This is easy agitprop, but it’s not really true. None of those things would get more funding if we cut back on military spending. At the most fundamental, our federal taxes pay for nothing, so I avoid these lines of agitation. I think Richard Wolff knows this, and it annoys me when he uses it anyway, because it perpetuates the “debt ceiling” / “how are you gonna pay for it” mythology that the capitalist class wants perpetuated.
I guess to me its less “we could afford healthcare if we didn’t spent so much on war” and more “look at what your government prioritizes” which I think is distinct from the other but I can see how this framing is less than ideal nonetheless. I’ll avoid it in the future
“Look at what your government prioritizes” is a great reframing.
I have problems with this kind of framing too. I don’t say it because it’s probably better than nothing and maybe I am being too cynical. But this kind of framing looks like social imperialism and is very common anti war propaganda. I think humanising the victims of these wars and building solidarity with them would be a better approach. But as I said this may be better than nothing.
I found YouTube links in your comment. Here are links to the same videos on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Link 1:
Link 2:
This rings true outside of the US considering much of those funds come from imperialism
