-
Features
BOTH SIDES
- Thread starter Elixir
- Start date
Gospel
Contributor
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 7,700
- Location
- Florida
- Gender
- Ghetto Black Male
- Basic Beliefs
- Agnostic Atheist
I actually do think the political violence we’re seeing is the fault of both sides, but not because “both sides are equally violent.” It’s because both major parties are financially and structurally dependent on the same system that profits from keeping the country divided.
The people who benefit most from polarization aren’t ordinary voters; they’re the ones invested in what you might call productive inefficiency, a society that runs shitty enough to generate outrage but stable enough to avoid demands for reform. Corporate media thrive on the clicks and ratings that outrage brings. Billionaire donors and corporate PACs fund both parties, ensuring that no matter who wins, the underlying economic order stays untouched. Defense contractors, energy giants, and big tech firms all get bipartisan protection, because each side shields a different part of their interests.
IMO, the economic system we’re still running on is outdated, a relic from another era that doesn’t fit the world we live in anymore. It was built for industrial scarcity, not digital abundance; for factory floors, not global networks. It keeps pretending to serve everyone while really serving the same narrow interests it always has. We need to stop defending it like it’s sacred and start redesigning it like it’s ours. That means rethinking how value is shared between the laborer who builds, the corporation that organizes, and the shareholder who profits, not just protecting the last one at the expense of the others. The system isn’t broken because it fails; it’s broken because it still “works” exactly as it was meant to, for too few people.
The economy reminds me of this nigga…
Get yo’ old ass outta here.
The people who benefit most from polarization aren’t ordinary voters; they’re the ones invested in what you might call productive inefficiency, a society that runs shitty enough to generate outrage but stable enough to avoid demands for reform. Corporate media thrive on the clicks and ratings that outrage brings. Billionaire donors and corporate PACs fund both parties, ensuring that no matter who wins, the underlying economic order stays untouched. Defense contractors, energy giants, and big tech firms all get bipartisan protection, because each side shields a different part of their interests.
IMO, the economic system we’re still running on is outdated, a relic from another era that doesn’t fit the world we live in anymore. It was built for industrial scarcity, not digital abundance; for factory floors, not global networks. It keeps pretending to serve everyone while really serving the same narrow interests it always has. We need to stop defending it like it’s sacred and start redesigning it like it’s ours. That means rethinking how value is shared between the laborer who builds, the corporation that organizes, and the shareholder who profits, not just protecting the last one at the expense of the others. The system isn’t broken because it fails; it’s broken because it still “works” exactly as it was meant to, for too few people.
The economy reminds me of this nigga…
Get yo’ old ass outta here.
Spacetime Inhabitant
Senior Member
Yes to above. Americans have a real problem with this "both sides' situation. Apart from the simplification - there are more than two sides, those sides aren't Republican and Democrat, as they are one of the sides. They are both on the right-wing. The sides aren't as people claim, Republican Party/Right and Democratic Party/Left. This is itself a simplification as the Democratic Party is both on the same side (the corporationist aspect), and also one of the groups opposing the Republicans and their allies.
It is corporatism/evangelism/right-wing in an unholy alliance as one side, opposed by multi-sided many much weaker groups.
It is corporatism/evangelism/right-wing in an unholy alliance as one side, opposed by multi-sided many much weaker groups.
Politesse
Lux Aeterna
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2018
- Messages
- 16,384
- Location
- Tauhalamme/Laquisimas
- Gender
- nonbinary
- Basic Beliefs
- Jedi Wayseeker
The two sides thing is at its core an attempt to obscure the role of many, many, diverse and often conflicted constituencies that make up the actual American population. No one who has ever found themselved targeted by this government - that is, most of us - really has a Party. The Parties are selected, run, and controlled by a tiny aristocratic minority class that has little interest or even need to know about the daily lives of most Americans.
southernhybrid
Contributor
That is basically what the founders wanted, although we have had times when it seemed or we were headed in a better direction. I probably posted this before, but when the founders said that all men were created equal, what they really meant was that all wealthy white men were created equal. They never included women, poor white men, aka poor white trash as labeled by the British, or minorities, including the Native tribes that were here long before the wealthy white men took over.
There have been many times when we started to head in a better direction, but with each step forward, we sadly took steps backward, but nothing has been as horrible was what we are living through now, unless you can back to the days prior tot he Civil War. Anyway, I'm sure you all know that.
Politesse
Lux Aeterna
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2018
- Messages
- 16,384
- Location
- Tauhalamme/Laquisimas
- Gender
- nonbinary
- Basic Beliefs
- Jedi Wayseeker
Our founders were a diverse group in their own way. Some were genuine humanitarians, deeply convinced of universal human equality and potential. Others had no interest in philosophy or morality, and wanted Britain out of their affairs for purely commercial and pragmatic reasons. The former party was victorious in including some humanist language in the Constitution, and in arguing for a system of regulated amendation to define the rights of the citizen and interaction. They failed on almost all points of actual policy, and it wasn't until after the Civil War that the 14th amendment clarified what should always have been obvious: that laws mean nothing if they do not apply equally to all citizens.
Even that promise has yet to be altogether fulfilled. Slavery has never been fully abolished. The US still holds colonial properties, to which it refuses to extend full citizenship or even a reasonable level of care. The poor are not guaranteed fair treatment in the legal system. Our history education conceals more from our students than it reveals to them, as a rule.
Fortunately, there are many who would like those things to change, and in every American generation there have been small, dedicated factions still pressing the government to make the promises of the Constitution. Unfortunately, we are currently losing. To a historic degree.
southernhybrid
Contributor
I don't really disagree with you for the most part, and while I was a teenager while LBJ was president, I never fully realized all that he accomplished outside of his failure to end the Viet Nam War. About 85 bipartisan bills were passed that he signed into law, and almost everyone was to help the poor, older adults or the average middle class citizen. He signed the civil rights law just 3 days after the three men were murdered in Mississippi for working towards racial equality. He got Medicare and Medicaid started along with food stamps, along with many other social programs. Looking back now, I think he may have been one of our most unappreciated presidents. His time in office is an example of how we started moving in a better direction, only to start going back during the following administration. Then after Carter made some progress, things got much worse under Reagan, something that many people don't realize. That is when the biggest lies regarding liberal policies became common and taxes were drastically decreased for the wealthy etc.