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.
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.
it’s the rich continuously stealing more capital and destroying businesses that is the problem
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.
not it isn’t, they have much to be blamed for. but there’s plenty of blame to go to other groups, too.
If the South and rural areas had equal access to wealth and education
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
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.
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.
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.
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.