You're viewing a single thread.
He got the best PR of his life, and the Democrats have come out supporting him and denouncing the violence. Meanwhile, the Democrats have also been saying that Trump will be a day-1 dictator and implement Project 2025.
The fact that the DNC can (correctly) show that Trump is dangerous, and yet insists that he must be defeated in an election, makes it look like the DNC doesn't actually care either way. This is in combination with Biden's crumbling support due to continued genocide and deteriorating mental capacities, or percieved deterioration.
Meanwhile, in the eyes of Trump supporters, someone just tried to take out their messiah and he came out scarred but undeterred.
The DNC voterbase is only ever becoming increasingly disengaged while the GOP voterbase is only becoming increasingly engaged. This will likely end up, if trends continue, like 2016. Biden will win the popular vote and lose the electoral college.
The DNC absolutely cannot condone assassination attempts, and it's absurd to think otherwise. The second they actually claim that it's a shame the gunman missed, it would be open season on every politician in office. The GOP would see a DNC acceptance of violence as a declaration of war, every last one of them would jump on the conspiracy that the Biden administration must have hired a truly inept gunman to make the hit, and before you can say "The GOP already condones violence" you'd have a dozen more assassination attempts on as many targets.
Republicans WANT a reason to pull the trigger. They WANT excuses to start taking shots at people they don't like. The last godamn thing you want to do is give them a reason to justify it. So no, the DNC denouncing political violence doesn't make them look like they don't care, it makes them look like they're the only ones fit to actually govern a nation.
You're not wrong, but I have a hard time believing that someone capable of this sort of nuanced perspective wouldn't already have seen enough evidence long ago for why a TicTac is better suited for POTUS than Trump.
Try to remember that the DNC is just a different brand of capitalism. So, sure, the posturing is expected and a requirement to keep DNC Party Voters in line. But I don't think the disenfranchised Bernie Bros and independent never trumpers really give a shit which skin suit of propriety the DNC is tucking for at any particular time. They can fuck themselves less than Trump, but not by much.
There is a huge difference between condoning an assassination attempt, and forcefully conveying the message that Trump is just one more a victim of his own violent rhetoric.
The DNC absolutely cannot condone assassination attempts, and it's absurd to think otherwise. The second they actually claim that it's a shame the gunman missed, it would be open season on every politician in office.
Yes, the DNC will always push for civility over all else because it legitimizes their control as well. It does call into question the danger they percieve Trump to present, however. If Hitler had been assassinated and the SPD said it was a shame, then they would equally be ridiculed.
The GOP would see a DNC acceptance of violence as a declaration of war, every last one of them would jump on the conspiracy that the Biden administration must have hired a truly inept gunman to make the hit, and before you can say "The GOP already condones violence" you'd have a dozen more assassination attempts on as many targets.
Sure, yes.
Republicans WANT a reason to pull the trigger. They WANT excuses to start taking shots at people they don't like. The last godamn thing you want to do is give them a reason to justify it. So no, the DNC denouncing political violence doesn't make them look like they don't care, it makes them look like they're the only ones fit to actually govern a nation.
They already do. Putting kid gloves on against an adversary that is already using political violence means they don't take politics seriously.
If Hitler had been assassinated and the SPD said it was a shame, then they would equally be ridiculed.
Why should they be ridiculed? It's absolutely consistent to say assassination isn't acceptable in a free society while at the same time saying fascism isn't acceptable in a free society. There's no logical conflict there.
I am personally completely against Trump and have been since he declared interest in running. I have also never once thought he should be killed, and I feel extremely sad that someone thought trying to assassinate him was in some way a good thing to do. In a Democracy, we must rely on educating the populace to eliminate evil, not on lone-gunmen doing what they think is best, because that's how extremist factions operate.
I used to consider myself a Republican and left once I realized they're completely lying about their "small government" nonsense. I have never registered as Democrat, though I did vote for Biden last election because of the outside chance that maybe Trump would lose our small state (very red state, but Trump did extremely poorly in 2016). I really dislike Biden as well, but he ticked two boxes for me:
- [x] promised to leave Afghanistan
- [x] not Trump
I strongy dislike the options in 2016, 2020, and now 2024, but I would never agree that either major candidate should be assaulted, much less assassinated... Political violence is not welcome in a free society.
