Could be wrong though, of course.
"Communism" is a bit of a nonsense word, really. OT1H it's used as an insult by the Republicans, especially at the MAGA end of things, for more or less anything they don't like, but especially for the Democrats, who are no less pro-capitalist than they are, but who at least pay lip service to social justice, or try to avoid being overtly racist and misogynist. OTO, you've got Ash Sarkar (prominent left-wing UK 'journo-activist', if you didn't know) calling herself "literally a communist", while supporting Jeremy Corbyn, whose domestic economic policies placed him firmly in the social-democracy camp, in fact barely even left-of-centre from the perspective of most European countries.From my perspective, any far-left equivalent (in terms of distance from center) of the far-right MAGA crowd is far less dangerous. But then again, if I subscribed to the channels that demonize whatever para-academic Antifa crowd, my perspective may reflect such.
And re: communism, I don't know of any mainstream US politician that gets anywhere near my conception of actual communism. I think its mainly a scare word for the liberty-loving, in order to galvanize partisan right-wing support.
Stunning scenery and some beautiful old cities (which is what you get when you tacitly cooperate with Nazi Germany, so they don't bomb you and invade you, while remaining officially neutral, so the USAF/RAF can't target you, either).I'd like to, seeing as I can work remotely anywhere. Maybe Switzerland?
you say that as if it simply happens, like there hasn't been a decades-long, coordinated effort by a handful of impossibly wealthy families - Koch, DeVos, Coors, Bradley, etc - to promote their interests through their foundations and the think tanks, policy groups (i.e. ALEC), and so on that those foundations fund, in addition to massive direct funding of political campaigns and initiatives. Jane Mayer wrote a pretty good book about it called Dark Money.In that light, it makes sense to me why wealthy libertarian capitalists are able to appeal to poor libertarian workers, despite it being "against their own interests" from a rational perspective. Must just be enough of a subset of workers who place certain cultural values above rational economic judgements, and it makes sense to me. I disagree of course, but it makes sense.
the progressive coalition, being by nature much broader and more diverse, is much unwieldierConservative interests in this country play the long game, overturning Roe has been a work in progress for decades. Progressives don't -- or can't -- focus efforts the same way.
Yeah I was gonna say, I’d imagine we progressives are almost definitively more heterogenous, along the lines of how differentiated cells are more heterogeneous than undifferentiated cells. With differentiation here being the critical reflection and interrogation of one’s native, immediate culture, and any departure therefrom.the progressive coalition, being by nature much broader and more diverse, is much unwieldier
there are other reasons but that's an important one