and, did i watch sanders' speech?

i did.

and, i couldn't tell if he was standing on stilts or not as he was projecting his bourgeois fantasies.

there isn't a better option, and there hasn't been in decades. that is all i've ever said. but, it has long been pointed out by leftists of all types that he really shouldn't be calling himself a socialist, and he really drove that home pretty strongly by citing a person (fdr) who made it his life goal to stop a socialist revolution from happening - and succeeded.

he talked a lot about how freedom requires economic rights, but he didn't address the actual fundamental issue, which is whether a capitalist state will allow for these kinds of guarantees. i might put forward the argument that if these things were possible without a more structural kind of change then we'd already have them.

so, can you have a jobs guarantee in a capitalist economy? for a few minutes, maybe, but it will be gotten rid of as soon as the capitalists can figure out how to do it, and so long as they have the system on their side they're going to succeed in getting rid of it, eventually. can you have a right to housing in a society that agitates for a surplus of labour?

the left tends to come down pretty hard on hippies for just enunciating this shit without extrapolating on the reasons we don't already have it, or in understanding why the economy is designed to deny it.

and, the bankers may even sign off on his economic bill of rights, if there's enough people in the streets. but, good luck getting the courts to enforce any of it - that will take 200 years of building precedent.

the narrative is that sanders is the change candidate, but the more he speaks the more he's demonstrating that he really isn't, that he's just another moderate reformist that doesn't really get it.