Why should they be ridiculed? It's absolutely consistent to say assassination isn't acceptable in a free society while at the same time saying fascism isn't acceptable in a free society. There's no logical conflict there
Fascism doesn't care about electoralism. Beating fascists electorally does not mean they won't take power, nor does it mean they will go away.
I am personally completely against Trump and have been since he declared interest in running. I have also never once thought he should be killed, and I feel extremely sad that someone thought trying to assassinate him was in some way a good thing to do. In a Democracy, we must rely on educating the populace to eliminate evil, not on lone-gunmen doing what they think is best, because that's how extremist factions operate.
This is vibes-based. Fascism does not appear because of a lack of education. Fascism is a response. Fascism appears in dying Capitalism, it's a violent form of class collaborationism. You cannot beat fascism in a "fair fight." This is an ahistorical, and complacent world view.
I used to consider myself a Republican and left once I realized they're completely lying about their "small government" nonsense. I have never registered as Democrat, though I did vote for Biden last election because of the outside chance that maybe Trump would lose our small state (very red state, but Trump did extremely poorly in 2016). I really dislike Biden as well, but he ticked two boxes for me:
- [x] promised to leave Afghanistan
- [x] not Trump
Good for you. Moving on from the Republican party is one layer of propaganda leaving you. You have many, many layers of propaganda on you, as do I! You and I constently shed them by talking to others, reading political and economic theory, simple conclusions on our own, and so forth. It's a long journey.
I strongy dislike the options in 2016, 2020, and now 2024, but I would never agree that either major candidate should be assaulted, much less assassinated... Political violence is not welcome in a free society.
It doesn't matter what we consider to have a place in a free society. We don't live in a free society, nor do fascists care what constitutes a free society.
I think reading leftist theory would help you shape your world view a lot.
You cannot beat fascism in a “fair fight.”
You absolutely can, but it generally needs to be done by the major political parties. See How Democracies Die for a discussion on attempted (and successful) fascist movements and what was or should have been done to stop it. But you need the parties to be motivated to root it out (i.e. control messaging and whatnot), and the GOP did a piss-poor job of it with the #nevertrump campaign...
You and I constently shed them by talking to others, reading political and economic theory, simple conclusions on our own, and so forth. It’s a long journey.
I completely agree. However, propaganda isn't unique to the right, there's a ton on the left as well, especially here on lemmy. It's easy to overcorrect, especially in this era where truth takes a backseat to what "sounds" right.
I think reading leftist theory would help you shape your world view a lot.
I've read enough to know that it's also full of propaganda. But there are nuggets of interesting ideas.
That said, I do lean left on a number of issues, and I do try to stay abreast of good ideas regardless of source. I consider myself libertarian, with a generally georgist view of property and a preference for a guaranteed minimum standard of living (UBI/NIT) when it comes to welfare. I disagree strongly with Marxism and most forms of socialism, except the completely voluntary systems like worker cooperatives and non-government backed unions.
You absolutely can, but it generally needs to be done by the major political parties. See How Democracies Die for a discussion on attempted (and successful) fascist movements and what was or should have been done to stop it. But you need the parties to be motivated to root it out (i.e. control messaging and whatnot), and the GOP did a piss-poor job of it with the #nevertrump campaign...
The DNC is not motivated to root out fascism, they are letting it happen. America is a dying Empire, fascism is going to be an ongoing risk until it either collapses or Leftists take power.
I completely agree. However, propaganda isn't unique to the right, there's a ton on the left as well, especially here on lemmy. It's easy to overcorrect, especially in this era where truth takes a backseat to what "sounds" right.
Sure, there is propaganda on the left as well. Working through what's correct and what isn't is an ongoing task. That being said, leftists are correct.
I've read enough to know that it's also full of propaganda. But there are nuggets of interesting ideas.
