There are ways to end a discussion without belittling others and hurling insults. We live in a society after all.
“It’s never the right time,”, cries liberalism.
It’s all well and good to recognize the structural constraints imposed by America’s political system, and the difficulty of passing major reforms in the face of organized opposition. But for too many of America’s leading liberal politicians, “realism” has become an identity unto itself, unmoored from any programmatic orientation toward the future or sustained effort to bring about significant change.
Such hostility for having thoughtful views, no wonder America is in this position. I’m voting for Harris, as a pragmatist. But I will not demean others for not voting for a genocide or voting third party. That is their right in a democracy. I’m simply pointing out that the choices we have been given are not going to change until we choose to step outside the paradigm. How can a third party that everyone seems to want develop, unless people choose to support it?
You should encourage people to embarrass themselves so you can correct the record. The Green Party has been around since the 1990’s, and was founded in 2001. Jill Stein is not the Green Party, it will exist after her, provided people are brave enough to separate their identities from the two-party system in America. If you don’t like Jill Stein, have a look at the Party for Socialism and Liberation.
Bravo 👏
Israel is a terrorist state
It hurt itself in confusion
I don’t think in nationalist framing. Nation-states promote tribalism. Materialism and Marxism is a way of thinking of social relations. As an economy of trade, I’m gonna go with the Incan Empire as a great example of socialism:
Each citizen of the empire was issued the necessities of life out of the state storehouses, including food, tools, raw materials, and clothing, and needed to purchase nothing. With no shops or markets, there was no need for a standard currency or money, and there was nowhere to spend money or purchase or trade for necessities.
Thanks for the thoughtful question. For a present example, I would probably go with a social democracy like Norway. It is impossible globally to not be affected by capitalism. And I would rather live in an economy with strong social networks than live under the siege mentality of Vietnam, although China seems to be trying to find a balance.
Because no one is brave enough to vote for them.
Ideally, for capitalists, their bloc should rule the society—be the hegemonic power—by controlling mass media, winning elections, producing parliamentary majorities, and disseminating an ideology in schools and beyond that justifies capitalism. Capitalist hegemony would then keep anti-capitalist impulses disorganized or unable to build a social movement into a counter-hegemonic bloc strong enough to challenge capitalism’s hegemony. Why Capitalism is in Constant Conflict With Democracy
by But Trumpers
view more: next ›
Being right doesn’t justify animosity.