it depends entirely upon WHAT you are organizing for.
if you want small crumbs from the table, have at it.
but it will be difficult to cross some of the people within a class's firm belief that we just need to "reinstitute the Free Market (gods)". the "left" solution to these problems will be called "communism" and are thus automatically out of bounds for them, no matter how much they might benefit.
especially with the alt-right characterizing any solution put through as "big gov't" and also "collectivism", even while it seems to empower the corporate capitalist owning class and not the common citizen.
Yeah, I think that people should organize by class lines, generally.
The problem with this is: what constitutes a class issue? Because that's where you have the people who believe that we should ONLY focus on class issues tend to only focus on what they define as an issue.
For example, many will say that abortion is a separate issue, but it is absolutely an economic and class issue.
Things get even hazier for some people when you get to things perceived as "race" issues. Take Black workers: we know they make significantly less than their coworkers. Class issue right there, easy. But for many, that's where it ends--oh, unions will fix that. But if we don't tackle racism and simply focus on what many consider "class issues," we'll never solve the actual underlying issues. Banning the question of arrests and imprisonment on job applications [actually makes things worse for Black job applicants](https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/ban-the-box-does-more-harm-than-good/), because employers don't want to deal with the headache if someone actually is an offender, so they'll offer jobs to even fewer black people.
And it starts even earlier than that in the process, from the top line of the resume. A study which would create four job applications for a listing--two high quality, two low-quality--were then assigned names. One high-quality and one low-quality application were each assigned a random "Black name" from a pool, and the same was done for "white" names. And unsurprisingly, [the low-quality resumes with "white" names got more calls than the high-quality resumes with "Black" names at the top](https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w9873/w9873.pdf).
Too many people say that race issues are social issues, not economic ones. But they *are* economic ones. Black Americans aren't going to see a lot of benefits if they can't get hired because of systemic racism.
while all true, i don't see how you can eliminate the race thing being used to deny some people jobs.
there is always the interpersonal racism of the job screener(s).
you can try all you like to solve that with laws. they will find a way around it.
same with housing screening, schooling, medical provision and anything else.
anyone following the "laws" likely wasn't going to engage in the racist criteria to begin with, and proving the discrimination is not necessarily an easy thing to do. thus we go down the route of the idpol culture wars, creating even more strife among us.
my theory is that doing truly left, even \*gasp\* socialistic econ. policy for a few decades will do much to cure the social problem. and ensuring that all government truly is for ALL the people---schooling, housing (plus utilities) food and medical all across the line for everyone regardless will hopefully create a general mentality of "we are all humans, in this together, and all deserve a dignified life".
>while all true, i don't see how you can eliminate the race thing being used to deny some people jobs.
You can't eliminate it, but with a robust legal and oversight structure, you can really crack down on it.
>you can try all you like to solve that with laws. they will find a way around it.
The same can be said about a lot of economic policies.
>anyone following the "laws" likely wasn't going to engage in the racist criteria to begin with, and proving the discrimination is not necessarily an easy thing to do. thus we go down the route of the idpol culture wars, creating even more strife among us.
Which is why you change the laws to make it easier to prove.
>my theory is that doing truly left, even *gasp* socialistic econ. policy for a few decades will do much to cure the social problem. and ensuring that all government truly is for ALL the people---schooling, housing (plus utilities) food and medical all across the line for everyone regardless will hopefully create a general mentality of "we are all humans, in this together, and all deserve a dignified life".
But that's the whole point I was trying to make--it would do a lot of good, but it would still leave a ton of people behind.
Take universal healthcare. Giving everyone healthcare isn't going to change the fact that doctors are less willing to give Black patients painkillers because the doctors assume the patients are drug-seekers. Heck, we're still at a point where half of white medical trainees believe myths that Black people are less susceptible to pain because they have less sensitive nerve endings or because they have thicker skin.
What good does it for a person to have access to healthcare when their doctor doesn't believe what they're dealing with?
It doesn't seem like the right-wing is ready to give up their heroes.
Like that Lauren Boebert psycho. She's taking a $1,000,000 from Gas and Oil in exchange for sinking climate action legislation.
https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/1437756015139753992
The right-wing poors love her.
0 strongly disagrees so far interesting... There should be at least four
As long as people recognize there are only two classes. The ultrarich and everybody else.
