this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2024
39 points (100.0% liked)
Socialism
2845 readers
112 users here now
Beehaw's community for socialists, communists, anarchists, and non-authoritarian leftists (this means anti-capitalists) of all stripes. A place for all leftist and labor news and discussion, as long as you're nice about it.
Non-socialists are welcome to come to learn, though it's hard to get to in-depth discussions if the community is constantly fighting over the basics. We ask that non-socialists please be respectful and try not to turn this into a "left vs right" debate forum by asking leading questions or by trying to draw others into a fight.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Reminds me of Robert Reich, who makes his money railing against the evils of capitalism, but seemingly did nothing to change it when he actually had the power to do so in the Clinton Administration.
He's right though, it's just a bummer that he didn't find his conscience when he could make real change.
How much power did he actually have? He was leader, but lost the general. He could have reformed Labour, and maybe they would still have had their landslide, giving Britain a more progressive government, but that's conjecture.
Or is this about his voting record?