Why does political content need to be "new" or "fresh?" A lot of the latest events in the world are new developments on very old struggles that have been discussed for a very long time, something fundamentally changing that calculus is rare.
To make things short, Marx never observed imperialism being used to bribe the proletariat out of revolution in developed countries. Imperialism is what caused revolution outside of the global north (generally). Imperialism, like capitalism, is a decaying system, though, and has merely bought the bourgeois imperialists more time before revolution. That's why we will see revolution in the global north, imperialism is in its death throes and the working class within the global north is becoming more radicalized as the bribes run dry.
Yes, I absolutely agree that the disparity we see today is a direct result of the former social relations. The agrarian slave-driven economy in the south was certainly going to result in conflict with the industrial economy based on wage labor in the north, especially as the north needed new wage laborers to expand industrially. Historical progression is a process of endless spirals, tendencies and trajectories accumulate over time until a quantitative buildup results in a qualitative change.
However, I don't see it as something that was intentionally planned. Capital doesn't think that way. Capitalist production is an ever-expanding circuit that must constantly be repeated, anything going against that system of voracious profit gets dashed. Long-term planning is characteristic of socialism, not capitalism, nor the semi-yeoman style of settler-colonial capitalism or slave driven agrarian economy.
This is important, because understanding how we got here today can tell us where we are headed. The historic task of the US proletariat in the age of dying imperialism is to topple the capitalist state and replace it with a socialist state, focusing on decolonization and anti-imperialism. The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born. This is only increasingly possible because the US working class is becoming increasingly proletarianized due to monopolist capture of the land, and imperialism is weakening to the point where we cannot be bribed as much by its spoils.
We aren't here because of some 5-D chess from the old bourgeoisie, nor did the settlers have ignorance of the system. The US settler class was bribed using the spoils of genocide, and its only increasingly true now that there isn't really a semi-yeoman class. The immense brutality of settler-colonialism can't keep the US afloat anymore, nor can imperialism.
I'm just trying to help provide a Marxist perspective, as it genuinely gives us a chance of completing the US proletariat's historic duty. I'm a Marxist-Leninist.
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.
![Cowbee [he/they]](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/c18ce632-5fb5-4888-8226-3dc55a07acc4.jpeg?format=webp&thumbnail=128)
Why does political content need to be "new" or "fresh?" A lot of the latest events in the world are new developments on very old struggles that have been discussed for a very long time, something fundamentally changing that calculus is rare.