top 80 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 15 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I think it can be ship of theseus'd, just replace all the key people in the party and keep the name.

FDR was a democrat, if it could go from that to what it is now, it can be turned back into a socialist party.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    Parties can absolutely change with enough pressure.

    I've been alive long enough to watch the Republican party almost completely change. Yeah, they were always stupid assholes. But they were not even close to THIS crazy and traitorous. Their base changed them. The liberal base can change the Democrat party.

    The Democrat party is ESTABLISHED. No 3rd party is even remotely close to being established. It is not the time yet to vote for a 3rd party and won't be until a 3rd party actually gets serious and starts winning smaller elections.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    somebody said it nicely yesterday in a lemmy comment:

    we need to capture the dems and turn them into a socialist party,
    just like the fascists captured the reps and turned them into a nazi party

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    If Zohran Mamdani gets elected and actually follows through with his campaign promises, this is factually incorrect. I am holding on to that last glimmer of hope.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    actually follows through with his campaign promises

    Don't count on it. Not for any bad reason, just that things are harder to implement than campaign promises, whether it's city council in the way or just practicality.

    I'm just saying he can be a success without implementing all of his campaign ideas.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    If he legitimately tries, that is enough for me.

    I can almost guarantee you that both corporations and the right wing will try to stop or reverse anything he does. If he shows that the Republicans oppose these extremely popular initiatives, it might cause a massive swing of voters, who believed trump's campaign promises, to shift over to the left.

    https://gothamist.com/news/how-voters-in-trump-districts-helped-mamdani-win-the-democratic-primary

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I wish I could.

    I'm expecting Hope and Change 2.0. Mamdani is almost certainly going to quickly be informed of how wealthy he and his kids can be and turn his back on New Yorkers if he gets elected, just like Obama.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (18 children)

    You can do what the tea party did: capture a small enough portion of your voting base that covers the margin of victory (aka: the short hairs) and demand the party do your bidding.

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    That'd require progressives to have something resembling spine. Good fucking luck.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Dumb doomer attitudes like this and the rest constantly plastered all over Lemmy (always by the same handful of users I've noticed) certainly isn't helping. "American" Lemmy is a small community, it's a lot smaller when you take out the bad faith "memelords" incessantly both-sides-ing and advocating for non-participation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    That’d require progressives to have something resembling spine

    It would require progressives to actually vote in the primaries, which 90% of people on here discourage at every opportunity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    The only people I routinely read on here bringing up non-voting are centrists. All the progressives, aside from a few performative tankies, I read on here said, "I'll hold my nose and vote for Kamala, but her choices are going to cost her the election."

    The progressives showed up and voted for Kamala. And just like the progressives predicted, her shit policies meant that large numbers of low-engagement voters simply saw no reason to vote for her. Her democracy message fell flat because if you're in the poorest 90% of the US, you do not live in a democracy.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    I mean, that's fine too but not really what the parent comment is talking about.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    It's not? That's literally what the Tea Party did.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Not really. The Tear Party replaced a pro-business party with an even more pro-business party. Or they replaced the pro-business party with a more bigoted pro-business party. They made no fundamental challenge to the power of wealth and influence within the Republican party. And they were not a real grass roots organization.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    capture a small enough portion of your voting base that covers the margin of victory (aka: the short hairs) and demand the party do your bidding.

    Now I have no idea if that's what the Tea Party did as I was way too young for politics at that time, but American progressives regard this particular strategy as nothing less than anathema to their very existence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    but American progressives regard this particular strategy as nothing less than anathema to their very existence.

    Yes, because it would require them to vote in the primaries to demonstrate the capture of the voting base?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    No, because most progressives would never make that threat, let alone follow up on it. I mean would you say "they didn't do what we want, don't vote Democrat"? Exactly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    The fact is that the explicit threat doesn't need to be made for there to be a threat - the Tea Party generally did not make explicit threats. The implicit threat by demonstrating a significant portion of the voting base as adhering to your ideas is, itself, a threat.

