Ask Lemmygrad

I think your understanding is correct and that in order to create a more sustainable system adjustments need to be made, such as rebuilding production facilities in the US and redirecting the service sector towards this production. Also wages, especially for labor aristocrats, will need to decrease or stagnate. These things are being represented as sacrifices, however the policies of a socialist program would oughtweigh their effects. It's not as if a socialist US (I know it's problematic to refer to as such but for the sake of convention I'll use it) would implement this wage stagnation without also implementing affordable rent control, seizure of agricultural products/land (which far an away enough to geed everyone), allow access the health care (only expensive due to insurance/pharmaceutical corporations), reorganizing workplaces into a representative state structure (this would likely remove the bloat of executives so it would potentially improve the wages of non-labor aristocrats).

The financialization of the American economy will have consequences in our restructuring of it, however those consequences won't only be bad for American workers, in fact they'd beneficial. The trap is in assuming these can coexist with imperialism, which they cannot, and would be unsustainable.

Your analysis is correct, but if we want the west to have an organized left, that analysis must be framed in a way that makes people understand why socialism is to their ultimate benifet. Framing things as sacrifices, rhetorically implies that the current system is superior in certain individual ways. This suggests that economic systems are atomized individual processes all remote from another. We know, however, that they are in fact interdependent dynamic processes that collectively move forward.

If we reframe again, what exactly determines that our proposals are sacrifices, but doesn't label the daily alienation of workers as a sacrifice? Why is having less options of shitty fast food considered a sacrifice, but being forced to go hungry in order to pay rent isn't called out as a sacrifice? What makes having to work where the state tells you a sacrifice, but not having the option to work is somehow not a sacrifice people make to capitalism?

I'm just commenting this for the sake f understanding how rhetoric Luke our own can sometimes capitulate to capitalists when we really don't need to, and a simple reframing of the discussion exposes this hypocrisy.