258
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 May 2026
258 points (96.4% liked)
Asklemmy
54391 readers
308 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
Blaming the Republican party is wrong. They're evil, but it's the rich continuously stealing more capital and destroying businesses that is the problem. If the South and rural areas had equal access to wealth and education, the identity politics bit wouldn't work on them.
The rich are rich because they own the businesses. They own the means of production. The problem is capitalism; it’s private ownership of the means of production.
I don't see the connection, personally. There's no problem when wealth is probably managed and distributed. Plenty of societies do that with private ownership, and there's no reason to believe that a communist society would do it better.
Then you're entirely misunderstanding all of human history. Communism has been the source of the most effective poverty alleviation programs in the history of humanity.
Absolutely not.
"Wealth" is the counter side of the coin to poverty.
not it isn't, they have much to be blamed for. but there's plenty of blame to go to other groups, too.
If you think the North and urban areas do have equal access then you need to take another look. The oligarchs are quite fond of living in metropolitan areas and segregating education between public and private schools.
I don't really, Dems are pretty useless and bought by the rich as well. Which is why the two party system can't work to solve these issues effectively. I don't blame Trump either, he is more a symptom, than the problem
the uniparty is the problem I agree
France's two party system was overturned electorally within the past 10 years, the UK's is currently in the process, but maybe the same thing can't happen in the USA
We need a true populist party in the US, but every mechanism that's currently anchored in place would always work as hard as possible to destroy it. Ngl, it feels kind of bleak.
What if the real controlled opposition was the Republicans we met along the way.
I agree that it's the rich that are the root of the problem, but also I don't understand what the Republican party is (since the great depression) if not a roundabout way to harness fear of downward social mobility to vote in favor of the rich.
And when I say "I don't understand", I mean I really don't understand, because I also recognize that the rich pulled the same shit back in the civil war on the uneducated southern Democrats. The way I see it, today we have "Temporarily Embarrassed Billionaires" fighting for the rich in case they ever get rich, but back in the 1800s they had "Temporarily Embarrassed Slave Owners" who were, again, fighting for the rich in case they ever got rich.
I guess I'm supposed to conclude that the "liberalism" of that time was just misguided because it was attempting to justify abridging others' individual freedoms as an individual freedom. And then maybe the "republic" of Republicanism was seen as the elite telling the uneducated, "the masses are too dumb to be trusted with a direct democracy, we need to elect an educated intermediary to represent us". If so, that seems like....not even close to what the Republican party stands for today; Trump was elected on a Populist platform, the opposite of a Republic.
tl;dr I get that despite the corruption in the DNC, liberalism is a valuable philosophy worth refining and progressing toward. But I don't know what the Republican party still has that's worth keeping.