Ask Lemmy

No, and that's part of the problem with fascist tactics in general: there's a fundamental asymmetry in that contrarianism & tearing down institutions is a lot easier and more constrained than designing new policies and building things up. In a lot of cases, "the opposite or reverse" of a project 2025 policy isn't a single thing, but an unbounded number of possibilities.

(This is related to how fascist bad-faith rhetoric is so difficult to counter, since stooping to their tactics often only helps them achieve their objective of poisoning the well. See also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law)

Yes.

More seriously, although they're wrong on every point, the obvious inverse isn't always a clear gameplan for improvement.

Project 2025 is mostly destroying existing systems that benefit the masses to save rich fucks money, and those systems have a lot of inequity due to social reasons.

Anything Project 2025 wants to destroy is most likely a benefit to society in general and that would make a good list of things to improve.

At best the opposite of everything there would be a good start but much of it isn't really reversible. You don't need to worry about specifics if you're trying to break things, but we do when we try to build. I can ruin a snowman just by raising the temperture, but I cannot build a snowman just by lowering it.

This is what I believe will make a great society.

Strong social democracy.

You have a country with relatively high taxes, a government providing strong safety nets and a free market boosting the economy.

Fines are all dayfines with no upper limit.

Education is free, to a point, you get grades 1-12 for free and you get to have two trade school/college programs for free with automatic grants for spending money, and low interest loans for those who want more. If you fail to complete the educations then after the second one, the grants and low interest loans are forefit.

Healthcare costs say 20EUR for a normal appointment, after ten appointments in a year any further appointments are free.

Emergency care is free.

Medicine costs are low, but if you have to pay more than 300eur for prescription drugs in a year, further prescription drugs are free.

There is an upper limit to personal wealth, you can make 500 million EUR, way more than anyone will ever need, any further money earned will be put in a fund for social and environmental development. The money you earn will however still be logged as having beened earned by you, so you get put on a highscore list and can show others your acchivement. You'll still be rich, you just won't be flying private jet all over rich, or owning 17 super yatchs rich.

Prisons will focus on rehabillitation and realively short punnishments, at first, at the third sentence where a criminal reoffends, they will be given a storage sentence, much longer prison time where the government protects society against criminals who are not interested in living a normal life.

Rhetorically: What's the antithesis of an 18% (base) corporate tax rate?

Project 2025 is fucking awful, but just doing the opposite of them doesn't make sense when the working conditions of regular people can only be improved through a materialist view of the world, as the opposite of their goals isn't what our goals are.

trying to match and invalidate every poor policy is unfeasible because it's easy to come up with a terrible policy that targets vulnerable populations.

you'd forever be playing catch up.

increasing civil rights and workers rights, on the other hand, protects people fundamentally, so it doesn't matter how many unjust 2025 policies they come up with if civil rights are fundamentally protected.

laws about what women are allowed to wear, what medicine women are allowed to take, what surgeries women are allowed, If personal autonomy becomes an inviolable right, it doesn't matter how many ways conservatives try to constrain a woman's liberty.

Sort of, but not quite. I get where you're going with that though, and it's the right idea.

The explicit goal of Project 2025 is simply to make it easier for greedy and power-hungry privileged right-wing assholes to bring harm to people and to the nation as a whole for their own imnediate benefit. So yes - it actually serves as a sort of backhanded guide to what is of value in government.

It's just that doing the opposite of what Project 2025 calls for would mean expanding agencies and regulations rather than reducing or eliminating them, and that's likely not the best option, since it could just lead to governments run rampant instead of corporations run rampant.

As with most things, the optimum lies between the two extremes.

But yeah - at the very least, it can be taken as a rule of thumb that there's a direct correspondence between the value a thing provides to the people and the nation as a whole and the degree to which Project 2025 opposes it and intends to destroy it.