The disparity is actually skyrocketing moreso now, and steadily has been for the last century. The New Deal, as a response to the USSR, did manage to temporarily lower inequality, but corporations weren't nearly as monopolized. The status we are in today took a long time, and for hundreds of years, disparity was actually much lower than England and other countries that had started capitalism in earnest. The semi-yeoman worker in the US had bargaining power and land, which slowed down tge process of disparity.
None of this is in defense of settler-colonialism. I bring it up because it points to the class character of the US, and helps explain why it's so far-right and reactionary, as well as why leftist radicalization is increasing rapidly.
I really don't think we are. You propose we push for change within the system, as it's better to have a tweaked current system than a non-tweaked current system. My point is that the reason the current system lacks those popular and necessary tweaks is because its built to resist anything that risks lowering profits, so our strategy should focus on changing to a system that allows us to make those tweaks in the first place.
You may not agree with me, but I don't think we are having different discussions.
I'm focusing on capitalism because we can't let the progress we can imagine be the enemy of the progress we can actually achieve in the real world. Just like going up to Elon Musk and asking him nicely to not be a Nazi isn't a viable solution to systemic issues, so too is trying to use regulations against the system they are meant to solidify and protect. Socialism is necessary because without it, we can't get these well thought-through taxes and regulations to begin with, we are utterly at the mercy of profits.
It's more that under capitalism, regulations and taxes only serve the bourgeoisie. It isn't that the concept is being undermined, it's that those are sold to the working class as a viable solution to avoid actually solving the problem.
DSA is the Democratic Socialists of America, it's a reformist socialist party. PSL is a Marxist-Leninist (technically Marcyist but the vast majority of members are ML) party with roots as a split from the IWW, and is thus more based on party building, revolution, and practices democratic centralism. The DSA gets a lot less done per member due to its lack of democratic centralism and its big-tent methodology, but it isn't the worst org in existence if there's no other options.
Check the party programs to see what the difference looks like in aim.
Well-regulated markets, under capitalism, just means comfortable monopoly. You can't work against the system of voracious demand for profit within said system. You can't just pray for taxes abd regulations, the only ones that get passed are ones in the interests of the largest capitalists.
Sure, it wouldn't be easy, but it's nearly impossible under capitalism. What would realistically happen is the state would heavily subsidize plant based food and develop economies of scale, and increase requirements on animal products for more "humane" treatment, until gradually animal products are phased out culturally. A top-down command for animal liberation would be commandist if the masses don't want it, so raising political consiousness would be a key part of that struggle.
Socialism will not automatically create vegan world, it hasn't done so anywhere socialism exists. However, it does swap from profits as the end-all, be-all of how society is organized, to one where humanity can better plan production and meet people's needs. If capital is in the driver's seat, then the meat industry will continue to perpetuate said brutality and environmental destruction unimpeded. If humanity is in the driver's seat, then we can actually work against what would be assured in a profit driven model.
The swap to veganism will never be instant, but it will be largely impossible without human supremacy over capital.
Veganism is good, necessary even, but more than voting we need to actually overthrow capitalism and replace it with socialism. Profit will destroy the planet unless we take control of the reigns from capital.
We do not exist in a world with technology sufficient to entirely eliminate labor. Even highly automated industry like in the PRC, labor-power is still paramount for production. A transition to socialism can allow us to better direct production consciously, rather than letting the eldritch god capital decide everything based on profitability, but we will not be able to eliminate labor, only center it, rather than capital.
My point is that, initially, labor-power wasn't cheap. That's why there were slaves and indentured servants, to make up for the fact that the commodity labor-power was pricier. That's what's so dangerous about settler-colonialism, it "works" for a far larger portion of society, which is why it has led to some of the most horrendous crimes of all time.
It's only now that the system is starting to genuinely unravel, but the US Empire's history as one of the most far-right and brutal countries ever is directly tied to its large settler-colonial class relations.
The lead developers of Lemmy are communists. This is not "dead wrong." Further, the communist instances are older than most of the right-wing instances. You're free to complain about communists all you want, there are instances where that's the norm, but there are instances where the opposite is the norm, like the one you're visiting right now.
That's not enitirely true. The American Dream was (and is) settler-colonialism. Early settlers were promised free land if they killed indigenous peoples living there already, which led to a mostly self-sufficient labor class that could use its self-farmed land as a means to support themselves while bargaining for higher wages. If you were a white man, this dream was attainable, period, even if it meant enslaving and genociding millions of people.
Then came the post-war period. The wartime economy was still fairly planned, and aimed at full employment. Further, the US was emerging as world hegemon and de-facto empire. Imperialism and social safety nets largely expanded due to needing to provide better metrics than the Soviet Union was providing again kept the white men of the US living in the American Dream.
Now that imperialism is decaying, and social safety nets have been gutted along with the fall of the USSR as the main rival power, even white men are starting to fall into genuine proletarianization at large. The US is still a settler-colony, but its one where finance capital has dictatorial control yet imperialism is waning, and where many industries have been hollowed out and shipped overseas because imperialism was more profitable. The US is working its way to its own demise.
Democracy, in the hands of the proletariat, not the bourgeoisie. The government should oppress the capitalist class and uplift the proletariat, political power should be stripped from capitalists and lay with the proletariat instead. This is the "dictatorship of the proletariat" over the bourgeoisie.
![Cowbee [he/they]](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/c18ce632-5fb5-4888-8226-3dc55a07acc4.jpeg?format=webp&thumbnail=128)
The disparity is actually skyrocketing moreso now, and steadily has been for the last century. The New Deal, as a response to the USSR, did manage to temporarily lower inequality, but corporations weren't nearly as monopolized. The status we are in today took a long time, and for hundreds of years, disparity was actually much lower than England and other countries that had started capitalism in earnest. The semi-yeoman worker in the US had bargaining power and land, which slowed down tge process of disparity.
None of this is in defense of settler-colonialism. I bring it up because it points to the class character of the US, and helps explain why it's so far-right and reactionary, as well as why leftist radicalization is increasing rapidly.