the US relies heavily on imports and doesn’t have a strong manufacturing base for most products
And that’s the problem Trump is seemingly trying to fix. I agree he’s not going about the right way. His approach is a kind of clumsy shock therapy, that will cause chaos in at least the short term and may or may not produce the desired result, eventually, but reshoring production and rebuilding a strong manufacturing base for the US is a goal shared by the Democrats, as well.
This meme is pretty dumb, but that’s clearly not the point they’re trying to make. They’re not blaming Democrats for things Republicans do, they’re saying that Democrats aren’t putting up a sufficient opposition to the Republicans. I think that’s a valid point, even if this meme itself is flawed.
somehow claim you’re not only not copying it, but never even knew they did it.
I never said that I didn’t know that many Republicans also refer to them as the Democrat party. I was aware of that. I, however, never cared to find out what their reasons for doing it were, because, as I’ve already stated, I don’t care. They may do it for the same reason I do, I don’t care. I don’t care what the Republicans think, and I don’t care what you think.
I don’t know what the Republicans’ reasoning is, and I don’t care. I know what my reasoning is, and I just explained it. I really don’t care if you think it’s dumb.
I intentionally use the grammatically incorrect ‘Democrat’ party because the adjective democratic is not an accurate description of the party’s values and ideals.
Democratic means “of, characterized by, or advocating democracy,” with democracy of course being a government by the people, or government of which the people are the ultimate authority. The Democrat party are NOT advocates for such a government. They want a neoliberal technocratic government. To call the Democrat party “democratic” is a vile lie that I absolutely will not help to perpetuate, grammar be damned.
I don’t think the Democrats should try to make a party for everyone. I don’t think that’s even possible. Fortunately, democracy doesn’t require unanimous consensus. A simple majority will do.
48.3% of those who voted in the 2024 presidential election, voted for Harris. However, those voters represent less than 1/3 of all eligible voters, far from a majority.
The Democrat party claims they want to be a big tent party, but they’re doing a piss poor job of getting a majority of voters to come into their tent.
Democrats want to stop Trump
Perhaps, but not enough to metaphorically go rushing into a school where there’s an active shooter, putting their lives at risk.
The Democrats didn’t hate Reagan enough to not continue with his neoliberal policies once they got back into office in 1992. In fact, the neoliberal era really started in the late 70s when the Democrat Jimmy Carter was in office.
The Democrats are not protectors, they’re not heroes, they’re not martyrs. The Democrat party is not a revolutionary party, they’re a party of people who generally liked things the way they were between roughly 1980 and 2016. They’re the party of people who did very well for themselves during that period, and as a result they have a lot to lose. They’re not going to risk all that they’ve gained, to fight for someone else’s vision of a theoretically better society.
The world has reached peak agricultural land, so to feed an increasing number of people, will need to increase agricultural land efficiency (increased food production per hectare). This will likely mean less meat production, since meat production is not a maximally efficient use of land, in calories produced per hectare. That’s certainly not a bad thing, as a mostly plant based diet is better for human health and the environment.
But, we have committed to a market based distribution system, so it’s up to the invisible hand, which is not necessarily great at achieving maximum efficiency.
Their sustainability solution states that we don’t see any evidence of ETIs because rapid growth is not a sustainable development pattern. From this perspective, the Kardashev Scale is rendered futile. No civilization will ever use all available energy from its planet, star, or galaxy, because the growth required to reach that level of mastery is unsustainable.
I think that makes so much sense. I don’t think it makes sense to define “advanced” as a civilization that grows at a rapid and exponential rate, like a plague of locusts, depleting nonrenewable resources and causing irreparable damage to the only human habitable planet known to exist in the entire universe. Even if it can be considered advanced, it should also be considered extremely unwise.
This looks pretty silly, but then, I suppose when you think about it, Superman is kind of silly. Might as well lean into it. I’ve seen the serious, melodramatic superman and I really didn’t care for it. Maybe this will work better. Then again, maybe it won’t. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.
If that’s what you think, that’s fine. I don’t really care. But, if progressivism can’t be capitalist then people like Bernie Sanders and AOC aren’t progressives, since they’re not anti-capitalists. They advocate for a capitalist system that has a robust social safety net that’s funded by a progressive tax system.
Edit:
In modern political discourse, progressivism is often associated with social liberalism, a left-leaning type of liberalism, and social democracy. Within economic progressivism, there is some ideological variety on the social liberal to social democrat continuum, as well as occasionally some variance on cultural issues; examples of this include some Christian democrat and conservative-leaning communitarian movements. While many ideologies can fall under the banner of progressivism, both the current and historical movement are characterized by a critique of unregulated capitalism, desiring a more active democratic government to take a role in safeguarding human rights, bringing about cultural development, and being a check-and-balance on corporate monopolies. There are differences in specific approaches between factions, including capitalist-leaning social liberals and social democrats versus some anti-capitalist democratic socialists.
There are differences in specific approaches between factions, including capitalist-leaning social liberals and social democrats versus some anti-capitalist democratic socialists.
From Wikipedia.
I think we both know you meant it as a synonym for progressivism.
Well, you’re wrong. I said liberalism, because I meant liberalism, and I gave you a definition of liberalism just so we are clear on terms.
Are some anti-capitalists also opposed to “progressivism” (as you define it)? Yes, some certainly are. Again, you may call these people fascists, but they don’t see themselves as fascists. Marxian socialism (which is anti-capitalist by definition), does not have to be progressive. Similarly, liberal capitalism does not have to be anti-progressive. Many capitalists at least claim to support anti-racism, feminism, and some form of globalism.
I use liberalism to mean liberalism:
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, the right to private property and equality before the law.
There are many Marxists who are opposed to much, if not all of these things. They are unequivocally opposed to the right to private property. That is foundational to Marxism. Marxists-Leninsts specifically do not seek the consent of the governed, nor are they committed to the protection of individual rights, liberties, or political equality. You might think that makes them fascists, but they don’t consider themselves fascists. They do, however, consider themselves anti-capitalists.
The path to anti-capitalism is not necessarily a straight line. People can reach it from many different, winding roads. Also, people are complex, we can hold a diversity of thoughts, on numerous different topics, simultaneously.
It should also be noted that anti-capitalists are not a monolith or hive-mind. Some anti-capitalists are relatively conservative, especially by Western, liberal standards. In fact, many Marxists are quite opposed to liberalism in general.
It may be that this young man isn’t an anti-capitalist after all. It doesn’t change my support. He has helped further expose the inhumanity of capitalism, either way.
I agree, rebuilding a US manufacturing base will require competent planning and management, but those are bad words here in the US, when it comes to the economy. To many Americans, competent, central economic management, direction, and planning is tyrannical rule by elites. To those Americans, Trump is the antidote. You might point out that there is significant irony in that. I agree, it is ironic, but that irony is completely lost on many millions of Americans.