I'll admit that I don't understand the inner workings of the Democratic Party, but I want to say: It's not that neoliberals control the money because they run/ran the DNC, but that the DNC had money because it was controlled by neoliberals. This money ultimately comes from donors, who give it to neoliberals no matter what post those neoliberals currently hold. To a first approximation, the more progressive the party is, the less money it gets, with the difference going to neoliberals directly. The point being: The neoliberals' political comes from their rich backers (and the media connections of those rich backers), not from their party posts, so while their power would be diminished by losing control of the party they'd be far from done for.
Are y'all still going on about this? The (to oversimplify) racists voted for their racist candidate; the decent people didn't get a decent candidate to vote for so they voted less. The idea that either of them being women had anything to do with it is unmitigated bullshit.
Uh... leadership that doesn't do shit isn't famous for having a lot of legitimacy. These days milquetoast moderates only have legitimacy among other milquetoast moderates; the days when a moderate one-size-fits-no-one politicians will have people shrug their shoulder and think "oh well" are long gone. People today want politicians who have concrete solutions to the problems of the working class and are willing to work to make them happen; that's how you build legitimacy in 2026.
So long as copyright is being enforced at the individual level for consumers, large corporations shouldn't be allowed to get away with infringing on it for profit.
Sure, but my conclusion from that isn't "IP law should be enforced on the big corporations too;" it's "IP law should be abolished and also down with capitalism." Why should I want an unjust law to be enforced even more vigorously?
Yeah that's the thing: I don't believe it's wrong to profit from people's content without their permission, because I don't believe they own that content after they share it with humanity and I absolutely don't believe they should get to enforce that "ownership" via state violence. Everyone should get to use anything they want in derivative works, whether for profit or not. The fact that this could plausibly affect people's livelihoods (but IMO wouldn't; if there were significant profits in IP "theft" corporations would already be doing it) is a failure of capitalism and frankly not the reproducer's business.
I mean, a key element of the anti-AI movement is that AI "steals" art, but I fundamentally believe in that art (and ideas) can't be owned and therefore can't be stolen. Ditto for code or what have you.
Unfortunately America's military system is designed specifically so that doesn't happen. The Joint Staff doesn't actually command any troops, so they can't launch a coup (at least not without the cooperation of people who do).
I'll admit that I don't understand the inner workings of the Democratic Party, but I want to say: It's not that neoliberals control the money because they run/ran the DNC, but that the DNC had money because it was controlled by neoliberals. This money ultimately comes from donors, who give it to neoliberals no matter what post those neoliberals currently hold. To a first approximation, the more progressive the party is, the less money it gets, with the difference going to neoliberals directly. The point being: The neoliberals' political comes from their rich backers (and the media connections of those rich backers), not from their party posts, so while their power would be diminished by losing control of the party they'd be far from done for.