That and your both sides are the same trash.

If you’re referring to the post they linked, they differentiate Labor and Liberal - the bottom line is still that both those parties (and many others) have plenty of common overlap, and these parties are both highly vulnerable to manipulation by the ruling class that backs them financially, institutionally, socially, etc. etc. . This is structural, not a false equivalence. If Labor were definitively a pro-worker party, and ruled governments for the workers, we would not be in this situation we’re in today where workers are struggling to budget while a few owners each collect the wealth of 50,000 workers.

The class of people with absurd amounts of capital want to keep as much of their capital as possible, so they continue to use that capital to influence society and its political systems. Those ultrawealthy (and to be absolutely clear, no, that does not include people making a mere 300k or so), are not crabs in our bucket. They are the people who bought the bucket.

And yes, you’re right that there are ways to reform our society to remove ultrawealth without knocking down high-income workers. But these methods, generally speaking, cannot be implemented by politicians without facing an overwhelming attack from mass media, funding withdrawal and other institutional pressure. Look at historical examples, both local and abroad, of politicians who’ve proposed such measures attacking the ultrawealthy - unless you have a serious mass activist contingent and outstanding messaging like Mamdani’s NY campaign, it’s electoral suicide.

And, frankly, as long as most people are still voting for Labor or to the right of them, it’s a clear signal that working people aren’t yet ready to give the support needed to challenge the ultrawealthy. Voting in our system takes the least amount of time, effort and knowledge, so if we can’t even vote for a pro-worker party, we aren’t going to band together as workers and protect any politician who stands up for us.