Whether or not this is accurate about Tim Walz, it is accurate to say politicians, elected and appointed officials regard the ownership class as peers and vice versa.

This is also true regarding the upper management of news agencies, which figures in liberal or left-wing news sources that won't go far enough left to jeopardize a status quo in which the agency and its owners thrive. And yet, they will underestimate the right wing and its willingness to let the leopards eat their faces once they are in power. The recent nods to the Trump transition by WaPo and the Los Angeles Times will not save either agency from Trump's wrath against press once he is in power.

The Democratic Party is far right, just slightly more left-wing than the Republican party, and they are still beholden to the ownership class when it comes to campaign contributions, which is how we don't have four-day work weeks, universal healthcare, social safety nets or any of the features that most developed nations enjoy, because it's plutocrats that decide what our elected officials are allowed to do, not the public.

It's also why communist and socialist are bad words, even though that means the only thing else you can be is a monarchist which is about as anti-American as one can get (at least if you believe the preamble to the Constitution of the United States). We've literally been indoctrinated against public-serving government.

But then it's time to ask, what is the point of recognizing or serving the state at all if it isn't to serve the public?

[–] SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social 18 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Along those lines, monarchist is bad, too. The wealthy in the U.S. are notoriously touchy about being called aristocracy, and I maintain that it's because nobility not only punctures the meritocracy myth, but also carries with it the idea of noblesse oblige. They don't want any obligations to the peasants. (Won't be lauded as a great philanthropist for the dribs and drabs they give to charity, if it's expected!)

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 weeks ago

Yes, but they're not satisfied with one-party autocracy, but are at this point looking to pass it along to their next of kin, even when they're not fit for rule, leading to the Joffrey / Nero / John of England problems that arise with monarchy.

The name Heritage Foundation spills the whole plot. They want to allow their kids to inherit their legacy and secure an extremely stratified society.

[–] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

Socialism is not immune to monarchist or capitalist takeover, and the Democrats are not far right in this backwards ass country. They're the big tent of liberalism, which is right wing, but not as right wing as I wish it was. It's a distortion to believe that this country will democratically choose socialism. They're too invested in selfishness for egalitarianism.

[–] pkill@programming.dev 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That's where the permanent revolution would help. The workers must not allow splitting the revolution into stages of concessions and compromises but fight until total victory and the dissolution of the state.

Also this is the reason why communists are not pacifists — the working class has the right and a duty to defend itself and it's gains. That's what Marx meant when he wrote that under no pretense must workers be disarmed.

[–] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Not a fan of "permanent revolution," as it has a habit of becoming the new establishment, but you're correct about not conceding or disarming. That's the bed that the right wingers kindly made for us ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Socialism and Communism are, as per other political ideologies, only simple models by which to base construction what will ultimately be a complex system in order to preserve the values of the society (such as egalitarianism, liberty and mutualism) ( as per 1789 ).

None of these things are to be used just as an ideology we worship, since doing so doesn't actually make it so. Look at how the US worships freedom even as it tries to lock out trans rights and women's rights, and has a justice system that is stratified to favor the wealthy, and to incarcerate the marginalized. You can praise and chant an ideology all you want, and never actually see its virtues in action.

Just as democracy has (huge, egregious) issues that can be subverted (and are) and need to be addressed before the powerful exploit them to retain and increase power, so it is for other models of social conduct like socialism and communism. They're a starting point.

And frankly, the world has only started to veer away from models of dictatorship and bonded servitude, and are still trying to do the same thing just with extra steps with different names, hence how a gross amount of the US lives in precarity and the poverty line is lowered so that those above the poverty line still live in squalor (just slightly shinier squalor).

It's up to us to turn the notion of socialism or communism into examples that work. And there have been examples. The Black Pathers were anarcho-communist, though they suffered mass-assassinations by FBI. The Zapatista Army of National Liberation in Mexico is also anarcho-communist, and still at large, if quiet right now (no actions have been taken by either side for a while).

The US is going through a phase where it has to change, and currently the path of least resistance is towards a grisly death, first through mass purges, then through obligatory war, at which point we're going to look an awful lot like Germany after the Soviets take Berlin. You are now a part of the resistance, presently unorganized, to prevent this fate. In the meantime, if we don't create a new public serving order, we will be here again.

(And then we have the climate crisis and the plastic crisis to address, both of which are running out of time. Stupid ice zombies)

[–] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

It will take a lot of work, but I think the younger generations are ripe for becoming comfortable with socialism. A big part of that work will be providing essential services that the government does not.

We could probably build a network of doctors that provide effective medical care outside of the corporate healthcare system. Basically an NGO model that operates without state licenses. It would be an independent verification system that takes the role of the state in establishing trust. The biggest opportunities lie in mental health, and healthcare that's banned for political reasons.

One of the biggest problems that will only get worse in the future is addiction. As unhappiness increases, so does substance use, so helping people with those issues will be essential. It's one of the things that hurt the Black Panthers the most. This is a dire need that must be considered a top priority.

We can have an AA model of accountability and support, but another important part of addiction is finding reasons to live. We need to help people become comfortable with themselves, and motivated to brave our terrible world. Socialism can offer answers and a cause, something that's a major part of where people go after recovery.

We need to work in conjunction with religion, not against it. There really is so much demand for mental support that we won't even really be competing. In fact, liberation theology works well with socialism, so having religious allies is essential.

We could also do basic checkups and help people navigate the healthcare system for issues that require a specialist. Simply having an advocate can save a person's life.

This endeavor will cost a lot, so we'll need to have some people who work for wages to support the work of the healthcare providers. We can facilitate sharing of housing and other necessities amongst each other. Society is crumbling, and while terrorizing the wealthy can be helpful, this sort of work will be the true backbone of the movement.