MLK was killed because he was trying to overcome the suppression. It is the workers' abilities because leaders could have picked up where he was stopped. There are no leaders, which to me means, there are no abilities.
seeigel
joined 2 months ago
A bit outdated, but Trump is indeed aiming at the consumer to hit the tarket of bringing back production to the USA.
https://unherd.com/2025/02/why-trumps-tariffs-are-a-masterplan/
What doesn't fit is that the elephant in the room, China, will still overtake the USA in the remaining technological areas with which the USA is maintaining its military lead.
Why is the USA isolating itself? Even if Europe plays along and stays on the side of the USA, how is that enough to maintain the global lead?
The context of Project 2025 suggests that this has been debated in depth by many think tanks. How are American billionaires going to succeed when the USA is retreating from the global trade that is creating prosperity for those who participate?
Warum hat die Bahn überhaupt einen Logistikkonzern aufgebaut? Warum kann die Bahn das erfolgreich managen, aber nicht ihr Kerngeschäft? Warum verkauft die Bahn jetzt, wenn es gerade das Sondervermögen für Infrastruktur gibt?
Das sieht für mich wie europäische Industriepolitik aus, von der nur das Ergebnis, nicht aber die Motivation in der Zeitung steht.
Wer trifft diese Entscheidungen und warum dann nicht ein BGE?
From the point of view of the right, the left government is maintaining overbearing zoning laws and medical regulations. These left politics retain the profits for the upper class in the current Capitalist system.
It's the separation of the proletariat that uphelds Capitalism, not one side alone.
A unified proletariat doesn't have to be left. Restricting analysis to dialectical materialism misses that people also care about other things. The left would already have convinced the entire proletariat if it's only materialism.
It's the arrogance of already knowing how to resolve social issues that keeps the left stuck in the past. The left is all about respecting people and their emotions and desires, but when they are expressed in the form of right-wing support, they are called reactionary and ignored.
That's part of the argument. If it is condescending to you then no minimum wage is needed because minimum wage workers could form a union.
Not to forget that it is good but not good. It's there to lock people into its marketplace.
Wer z.B. fordert Menschenrechte wie das Recht auf Asyl einzuschränken oder abzuschaffen
Europäische sichere Drittstaaten garantieren eigentlich, dass kaum jemand in Deutschland Asyl beantragen kann. Das Recht wurde also bereits ohne grosse Proteste in der Vergangenheit eingeschränkt.
Wenn es um Asyl geht, kann es doch nicht sein, dass nur Menschen geholfen wird, die sich die Migration leisten können. Ausserdem moralisch unschön ist, wenn der Ursprung vieler Kriege westliche Einmischung ist.
In dem Kontext finde ich, dass die Asyldiskussion genutzt wird, um über die eigentlichen Probleme nicht zu reden.
The delivered weapons haven't been and will not be for free. Ukraine won't have a trade deficit for years to come.
Meinungen sind immer “manipuliert”, da ein Teil der Meinungsbildung die Auseinandersetzung mit anderen Meinungen ist
Manipuliert meine ich schon ohne Anführungszeichen. Austausch ja, Einfluss dritter nein.
Ob gesamtgesellschaftlich gesehen Meinungen zu einem Thema in eine gewisse Richtung gehen hat eher mit so Dingen, wie Kultur zu tun.
Oder damit, dass Anteilseigner Konzerne zum Sponsoring bewegen.
Es ist halt die Frage, wieviel Kultur authentisch ist.
Leftist analysis is not correct if the proletariat is stuck where it is.
I would say, not all enactments of desires are acceptable, but invalidating desires by themselves sounds wrong to me. Who decides which desires are valid?
Having a strong government to oppose Capitalism doesn't help either. Capitalism is just one form of maintaining power. The people with capital will become the people at the top of the government if Capitalism is abolished by government.
Why not go full Hegel, treat left and right as thesis and antithesis and come up with something new?