures if wealth as it influences GDP caught the West with it's pants down.

Modern Capitalism has kind of sorted that out but the progressive Left is choking it now with stupid shit like the Green New Deal.