Publicly funded services are harmful if they are turned into weapons by reactionary biggots.

  • Speaker [e/em/eir]
    ·
    3 years ago

    If we're talking extending logic, the logic of the OP is that we should dismantle social services because they're used as a cudgel by the right against "welfare queens".

    And yes. The business of revolution is to look at what is with discontent, to say "why is justice not present here?" and to act accordingly. Observe the horrors that surround you and be radicalized, and use your observations to radicalize others into the revolutionary struggle.

      • Speaker [e/em/eir]
        ·
        edit-2
        3 years ago

        The Democrats are not a publicly funded entity, they are explicitly a corporate tool beholden entirely to the interests of capital. Forever and always, this is how it is. They are not established nor guaranteed by any sort of publicly governable body of law, they are a body of donors with a fan club. That some of them pay lip service to social good is an aberration, not a goal.

        Also, I don't know where this "never feel good about anything" thing you keep saying comes from. I'm saying "don't be happy when publicly funded bodies are gutted in order to be replaced by yet one more ad-funded capitalist mouthpiece", and if you can't see the difference between those two ideas then I implore you to read theory. The BBC is not good, because the governments running it have been horrific, but the thing that the BBC is (a state-funded media organization at least nominally beholden to the public rather than to corporate interests, and which produces more free content than just the absolute shit "news" coverage) is good, and the situation will be materially worse (for Brits, anyway, though I could see a reasonable argument that it would better for colonized peoples [at least until the Baz Broadcasting Company replaces it with 24-hour immigrant panic]) when it dies.