Any examples? I am not trying to make this a book-measuring contest, I believe Leftism to be correct and necessary, full-stop.
That said, I do lean left on a number of issues, and I do try to stay abreast of good ideas regardless of source. I consider myself libertarian, with a generally georgist view of property and a preference for a guaranteed minimum standard of living (UBI/NIT) when it comes to welfare. I disagree strongly with Marxism and most forms of socialism, except the completely voluntary systems like worker cooperatives and non-government backed unions.
Oh, that's quite unfortunate. Georgism would just delay collapse, it wouldn't fix the structural issues that necessitate Capitalism's downfall. Additionally, the idea that Capitalism can in any way be more voluntary than stock-standard Socialism is false, as Capitalism is only voluntary for Capitalists.
What specifically do you disagree with Marxists about, and why?
The DNC is not motivated to root out fascism, they are letting it happen
It's not on the DNC to regulate the GOP, it's on the GOP to regulate the GOP. Basically, the GOP should have just refused to nominate Trump if they felt he was a serious threat to democracy (let him run as an independent).
Leftists take power
That's just going to result it the same problem, just with a very different smell. Nobody should "take power," a peaceful transfer of power between left and right (or a variety of other parties in parliamentary systems) is a sign of a healthy democracy. That's what I want, and every effort I put in will be to increase the smooth transition of power, not try to centralize power in my preferred side.
What specifically do you disagree with Marxists about, and why?
Oh, a number of things. I completely reject the LTV, which is central to Marxist thought, for example, and the arguments there are numerous and well-documented so I'll leave that to the extant literature. I also don't believe a socialist state can actually devolve into a stateless society, those in power will cling to it and refuse to tear down the system that props them up (that's like expecting Trump to actually "drain the swamp" when he's a crocodile). I don't think anarchism can actually work because people are tribal and any anarchist system would devolve into some form of feudalism. But I'd like to get closer to anarchism rather than further away, and a dictatorship of the proletariat scares me.
So I believe there will always need to be a state (some group w/ a monopoly on force), but that power needs to be carefully limited to prevent bad actors. I think most western systems are pretty good, but power has gotten a bit too centralized. Talking about the US specifically, the executive and judicial branches have gotten too powerful, and the legislative branch has gotten too weak. My priority would be to dramatically change how the legislature operates to strengthen it at the expense of the other two branches. In short, I believe in a gradualist approach, not a revolutionary one, where there's a concerted push to tear down the bits that are most repressive.
Any examples?
Here's an article about media bias against conservatives. I will say it's a lot harder to see if you agree with the conclusions.
The right does this nonsense a lot too, the left is just a bit more subtle, and generally speaking has the tech sector on its side. That's not to say the right is any better, in fact the right generally overreacts, which hurts their credibility even more and gives more credibility to the media and tech sectors. Since young people disproportionately use tech as a demographic, it's uniquely effective at shaping political opinions of the rising generations. Whether this is good or bad depends on your political aims, but I think it's a clear example of propaganda.
Capitalism is only voluntary for Capitalists
Couldn't you say that about socialism as well?
The thing is, socialism can exist within capitalism (e.g. worker coops and unions), but capitalism cannot really exist within socialism because of the difference in how property works.
It's not on the DNC to regulate the GOP, it's on the GOP to regulate the GOP. Basically, the GOP should have just refused to nominate Trump if they felt he was a serious threat to democracy (let him run as an independent).
It's on the DNC to stomp out fascism. The GOP is a fascist party, why would they stop Trump? Both parties serve their donors.
That's just going to result it the same problem, just with a very different smell. Nobody should "take power," a peaceful transfer of power between left and right (or a variety of other parties in parliamentary systems) is a sign of a healthy democracy. That's what I want, and every effort I put in will be to increase the smooth transition of power, not try to centralize power in my preferred side.
Why would it result in the same problem? Structurally. You just laid this claim out but didn't back it up. Secondly, a sign of a healthy democracy isn't a constant flip-flop, but high government approval rates. If neither major party is doing a good enough job, that's an unhealthy democracy. Finally, why would you not want to permanently beat fascism? What good does having an opposition party do?
