I’ve been hearing people talk about this giant change for years, and never seen anything like an advance.
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.
“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.
FDR’s New Deal held together for decades, until Ronald Reagan got in.
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.
“people stop wanting progressive policies because we stop pushing for them”
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.
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.