    Meanwhile, progressives very often, as demonstrated on here, regularly say "The Dems haven't done what we want, don't vote Democrat!" and act surprised that their total lack of demonstration of support in elections for progressive candidates has failed to give them pull with the national party with this threat.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    The implicit threat by demonstrating a significant portion of the voting base as adhering to your ideas is, itself, a threat.

    Bernie's performance in the primary was enough of a demonstration. The DNC's obstinacy can't be spun as ignorance after the lengths they went to to keep Bernie down (and, you know, primary results). The point has been demonstrated and they don't fucking care; make of that what you will.

    Meanwhile, progressives very often, as demonstrated on here, regularly say "The Dems haven't done what we want, don't vote Democrat!"

    What's happening on Lemmy is a bunch of basement dwellers (including yours truly) yelling at each other. Nobody with any real amount of reach is saying this; that's why Uncommitted (even though they didn't even say "don't vote for Harris") was such a big deal and why so many progressives fucking hated it. I remember in 2024 that for every one person even remotely critical of Biden or Harris there would be nine people calling them everything from undercover MAGA to a Russian troll to a useful idiot and downvoted to hell. The anti-leftist crusades still haven't ended, despite left-leaning voters having overwhelmingly voted for Harris and most non-voters by far being moderates. I'm not passing judgement on either position as that's irrelevant to the argument being made, but while there's a loud anti-Democrat minority, reality has clearly and repeatedly demonstrated how the majority of progressives feel about this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Bernie’s performance in the primary was enough of a demonstration.

    In 2016, when his success was overwhelmingly due to anti-Hillary sentiment? Bernie won West fucking Virginia, for Christ's sake. It's not because Bernie or progressivism was popular there. Or in 2020, when Bernie won a whopping 26% of the vote?

    The DNC’s obstinacy can’t be spun as ignorance after the lengths they went to to keep Bernie down (and, you know, primary results). The point has been demonstrated and they don’t fucking care; make of that what you will.

    It's not ignorance. It's complacency - a complacency that is enabled by progressive detachment from Dem politics. Progressives regularly fail to demonstrate significant electoral pull, and then question why no one fucking listens to us.

    What’s happening on Lemmy is a bunch of basement dwellers (including yours truly) yelling at each other. Nobody with any real amount of reach is saying this; that’s why Uncommitted (even though they didn’t even say “don’t vote for Harris”) was such a big deal and why so many progressives fucking hated it.

    Alright, but considering that many groups involved with the Uncommitted movement ended up, afterwards, explicitly saying "Don't vote for Harris"...?

    I remember in 2024 that for every one person even remotely critical of Biden or Harris there would be nine people calling them everything from undercover MAGA to a Russian troll to a useful idiot and downvoted to hell.

    Considering that many of them were and remain useful idiots peddling the exact same talking points now as they were then about how voting is implicitly (or sometimes explicitly) worthless?

    You also don't seem to remember the ratios very well, considering that such users were highly upvoted and comment chains filled with their supporters; rarely did it drop under 50-50, and the asspat brigade was always there to fluff them.

    The anti-leftist crusades still haven’t ended, despite left-leaning voters having overwhelmingly voted for Harris

    And yet of the 10 million votes lost between 2020 and 2024, they were overwhelmingly lost from young, progressive voters who cited progressive issues as their reason for not voting for Harris.

    and most non-voters by far being moderates.

    One expects right-wing ghouls to be idiots who are okay with increased suffering for marginalized demographics. Leftists who claim to believe otherwise and then act in direct contradiction to those stated values are a bit more jarring.

    There’s a loud anti-Democrat minority, but reality has clearly and repeatedly demonstrated how the majority of progressives feel about this.

    There's a loud and influential anti-Democrat minority whose effect is multiplicative on the already small turnouts of Dem primaries.

    If 2% of the electorate convinces another 2% of the electorate not to vote, that's 8% of the votes lost in a general election with a typical turnout of ~50%, and 20% of the votes in a primary election with a typical turnout of ~20%

    The majority of progressives voting is hindered by that very real and significant minority, especially when general elections are won on margins of 1-2% of the actively voting electorate and primaries demonstrate to parties the general sentiment of the party's base.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    Or in 2020, when Bernie won a whopping 26% of the vote?

