Ffs can we stop with the middle ground centrist bullshit and actually do some good with some "progressive" policies.... You know the "progressive" that is barely left of center anywhere else in the world.
this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2024
51 points (84.9% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7114 readers
725 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
They never will. What they call 'progressive' policies don't make anyone any money; and don't advance anyone's hegemony. And with these crackers, that bar is in Hell.
The worst part is that adopting a tiny modicum of "progressive" politics would actually make them (the country as a whole, but also the bourgeoisie) more money in the end, just based on the fact that you can't run a capitalist society in any meaningful sense if your working class can't afford to live (and thus make surplus value available to the owner-class). More public transport would make it hella easier for a business to recruit a workforce from places with lower rents and further commutes, more money in the pocket for consumers means more consumption, etc. etc. There was that survey a few years back that showed that if wealth were to be redistributed fairly, the average American would be almost twice as rich.
The problem is really that certain segments of capitalist society would not be so overwhelmingly powerful, and easing up on military adventures would mean a resurgence of workers rights in many parts of the world.. It's not enough to be the richest country if you can't also make the rest of the world poor.
So this is the internal politics dems are supposedly better than reps? Lol it's just
as usual. Also what is the woman equivalent of Uncle Tom?
yeah really undermining the whole "harm reduction" thing
Also what is the woman equivalent of Uncle Tom?
Aunt Jane. (I prefer 'Aunt Sally', but apparently it's Jane.)
Harris is a continuation of the Clintonian dynasty and its “winning” strategy of triangulation, which is why both parties keep moving further right.
Oops didn't mean to! /$
harm reductionIt was a debate
She said she would sign the bipartisan immigration bill, even though larded with a ton of bullshit, including 'the wall' as a portion. And the headline is "She flip-flopped and wants to build Trump's wall?"
Hack journalism at its best.
Yeah its about ethics in corporate journalism, not about who wants to build walls and kill immigrants
She’s literally supporting signing a bill that funds building the wall. How is that not going back on her opposition to the wall? Not to mention the wall is probably one of the less egregious parts of that bill.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Clown country
view more: next ›