The reason why we’re here is not because we failed to chose Carter over Reagan, but because those were the two choices we were stuck with
That’s literally the opposite of what you’re claiming my position is. My position, like the other person said, is that the problems we have are a result of the economic policy of neoliberalism, enacted by both Reagan and Carter. You’re saying that, rather than my position being about criticizing neoliberalism, I “kind of did” say that Reagan was better than Carter, and your supposed evidence of me taking that position is just me saying the problem was the policy of neoliberalism.
One side is trying to do the right thing as best they can
Lmao, that’s utterly delusional. Not that it would matter if it were true.
Would you rather get operated on by someone who thinks your heart is a tumor that needs to be removed for the sake of your health, or by someone who wants to remove your heart because they want you dead? The answer is, who gives a shit? Your heart’s coming out either way. Why would I care if the first surgeon is “just trying to help?”
If we’re being so generous with the Democrats’ motives, then the only conclusion is that they comically incompetent to the point of being a useless liability. I’m not sure that actually makes them look better than the reality.
But again, like I said, I am not St. Peter, I’m not trying to evaluate who’s a good person deep down in their heart of hearts. All I care about is what they actually do. You are looking at things from the completely wrong perspective. Get your mind off the pearly gates and look at the actual policy and actual material results of that policy.
You never really explained why neoliberalism is problematic. Neoliberalism is not incompatible with unions, as you seemed to imply, nor is it incompatible with a government that utilizes tax and spend to provide essential services for the public. It can be regulated markets and free trade, and most of the stuff we associate with Reagan’s brand of neoliberalism are consequences of horrible tax and social spending policies, not necessarily a consequence of a lighter hand at protectionism. What’s the real problem here, that we became more open to importing stuff or that the government abdicated its duty to do anything at all? (Aside from bombing brown people, of course.)
The real problem here predates Carter and Reagan and goes back to the New Deal itself. The New Deal was the carrot, along with the stick of the Red Scare, to root out communists and other radicals in the labor movement. The promise was that the government would protect, or at least tolerate unions, so long as they proved their loyalty by engaging in anticommunist witch hunts, such as when communists were kicked out of the AFL/CIO. The effect that this had on unions was that they became weakened, narrowly self-interested, and complacent.
Once the unions were broken, and the working class had no ability to wield power or fight back against whatever the government and ruling class decided to do, they could then take steps that would weaken them even further, and at the same time they could cut social programs, because nobody had any power to stop them. Something like a general strike was impossible, because after purging anyone who sounded like a communist, there was no solidarity, no greater vision, and no willingness to really fight, since those are all things that make you sound like a communist.
Now, admittedly, from a global perspective, the Chinese people have benefited immensely from offshoring, so whether it’s a good or bad thing overall is hard to say. But, good or bad, it’s the reason why the US in such a shitty state today, why the government is able to cut social programs, why nobody can do shit to stop anything Trump does, etc. The most direct enemy of the American ruling class are, of course, American workers (and vice versa) so us getting fucked means that they are now able to operate with impunity with nobody to stop them.
Regardless, what we need to do now, as a class, is to rebuild organization from the ground up, but this time refusing to punch left and purge radicals, and to instead actively promote solidarity, a greater vision, and a willingness to fight.
That’s literally the opposite of what you’re claiming my position is. My position, like the other person said, is that the problems we have are a result of the economic policy of neoliberalism, enacted by both Reagan and Carter. You’re saying that, rather than my position being about criticizing neoliberalism, I “kind of did” say that Reagan was better than Carter, and your supposed evidence of me taking that position is just me saying the problem was the policy of neoliberalism.
Lmao, that’s utterly delusional. Not that it would matter if it were true.
Would you rather get operated on by someone who thinks your heart is a tumor that needs to be removed for the sake of your health, or by someone who wants to remove your heart because they want you dead? The answer is, who gives a shit? Your heart’s coming out either way. Why would I care if the first surgeon is “just trying to help?”
If we’re being so generous with the Democrats’ motives, then the only conclusion is that they comically incompetent to the point of being a useless liability. I’m not sure that actually makes them look better than the reality.
But again, like I said, I am not St. Peter, I’m not trying to evaluate who’s a good person deep down in their heart of hearts. All I care about is what they actually do. You are looking at things from the completely wrong perspective. Get your mind off the pearly gates and look at the actual policy and actual material results of that policy.
You never really explained why neoliberalism is problematic. Neoliberalism is not incompatible with unions, as you seemed to imply, nor is it incompatible with a government that utilizes tax and spend to provide essential services for the public. It can be regulated markets and free trade, and most of the stuff we associate with Reagan’s brand of neoliberalism are consequences of horrible tax and social spending policies, not necessarily a consequence of a lighter hand at protectionism. What’s the real problem here, that we became more open to importing stuff or that the government abdicated its duty to do anything at all? (Aside from bombing brown people, of course.)
The real problem here predates Carter and Reagan and goes back to the New Deal itself. The New Deal was the carrot, along with the stick of the Red Scare, to root out communists and other radicals in the labor movement. The promise was that the government would protect, or at least tolerate unions, so long as they proved their loyalty by engaging in anticommunist witch hunts, such as when communists were kicked out of the AFL/CIO. The effect that this had on unions was that they became weakened, narrowly self-interested, and complacent.
Once the unions were broken, and the working class had no ability to wield power or fight back against whatever the government and ruling class decided to do, they could then take steps that would weaken them even further, and at the same time they could cut social programs, because nobody had any power to stop them. Something like a general strike was impossible, because after purging anyone who sounded like a communist, there was no solidarity, no greater vision, and no willingness to really fight, since those are all things that make you sound like a communist.
Now, admittedly, from a global perspective, the Chinese people have benefited immensely from offshoring, so whether it’s a good or bad thing overall is hard to say. But, good or bad, it’s the reason why the US in such a shitty state today, why the government is able to cut social programs, why nobody can do shit to stop anything Trump does, etc. The most direct enemy of the American ruling class are, of course, American workers (and vice versa) so us getting fucked means that they are now able to operate with impunity with nobody to stop them.
Regardless, what we need to do now, as a class, is to rebuild organization from the ground up, but this time refusing to punch left and purge radicals, and to instead actively promote solidarity, a greater vision, and a willingness to fight.