    Setting aside establishment collusion because I'm sure you've read that Jacobin article already, 26% percent of the vote is enough to "capture a small enough portion of your voting base that covers the margin of victory (aka: the short hairs) and demand the party do your bidding". If you disagree with that strategy your argument is with the parent comment, but the condition was fulfilled in 2020.

    Alright, but considering that many groups involved with the Uncommitted movement ended up, afterwards, explicitly saying "Don't vote for Harris"...?

    What, exactly? You're not making any point.

    It's complacency - a complacency that is enabled by progressive detachment from Dem politics.

    How in the actual fuck is 26% of the vote (after ridiculous amounts of sabotage, mind you) detachment? That's more than twice the proportion of progressives in the Democratic Party (p.96).

    Considering that many of them were and remain useful idiots peddling the exact same talking points now as they were then about how voting is implicitly (or sometimes explicitly) worthless?

    Why do you feel the need to respond to statements of fact with moral condemnation? That could be true and it would have no bearing on my argument.

    rarely did it drop under 50-50, and the asspat brigade was always there to fluff them.

    It depended on the community, but on mainstream communities it was a lot more than "rarely". Source: I was one of the ones getting downvoted and flooded with a hundred versions of the same three arguments. That was about the time I lost faith in American democracy, and certainly not because I was getting upvoted when saying progressives needed to pick more fights with the DNC.

    they were overwhelmingly lost from young, progressive voters who cited progressive issues as their reason for not voting for Harris.

    Where did you get "young, progressive"? In battleground states the economy was the top issue according to your own link, and as I said before there's no guarantee that all or even most Gaza non-voters are progressives. Yes, opposing genocide isn't a moderate position, but it's not like progressive politics come as one prepackaged set. It's not like Midwest Arabs suddenly became progressive overnight.

    Leftists who claim to believe otherwise and then act in direct contradiction to those stated values are a bit more jarring.

    That's not the point. Since it's mostly moderates who dropped the ball, the anti-leftist crusades are beating a dead horse, alienating potential allies for no real purpose and a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes leftists an (occasionally) effective political force. Hint: It's not sheer numbers or pandering to the establishment.

    There's a loud and influential anti-Democrat minority whose effect is multiplicative on the already small turnouts of Dem primaries.

    This argument would hold water if the "mainstream" progressive narrative was anti-Democrat, but with that decidedly not the case non-voters were people already predisposed to coming to that conclusion for one reason or another. You'd need to completely eliminate anti-Democrat rhetoric to have a shot at keeping those people, which would entail creating a pro-Harris walled garden that realistically cannot exist. Leftwing dissent isn't even your biggest problem here; Republicans are always out there happy to exploit the Dems' political weaknesses, and good luck getting those Arab-Americans to shut up about all those funerals they keep attending and the disdain they keep receiving from the Democrats for it. Remember who organized and formed the core of Uncommitted? The "ideal" (I personally consider it dystopian) environment you're gunning for is a fool's errand because unfortunately America happens to be a society.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    you have no choice except this or violent revolt because your election system is garbage.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Have you paid attention to how european countries with various election systems (some non-garbage) are voting?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    yes. the numbers are roughly the same, in the 20-35% range of the population.

    but because our systems are generally more robust, it's easier to fight back, while the US has become completely captured because their system is antiquated and easily gamed.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    don’t threaten me with a good time. (fully aware that a revolt is not a good time)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    haha yeah, i mean, whatever ppl want, i just want them to be realistic about this, rather than pretending suddenly a plurality of the American voting populace in enough states are going to start voting DSA. XD

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Lol.

    Americans are too pussy to violently revolt. If it was going to happen it would have already happened.

    So the next, actually realistic option, is to change the Democrat party by primarying the shit out of the reps that won't get onboard with what liberals want.

