this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2025
261 points (97.8% liked)

United States | News & Politics

8268 readers
610 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
pangyuehung@lemmy.ml
yogthos@lemmy.ml
261
Once again, the parasitic administration of billionaires has chosen to sacrifice the lives of millions of people in the U.S. by choice. (lemmy.ml)
submitted 5 days ago by Confidant6198@lemmy.ml to c/usa@lemmy.ml
25 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/32985996

top 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sartalon@lemmy.world 18 points 5 days ago (3 children)

I'm not a tankie/communist/socialist. In fact at this point, I'm afraid to ask for clarification.

Between my wife and I, we make pretty solid money. We own our home, we don't live paycheck to paycheck, have good health insurance, and have solid retirement accounts.

I would not complain at all, if that shit burned to the ground omif it meant an end to this bullshit system in place today.

My wife and I also grew up poor as shit. My single Mom fed us with food stamps and government cheese.

I'll gladly live that life again if it meant no more dragon hoarding billionaires using their money to dictate politics.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 4 days ago

The simplest way to pitch socialism, in my opinion, is that under a system where private property governs the large firms and key industries (ie, capitalism), eventually you reach a point where even the initially progressive elements of markets turn into monopoly, mass disparity, and even imperialism in the case of the global north, who outsources the greatest suffering of the system to the global south.

The only remedy, is to get to a system where public ownership of the large firms and key industries is principle, ie socialism. It's better for the industry built up under capitalism to be collectivized and planned to suit our needs. Central planning is remarkably effective, even more so over the large industries once markets have "figured out" optimal methods of planning internally.

How do we get there? Revolution. How can we feasibly have a revolution against the largest millitary in the world? Worker organizing, engaging in party building, and building up unified democratic networks of working class people. Imperialism weakens over time, and as a consequence, so too does the state, allowing the working class party to take decisive action at times of crisis. We have to build that now, because we can't predict when that crisis will arrive, just that it becomes more likely the further weakened the system gets.

Why can't we reform the system? Because the state will always side with whichever aspect of the economy is principle. This is the class nature of the state, you cannot simply ask Musk to hand over SpaceX and Tesla, nor Bezos Amazon. The working class needs to smash the former state, and replace it with a working class one.

Those are the bare basics, the reading list I linked in my other reply is for if you want to learn more about these concepts, their underlying evidence, and dive deeper into the reasoning behind them.

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)
[–] sartalon@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago (2 children)

This is going to be a deep dive, I appreciate the info!

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 days ago

No probs! @Cowbee@lemmy.ml also has some great introductory resources.

[–] Confidant6198@lemmy.ml 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)
[–] sartalon@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago

I love the sources everyone is throwing at me. This is great, thank you!

[–] SnarkoPolo@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

"And we's all votin' for his third term, cuz he's owning the libs!"

[–] WatDabney@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 5 days ago

Yes.

The pressure is mounting. The overt harm that the billionaires do merely by their existence - merely by holding wealth that could instead have served to keep the poorest people sheltered and fed - becomes more obvious with every passing day and every newly unhoused and unfed American.

But, psychopaths that they necessarily are, the billionaires are unwilling to give up any of their wealth, and in fact are instead looking for any opportunity to increase it. Always.

So, to them, the solution is simple - we need to kill as many poor people as possible, so they won't be around being poor and making billionaires look bad.

And to all too many of them, that much the better if most of the dead are minorities.

[–] ScoffingLizard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 days ago

Well that doesn't matter because exploited immigrants are using my tax dollars to get bread and milk with WIC vouchers and we stopped those two trans kids from playing collegiate sports. Where are everyone's priorities?

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 5 points 5 days ago (2 children)

They’re hardly both the same.

[–] Grapho@lemmy.ml 7 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

The purpose of a machine is what it does. Whenever Dems have a majority all they do is stall or endlessly dilute their bills until what was originally supposed to be a meal program or closing a loophole for insurance to scam people or whatever, has to include millions for cops or the DEA or an aid package for Israel. Real convenient how they're allowed to be real loud and progressive only when they're guaranteed to lose the vote.

The system remains functionally the same. It matters very little who has the majority, whatever the government ends up doing is usually what is popular with billionaires.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world -2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The last time Democrats had the same majority in congress that Republicans have now was the 111th Congress. It was considered the most productive Congress since the 89th, which was also a Democratic majority.

The slim majorities that Democrats have had since have been packed full of centrists due to the horrifically low congressional primary attendance (<15%) for the last few decades. We need to stop allowing retirees to fill our ballots with conservatives and centrists, and vote in the progressives that will actively bring about change.

[–] Grapho@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Productive for whom? Having an assload of dem bills isn't progress in and of itself. What did that congress pass that made life meaningfully better for everyone? They could have passed single payer healthcare, didn't. They could have passed medicare for all, didn't. They could have raised the federal minimum wage, didn't. Could have codified Roe v. Wade, fucking didn't.

First they filled the Obama cabinet with citibank execs right as it became clear that bankers had caused the economic equivalent of a manmade famine for a quick buck. Then, when it was time to pass the bills that got them elected they dragged their feet and watered down the bills as soon as they had the flimsiest excuse. I won't call it "compromising" because if they absolutely wanted to put their foot down and pass all that shit, they could have. We've seen ample proof. Their sponsors wouldn't stand for it and that's who calls the shots in Washington.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world -2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Did you read the link? No.

They raised minimum wage before they did anything else. They also enacted equal pay laws and several insurance protections. Read it and come back with informed criticism. This uninformed “democrats bad” nonsense is not worthy of debate.

[–] Transform2942@lemmy.ml 7 points 5 days ago

Different masks, different stage personas, same masters