It may speak well of him, but it is the bitter barista, ready to enforce that knocking down a peg, who ends of in control. Just because you are willing to accept a tax increase of some percentage does not align your motives and position with the hypothetical barista. I think that is the actual substance, of not the intent of the parent comment. After all, that bitter barista and his friends have no problem spray painting ‘liberals get the bullet too’ on things as they attempt to prove there point.
I'm not just willing to accept some small tax increase, I'm willing to accept (and actively advocating/voting for) radical socialist transformation of our economy to a point that would be far beyond anything that would be in my own interest. I vehemently disagree that I'm not "really" on the same side as the barista because our interests don't align. There are some of us out there who will fight for what's right even if it's against our own selfish interests. Obviously we don't share the same struggles as, say, the struggling barista on a day-to-day basis so sometimes the appropriate urgency isn't there but in the end we are 100% on the same side.
> it is the bitter barista, ready to enforce that knocking down a peg, who ends of in control
This is not really the goal in my experience moving in leftist circles. There's a lot of talk about bringing the wealthy down to the same level as everyone else to eliminate various forms of inequality, but not much talk about inverting the system so that the formerly rich are now under the heel of the formerly poor. The ones "in control" would be everyone, including the former elites.
