Discussion about this post

User's avatar
sean's avatar

The problem you complain about found its roots in 2016 when Bernie failed to challenge Hillary at the convention and show the world what a true fraud she and her pals Donna Brazile and Debbie Wasserman Schultz were and embarrass the Dem insider establishment into responding to the populace that was once the Dem base.

Kermit O's avatar

I'm gonna keep nagging you, Corbin, because I do think you're onto something, but you stop just shy of really saying it. Again this is like 40% "who", 40% "why" and maybe 20% "what". You need more what.

In this essay you say things like:

"The government built water and irrigation infrastructure that turned the Central Valley into the food supply for half the country"

And

"Medicare for All. Public ownership of AI infrastructure. A housing program that builds and owns, not just subsidizes."

Medicare for All is a slogan. One that's clear enough in principle but the mechanism and the actual experience is hazy for a lot of people. What does this actually mean to our day to day experience with the healthcare system?

What is our equivalent of the TVA? There are actually citizen owned utilities NOW, but a lot of those people don't even know they have decision making power and the structure has been co-opted by a smaller group who do know.

There are many smart people working on this — doing this — you can find a lot of information about it from ILSR (institute of local self-reliance).

What else is there?

When hurricane Maria hit PR, it was people's ability to organize and build solar microgrids that got the power back on while the big utility schemed and managed planned blackouts to ration the grid. Cuba, when food imports were hit by the fall of the USSR, the people built the organopónicos to grow their own food.

You say "public ownership of AI". What does that really mean? It also makes the continued build out of that infrastructure (i.e. data centers) sound inevitable, even though it is massively unpopular, across the political spectrum. Probably on their own data centers are contentious enough to be a key campaign pledge.

There are also really smart people talking about an "AI commons" and a"democratic agenda for AI governance". See the work of the One Project.

People want concrete ideas, not kitschy slogans, and not just politicians who will "fight" against what's wrong. Trump was able to win on the premise of disrupting the existing system and now people have found out that without a clearly articulated alternative, disruption may actually only mean organized collapse and mass grift all the way down into the abyss.

WHAT, *exactly*, are these new candidates offering? WHAT *exactly* would we get excited about instead of just mad about?

43 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?