Oh, a number of things. I completely reject the LTV, which is central to Marxist thought, for example, and the arguments there are numerous and well-documented so I'll leave that to the extant literature. I also don't believe a socialist state can actually devolve into a stateless society, those in power will cling to it and refuse to tear down the system that props them up (that's like expecting Trump to actually "drain the swamp" when he's a crocodile). I don't think anarchism can actually work because people are tribal and any anarchist system would devolve into some form of feudalism. But I'd like to get closer to anarchism rather than further away, and a dictatorship of the proletariat scares me.
Why do you reject the LTV? There are no good "takedowns" of it, ever, so far. Saying you'll leave it to "extant literature" is just a dodge. Secondly, saying that you think a State would continue and not dissolve into statelessness is a misunderstanding of what Marx refers to as a State, and what makes up Statelessness, which calls into further question your denial of the LTV previously. Anarchism likely won't work out, sure. Why does a Democratic Worker State, ie the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, scare you? Is Democracy scary if there are no Capitalists to steer it?
So I believe there will always need to be a state (some group w/ a monopoly on force), but that power needs to be carefully limited to prevent bad actors. I think most western systems are pretty good, but power has gotten a bit too centralized. Talking about the US specifically, the executive and judicial branches have gotten too powerful, and the legislative branch has gotten too weak. My priority would be to dramatically change how the legislature operates to strengthen it at the expense of the other two branches. In short, I believe in a gradualist approach, not a revolutionary one, where there's a concerted push to tear down the bits that are most repressive.
There will always be a government, not necessarily a State in the Marxist sense. Marx wasn't an Anarchist, the State is specifically a mechanism of Class oppression, not all administration or policing. This is again why I am calling into question your understanding of Marxism. You don't have to be a Marxist scholar, but understanding what you critique is important.
Here's an article about media bias against conservatives. I will say it's a lot harder to see if you agree with the conclusions.
The media is Liberal, not Leftist. Conservatives represent the far-right fringe of Liberalism, represented by fascism.
The right does this nonsense a lot too, the left is just a bit more subtle, and generally speaking has the tech sector on its side. That's not to say the right is any better, in fact the right generally overreacts, which hurts their credibility even more and gives more credibility to the media and tech sectors. Since young people disproportionately use tech as a demographic, it's uniquely effective at shaping political opinions of the rising generations. Whether this is good or bad depends on your political aims, but I think it's a clear example of propaganda.
You're confusing Liberalism with Leftism, here. Tech companies are not on the side of Leftists. Tech companies are Liberal, ie in favor of Capitalism, but not conservative, ie far-right Populism. Both are still right-wing and support the Capitalist status quo.
Couldn't you say that about socialism as well?
Yes, actually! Socialism is democracy for the Workers, against the former Capitalist oppressors, yes. That's the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, in response to the Capitalist Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. Democracy guided by and for the many is better than Democracy corrupted by and for the wealthy few.
The thing is, socialism can exist within capitalism (e.g. worker coops and unions), but capitalism cannot really exist within socialism because of the difference in how property works.
Yes. Is your point that we should allow feudalism in modern society too? Oppressive and dysfunctional organizational structures should be phased out in favor of more democratic structures that serve the people, rather than the wealthy elites.
The GOP is a fascist party
But they're not, and if you believe that, you're falling for leftist propaganda.
Yes, both parties serve their donors, but both parties are made up of individual citizens whose first loyalty should be to upholding the Constitution. If they don't believe a candidate will uphold the law of the land, they should refuse to allow them to win the nomination. That's one of the central messages of the book I linked.
Why would it result in the same problem? Structurally.
Look at where socialism has been tried. In the USSR, Stalin abused his power to send undesirables to the gulags, and there are plenty of books from first and second-hand sources about how that worked. Or look at the Cultural Revolution in China. Both states claimed to be socialist in some sense, and both resorted to extreme violence to establish their systems. Any system that relies on violence against dissidents to establish itself is morally bankrupt.
