Far-left definitely isn't that - "we're gonna make sure everyone's needs are met" is literally a general leftist thing. Assuming you're trying to portray tankies and fascists, a more accurate depiction would be "we're gonna make sure working class needs are met with an iron fist and extermination of anyone potentially rebellious".
That being said, holy shit there are so many bad takes in this thread
Respectfully, I don't think tankies are the farthest left, or even left at all. They seem far too concerned with statism and too unconcerned with uplifting the worker.
I also think that there is space for more than one type of far left.
EDIT: Witness below: a lengthy conversation about states, colonialism, whose team is worse, and other masturbatory topics. What average worker is going to engage with this ideology? Dorks.
I also think that there is space for more than one type of far left.
Yeah I did want to originally include this in my original comment - there's ideologies like Anarchism that is also far-left, and same can be applied to the right, with their ancaps and libertarians though both of those are rarely ever referred to as far-right (wonder why's that).
Not just tankies but ml. We should all be working towards communism generally. No question. And ML governments have helped industrialize their regions as capitalism did. Again no question. But in that process the ML governments have been oppressive and violent as most capitalist. Combined with the fairytale of the administrative state magically withering on it's own. It's safe to say that the vanguard of Marxist Leninism the Soviet Union splintered and fell to fascism of the administrative state. With China repeating their mistakes. Making they're already unaccountable administrative State even more unaccountable. Appointing their president for life even as he moves into the Forbidden City and The Emperor's Palace. Now largely emperor in all but name.
Honestly I think the reason they get shown so much is because there's not a lot of other clear iconography relating to the left. There's the upgrades fist. But it has been adopted for a number of other groups and movements. Outside of that most of the truly recognizable ones were adopted by the leninists.
i think whats missing from most anti-ml takes here is colonialism and the overbearing influence of the west everywhere else.
china wouldnt be able to break away from the washington consensus like it does if they didnt have enough force to show and use whenever necessary to keep it at bay.
likewise with pretty much every long lasting, large scale socialist experiment so far. people forget what happens to the likes of allende when they try funny business and can't back it up with actual force.
i also have a problem with using 'tankie' for serious discussion because its a meaningless word at this point.
If things were perfect they would be perfect. However that's circular reasoning/tautology. Everyone struggles with factors internal and external. And ultimately it's not someone else's responsibility what they do. So bringing up the West in a critique of marxist leninism he's largely pointless and at best only a crutch. Because yes we can absolutely critique the west or similar things. The fact that they do them doesn't make Marxist leninism better by comparison.
And let's be clear. China and the Chinese government needed no help exploiting their proletariat for the benefit of the ascendant bourgeoisie. The West did not force that or cause it.
My critique of marxist leninism is not a defense of capitalism or the west. I see them as largely equal and opposed. Yes the West has been shitty to countries that have adopted Anti-Capitalist Stances. And I absolutely believe it is largely unwarranted and counterproductive.
Where it is warranted ironically one only has to look to Vladimir Lenin to understand why. The forceful annexation of much of Eastern Europe post World War ii. The division of Germany. No one from the West forced that. Remind me. Former Soviet block countries, what were their General feelings about the Soviet Union and Lenin / Stalin after it dissolved? I remember even until recently A lot of them tearing down statues of those men. Was it because they love them so much and wanted to have pieces of them in their house to worship? It wasn't because they failed to deliver on their promises, and were largely hated and despised by survivors and family of people marched off to Siberia to die was it?
quite the contrary.
force is needed because things arent perfect, hence why i say the analysis misses neocolonialism.
Why, after that force is used to successfully establish themselves, those countries never actually empower the lower classes?
China has been secure on the world stage for decades, yet their people still work as wage slaves for the benefit of the western bourgeoise interests.
take a look at how quality of life, health, education and most aspects of society improves vastly under socialism.
also take a look at the time scale at which such things happen.
we also have capitalism.
The Foxconn building had to put up nets around their building because so many employees were committing suicide due to their extremely poor working conditions.
You're suggesting that is simply a necessary evil on the long road to real socialism? Marx said there needs to be 100 years of capitalist industrialization before a communist revolution can succeed (which I disagree with, but let's roll with it). China was able to enact a successful revolution without waiting 100 years of wage slavery, only to then become a wage slave accepting nation? To what end is this benefitting the proletariat? China doesn't have free higher education, and they don't have fully free healthcare.
