Shit like this just makes me extremely suspicious of what secrets this org is hiding.
Small/medium political sects (of any tendancy) have a pretty bad record to start with, and then someone feels the need to repeatedly defend people like this? Even in the best case it's extremely poor political judgment and disconnection from people's reality, and a bad signal of who will be attracted or repelled as members/supporters.
They unfortunately aren't the only offender, but they might be the most stubborn and vocal about it.
Liberalism accomplished everything it ever dreamed of after the Soviet Union fell, after that its only remaining political objective was preserving the status quo. And as that status quo got worse, and liberalism couldn't acknowledge that, it was inevitable it would lose credibility.
The 30 year mortgage was such an amazing, simple, effective system of social control but they let that whole system decay so they could make some short term gains
The other thing is that even if he did guarantee a price floor, who can trust that the next president will keep it? Or that Trump won't just change his mind in a couple months? Even if they wanted to do some form of planning I don't think they have the credibility for it to work. (Are industries going to start using betting markets to hedge against "changed his mind"? Although that would just incentive him to do it...)
At some point they're going to have to leave Minneapolis, it's not like they'll stay there for years just to prove a point, it's unsustainable. When they leave, they'll try to spin it as a victory - they left because they succeeded, not because they were despised. And then they'll go somewhere else (Maine supposedly?) and the same process will repeat. If they're feeling weak, they might look for a weaker target, which might be part of the reasoning for Maine.
Yeah, like why would a dead body be holding a gun like that? The hand and gun are certainly not the worst I've seen, but they still look a little off, and the scene as a whole doesn't quite make sense
So either they're negligent idiots or they're liars. Obviously they're proven to be both, so I guess time will tell on this one. In the meantime, not sure this changes much? Still, interesting to hear all this leaking out
I think fetishizing the term "fascism" serves an ideological purpose of neatly separating bourgeois "democracy" from bourgeois dictatorship. It emphasizes the difference, and sets the standard for "real fascism" at such an extreme form that nothing other than Nazism qualifies. So everything else must not be that bad according to those categories.
But the fact that there is no clear definition, and no consensus on which regimes do or don't qualify, is an indication that the concept is flawed. The unfortunate truth is that there is no clear dividing line, bourgeois "democracy" and "rights" are only maintained as long as it's beneficial, and when needed any bourgeois state would drop the pretense and embrace open fascism.
The US (and the entire Western order) is in such a deep crisis that the usual facade is becoming difficult to maintain, and the ruling class is starting to give up on their usual pretense and turn to a fascist form of rule. But the final justification their ideologues will maintain is "no, this isn't actually fascism, because technically ..."
No one on the left should assist them in that justification.
2️⃣9️⃣