    How do I know this is possible? Because conservative voters just did it to the Republican party over the last decade or two.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    We need to get involved at the primary level, not lament the choices we are left with when primary election turnout is hilariously low. I'd be surprised if the average voter even knows what a primary election is.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    I believe this is definitely a place to focus. In my area there isn't even enough candidates to fill the democratic party primary ballot, people on this platform bitching need to run for office instead of just whining about it (myself included)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It's not the democratic party, it's the US itself that is rotten. The dem are just another manifestation of the issue.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Great way to logic. Let me try...

    You cannot reform the United States of America because at it's core it is a capitalist and imperialist country that will always put corporate interests over human interests.

    Oh shit, now the whole project is hopeless. Let me try again.

    You cannot reform humanity because at it's core it is selfish and self-serving.

    I guess we are all fucked. Or maybe we grow the fuck up and deal with the reality of what's in front of us and the work involved in making things better. If we can't reform the Democrats, then we have no chance in hell of shepherding a new party from nothing to national powerhouse without losing it to the same corrupting forces that hold the Democrats. Never-mind the realities of what it would take to take over the country with a third party in a first past the post system.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    Let me borrow a quote (paraphrase) from Rumsfeld: You build a society with the people you have, not the people you wish you had or may have at some future time

    (Feel free to credit that directly to Rumsfeld. It'd piss him off.)

    All nations are peopled with selfish and self-serving apes. We've always depended on sociological tricks to get them to function within the social contract, but it does mean those with more power tend to try to hoard it, and the mechanisms we used to curb that were all captured and broken.

    We can build a better society, but it will mean either violently seizing the property of those in power, or threatening them with an even greater violence that could ruin all they value. General strikes have been effective sometimes in Europe, but it's think-outside-the-box time.

    Since we don't have a salted hydrogen bomb, I got nothing personally, but I haven't stopped thinking about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    You cannot reform the United States of America because at it’s core it is a capitalist and imperialist country that will always put corporate interests over human interests.

    I mean, did you ever reform the USA to be anything but that?

    Yes, the USA is a capitalist and imperialist country at its core. Half the planet wants it dead, the other half look at it with disdain. Nothing short of going back to the drawing board will save a country built on genocide, land theft and staging coups and waging wars worldwide

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (33 children)

    We just witnessed an internal party takeover in the Republican party. What dumbass thinks the same couldn't possibly happen in the Democratic party?

  • source
  • hideshow 33 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (31 children)

    David Hogg won a legitimate party election to become vice chair because he was popular and then was removed by tje DNC for having the wrong ideology.

    They have shown us many times they will not allow themselves to change

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Because we haven't put enough pressure on them yet.

    Did you think this would end with David Hogg winning a vice chair position?

    Gonna take more than that to change a party. But it's better than everyone splitting the vote for various 3rd parties that have absolutely no presence at all, whatsoever.

    Let's see what happens with this NYC election. That's a bigger deal than David Hogg.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (24 children)

    If people start voting in primaries that can change.

    Am I optimistic that it will? No. But the problem is that people who want to see change aren't voting in primaries and then they complain that their choices suck.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    Right…the primaries. Like when Jessica Cisneros ran in Texas, and Pelosi backed Henry Cuellar instead (voted with Trump >80% of the time) and poured tens of millions of DNC money into that race to ensure the progressive Cisneros lost.

    Or perhaps more recently, when the DNC anointed candidates for the presidential nomination TWICE without holding a primary election in good faith. Then lost in spectacular fashion.

    Establishment dems don’t play fair when they get challenged from the left, hell they completely throw democracy out the window when that happens. The party is lost and the real “Republican agents” are the ones saying “no no, keep voting blue you can change the party from within!” It’s a fool’s errand.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    Yeah, the establishment has their thumb on the scale, and that sucks. It means that it will take more primary voters to overwhelm their influence. Like I said, I'm not optimistic.

    But it is still the most viable path to change at this time. Unless you have a better suggestion? (Or do you just want to complain?)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (12 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    Get rid of it and replace with star voting as a national standard. Abolish the electoral college. If Congress wont represent us in these initiatives, hold an article V convention for the states to directly amend the constitution with these new voting regulations.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    If the states meet, it's right wing bullshit getting passed, not the things you want. They're actively trying to do exactly that

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yep, I hear this same tired argument every time it comes down to article V to get shit done, and it’s always some boomer defender of the status quo. I’m sure we’ll keep hearing it until all state legislatures are fully captured, but thankfully we aren’t there yet.