Meanwhile, Anarchists in Spain were able to liberate the working class and eliminate money mid-revolution. They lost the war due to lack of access to weapons/logistics, but nothing about enacting those social revolutions seemed to be terribly detrimental to their efforts.
China seems to have willfully become capitalist itself (pretty lame of them), so, at least from the average worker's standpoint, it seems relatively inconsequential whether they are a wage slave in mainland china, or in any other capitalist country.
some say dengism was a necessary evil, yes. i personally disagree, they should have been able to do better like others before. the results came for the next generation though, and it didn't need all those 100 years.
setbacks are part of history everywhere else too, and don't paint the entire picture.
the results came for the next generation though, and it didn’t need all those 100 years.
I assume you mean the current generation in China? If so, the results seem to be less than ideal, to put it mildly. I would posit that the Nordic countries (and possibly most of the EU) offer better living and working conditions to the working class, even under their neoliberal welfare state. I certainly don't see where China is excelling in that regard.
setbacks are part of history everywhere else too, and don’t paint the entire picture.
The question is; now that China is a wealthy world power, what exactly is stopping them from enacting more radical social changes to make it actually look like a socialist country? How long do they have to wait before power is given freely to the proletariat and the state withers away? From my perspective, there does not appear to be any light at the end of the tunnel.
To the contrary of your contrary. The French revolution. One of the most influential formative revolutions that helped influence and shape Karl Marx's philosophy and much of marxist thought. Showed otherwise.
Sure sometimes Force can be needed to break free. But if you need Force to govern you are doing it wrong.
the french revolution didnt have a previous, but strong empire trying to stop it at all costs. you are subestimating neocolonialism. my country has a history of being interfered with by the empire at the hint of wanting free. and that won't narrow it down.
there is a reason one country in the planet spends almost as much as everyone else combined on their military
the french revolution didnt have a previous, but strong empire trying to stop it at all costs.
But in that process the ML governments have been oppressive and violent as most capitalist
Please explain me how Marxist-Leninist governments have partaken in unequal exchange, colonialism, or how there was surplus extracted from workers.
Combined with the fairytale of the administrative state magically withering on it's own
Isn't that quite literally what happened in the USSR in 1991? A unilateral dissolution of the government and its institutions from the top-down.
Either way, you're showing that you actually haven't studied the ideas of Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism literally defines the state as oppressive in nature, it's kinda the core point of Lenin's "State and Revolution". Marxist-Leninists defend a democratic form of government in which worker-councils elect representatives who enact Marxist policy in the most democratic fashion possible, and a constant back-and-forth dialogue between the communist intellectual vanguard and the people in which the needs of the people are translated to Marxist language and policy and enacted. Marxism-Leninism isn't "when Stalin based", that's, well, Stalinism.
Please explain me how Marxist-Leninist governments have partaken in unequal exchange, colonialism, or how there was surplus extracted from workers.
Please at least give us a challenge. Okay let's just stick to Russia otherwise I'll be here all day. They forcefully /undemocraticaly annexed a large portion of Eastern Europe under threat of violence. Concentrated most of the wealth, power, and influence in the politburos of Moscow. Leaving rural areas largely destitute with no prospects. Though to their limited credit still providing them with a minimal subsistence. The Russian oligarchs of today as well as the bourgeoisie fascistic dictator now in charge. All roads lead back to the wealthy, privileged, and politically connected in Moscow.
We can do ole forbidden city bourgeoi-xi throwing around the peoples resources to buy off and debt trap smaller foreign nations to exploit if you want.
Isn't that quite literally what happened in the USSR in 1991? A unilateral dissolution of the government and its institutions from the top-down.
Where's the communism? We were promised communism. Unless you're going to try and paint the fascistic Russian state as temu/wish brand communism. Which would be both hilarious and sad if you did. The state and it's authority never dissolved. They released the captured territories. Letting them return to governing themselves. Which was good. But the modern government of Russia has well documented clear ties back to Soviet government and leadership. They just put on a different mask. But it's hardly classless or stateless.
Either way, you're showing that you actually haven't studied the ideas of Marxism-Leninism.