Secondly, a sign of a healthy democracy isn’t a constant flip-flop, but high government approval rates.
I disagree. High government approval rates can easily be manufactured, especially in a one-party state.
The way it should work is if one party is knocking it out of the park, the other party(s) will reform their policies to adopt the good parts of the party that's in power and attack the bad parts, which will make them more attractive to voters. That's why the policies of Democrats and Republicans essentially flipped around the Civil War. Also, the definition of "liberal" used to mean small government, limited entitlements, and now it generally means "progressive." Parties change as public sentiment changes, and that's a good thing, since that means they're adapting to what constituents want.
I think this process could be way more efficient, which is why I push for proportional representation and eliminating first past the post.
What good does having an opposition party do?
Keeps the party that's in power honest and constantly evolving to keep their constituents happy.
Saying you’ll leave it to “extant literature” is just a dodge
I thought you said you didn't want to throw books around. I've supplied a number of links, you haven't.
Here's a well-cited Wikipedia article about it.
Why does a Democratic Worker State, ie the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, scare you?
Because it's a one-party state. If you give a simple majority all of the power, you're leaving out almost half of the total, and what happens if people in that simple majority end up changing their mind? The whole point of the dictatorship is to prevent people from changing their minds, hence the dictatorship.
Marx didn't write a ton about it, but we can see the repression in the USSR and Maoist China as examples of reasons to avoid it.
Marx wasn’t an Anarchist,
Sure. IIRC, he advocated for dissolving state functions until a small committee of people orchestrates the economy (i.e. reallocate resources and whatnot).
I just don't see a strong government ever giving up power voluntarily. Who would actually do that? A lot would say they would, but that just doesn't happen in practice. It never happened in the USSR, and doesn't seem to be happening in China. There is no evidence that anyone in power would willingly give it up, especially if it's run by a group instead of an individual (a kingdom might yield power if a particular king/queen felt so inclined).
None of my concerns here have anything to do with Capitalism vs Socialism, but centralization of power (i.e. the political side, not the economic side). I just don't see a reason for the kind of person who works their way up the ranks of a political party to ever willingly cede power.
The media is Liberal, not Leftist
It's not far left, but it is "leftist," in the common meaning of the term.
Capitalist Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie.
Capitalism is an economic system, not a political system. Socialism is both (generally speaking). The political side most often paired with capitalism is most often liberalism, because liberalism is all about the separation and limiting of both.
I would say the US was a liberal democracy when formed, but that ship has long since sailed. Liberalism is all about individual rights and equality before the law, and those are both being trampled left and right. So what we're seeing today has little to do with pure capitalism, it's honestly getting closer to mercantilism, which is the marriage of government and the economy with a veneer of free markets. Look at the tariffs of Chinese EVs and whatnot, which are protectionist policies, which goes against the whole point of capitalism.
Is your point that we should allow feudalism in modern society too?
No, my point is that we should be limiting the interaction between the government and the economy, while also ensuring that the people generally benefit from any exclusivity granted to individuals in the economy. This means, in general:
- higher property taxes and negative income taxes - i.e. a minimum standard of living for the poor
- removal of most corporate legal protections - owners of corporations should be criminally liable for actions of their company
- dramatically limit IP protections - e.g. copyright law should last 10-15 years, not 90
And so on. Basically, the government should not be in the business of selecting who in the economy succeeds or fails, it should merely be in the business of collecting a distributing tax receipts, as well as protecting the populace militarily. Whether the economy booms or busts should be none of its concern. The main interaction between governments and the economy should be piguovian taxes, like carbon taxes and whatnot, and those should be strictly redistributed to the public to avoid any kind of favoritism in how they're assessed. Oh, and maybe trust-busting, monopolies help no-one.
In other words, capitalism shouldn't be eliminated, but quarantined, and stripped of any political power. It's an economic system, and it should remain as such.
But they're not, and if you believe that, you're falling for leftist propaganda.
They are a far-right corporatist party with core party lines of Nationalism, xenophobia, militancy, and class colaborationism. What boxes are they missing checkmarks for?
