• disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    The more right the US shifts, the more it will be controlled by money over masses. Unless by “rise from the ashes” you actually expect a successful overthrow of the US government by a people’s revolution which is pretty laughable in this polarized nation.

    • aesthelete@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      The more right the US shifts, the more it will be controlled by money over masses.

      I’m curious as to why did you made this statement. Like do you think the US isn’t already fully “controlled by money over masses”?

      I legitimately don’t understand what people think America is as a country. All I see everywhere I go in this country is an orgiastic celebration of material wealth and those who have it over all else.

      We’ve been controlled by “money over masses” my entire existence. I seriously have zero understanding of what online leftists are even talking about when they talk about solidarity and community. I’ve lived in many different places here and I felt the same sense of individualism and capital above all else everywhere I’ve been.

      • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I’m not saying money doesn’t control politics when Democrats hold office. I’m saying Democrats do more for the masses than Republicans, especially the Republicans that are coming next year. Trump and his cronies are very vocal about having already been sold to the highest bidder.

    • crusa187@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      That would be cool, but I meant more metaphorically. Other parties have come and gone in the history of the US - now is a great time for an actual populist party to rise up and win voters from all political spectra. It isn’t just Dems who are feeling disenfranchised, and a large enough movement could pierce through the media bubbles on both sides to gain momentum.

      • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        It’s feasible, albeit pretty idealistic. I’d love to see it happen, but I’m a bit skeptical that the billionaire-owned media will support honest reporting of a candidate that threatens their power.

        • aesthelete@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          I’m a bit skeptical that the billionaire-owned media will support honest reporting of a candidate that threatens their power.

          I 100% share in your skepticism.

          This is where a lot of the online talk about “the DNC” gets me. Like sure, the DNC wants their preferred candidate as an organizing body I’m sure, but the media did everything it could to keep Bernie from winning the nomination as well. I remember people on MSNBC of all places talking about how dangerous nominating Bernie Sanders would be.

          They attack it in straightforward ways (calling them “communists”, “socialists”, “Marxists”) in more republican-leaning media, and they attack it in other, less straightforward means in other type of media (calling the plans “stupid”, saying that they’ll “never work” that we “don’t have the money”, or “it’ll cost more in taxes!”).

          I just don’t see it at all. I wish I was more hopeful about this stuff but with the individualistic behavior of the American populace, the mass media landscape, and the way the Internet has been sculpted into something palatable or even usable by the oligarchs to get what they want (perhaps even more cheaply than it was in traditional media) I just don’t believe it is possible to win with some “better message”.

          The only thing I could see saving this country is a groundswell of old-style civic behavior where people largely tune out or drop off from mass media and social media and start connecting with their neighbors and building actual community. I am not optimistic about that either.

            • aesthelete@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              I agree that they didn’t really give him a fair shake in 2016…however, they thought they were representing their best interests at the time and that a “fascism” proxy would lose handily to a “socialism” proxy in Sanders. They or may not have been right, and there is a lot of debate about that and I’m honestly not sure myself what to believe. He was never a serious candidate in that race and everyone probably including his own supporters knew that. In 2020, he got much closer to securing the nomination and that is why we saw the beginning of the attacks the media will toss at any Bernie-like candidate.

              • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                I haven’t thought of it that way before, but you’re absolutely correct. There’s honestly no way to tell which is the chicken and which the egg in that scenario. Did the DNC promote Hillary because the media leaned into “socialist Bernie,” or did the DNC paint him as socialist in contrast to Hillary and the media ran with it? It’s an equally thought-provoking and nauseating concept.