3 ms·

One party is clearly different than the other here.

by cm2012 7y ago

defterGoose 7y ago
More and more I'm convinced that the "both sides are the same" argument is made less for its merits (deplorable influence of money on both sides of the aisle, which is, admittedly, a valid one) and more as another rightist attack on peoples' faith that a democratic system can be made to work well. It's right there in the Republican/Libertarian playbook next to "defund institutions until people believe they fail for social reasons and then dismantle them."
- tehjoker 7y ago
  Try reading "The State and Revolution". It explains why democracy and capitalism are antagonistic forces. A 2014 landmark study showed that a basic assumption of the book, that the rich basically determine policy in a liberal democracy, is essentially correct in America. Unfortunately, the rich cannot be tamed under capitalism because they can perform a coordinated capital strike that brings the economy, and the regulatory system, to its knees. This is the private power that they have. https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi...
  - JamesBarney 7y ago
    The wealthy wield power for much more mundane reasons. They tend to be politicians, friends with politicians, for much more face time with politicians, and pay for lobbyists.
    - defterGoose 7y ago
      Yep, pretty much. Let's hope our electorate can wake up and stop believing that these people have their best interests at heart.
  - defterGoose 7y ago
    Not sure what your comment is in reference to; however, I'm perfectly capable of interpreting current events for myself without relying on meta-analyses that only serve to confirm what I already know. Namely, that money as a corrupting influence in our politics is a growing specter that undermines peoples' ability to react appropriately in an increasingly complex world. The 'capital strike' you refer to sounds highly theoretical, save for the fact that the world's elites have found greater boldness in their ability to irreversibly extract value from the economies that have made them wealthy and move it elsewhere. Indeed, this doesn't bode well for our society, but the US is still a pretty nice place to reside and do business, comparatively. I, for one, believe that the ideal of this place as a beacon of hope for the common man can be restored, but it could go a different way too.
tehjoker 7y ago
One party nakedly serves capital and allies with reactionary elements that are their natural allies, the other manages the disappointed expectations of the working class without ever intending to actually serve them. This is why Obama is a severe disappointment at best, deporter in chief, domestic spy in chief, and extrajudicial assassin nearing the side of worst while GWB was an abomination.

One party is clearly different than the other here.

by cm2012 7y ago

One party is clearly different than the other here.

More and more I'm convinced that the "both sides are the same" argument is made less for its merits (deplorable influence of money on both sides of the aisle, which is, admittedly, a valid one) and more as another rightist attack on peoples' faith that a democratic system can be made to work well. It's right there in the Republican/Libertarian playbook next to "defund institutions until people believe they fail for social reasons and then dismantle them."

tehjoker 7y ago
Try reading "The State and Revolution". It explains why democracy and capitalism are antagonistic forces. A 2014 landmark study showed that a basic assumption of the book, that the rich basically determine policy in a liberal democracy, is essentially correct in America. Unfortunately, the rich cannot be tamed under capitalism because they can perform a coordinated capital strike that brings the economy, and the regulatory system, to its knees. This is the private power that they have. https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi...
- JamesBarney 7y ago
  The wealthy wield power for much more mundane reasons. They tend to be politicians, friends with politicians, for much more face time with politicians, and pay for lobbyists.
  - defterGoose 7y ago
    Yep, pretty much. Let's hope our electorate can wake up and stop believing that these people have their best interests at heart.
- defterGoose 7y ago
  Not sure what your comment is in reference to; however, I'm perfectly capable of interpreting current events for myself without relying on meta-analyses that only serve to confirm what I already know. Namely, that money as a corrupting influence in our politics is a growing specter that undermines peoples' ability to react appropriately in an increasingly complex world. The 'capital strike' you refer to sounds highly theoretical, save for the fact that the world's elites have found greater boldness in their ability to irreversibly extract value from the economies that have made them wealthy and move it elsewhere. Indeed, this doesn't bode well for our society, but the US is still a pretty nice place to reside and do business, comparatively. I, for one, believe that the ideal of this place as a beacon of hope for the common man can be restored, but it could go a different way too.

tehjoker 7y ago

One party nakedly serves capital and allies with reactionary elements that are their natural allies, the other manages the disappointed expectations of the working class without ever intending to actually serve them. This is why Obama is a severe disappointment at best, deporter in chief, domestic spy in chief, and extrajudicial assassin nearing the side of worst while GWB was an abomination.