Two years ago, a left-wing alliance denied Emmanuel Macron his majority in parliament. But today the forces of the Left are deeply divided — making Marine Le Pen’s Rassemblement National almost the sole contender for power.
You MUST make solutions that appeal to enough people to have a coalition. Refusal to negotiate on anything, and taking an all-or-nothing approach is what will fuck us all.
Republicans have been strategic; it’s taken them nearly 40 years of work, but they’ve managed to throw out Roe v. Wade. They took a lot of small nibbles over time, fought the battle on a lot of fronts, and by dog, they eventually won. They’re also fighting this on public education, religion, and a hundred other fronts, and because they’re able to largely form working coalitions, they’re winning. (This latest House, with the Freedom Caucus, has been an exception rather than the rule.) The left needs to fucking learn this lesson, instead of each faction not giving a goddamned inch and fighting to the bitter end over everything. Fracturing and circular firing squads aren’t helping the left, they only help the right.
Lol ur so wrong and mad. Good solutions appeal to people when implemented- If the rich lived in fear, or better yet were eliminated -life WOULD be better for the rest of us. You sound like a steamroller pacifist.
You thinking a solution is good doesn’t mean everyone thinks the solution is good. Additionally, “rich” isn’t a single point, but a continuum, so the idea that you can eliminate the “rich” and make life good for the “non-rich” is ridiculous. Is someone that makes $75,000 a year “rich”? They certainly are to someone that makes $15,080 (full time, federal minimum wage), despite $75,000 being the median household income in the US.
Point went over your head. Good solutions will amaze when implemented and win over people who previously had doubts. By the rich I mean billionaires, not middle class folks who get taxed to shit bc the former won’t pay to make this country any better. Anybody who makes 75k a year is equally right around the corner to poverty by comparison, especially with the consumerist trappings of a american lifestyle factored in.
No, I understood what you were trying to say. But you’re not understanding me.
You’re operating under the–likely false–assumption that there’s a single solution that will make all people (or, all the people that don’t fit your arbitrary definition of “rich”) happy once it’s implemented. Of course, how you get to implementation prior to everyone buying in to the idea is just skipped over, since that’s inconvenient. (If you only count billionaires as the rich, that’s a total of about 3200 globally out of 8.1B people, or .000039% of the global population. If you widen that definition to people that own $30M+ in assets and liquid wealth, you can widen that out to about .01% (note that this was as of 2017, so that number is quite out of date).
This is where politics and building consensus comes in. Even on the left there’s not broad agreement on every policy point, or how to get to a particular place, and you’re going to need more than just “the left” to get any kind of proposals passed, unless you prefer an authoritarian-style of gov’t that uses force and violence rather than building consensus.
I prefer no government but maybe that’s just me. People have simple NEEDS and they’ve been made to believe satisfying those is a lot more complicated than it is. Food, shelter and healthcare can all be distributed and managed, perhaps even more effiecently WITHOUT a strongly centralized power structure. which IMHO, are inherently anti-democratic and self-serving.
History is replete with examples of individuals who believed they could create a utopia by killing enough people. Of them, you’re not the most enlightened, just the latest.
You MUST make solutions that appeal to enough people to have a coalition. Refusal to negotiate on anything, and taking an all-or-nothing approach is what will fuck us all.
Republicans have been strategic; it’s taken them nearly 40 years of work, but they’ve managed to throw out Roe v. Wade. They took a lot of small nibbles over time, fought the battle on a lot of fronts, and by dog, they eventually won. They’re also fighting this on public education, religion, and a hundred other fronts, and because they’re able to largely form working coalitions, they’re winning. (This latest House, with the Freedom Caucus, has been an exception rather than the rule.) The left needs to fucking learn this lesson, instead of each faction not giving a goddamned inch and fighting to the bitter end over everything. Fracturing and circular firing squads aren’t helping the left, they only help the right.
Lol ur so wrong and mad. Good solutions appeal to people when implemented- If the rich lived in fear, or better yet were eliminated -life WOULD be better for the rest of us. You sound like a steamroller pacifist.
You thinking a solution is good doesn’t mean everyone thinks the solution is good. Additionally, “rich” isn’t a single point, but a continuum, so the idea that you can eliminate the “rich” and make life good for the “non-rich” is ridiculous. Is someone that makes $75,000 a year “rich”? They certainly are to someone that makes $15,080 (full time, federal minimum wage), despite $75,000 being the median household income in the US.
Point went over your head. Good solutions will amaze when implemented and win over people who previously had doubts. By the rich I mean billionaires, not middle class folks who get taxed to shit bc the former won’t pay to make this country any better. Anybody who makes 75k a year is equally right around the corner to poverty by comparison, especially with the consumerist trappings of a american lifestyle factored in.
No, I understood what you were trying to say. But you’re not understanding me.
You’re operating under the–likely false–assumption that there’s a single solution that will make all people (or, all the people that don’t fit your arbitrary definition of “rich”) happy once it’s implemented. Of course, how you get to implementation prior to everyone buying in to the idea is just skipped over, since that’s inconvenient. (If you only count billionaires as the rich, that’s a total of about 3200 globally out of 8.1B people, or .000039% of the global population. If you widen that definition to people that own $30M+ in assets and liquid wealth, you can widen that out to about .01% (note that this was as of 2017, so that number is quite out of date).
This is where politics and building consensus comes in. Even on the left there’s not broad agreement on every policy point, or how to get to a particular place, and you’re going to need more than just “the left” to get any kind of proposals passed, unless you prefer an authoritarian-style of gov’t that uses force and violence rather than building consensus.
I prefer no government but maybe that’s just me. People have simple NEEDS and they’ve been made to believe satisfying those is a lot more complicated than it is. Food, shelter and healthcare can all be distributed and managed, perhaps even more effiecently WITHOUT a strongly centralized power structure. which IMHO, are inherently anti-democratic and self-serving.
History is replete with examples of individuals who believed they could create a utopia by killing enough people. Of them, you’re not the most enlightened, just the latest.
Billionaires shouldn’t exist. They profit off death. Are you getting paid to argue for their lives?
I think your primary motivation is violence, not progress. I don’t need to be a shill to recognize that.
No, thats the billionaires you’re thinking of again. And the conditions which uphold your likely quite cozy, insulated life and opinions.