Hm, I wonder what was going on before the 1940s and why this changed over the subsequent decades.
Seriously though, it’s important that people are criticizing the systemic inequality in this system, but it’s also important to remember this history. For the US, The New Deal era of welfare liberalism came after decades of popular movements against wealth inequalities and only gained real traction after the depression and the rise of socialism in the years following WWI. It was a concession, not a moment of clarity, and so it is crucial to recognize that this did not last.
The tensions between the US and USSR following WWII allowed for the cultural and political conditions to target any socialist rhetoric (which laborist and welfare liberal talking points were easily conflated with). Union power was slowly eroded through decentralization in the subsequent two decades, but resistance to sexism and racism grew gradually, culminating in the Civil Rights Era and Civil Rights Act of 1964; another concession forced by internal pressures.
The War on Drugs and neoliberal politics then defined the landscape in the late 20th century, and we are currently living in the aftermath. Taxation is necessary, but because the redistribution of wealth can be facilitated through it, not because this system will function to your benefit once we do tax billionaires. Do not make the mistake of believing that negotiation is an option, liberalism is a system that concentrates power and resources into a small group of people and privileges others to defend that group, which means any concession is a time-buying tactic. The mid-00s to early -10s is remembered as a more politically “progressive” moment already, and look at the benefits institutional recognition brought all of us.
Do not satisfy yourselves with taxing billionaires, this system will readily concede a marginal amount of power to extend its life.
You’d be better off taking someone out as a lone actor tbh, the French Revolution was similary driven by liberal populism (in Paris at least) and concluded with a dictatorship that reproduced many social inequities prior to the Revolution.
That catharsis is exactly what I’m warning against, as warranted as it is. Systemic change (doesn’t have to be gradual) is less glorious and satisfying, but we have abundant historical evidence that shows us structural failure cannot be resolved through individualized justice. This system has produced billionaires and despite the power they wield within it, they alone are not its means of reproduction.
Hm, I wonder what was going on before the 1940s and why this changed over the subsequent decades.
Seriously though, it’s important that people are criticizing the systemic inequality in this system, but it’s also important to remember this history. For the US, The New Deal era of welfare liberalism came after decades of popular movements against wealth inequalities and only gained real traction after the depression and the rise of socialism in the years following WWI. It was a concession, not a moment of clarity, and so it is crucial to recognize that this did not last.
The tensions between the US and USSR following WWII allowed for the cultural and political conditions to target any socialist rhetoric (which laborist and welfare liberal talking points were easily conflated with). Union power was slowly eroded through decentralization in the subsequent two decades, but resistance to sexism and racism grew gradually, culminating in the Civil Rights Era and Civil Rights Act of 1964; another concession forced by internal pressures.
The War on Drugs and neoliberal politics then defined the landscape in the late 20th century, and we are currently living in the aftermath. Taxation is necessary, but because the redistribution of wealth can be facilitated through it, not because this system will function to your benefit once we do tax billionaires. Do not make the mistake of believing that negotiation is an option, liberalism is a system that concentrates power and resources into a small group of people and privileges others to defend that group, which means any concession is a time-buying tactic. The mid-00s to early -10s is remembered as a more politically “progressive” moment already, and look at the benefits institutional recognition brought all of us.
Do not satisfy yourselves with taxing billionaires, this system will readily concede a marginal amount of power to extend its life.
So you are saying that because I didn’t build that guillotine yesterday already, I should start right now?
You’d be better off taking someone out as a lone actor tbh, the French Revolution was similary driven by liberal populism (in Paris at least) and concluded with a dictatorship that reproduced many social inequities prior to the Revolution.
That catharsis is exactly what I’m warning against, as warranted as it is. Systemic change (doesn’t have to be gradual) is less glorious and satisfying, but we have abundant historical evidence that shows us structural failure cannot be resolved through individualized justice. This system has produced billionaires and despite the power they wield within it, they alone are not its means of reproduction.
Thank you so much to take the time for that well articulated and thoughtful response. I’m gonna find out how to print a sniper rifle now.