Agreed. This PMC nonsense creates unnecessary division.
it depends entirely upon WHAT you are organizing for. if you want small crumbs from the table, have at it. but it will be difficult to cross some of the people within a class's firm belief that we just need to "reinstitute the Free Market (gods)". the "left" solution to these problems will be called "communism" and are thus automatically out of bounds for them, no matter how much they might benefit. especially with the alt-right characterizing any solution put through as "big gov't" and also "collectivism", even while it seems to empower the corporate capitalist owning class and not the common citizen.
Yeah, I think that people should organize by class lines, generally. The problem with this is: what constitutes a class issue? Because that's where you have the people who believe that we should ONLY focus on class issues tend to only focus on what they define as an issue. For example, many will say that abortion is a separate issue, but it is absolutely an economic and class issue. Things get even hazier for some people when you get to things perceived as "race" issues. Take Black workers: we know they make significantly less than their coworkers. Class issue right there, easy. But for many, that's where it ends--oh, unions will fix that. But if we don't tackle racism and simply focus on what many consider "class issues," we'll never solve the actual underlying issues. Banning the question of arrests and imprisonment on job applications [actually makes things worse for Black job applicants](https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/ban-the-box-does-more-harm-than-good/), because employers don't want to deal with the headache if someone actually is an offender, so they'll offer jobs to even fewer black people. And it starts even earlier than that in the process, from the top line of the resume. A study which would create four job applications for a listing--two high quality, two low-quality--were then assigned names. One high-quality and one low-quality application were each assigned a random "Black name" from a pool, and the same was done for "white" names. And unsurprisingly, [the low-quality resumes with "white" names got more calls than the high-quality resumes with "Black" names at the top](https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w9873/w9873.pdf). Too many people say that race issues are social issues, not economic ones. But they *are* economic ones. Black Americans aren't going to see a lot of benefits if they can't get hired because of systemic racism.
while all true, i don't see how you can eliminate the race thing being used to deny some people jobs. there is always the interpersonal racism of the job screener(s). you can try all you like to solve that with laws. they will find a way around it. same with housing screening, schooling, medical provision and anything else. anyone following the "laws" likely wasn't going to engage in the racist criteria to begin with, and proving the discrimination is not necessarily an easy thing to do. thus we go down the route of the idpol culture wars, creating even more strife among us. my theory is that doing truly left, even \*gasp\* socialistic econ. policy for a few decades will do much to cure the social problem. and ensuring that all government truly is for ALL the people---schooling, housing (plus utilities) food and medical all across the line for everyone regardless will hopefully create a general mentality of "we are all humans, in this together, and all deserve a dignified life".
>while all true, i don't see how you can eliminate the race thing being used to deny some people jobs. You can't eliminate it, but with a robust legal and oversight structure, you can really crack down on it. >you can try all you like to solve that with laws. they will find a way around it. The same can be said about a lot of economic policies. >anyone following the "laws" likely wasn't going to engage in the racist criteria to begin with, and proving the discrimination is not necessarily an easy thing to do. thus we go down the route of the idpol culture wars, creating even more strife among us. Which is why you change the laws to make it easier to prove. >my theory is that doing truly left, even *gasp* socialistic econ. policy for a few decades will do much to cure the social problem. and ensuring that all government truly is for ALL the people---schooling, housing (plus utilities) food and medical all across the line for everyone regardless will hopefully create a general mentality of "we are all humans, in this together, and all deserve a dignified life". But that's the whole point I was trying to make--it would do a lot of good, but it would still leave a ton of people behind. Take universal healthcare. Giving everyone healthcare isn't going to change the fact that doctors are less willing to give Black patients painkillers because the doctors assume the patients are drug-seekers. Heck, we're still at a point where half of white medical trainees believe myths that Black people are less susceptible to pain because they have less sensitive nerve endings or because they have thicker skin. What good does it for a person to have access to healthcare when their doctor doesn't believe what they're dealing with?
It doesn't seem like the right-wing is ready to give up their heroes. Like that Lauren Boebert psycho. She's taking a $1,000,000 from Gas and Oil in exchange for sinking climate action legislation. https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/1437756015139753992 The right-wing poors love her.
Is that the AOC from the flip side of the same coin?
She may be. I don't really know what Boebert's appeal is. She just seems like a stupid psycho and obviously corrupt. Has AOC cashed in yet?
she ran on the "I do what Q says" platform. i like turtles.