this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2024
940 points (97.3% liked)

196

18162 readers
277 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.


Rule: You must post before you leave.



Other rules

Behavior rules:

Posting rules:

NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.

Other 196's:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 51 points 8 months ago (7 children)

Whether or not this is accurate about Tim Walz, it is accurate to say politicians, elected and appointed officials regard the ownership class as peers and vice versa.

This is also true regarding the upper management of news agencies, which figures in liberal or left-wing news sources that won't go far enough left to jeopardize a status quo in which the agency and its owners thrive. And yet, they will underestimate the right wing and its willingness to let the leopards eat their faces once they are in power. The recent nods to the Trump transition by WaPo and the Los Angeles Times will not save either agency from Trump's wrath against press once he is in power.

The Democratic Party is far right, just slightly more left-wing than the Republican party, and they are still beholden to the ownership class when it comes to campaign contributions, which is how we don't have four-day work weeks, universal healthcare, social safety nets or any of the features that most developed nations enjoy, because it's plutocrats that decide what our elected officials are allowed to do, not the public.

It's also why communist and socialist are bad words, even though that means the only thing else you can be is a monarchist which is about as anti-American as one can get (at least if you believe the preamble to the Constitution of the United States). We've literally been indoctrinated against public-serving government.

But then it's time to ask, what is the point of recognizing or serving the state at all if it isn't to serve the public?

[–] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (4 children)

Socialism is not immune to monarchist or capitalist takeover, and the Democrats are not far right in this backwards ass country. They're the big tent of liberalism, which is right wing, but not as right wing as I wish it was. It's a distortion to believe that this country will democratically choose socialism. They're too invested in selfishness for egalitarianism.

[–] pkill@programming.dev 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That's where the permanent revolution would help. The workers must not allow splitting the revolution into stages of concessions and compromises but fight until total victory and the dissolution of the state.

Also this is the reason why communists are not pacifists — the working class has the right and a duty to defend itself and it's gains. That's what Marx meant when he wrote that under no pretense must workers be disarmed.

[–] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Not a fan of "permanent revolution," as it has a habit of becoming the new establishment, but you're correct about not conceding or disarming. That's the bed that the right wingers kindly made for us ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)