Yes, both parties serve their donors, but both parties are made up of individual citizens whose first loyalty should be to upholding the Constitution. If they don't believe a candidate will uphold the law of the land, they should refuse to allow them to win the nomination. That's one of the central messages of the book I linked.
We aren't talking about what people should do if everyone is morally upstanding. We are specifically talking about power structures as they materially exist, in the real world. The very fact that the only parties in power must be the parties that can gain funding from the wealthiest Americans means they must continue to represent their interests to retain power. You are speaking of an idealistic fantasy land.
Look at where socialism has been tried. In the USSR, Stalin abused his power to send undesirables to the gulags, and there are plenty of books from first and second-hand sources about how that worked. Or look at the Cultural Revolution in China. Both states claimed to be socialist in some sense, and both resorted to extreme violence to establish their systems. Any system that relies on violence against dissidents to establish itself is morally bankrupt.
Yes, both the USSR and PRC had violent revolutions. The US also uses violence against dissidents, and has the highest prison population in the world per Capita.
What we can also see is that the USSR and PRC drastically reduced poverty and drastically increased life expectency. For all of their well-documented problems, there are also well-documented success stories, and a large amount of nostalgia for the USSR in most Post-Soviet countries. Make of that what you will.
I disagree. High government approval rates can easily be manufactured, especially in a one-party state.
They can also be easily manufactured in a two-party state, that doesn't change that the actual approval for government is the necessary metric.
The way it should work is if one party is knocking it out of the park, the other party(s) will reform their policies to adopt the good parts of the party that's in power and attack the bad parts, which will make them more attractive to voters. That's why the policies of Democrats and Republicans essentially flipped around the Civil War. Also, the definition of "liberal" used to mean small government, limited entitlements, and now it generally means "progressive." Parties change as public sentiment changes, and that's a good thing, since that means they're adapting to what constituents want.
If both parties have low approval rates, what then?
I think this process could be way more efficient, which is why I push for proportional representation and eliminating first past the post.
Better than what we have now, sure.
Keeps the party that's in power honest and constantly evolving to keep their constituents happy.
You don't need an opposition party, just democratic control within the party and state. Again, see what the citizens actually want, there's plenty of room for diversity of thought even within a single party.
None of them hold water. I could point you to Wage Labor and Capital, or Value, Price and Profit, or even Capital, but if I don't know what specifically you find disagreeable with the LTV, I can't answer. Do you want me to go through the entire Wikipedia article for you? I specifically didn't want to throw books at you because you aren't going to read them just for a Lemmy argument, which is why I asked you personally to offer an explanation. In absence of any specifically stated criticism on your part, here is a good general article supporting the Labor Theory of Value in contemporary time.
Because it's a one-party state. If you give a simple majority all of the power, you're leaving out almost half of the total, and what happens if people in that simple majority end up changing their mind? The whole point of the dictatorship is to prevent people from changing their minds, hence the dictatorship.
You're misreading quite a few things here. A one-party state doesn't mean no elections, councils, ballot measures, minority protections, or so forth. The point of a Dictatorship of the Proletariat is to simply prevent Capitalists from corrupting the state.
Marx didn't write a ton about it, but we can see the repression in the USSR and Maoist China as examples of reasons to avoid it.
Both the USSR and Maoist China were more democratic than Tsarist Russia and Nationalist China, and the Russian Federation is less democratic than the USSR was.
Sure. IIRC, he advocated for dissolving state functions until a small committee of people orchestrates the economy (i.e. reallocate resources and whatnot).
Not necessarily, he just argued for the elements of government that oppress other classes, what he referred to as the "state," to whither away. This is a necessary consequence of eliminating classes themselves.
I just don't see a strong government ever giving up power voluntarily. Who would actually do that? A lot would say they would, but that just doesn't happen in practice. It never happened in the USSR, and doesn't seem to be happening in China. There is no evidence that anyone in power would willingly give it up, especially if it's run by a group instead of an individual (a kingdom might yield power if a particular king/queen felt so inclined).
