1475
They're Never Happy
(lemmy.world)
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 16 Oct 2024
1475 points (96.6% liked)
Microblog Memes
5582 readers
2885 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Because electoralism cannot establish Socialism. The Squad are not Socialists, they are Social Democrats. The only Socialist you can vote for is Claudia De La Crúz, and she cannot win because she cannot get 270 votes.
I am not "proving your point," it is physically impossible to do what you're suggesting.
Guess what? 99.9% of the people in the country would be happy with having FDR's New Deal back in place.
Again, you prove my point. You'd rather dream about an ideal Socialist state then work to make things better right now.
They aren't dreaming, they laid out very clearly what they believe and how they believe it can be achieved.
You just keep saying "I'm rubber, you're glue".
What's your actual point? That you think the person you are replying to is stupid? That would say more about you than them in my opinion.
that's the part I'm missing.
Like I said, I've been hearing people talk about this giant change for years, and never seen anything like an advance.
Meanwhile there are more billionaires every day, and they are getting more entrenched.
If there's an actual workable plan I've yet to see it.
Because we're still in a period of decay.
There's a reason why AES projects are mostly started in underdeveloped regions: once capitalism is established as the dominant system, it is impossible to escape it through democratic means. Capital has captured the democratic process, and it won't allow for its own destruction
If revolution doesn't happen, America will eventually fall to fascism or collapse under its own late-stage capitalism completely. Doesn't matter if you find it impractical, that's just what the analysis points to.
You can suggest your own analysis if you disagree with ours.
My analysis is that we should do things now instead of waiting.
Look at the marriage laws from 1950s to today. Interracial couples and same sex couples were banned from getting married. Heck, women couldn't have their own bank accounts in may places.
Change is possible.
You're tellign people who are suffering now that the only thing they can do is await a possible revolution.
Your analysis is just vibes, bud, it doesn't have any eye or consideration for any systems or material relations
If tomorrow we passed a law protecting trans and minority rights, the next election the reactionary forces will push back and make it harder - if not impossible - to run on protecting them again.
Why do you think it's so hard for Harris to run on Palestinian liberation, or immigration reform, or trans rights? Because she'd lose, because the American voter base is frothing at the mouth and becoming more reactionary every election cycle, and your 'analysis' doesn't even bother to see or acknowledge that trend, let alone address it.
Yeah , it's almost as if you have to rally the troops and get out the vote in every single election.
FDR's New Deal held together for decades, until Ronald Reagan got in.
Lmao, it's literally all vibes
"people stop wanting progressive policies because we stop pushing for them" is a take that's completely divorced from physical reality. You have to be completely blind to how people's material and cultural reality relate to each other if you're to believe this.
If it wasn't Reagan, it would have been another reactionary politician. Looking at history as if individual men/women dictate our reality as if in a decontextualized vacuum is maddeningly idiotic. Reagan represented a popular movement of reactionary conservatism - he didn't invent it out of whole-cloth. There has never been a social-democratic government that hasn't eventually been privatized or been subject to increasing austerity measures, and that pattern can be studied and rationalized as a dialectic.
Nice made up quote that has nothing to do with what I wrote. We lost progressive policies because believed Reagan's lies, not because he ran as anti-labor.
Reagan sleazed in by sabotaging Carter with a backdoor deal Reagan made with Iran.
Reagan actually ran as a New Deal loving Union President.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a43368900/reagan-iran-hostages/
I'm not sure we are working from the same definition of reactionary.
There's you problem right there.
I just double checked and re-read everything I posted in this thread.
I didn't use the word 'reactionary' once.
Oh, can you not see my comments? Weird, maybe that's the problem
That's you using a word.
A word I never used.
Obviously, you're confused and continuing would be a complete waste of time.
I mean, if I haven't seen your comments, what is the point?
Maybe i'm confused, it seems like you were responding to me calling Reagan reactionary by saying he wasn't 'anti-labor'.
Not sure how your response related to my comment otherwise, honestly. Either you were addressing my use of the word reactionary or you were talking to yourself.
And yet Bernie, promising FDR style reform, did not get elected, nor would that stop fascism, just delay it. I am telling you that the way forward requires revolution. This isn't because of an "ideal," but because mechanically it is the only way forward.