4 ms·

Democrats are largely controlled opposition. If you ask where democratic power comes from, it comes from campaign donations by America's richest and most powerf

Democrats are largely controlled opposition. If you ask where democratic power comes from, it comes from campaign donations by America's richest and most powerful people. Bloomberg ran for president under their banner, think about that. At minimum it communicates that the democratic platform is compatible with oligarchs. How are they supposed to wrangle corporate power, when that is exactly where their power comes from? "Social issues" are a godsend for oligarchs because they allow for effort to be spent on issues that don't challenge corporate power. They provide a sink for democratic efforts that ultimately don't move the needle for most of their voters. It gives a pathway for "positive" change that doesn't threaten corporate power. It insidiously disempowers the people who would be most likely to wrestle with corporate power. Most of all it provides the illusion of opposition and therefore the illusion that I have representation because I have someone who has the appearance of representing my values (like empathy), but none of the substance of it. Democrats have a choice. (1) don't threaten corporate power and focus on ultimately pro-corporate social issues that are ultimately dis-empowering (2) threaten corporate power/land owner power/Israel power and immediately have their campaign financing removed and their challengers funded. Even if you believe that democrats are focusing on issues that meaningfully change people's lives, like build back better or CHIPS, they are doing it without challenging corporate power. Which is why no matter which regime is in power, it feels like democracy is in decline. Then you get sad, because you realize there is no way to get actual representation for the issues you care about other than to run yourself, but if you ran explicitly to challenge those in power, those in power would fund your opposition. So then you realize that it's hard to get into power without expressing loyalty to those who grant power, and then you have a cogent explanation for why things are the way they are.

BrenBarn 2y ago
The sadder is part is that that reality is a ticking time bomb. It will work until people are so pissed off that the pitchforks come out.
- hayst4ck 2y ago
  Just like when the pitchforks came out in Nazi Germany in order to overthrow the Nazi regime... /s Pitchforks don't work without a supporting institution, and the Intelligence state, corporate and governmental, is very very capable of preventing free association by people who might wish to supplant an illegitimate government with a new one. No it will work until the economy is properly destructed and we are defeated when our war machine is incapable of production, we become incapable of importing necessary goods, or the nuclear taboo is broken causing entire industries to disappear in the a flash. If we are lucky some brave military officers will uphold their oath to the constitution before it's too late, but that seems unlikely. Pitchforks were for the last 5 months. Historically speaking if there aren't pitchforks in the next month it's over and we are on the fascism train until catastrophe.
Braxton1980 2y ago
>without challenging corporate power. Why would expect this in a capitalist country?
- Gareth321 2y ago
  We challenge corporate power all the time in our capitalist nation of Denmark. Denmark beats the U.S. in ease of doing business (https://archive.doingbusiness.org/en/rankings https://archive.doingbusiness.org/en/rankings). I'm always bemused by Americans who think no other country practises capitalism.
- hayst4ck 2y ago
  FDR's New Deal was widely celebrated. There was almost a corporate coup against him (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot). Teddy's trust busting was also very celebrated. We used to have stronger unions that checked corporate power. OSHA is a hard check on corporate power. There is a strong legacy of checking corporate power. Unfortunately now that almost all media is oligarch owned it's hard to understand corporate abuses of power because both politicians and "journalists" are on the oligarch's payroll, quite literally.
noisy_boy 2y ago
> Then you get sad, because you realize there is no way to get actual representation for the issues you care about other than to run yourself, but if you ran explicitly to challenge those in power, those in power would fund your opposition. So then you realize that it's hard to get into power without expressing loyalty to those who grant power, and then you have a cogent explanation for why things are the way they are. For a practical example, see Bernie.
- hayst4ck 2y ago
  Can you say Bernie is in power? I think he proves my point, especially in regards to the presidential primaries, or maybe that's the point you're making. He was giving a speech to some super privileged college kids not too long ago when one of them asked something like "why should we work against a system that benefits us" and he said change likely isn't going to come from the government/rich kids so he's working on organizing unions because that's where meaningful change will come from. Solidarity/Collective bargaining is how you challenge power.
  - noisy_boy 2y ago
    My point was look at what happened to Bernie primary results. One guy who openly railed against the billionaires.
Bhilai 2y ago
> How are they supposed to wrangle corporate power, when that is exactly where their power comes from? I chuckled at this since Trump himself and entire squad of people he has surrounded himself with are the literal definition of "elites" and "corporate power."
- hayst4ck 2y ago
  Corporate power funds both of them, but Trump offered a better deal (no law to restrict them). So democrats find themselves abandoned and powerless at the most important time to have power -- the ability to do something when someone does something you don't like and says "what are you going to do about it?" The worst part is how much this parallels 1930's German history.

