Under capitalism, those are still not sufficient to change much, even if you could get those across. Politics and economics are, as Doc_Crankenstein said, intertwined, with the economic base having by far the largest impact.
Socialism is not necessary. I’m proposing reduced corporatism to remove the power of companies and their wealth generation capabilities to influence policy.
Politicians should respond to 1 person 1 vote. Not $1 per vote.
What you’re asking for is a capitalist state to work against the interests of the class that controls the state, though. That’s a practically impossible task, unless the ruling class fears revolt and allows minor concessions.
That’s defeatist. I agree it is difficult but not impossible. Occupy Wall Street is the closest in recent history. That’s the last time the ruling class feared a revolt.
It’s not defeatist to state that one method is practically impossible, while pretty clearly pointing that revolutionary socialism is both necessary and far more practical. Occupy was an example of a crisis that had real worker momentum, but no organization to take it from unrest to real political change.
Further, I would say the George Floyd protests were spookier for capitalists.
Under capitalism, those are still not sufficient to change much, even if you could get those across. Politics and economics are, as Doc_Crankenstein said, intertwined, with the economic base having by far the largest impact.
Not sufficient to fix the problem, but it would be a step in the right direction.
A governments success largely tied to it’s economic performance, but that doesn’t mean the direct links to bribery can’t be severed.
What is the right direction? Is socialism necessary in your view?
Socialism is not necessary. I’m proposing reduced corporatism to remove the power of companies and their wealth generation capabilities to influence policy.
Politicians should respond to 1 person 1 vote. Not $1 per vote.
What you’re asking for is a capitalist state to work against the interests of the class that controls the state, though. That’s a practically impossible task, unless the ruling class fears revolt and allows minor concessions.
That’s defeatist. I agree it is difficult but not impossible. Occupy Wall Street is the closest in recent history. That’s the last time the ruling class feared a revolt.
It’s not defeatist to state that one method is practically impossible, while pretty clearly pointing that revolutionary socialism is both necessary and far more practical. Occupy was an example of a crisis that had real worker momentum, but no organization to take it from unrest to real political change.
Further, I would say the George Floyd protests were spookier for capitalists.