This is bad answer. As we have seen. With both main parties right now.
This is again immaterial. They are doing what they are supposed to do. Represent their constituent parts of the ruling, governing class. In particular to attempt to leverage their power to get the immediate problems resolved.
The journal Chuang explains it better:
… there is always a risk of attributing more agency to presidents, chairmen and assorted billionaires than is deserved. The reality is that decisions made at the helms of states or corporations are always made in response to material limits confronted by complex political and economic systems. The ruling class is a designator for a non-homogenous array of individuals who hold decision-making positions within these citadels of political-economic power, for whom the continuation of the status quo is of the utmost priority. But these individuals sit in highly structured positions, beholden to the built-in demands of shareholders (for higher profit) and political constituencies (for minimal levels of stability and prosperity—not so much the requirement that things get better but simply that they don’t get too bad too fast). There is thus no real malicious intent behind such decisions, nor is there the ability for such holders of power to truly transform or break free from the system itself. They are chained to it just as we all are, though they find themselves chained to its top.
The entire process is, therefore, one of contingent adaptations, rather than ruling class conspiracy. Its product is not that of a hidden, scheming council of elites, but simply the result of the continual experimentation through which different factions of the ruling class attempted to resolve the budding crisis and failed, their efforts then replaced by new, untested possibilities put forward by new leaders generating new outcomes that had to be dealt with in turn. The process is one of continual transformation in response to the local manifestations of the global decline in profitability. “Neoliberalism” is therefore not a fully conscious, casually malicious political program, as some authors would have it, but simply a term attributed to a loose consensus that formed around numerous local solutions to the crisis that seemed to overcome short-term limits at the time. The prominence of an increasingly militarized state in this period is itself a symptom of the fundamental incoherence of this consensus, since the management of the ever-building, ever-deferred yet ever-present crisis grows more and more monumental. We have today finally reached the point at which this consensus is collapsing in the face of declining global trade and rising tides of populist nationalism, even while the massive military apparatus that accreted atop global supply chains remains, driven by its own inertia.
- Chuang, Second Edition. Red Dust
under Convergent Crisises
Viewing the matters of parties in terms of absolute morality misses the forest for the trees. In facts it create an entirely new forest to fixate on in favor of the immediate and the material reality. And I'm going to make another citation to the ongoing Cushvlog project of Matt Christman. While he develops out his ideas over multiple videos on different days as the ideas develop, he discusses at least for a moment about how the view of something being "good" or "bad" is inherently short-sighted in this stream
. Don't ask me for the time stamp because I'm too lazy for that. But the essential point is: so what if something is "good" or "bad" because that changes nothing. So what if the police are good, or bad? Because that doesn't change what is materially happening and convincing people to agree on this doesn't reach towards policy. So what if parties are "good" or "bad"? It doesn't change the fact they are the culmination of class interest(s) through history in a political sphere and emerge and evolve as a response to these criseses and pressures of the time and place.
What is a materially important question that does anything is: What are you going to do about that? And what I'm going to say is: you're going to need to form a party somewhere along that line.