Both parties want oppression, genocide and economic ruin.

The different is that one openly wants it everywere - abroad and at home - whilst the other one wants it abroad whilst voicing discomfort (but doing little else) about having it at home.

DNC politicians couldn’t care less about people getting killed (children included) as long as the AIPAC and MIL checks keep getting paid.

Re-read what I wrote - being black is nowhere as correlated with suffering systemic abuses from wealth inequality as is being poor or working class, more so for gender as per your own numbers: women earning in average 80% of what men earn is far less unequal than the average worker earning less than 0.3% of what a CEO earns (and way less than that when compared to a billionaire).

There is no inherent poverty in being black or a woman, there’s only that which has been placed there by people who - like Reagan - when they look at other human beings don’t see people, they see ethnicity or gender, and by following a logic that expects afro-americans or women to all be “something” and “having an obligation to behave in certain way” purely because of their race or gender, you’re following THE EXACT SAME MENTAL ARCHITECTURE as the racists and sexists like Reagan of classifying people based on genetics and then having expectations on them and determining what they deserve based on that.

(Emphasys and big caps because that’s the part that really pisses me off)

Fighting inequality by using the very same proxies of worth and deserving as the Far-Right is validating and prolonging the very fundations of Far-Right thinking that say that people should be treated first and foremost based on race and gender. Those who do so, whether they think that they’re leftwing or not, are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

It’s thus not surprising that this kind of thinking is most widespread in Neoliberal countries whose Overtoon Window is way to the right of most countries - you don’t shift politics to the Left by limiting yourself to the perspective on other human being of the Fascists.

You fight the suffering of systemic abuses by punishing and stopping the abusers and helping the ACTUAL victims, not by accepting the reductive and prejudicial proxies of the abusers themselves and shaping your thinking on the subject and fighting around those - that’s just willfully playing by the rules of the Fascists.

PS: But don’t trust me, just look at the actual results - Identity Politics has been way worse than things like Social Democracy or even Unionism in reducing the systemic abuses its supporters claim to want to address. In fact in the countries and period were Identity Politics dominated left-of-center (relative to the local Overtoon Window) politics, the suffering due to systemic abuses has actually worsened when compared to periods and places were Social-Democracy or even just Unionism were more dominant.

As the quote from Warren Buffet I provided shows, it’s exactly the same thing in the US.

My point is that those working for a Finance and Economics magazine in the country of the World with a massive International Tax Evasion & Avoidance industry are very much aware that the people with the most money do not “pay for everything”, quite the contrary: they take more from the common pot via industry subsidies, the cost for the taxpayer to uphold Property Law for their assets and the societal side effects of wealth inequality - from the need for unemployment and other benefits to higher Crime due to inequality - than they put in taxes - they’re parasites, not contributors.

Further, the top 1% of wealth in the US don’t own 30% of all the wealth in the country throught their annual wealth increase only being 0.1% of GDP as implied by how they framed their argument around that single loophole.

That claim that a specific “loophole benefiting the very wealthy” only amount “0.1% of GDP” is either a lie or they cherry-picked a single loophole and chose not to mention all the other ones, which is a lie by omission.

Lying by omission like that definitelly matches my own experience from reading it, on how The Economist frames things and dishes out selective half-truths to “form opinion” either to excuse (even celebrate) the very wealthy or spread a message of “there’s nothing we can do about it, better just do nothing” when it comes to make them pay their fair share into the common pot - the propaganda technique of this magazine doesn’t seem to have change in the decade and a half since I stopped reading it.

The Economist is based in the UK, so they know with absolute certainty that the rich most definitelly do not “pay for everything” since in that country, much more than most, the industry for Tax Avoidance and Evasion is MASSIVE, using British Crown dependencies (like the Channel Islands and the Bahamas) and even supported by the local legislation (such as their very special Non-Resident Tax Scheme which actually applies to people resident in the UK), all of which expensive enough that they’re only worth using for people who make millions per-year.

The idea that a British-based magazine specialized in Finance and Economics are unfamiliar with the kind of schemes used by the likes of the Duke Of Westminster to avoid paying any tax at all and instead think the rich pay most taxes beggars belief.

At best, the Middle and Upper-Middle Class pay for everything. De facto the rich pay less effective tax on their incomes than the lowest levels of the Working Class, some even in absolute terms (as admitted by none other than Warren Buffet when he said that “I pay less tax than my secretary”).

I read The Economis for over a decade until the 2008 Crash (when I finally saw the disconnect between the ideas they claimed to defend and the actions they actually approved of, and thus stopped reading it) and I have no doubt in my mind that this is just their usual “opinion forming” mix of half-truths, cherry picked factoids and pseudo-Scientific theories knowingly built on top of lies.

as an individual who has undoubtedly been subject to those systemic abuses

Bullshit!

Plenty of black women are part of the Owner Class, plenty of white men are part of the Working Class - what’s almost perfectly correlated with being subject the systemic abuses of class is “Wealth”. Race (even in the US, which is extra fucked up) is only somewhat positivelly correlated and gender is barelly so (the difference in average incomes between rich and poor is literally thousands of times greater than the difference in average incomes between men and women).

There is no reason to pull out “identitarian markers” when talking about class inequality unless one has been indoctrinated in a Neoliberal “divide and conquer” fake-Leftist political ideology designed to divide the fight for Equality For All into a hierarchy of “differently deserving of having Equality” based on things people wore born with rather than on Need, a view of others and how deserving they are that mirrors the way the Far-Right sees the world.

Not being filthy rich and having to slog in the mud like the rest of us to just keep one’s head above the surface is infinitelly more correlated to not being in the Owner Class than one’s count of X chromossomes in pair 23 or one’s gene for melanine production.

It really pisses me off how people from some political cultures with very right-shifted Overtoon Windows, even whilst they have the best of intentions, have been brainwashed into classifying their fellow human beings and having expectations on them (i.e. Prejudices) using the very same architecture of thinking as the Far-Right, to the point that even when they talk about “class inequality” their mind sees “identitarian markers” (just like the Fascists) rather than “Working Class” which is from where the actual expression “class inequality” originates from.

She’s not a class traitor because she’s black or because she’s a woman, she’s a class traitor because she works for a living and is cooperating in suppressing news about the problems caused by the Owner Class.