    How about, and hear me out - we organize and mobilize the convention for populist left changes only, and tell any and all repugs to get bent if they so much as try to get a foot in the door? If they don’t understand, I’m sure the business end of some quality American made firearms can help them along.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    That's not remotely how conventions work.

    Your solution to the issue of changing the Democratic party from the inside being difficult... is a violent rebellion. You think that's more feasible? Absurd

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Yeah, we’ve got to get rid of it. Could have been done easily with voting rights act on Biden’s day 1, but golly gee just couldn’t find the votes for any of that “supporting democracy” initiative now could we. Now look at what’s become of American democracy just a few short years later. Pathetic.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Enjoy descending further into fascism then, because that’s clearly the direction we’re ratcheting towards.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Your plan is to break the ratchet, sending us careening right in hopes that a new party can gain traction fast enough to overcome both Democrats and Republicans before the country is completely lost. Terrible idea.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    What you described does sound terrible, but those are your words not mine. The establishment politicians are already a uniparty serving only the rich and corporations and careening ever rightward towards full on authoritarianism.

    What I’m claiming is that if you give the American people an actual choice, many would be surprised at how much support progressive politics receives. If we added in a national voting holiday to further enable democracy, the tides would turn in a single election cycle.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Ok.

    So we've established that you like complaining.

    Now let's move on to the part where you have some suggestions.

    Because if your suggestion is voting 3rd party you need to understand some things.

    1. Which 3rd party? Cuz Americans splitting their votes among multiple 3rd parties guarantees a further decline into Republican fascism.

    2. No 3rd party, at all, is ready to start winning national elections. They aren't even really winning any local or state elections. It's going to take a long time before a 3rd party is viable IF one decides to start putting in the hard work. So what would you suggest doing in the meantime when it comes to national elections?

    You don't need to keep telling us everything is shitty. We get it. Start telling us what you think should be done about it that actually makes sense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*
    1. Anything left of center. Honestly I don’t care so long as it meets that requirement. Anything is better than the corporate uniparty ruling over us today.
    2. Seems like you may not be familiar with PSL, check them out and then you can come back to tell me what you’ve learned.

    In the meantime, here are some things you can do to help move us in the right direction:

    1. organize locally against the fascist regime which is presently stealing everything from working class voters and is imminently coming to place many of us into slave labor camps. Whatever you do - don’t give money to democrats unless they’re part of the squad or endorsed by rebellion pac.

    2. work towards getting money out of politics. If we don’t outlaw the presently legalized bribery, we simply have to take politicians at their word when they say they won’t take corporate pac money to control their votes. See Kirsten Sinema or John Fettterman for how well that tends to work out. Wolf PAC is non partisan and has been working towards this goal for years.

    3. if you absolutely refuse to look outside democrats for representation, at least support ones who are intent on changing the system to end corruption and help the working class. Rebellion PAC is endorsing these type of candidates, very selectively. David Hogg’s leaders we deserve is doing something similar, but with more of a focus on ousting crusty establishment Republicrats from their too-long-held seats.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    I don't think voting in a DNC primary will result in the most popular candidate being the chosen candidate to run as president. I beleive the DNC will choose the winner before the primary starts like they have for decades.

    I don't beleive a canidate hand picked by the DNC will create positive change

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    Didn't Bernie Sanders lead in 2019 and dems decided to go with Biden for safety?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    If you mean that democratic primary voters in subsequent states voted for Biden after Sanders had the early lead, yes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yeah, I think you're right. So it's the people that suck, not just the parties.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Right. And trump didn't take over the rnc in one go. It takes constant pressure. Keep fighting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    By his first election he absolutely owned the RNC

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Not completely. McCain was blocking him.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    Corporate interests are human interests. They are the interests of the few. Its class. The class of the wealthy - the class of the few. Its always class we need to break down. Nothing maters more.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›