BrenBarn 2y ago

The sadder is part is that that reality is a ticking time bomb. It will work until people are so pissed off that the pitchforks come out.

hayst4ck 2y ago
Just like when the pitchforks came out in Nazi Germany in order to overthrow the Nazi regime... /s Pitchforks don't work without a supporting institution, and the Intelligence state, corporate and governmental, is very very capable of preventing free association by people who might wish to supplant an illegitimate government with a new one. No it will work until the economy is properly destructed and we are defeated when our war machine is incapable of production, we become incapable of importing necessary goods, or the nuclear taboo is broken causing entire industries to disappear in the a flash. If we are lucky some brave military officers will uphold their oath to the constitution before it's too late, but that seems unlikely. Pitchforks were for the last 5 months. Historically speaking if there aren't pitchforks in the next month it's over and we are on the fascism train until catastrophe.

Braxton1980 2y ago

>without challenging corporate power. Why would expect this in a capitalist country?

Gareth321 2y ago
We challenge corporate power all the time in our capitalist nation of Denmark. Denmark beats the U.S. in ease of doing business (https://archive.doingbusiness.org/en/rankings https://archive.doingbusiness.org/en/rankings). I'm always bemused by Americans who think no other country practises capitalism.
hayst4ck 2y ago
FDR's New Deal was widely celebrated. There was almost a corporate coup against him (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot). Teddy's trust busting was also very celebrated. We used to have stronger unions that checked corporate power. OSHA is a hard check on corporate power. There is a strong legacy of checking corporate power. Unfortunately now that almost all media is oligarch owned it's hard to understand corporate abuses of power because both politicians and "journalists" are on the oligarch's payroll, quite literally.

noisy_boy 2y ago

> Then you get sad, because you realize there is no way to get actual representation for the issues you care about other than to run yourself, but if you ran explicitly to challenge those in power, those in power would fund your opposition. So then you realize that it's hard to get into power without expressing loyalty to those who grant power, and then you have a cogent explanation for why things are the way they are. For a practical example, see Bernie.

hayst4ck 2y ago
Can you say Bernie is in power? I think he proves my point, especially in regards to the presidential primaries, or maybe that's the point you're making. He was giving a speech to some super privileged college kids not too long ago when one of them asked something like "why should we work against a system that benefits us" and he said change likely isn't going to come from the government/rich kids so he's working on organizing unions because that's where meaningful change will come from. Solidarity/Collective bargaining is how you challenge power.
- noisy_boy 2y ago
  My point was look at what happened to Bernie primary results. One guy who openly railed against the billionaires.

Bhilai 2y ago

> How are they supposed to wrangle corporate power, when that is exactly where their power comes from? I chuckled at this since Trump himself and entire squad of people he has surrounded himself with are the literal definition of "elites" and "corporate power."

hayst4ck 2y ago
Corporate power funds both of them, but Trump offered a better deal (no law to restrict them). So democrats find themselves abandoned and powerless at the most important time to have power -- the ability to do something when someone does something you don't like and says "what are you going to do about it?" The worst part is how much this parallels 1930's German history.