1027
Instead of takedown ads, this Gen-Z congressional candidate is using campaign money to feed people
(www.goodgoodgood.co)
this post was submitted on 16 May 2025
1027 points (99.1% liked)
Uplifting News
15171 readers
31 users here now
Welcome to /c/UpliftingNews, a dedicated space where optimism and positivity converge to bring you the most heartening and inspiring stories from around the world. We strive to curate and share content that lights up your day, invigorates your spirit, and inspires you to spread positivity in your own way. This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity and rage (e.g. schadenfreude) often found in today's news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity's capacity for good.
Here in /c/UpliftingNews, we uphold the values of respect, empathy, and inclusivity, fostering a supportive and vibrant community. We encourage you to share your positive news, comment, engage in uplifting conversations, and find solace in the goodness that exists around us. We are more than a news-sharing platform; we are a community built on the power of positivity and the collective desire for a more hopeful world. Remember, your small acts of kindness can be someone else's big ray of hope. Be part of the positivity revolution; share, uplift, inspire!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Anyone trying to overhaul a corrupt system would know that infiltrating it is a highly effective opposition tactic. You're not speaking for progress, you're speaking for contrarianism.
Edit - besides, she's using political donations to feed people. Corrupt systems absolutely have uses for honest individuals, because your potential allies in poverty are starving to death and she is feeding them.
I always imagined that if I won an office and lobbyists were throwing donations at me, I would spend all of it plus $1 on charities they despised
.
This isn't infiltrating the vague concept of capitalism, it's infiltrating congress. She's not trying to climb some corporate ladder here.
What, exactly, has been more effective in the US? Capitalism still isn't defeated, as far as I can tell.
What the fuck do you want her to do, stop? Go home?
If you want heroes, if you want martyrs, if you want real people with real power and real megaphones, you need to work with the tools you have available. Whatever else you're doing hasn't worked any better than what she's doing. Unions are still operating under the umbrella of capitalism - they sign deals with capitalists all the time. Do you think we should stop unionizing?
.
.... HAH. No... just, no. That's not what centrism is, and that's NOT the story of how we got the 8 hour workday.
We have (or in some cases had) the 8 hour workday, OSHA, social security, legally protected unions, etc as a result of the New Deal.
What was the New Deal?
Well, an extremely progressive "centrist" (your words, not mine) - Frankin Delano Roosevelt - ran for President, and won. He took over the Presidency in the depths of the Great Depression, and Democrats attained majority in both chambers of congress.
They gained complete political power largely because Republican policies had sent the United States into an economic nosedive. They also gained unprecedented political capital for progressive policies by grassroots support in response to the horrifying economic conditions all across the United States.
Sound familiar?
He - alongside Congress - passed a whole bunch of legislation, created a whole bunch of federal agencies, and forced through massive leaps forward in labor protections and social welfare programs.
That's why you have the 8 hour workday.
Read a book.
Been on your side up to this point.
All those things about the new deal you pointed out are true in the abstract. Within context, all the most progressive wins of the new deal were compromises based on "saving capitalism from itself" under the pressure of activist and labor movements (much more radical and empowered than what we know) and the spectre of revolution.
It was activists and popular pressure (largely driven by communist and anarchist organizers) that advocated for these wins.
The powers that were didn't do these things out of the kindness of their hearts. But it's been too our benifit that fdr was willing to be won over in this way. Consider how he engaged with A Philip Randolph (who would later go on to be lead organizer for the March on Washington for jobs and justice) for further proof on his ability to be swayed.
Remember, the Bolshevic revolution happened not long ago at this point and was an ideological threat to capitalism. And the Spanish revolution had just happened and presented an even deeper ideological threat.
Tldr: there were popular movements domestically and external pressures abroad that made the concessions of the new deal necessary.
And again, generally agreed with you in this thread but your point here risks misrepresentation of the history of people power and agitation and how crucial it's been to the few good things we know in this country.
That's fair, and we cover these points deeper in the thread. The whole point is that the New Deal was a leftist win and an electoral win. The system changed.
To claim it was just socialist activism that gave us the 8 hour workday without acknowledging the role of the shift in government that the activism actually achieved is unproductive. The New Deal wasn't bought by oligarchs, it was built by workers.
To say there's no point in trying to change things because the "system is corrupt", and that supporting major paradigm shifts in the electoral system is a waste of time, is to forget the incredible effort and achievements of those movements. I perhaps overstated my piece there, I'll acknowledge that. But only because this entire conversation started with "we have no use for honesty in a corrupt system".
And there is the chance that the system is unfixable. That the core flaws can't be changed from within. But that still wouldn't be a good reason to oppose young progressives who are trying. If the system is completely overhauled, young progressives are exactly the type of people we want to be there, with platforms and networks in place.
.
You're absolutely right - the New Deal was possible because:
That is in fact the grassroots support I'm talking about, thanks.
How do you think we had a Congress and a President who were willing to listen to those grassroots movements?
That's right - Americans elected a whole bunch of people like the candidate in this article.
The one you claimed we "have no use for."
.
My friend, you've gone too deep.
