Left as Center

Thank you for your attention to this matter!

You’re lacking in reading comprehension.

Says the one who stated socialism doesn’t work without knowing a definition and refusing to even learn in wikipedia

The working class doesn’t care about your hair splitting.

You don’t represent working class.

You’re in a socialist movement that’s incapable of communicating with the working class.

So you don’t know what socialism is, don’t know the movement I support, nor its current political score, yet you again try to sound so sure.

Goodbuy troll

🥂

I’m asking what does that look like to you? Voting? Protesting in the streets and/or at the capitol buildings? Armed revolution?

First step is “propaganda” (I don’t like the word but can’t offer another one).

Then protests and voting. (None will be available solutions if citizens are not concerned first).

But I don’t want the current majorities to be in charge of that. We would just end up with a fully Christo-fascist Constitution given the makeup of the delegations.

A new constitution in the current case needs a referendum to minimize risks. I totally agree with the christo-fascist risk if lead by the current gvt.

My belief, as stated in other comment in this thread, is that we have to have 3rd party and independent candidates run in the major-party primaries

I think this is a short term way out (a good one) but won’t solve the systemic issue caused by the constitution.

We’re seeing it work more and more for DSA-aligned candidates, so hopefully we can keep building on that momentum and finally get some real change.

Totally agree with that.

Which of our existing processes do you think will produce the result you want?

I started by the need to acknowledge centuries-old constitutions are outdated. That is the first step. Get citizens being a push for change. No “existing process”, that is the main point.

So in my opinion, we need to have favorable majorities in our representation before we can have a favorable outcome with amending the Constitution. Do you have a different approach in mind?

As stated, the first step is really to push the idea of rewriting a constitution.

If you don’t have the people pushing, you are never getting a new document or a positive vote for such a document. And you won’t even start to have a favorable majority for something that is not claimed.

Then people in power (elected or through a crisis caused by an uprising) can push a new constitution, with no care for the old document. This is how European countries have mostly done it.

Plus US is not facing a simple constitutional crisis, it is a religion-like crisis seeing how the document has been sanctified for so long. So no amending. Rewriting. And won’t happen without a huge push for trashing the old one.

Thank you for confirming my post. You have no clue about socialism other than USSR. You try to lash and smash everything because socialism bad. You have no clue about macroeconomics either, mixing supply side with Reaganomics and not knowing what and when demand side support “Keynesian policies" work or not (fun fact, now is not the time).

Yet you try to reach out on these exact issues on which you lack.

Do you think anyone in the working class has the time to read a bunch of hair-splitting from academia?

Wikipedia is academia now?

Also socialism in the common usage (e.g. non hair splitting lefties) covers from anarchism to European style soc-dems.

Among all these solutions several have worked or continue to do so. Your post started with “socialism failed”, so even your own arguments sink your initial post.

If you were serious about communicating with the working class, you’d stop using the word “socialist”.

“socialism failed”

Sonypu are not serious either. Good then, keep it that way, but don’t try to act like you know what you are saying.

Socialism failed. You have a bunch of people making excuses for it, but it obvious to anyone with any common sense that a system involving excessive central planning always winds up being an Animal Farm kind of thing.

So you don’t know what socialism is and its different types. Wikipedia has a nice overview.

Supply side economics failed.

So you don’t know much about macroeconomics either. Supply-side is just a set if tools which works in certain conditions like a supply shock. Its opposite is pushing demand which works when there is a lack of demand (usual recessions). Krugman has good books to clarify this.

Reasonable people understand that neither extreme works.

Knowledgeable people point out that extreme authoritarian capitalism worked throughout history, and that is a main concern for those who don’t want to go back there. Piketty has studied the issue pretty well.

The peak of human prosperity was under a capitalist system before the oil crisis of the 1970s

Russia went from a country lagging ~80 years behind Europe to the first space faring country. So there is an argument to be made about there not being one solution.

Plus the peak of accidental prosperity is mostly linked to the great compression.

we’re all Keynesian now

Keynes was about something else (understanding that an economy is a closed / semi-closed system which lead to the concept of a fiscal multiplier which is still being studied.).

Just copy European countries that have renewed their constitutions as time passes instead of asking empty rhetorical questions.

Accept that a centuries old constitution is totally outdated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

I don’t like the idea of yet another satellite constellation impacting upper atmosphere as they eventually fail though.

The reductions in health can’t be predicted as a ratio on wind only, they depend on the overall switch to renewables, and what source is being offset to wind.

Plus the numbers given are all completely off, they are just adding everything they can together without regards to tradeoffs (e.g. 1W of wind electricity is offset by 1W of non wind electricity so the added value is only the cost of imported gas or uranium or whatever, the jobs are not added but reassigned, the export value provided is wishful thinking…).

Wind and solar with storage are a very good idea, I’m all for it. But these numbers are just corpo bullshit.

Rule of thumb: direct investments from government have a multiplier ratio roughly between 1 & 5 depending on the economic situation. 5 is extreme, applicable only in big recession with money being spent directly towards the poorest.

This is totally crappy and unsound economics.