See the previous point. The government doesn't "relinquish power," the structures themselves become redundant. Do you see lamp-lighters lighting oil street lanterns anymore? No, because they are electric now. We do not maintain structures that have no use.
None of my concerns here have anything to do with Capitalism vs Socialism, but centralization of power (i.e. the political side, not the economic side). I just don't see a reason for the kind of person who works their way up the ranks of a political party to ever willingly cede power.
Again, it isn't about ceding power. You can read Critique of the Gotha Programme for more information, since you want links.
Capitalism is an economic system, not a political system. Socialism is both (generally speaking). The political side most often paired with capitalism is most often liberalism, because liberalism is all about the separation and limiting of both.
Economics and politics cannot be divorced from one another. Democracy within a Capitalist system means Capitalists have outsized power, and the state will serve the Capitalists.
I would say the US was a liberal democracy when formed, but that ship has long since sailed. Liberalism is all about individual rights and equality before the law, and those are both being trampled left and right. So what we're seeing today has little to do with pure capitalism, it's honestly getting closer to mercantilism, which is the marriage of government and the economy with a veneer of free markets. Look at the tariffs of Chinese EVs and whatnot, which are protectionist policies, which goes against the whole point of capitalism.
You're again attaching idealism to reality. Reality does not care what people believe about it.
No, my point is that we should be limiting the interaction between the government and the economy, while also ensuring that the people generally benefit from any exclusivity granted to individuals in the economy. This means, in general:
- higher property taxes and negative income taxes - i.e. a minimum standard of living for the poor
- removal of most corporate legal protections - owners of corporations should be criminally liable for actions of their company
- dramatically limit IP protections - e.g. copyright law should last 10-15 years, not 90
Why? How would this maintain itself in Capitalism? Why would either party move in this direction? Why would the donors pivot to weakening their power?
And so on. Basically, the government should not be in the business of selecting who in the economy succeeds or fails, it should merely be in the business of collecting a distributing tax receipts, as well as protecting the populace militarily. Whether the economy booms or busts should be none of its concern. The main interaction between governments and the economy should be piguovian taxes, like carbon taxes and whatnot, and those should be strictly redistributed to the public to avoid any kind of favoritism in how they're assessed. Oh, and maybe trust-busting, monopolies help no-one.
Again, why? This seems like it sounds cool to you, but you've done no thought on how to make reality reflect it. A lot of "shoulds," as usual from you, with no analysis of why things are the way they are.
In other words, capitalism shouldn't be eliminated, but quarantined, and stripped of any political power. It's an economic system, and it should remain as such.
It can't, because Capitalists control the state, and will not change just because they should. Read Socialism: Utopian and Scientific to understand why people who focus on what the ruling class should do (referred to as Utopians) have failed every time.
Using political violence to defeat the politically violent is an absolute last resort. It forever changes the norms of the country and significantly weakens the democracy. It proves the violent correct in a sense, that the peaceful system is inadequate and violent retribution is how you should achieve your goals.
The only way to try and save face is if the people who violently overthrow the fascists say in turn "arrest me for what I've done". Because this isn't just about defeating the fascists -- we also need to preserve our peaceful democracy.
Using political violence to defeat the politically violent is an absolute last resort. It forever changes the norms of the country and significantly weakens the democracy. It proves the violent correct in a sense, that the peaceful system is inadequate and violent retribution is how you should achieve your goals.
Political violence is a tool, and a fact of reality. Every day, the state commits violence. 90 Palestinians were murdered in a failed attempt to kill a Hamas leader the same day Trump's attempted assassination happened. Only one event was front page news. We also don't have a strong democracy to begin with, both major parties represent their donors, not the people.
The only way to try and save face is if the people who violently overthrow the fascists say in turn "arrest me for what I've done". Because this isn't just about defeating the fascists -- we also need to preserve our peaceful democracy.
I laughed. The people who violently overthrew fascists should be celebrated, civility politics is brainrot. If you're saying that the French Resistance during WWII should have been arrested after the war, or that you would arrest people if they succeeded in assassinating Hitler, you make yourself an unintentional ally to fascists and easy prey for them.