money is fake (for the government anyhow). We don’t need to do “fiscal responsibility” rhetoric, it only works against us, and emphasizing “taxpayer” delegitimizes the contributions of the disabled, destitute, and those doing unpaid but societally necessary labor
Money is as real as people agree on it being which currently is very real.
“Money isn’t real” is rhetorically correct but that rhetoric can’t be exchanged for food.
Also wasting less money buying tanks for police and other countries should absolutely be a goal. We could have universal Healthcare and zero homelessness if taxes were actually applied for the benefit of society.
social democracy isn’t a great goal, and while it’d certainly be a huge improvement that I’d support, that doesn’t mean I’m going to use its more unsavory rhetoric.
Seems like a pretty good goal for a starting vector unless somebody has an idea how we go from the latest stages of capitalism to a moneyless society without an intermediate phase.
And I’m not sure “disliking the fact 40% of your paycheck goes to your own oppression is bad” is a great starting point
the most successful communists so far have mostly started from underdeveloped countries mostly comprised of peasants, so I don’t think its 100% necessary to become socdems (built off the exploitation of the 3rd world) first. Living conditions along the lines of social democracies, but without the imperialism (both economic and military), now that’s a more compelling thought
And again, I’d support it, to some limited extent, but that doesn’t mean I need to adopt its rhetoric. emphasizing the flaws of social democracy is important, to combat liberals saying “oh everything’s great now we don’t need to continue to improve” or “going beyond social democracy is redfash tankieism”
sure. Not saying it’s the only route, just that becoming socdems isn’t a necessary step.
I’m not going to support any intermediary if it relies on the exploitation of the natural resources and labor of the 3rd world, though. Frankly I think (and I could be wrong here) that most first world countries would need to do some significant re-industrialization (and along with that would come some proletarianization) in order to maintain their living standards while weaning off of the profits of imperialist extraction.
Becoming western-style soc-dems and living off of either 3rd world raw materials, or purely being finance leeches, sets up your country in opposition to global progress, even as it improves conditions at home.
don’t give a shit
“taxpayers” is social fascist rhetoric that we should excise
Taxpayer money AKA money stolen from the working class in the first place
money is fake (for the government anyhow). We don’t need to do “fiscal responsibility” rhetoric, it only works against us, and emphasizing “taxpayer” delegitimizes the contributions of the disabled, destitute, and those doing unpaid but societally necessary labor
Money is as real as people agree on it being which currently is very real.
“Money isn’t real” is rhetorically correct but that rhetoric can’t be exchanged for food.
Also wasting less money buying tanks for police and other countries should absolutely be a goal. We could have universal Healthcare and zero homelessness if taxes were actually applied for the benefit of society.
social democracy isn’t a great goal, and while it’d certainly be a huge improvement that I’d support, that doesn’t mean I’m going to use its more unsavory rhetoric.
Seems like a pretty good goal for a starting vector unless somebody has an idea how we go from the latest stages of capitalism to a moneyless society without an intermediate phase.
And I’m not sure “disliking the fact 40% of your paycheck goes to your own oppression is bad” is a great starting point
the most successful communists so far have mostly started from underdeveloped countries mostly comprised of peasants, so I don’t think its 100% necessary to become socdems (built off the exploitation of the 3rd world) first. Living conditions along the lines of social democracies, but without the imperialism (both economic and military), now that’s a more compelling thought
And again, I’d support it, to some limited extent, but that doesn’t mean I need to adopt its rhetoric. emphasizing the flaws of social democracy is important, to combat liberals saying “oh everything’s great now we don’t need to continue to improve” or “going beyond social democracy is redfash tankieism”
What about all the countries that developed past that point? I don’t see them just ditching the system without an intermediary.
sure. Not saying it’s the only route, just that becoming socdems isn’t a necessary step.
I’m not going to support any intermediary if it relies on the exploitation of the natural resources and labor of the 3rd world, though. Frankly I think (and I could be wrong here) that most first world countries would need to do some significant re-industrialization (and along with that would come some proletarianization) in order to maintain their living standards while weaning off of the profits of imperialist extraction.
Becoming western-style soc-dems and living off of either 3rd world raw materials, or purely being finance leeches, sets up your country in opposition to global progress, even as it improves conditions at home.