Hillary Is Like A Fish Out of Water When Talking About Class Issues

[F4lconF16]

273. That's a good part of our problem, isn't it?

Last edited Wed Mar 25, 2015, 09:30 PM - Edit history (1)

Will vote Democrat without any fuss or hand-wringing.

We can't just vote without worry. We should be worried.

Voting by party instead of dearly held principle is a mindset that allows the elite to divide the working class into two groups and hold us to each other's throats. It's why we have massive financial fraud that remains unprosecuted; it's why we have a MIC that managed to lose 8.5 trillion dollars; it's why the real issues, like climate change, are rarely (if ever) discussed.

The problem is that by voting for party, you are saying that at some point you are willing to betray your principles. The elite realize this, and have set up these two groups in order to prevent any changes to the system. They then use the cover of "a greater evil" to justify their horrible policies under Democratic governance. It's why Obama has done very few meaningful things to address the MIC, etc.--he knows he doesn't have to, and he would lose substantial political support. They will keep shifting to the right as long as they can get away with it.

The Democratic party is reflective of the broken system we live in, and has been for over a hundred years now. Throughout history, it's been used as a bludgeon against the working class by giving just enough wealth to just enough people to prevent radical and lasting change.

Now, I'm probably going to be torn apart by establishment supporters for this post, so I might as well piss off the leftists here as well: FDR was a perfect example of how the elite managed to prevent a new system from being put into place. During the early 1900s, there was a (relatively) huge socialist/radical leftist movement, and widespread dissatisfaction with the system (to put it mildly). There was a real possibility that a radical leftwing party/group could gain power. The biggest danger to the establishment was that some of those groups had realized that racial and gender equality were necessary for a new system, should they have the chance to put it into place. This upset the balance of opposition between disadvantaged groups that the elite had carefully put into place over centuries.

In order to prevent the Socialist party from taking power, the Democratic party ran a left-wing establishment candidate who could garner support from a large chunk of the population and address some of their fears, concerns, and anger. FDR proceeded to put into place a system that is only recently being dismantled: a strong middle class. Note that after WWII we still had a huge poor class. The middle class was given just enough of the massive wealth the elite held in order to hold it's support for generations. In doing so, the Democratic party was able to prevent real change and people addressing the massive poverty and inequalities that have always existed in this country. I've read some authors that suggest that the MIC that we have now would not exist if not for the Democratic party's support. This is the genius of the capitalist system we live in: it produces such incredible wealth for a few that there is enough left over to mollify a portion of the population when necessary. These would be people who continue voting Democratic even when it is clear that some of these politicians do not support the working class. They haven't lost enough yet to look for something else.

And that, I think, is what voting for party over principle gets you: when you try to be "realistic" about change in the system, you will not change anything. You cannot work within a system that is actively trying to circumvent you; remember how that worked for Obama and the Republicans? Same for the working class and establishment Democrats: we will only affect real change when we accept that we have to stand by what is right.

Now, personally, I think the logical conclusion from that is some form of socialism, revolution, and a total abandonment of the capitalist society we have today. I won't advocate that here, for obvious reasons, but I think that it is something we should be thinking about.