I genuinely do agree that we do not have the same party or candidates or support as we did in the 1930s. I genuinely agree that we need systematic change, or any progress we make will only be undone within a century, like last time.
But they didn't have that party, those candidates, or that support in the 1920s. The Great Depression changed everything.
Violence alone did not make it happen. And lol no, the current Republican Party would absolutely let the United States collapse into civil war before they passed anything like the New Deal. You know, like... the, American Civil War.
Referring to progressive movements in the 1930s as "grassroots" doesn't fucking whitewash anything. Socialists weren't alone in the 1930s, and socialism didn't have anywhere close to enough support in the 1920s to get the New Deal passed.
They elected the people who made the difference. It wasn't "benevolent capitalists" that gave us the New Deal - it was people voting for change. Real change, not the half-assed shit we talk about these days.
I wish we could skip over the terrible economic suffering that pushed Americans in that direction, but it probably will happen all over again.
Your socialist movement is possible. We're walking into all the conditions required to make it happen. And here you are, claiming that you have no use for the exact type of people you need to see it through.
.
The last time the status quo was truly threatened, the South started a war. The Republican Party would do the same thing today.
Plenty of socialists et al were threatening the status quo in the 1920s. The Republicans didn't listen. But the Great Depression itself upended the status quo, and made Americans willing to do anything to make it stop.
That lead to Democrats gaining complete control, and it lead to Democrats being persuaded to actually use that control to enact real change. Yes, part of that persuasion was absolutely intimidation. Much of that intimidation was bought with the blood of leftists.
The same exact conditions are precipitating now. The United States has had its tariffs and its deregulations and its tax cuts and its spending cuts. The stock market points wherever the fuck it wants, but the actual economy is pointing straight down.
And I completely agree that the solution isn't "let the Democrats fix it". Far from it.
But the solution certainly doesn't involve opposition to the type of electoral candidates that would help fix things, like a 26 year old who seems genuinely interested in helping people.
.
Lol ok. I am aware that they started to demand socialism. We are saying the exact same thing there.
Where we disagree is where you're pessimistic in claiming that:
I am optimistic in claiming that:
I get the desire to reduce an extremely complex situation into simple answers. But the New Deal wasn't just a compromise. The New Deal was an incredible leap forward for labor. And we didn't completely stop - and later regress - just because we had reached a compromise. Republicans had regained control in the late 1930s, and Americans would have witnessed in real time as their amazing economic growth completely faltered. But that didn't happen.
We regressed so dramatically because the Second World War gave us economic hegemony that allowed the US to flourish without actually doing anything to deserve it.
Neoliberalism and laissez faire capitalism would never have achieved such popularity in the modern day if not for the fact that the US economy was so strong following the New Deal and the wartime boost, and if the global economy hadn't just been completely eviscerated.
These policies would have failed much sooner and much more obviously. But full-on Middle Ages Feudalism would have been popular for an entire generation of Baby Boomers, as long as a feudalistic United States was the last major industrial nation standing in the ashes of the 1940s.
The New Deal was socialism in action. To claim it was nothing but a compromise is what actually whitewashes all of the blood spilled to make it happen. We still benefit from the legacy of the New Deal, and we are actively fighting over its legacy as we speak.
The United States could have kept moving in that direction. The United States can move in that direction again. If you won't support electoral candidates that can help make that happen, the least you could do is get out of the fucking way.
Go oppose electoral candidates that are diametrically opposed to socialism.
.
The system itself was massively corrupt in the 1920s, too. It's literally called the Gilded Age. The New Deal didn't fix everything - not even close! - there are core issues that have never been addressed.
But it did fix a lot.
The SEC, FDIC, National Labor Relations Act, and Fair Labor Standards Act took a massive fucking crowbar to the kneecaps of oligarchs whose boots were absolutely grinding into the throats of the working class, and the Works Progress Administration undercut all exploitative businesses by becoming the nation's largest employer.
We live in unprecedented times. We are capable of unprecedented things. But there are many precedents for change and progress being possible both inside the system and out.
I think there are absolutely structural issues in the system that need to be ripped out and rebuilt, and I think it's highly likely it will take big things to ever make that happen. Things that might indeed prove to be impossible within the current confines of the system.
But whatever actions you take, however you use your voice, whatever support or opposition you choose to give - pick your goddamn battles.
Claiming we have no use for someone who is trying to help? Saying that - in your words - the best case scenario is another Bernie Sanders, as if that wouldn't be fucking glorious? That we would be so fortunate to see another living legend of socialism stand for their beliefs for an entire lifetime?
A brilliant and uncorruptible independent in a sea of oligarchy and partisanship, who has constantly been ahead of the game, who constantly spoke for the rights of the worker, and who is one of the only reasons socialism is even close to mainstream in this country?
I'm sorry to say that you are a pessimist. You just think it's realism, and I don't blame you for that.
Whatever you think about the means that can be used to achieve your goals, you still need to change minds. Even if you burned the system down - which I'm quite certain you won't - you still need people with clear heads, good hearts, and strong wills to rebuild something from the ashes. Maybe recognize that people like Bernie Sanders would be the ideal for that niche.
.