politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Ah yes, they're so intense about fighting capitalist oppression they've circled around to... checks notes defending police brutality and advocating for the further privatisation of every public good and dismantling all worker protections.
The difference between "eat the rich" and "feed the rich" is really just one syllable, right? Almost negligible.
(Also, no, they don't call everyone fascist. They just don't think being liberal is enough for change, when the "liberals" of the US have a history of complaining about the things they don't stop the regressives from doing. There's a difference between calling people "naive and spineless" and "actively pursuing oppression".)
I will say that there is a marked and growing distain for mixed liberal ideologies. There is a lot of this idea that every socialist needs to be some kind of pure strain to count or take basically the Marxist definition as the only viable one. It kind of ignores a couple of centuries of Socialist thought. A lot of people basically think "means of production" means nothing less than everyone working in a co-op and discounts a lot of past socialist wins as "not socialism". It's an important thing to remember about Marx, the world he lived in was very different. Damn near everything at the time was privatized. Water, sanitation, post, fire service, public health and public health regulatory bodies... None of that existed under the perview of Government auspice. Socialist strains more to the legacy of Robert Owens, Daniel De Leon, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and other ethical socialists have had significant wins. Some places took it further than others but the one thing that was allowed to happen in a lot of places was complacency. The 1980's and 90's created a liberal fervor that has continued to walk back a lot of significant wins made by the Socialist movements of the early 1900's and the civil rights movements... But because a lot of the functions of Socialist wins have become the air we breathe people do not associate them with socialism anymore. The issue with peaceful integration is that private gains are always incentivized so complacency cannot be afforded.
It seems weirdly controversial but Non-Marxist socialists exist. Marx was one very popular voice in a sea of people with somewhat related but sometimes contradictory ideas. Some philosophers have been retro-branded as proto-socialists because they existed before Marx who just coined the term. Looking at his contemporaries there's good reason why he became popular. A lot of what was out there was much drier, committed to peaceful reform. It didn't tap into people's anger or emotion in the same way. Right now we deal with a lot of that issue on the left. It is an old struggle. People who are bombastically angry and turning around and biting people for not being "enough" of something. Not fitting a narrow definition. Half my issue with Communist parties I have looked at joining is they aren't great at being collaborative. Increasingly I have found the argument around "centrism" to stop meaning "people who support the basic status quo" which it seemed to have evolved to being interpretable as for a minute... To a more worrying definition about anyone willing to work across any ideological lines set down by the one guy people bothered to read.
This use of "centrism" as though it's a plotable point on a map seems to me a worrying fiction. The post moves to create division and self satisfaction where none need exist.
Dangerous to democracy? Where'd you get that idea? I'm not the one trying to install an authoritarian plutocracy.
I'm a staunch believer in educated democracy, but that requires education in the first place. Education regressives have been undermining forever, because it would inform the people of their actual democratic power.
Which would be? What, in your opinion, actually matters?
My priority is a sustainable and enjoyable future. One where you can grow old without worrying about our pension or affording medical care. One where you no longer pay a cut of your work to a person just becaude they're rich already. One where you can do the job you love without worrying about how well it pays or whether you'll get fired.
The Liberals keep bartering for compromise instead of progress, gradually ceding ground to the Conservatives. The spoiler effect means an actually progressive third party has no chance and risks handing power to the regressives by splitting the vote. Because all the Liberals have to do is "be less bad", you get the choice between right-of-center and far right. This isn't democracy, it's slowly dismantling it.
I'll take the Liberals, because they're "less bad", but it's not a solution. It's buying time in the hope that we can actually fix the underlying issues.