Or, consider that I have. And that I understand that all "ideologies" are ideal. And as such divorced from reality. Capitalist theory was freeing and uplifting too. Not at all imperial. The practice and implementation of ideologies is their failing.
Marxist-Leninists defend a democratic form of government in which worker-councils elect representatives who enact Marxist policy in the most democratic fashion possible
Threats of isolation and violence? Democratic?! Seriously? Real talk, I'm all for worker and local councils being the government. Pragmatically I'm anarco-communist. Get rid of moscow, get rid of Beijing. Get rid of the party. Let the people choose how to organize themselves. Then it won't be nothing but empty rhetoric.
What Lenin especially as well as engles and even marx failed to understand or account for. Was that anything acquired through force. Can just as easily be taken or destroyed through Force. It has happened with every single Revolution their ideology started. What's built through consent, through solidarity, and cooperation cannot easily be destroyed or Taken. Using the shortcuts and tactics of the bourgeoisie leads to becoming the bourgeoisie. Every single time. No matter how well intentioned Marxist Leninist are.
They forcefully /undemocraticaly annexed a large portion of Eastern Europe under threat of violence
You mean when in 1917 the Russian Socialist Federation of Soviet Republics unilaterally decreed for the first time in history the right to self-determination for all ethnicities and peoples in the former Russian Empire, which gave most of eastern Europe the legal right of secession? And which nationalist elites of countries like Poland used to establish local elites as the form of government and to start nationalist expansionist wars like the Polish-Ukrainian war, including invasion of the RSFSR in an attempt to secure more of their "historical border claim" of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth? Or which they used to join the white armies in an attempt to destroy socialism? Or do you mean annexions in WW2 era in an attempt to prevent the rise of fascism in bordering countries that had declared anti-communist in the wake of their newly gained independence?
Concentrated most of the wealth, power, and influence in the politburos of Moscow
Patently false. Representation in the party was very representative of all republics of the USSR. Farmers in Central Asia had higher salaries than those in the Russian Republic, and Baltic republics like Estonia had higher average salaries than those in the Russian Republic. There were policies to subsidize life in places with harsh conditions such as the far north and east. There was immense investment in industrialization of Central Asia.
Leaving rural areas largely destitute with no prospects
Rural emigrations intensified after the USSR was dissolved, which again kinda disproves your point. Arable land in the Russian Republic has decreased since the USSR times further proving that more people wanted to be farmers before.
The Russian oligarchs of today as well as the bourgeoisie fascistic dictator now in charge. All roads lead back to the wealthy, privileged, and politically connected in Moscow.
Surprise surprise: the USSR was dissolved in 1991, and thanks to neoliberal shock therapy applied through western influence and with the help and doctrine of IMF and prestigious MIT economists, the country's means of production and national wealth were unlawfully and corruptly sold to the most corrupt bidder.
You've made no claim to support that there was exploitation of surplus of the working class. Maybe because you can't support that claim?
But the modern government of Russia has well documented clear ties back to Soviet government and leadership.
If by "well documented clear ties", you mean "people who lived during the USSR still lived during the transition to capitalism, and those in higher positions of authority were in a better position to scavenge the remainings of the welfare state in their own benefit", then yes. That's not a centralized effort from a consistent and cohesive elite between 1990 and 2010, it's literally the IMF's capitalist policy of privatisation of the economy. There were no such thing as oligarchs or as economic elites within the USSR because productive property was publicly owned.
But it's hardly classless or stateless.
The current Russian government is proto-fascist, of course it's not classless or stateless. The USSR wasn't stateless obviously, but it was classless since there was no exploitation of the working class by any other proprietary class.
The practice and implementation of ideologies is their failing.
Pragmatically I'm anarco-communist. Get rid of moscow, get rid of Beijing. Get rid of the party. Let the people choose how to organize themselves.
You really don't see the irony there? Obviously the end-goal is the minimisation of the state (although a body of elected representatives of some sort will probably always be needed, call that however you want). The discussion is a matter of how quickly. As you can probably understand, feudal serfs in 1917 couldn't spontaneously and flawlessly organize in communist, collective organizations who decide everything by themselves. A vanguard party of communist intellectuals that translates the demands of the people to communist policy is needed in the initial stages, or how else do you envision the transition from feudalism/capitalism to communism?
What's built through consent, through solidarity, and cooperation cannot easily be destroyed or Taken
Tell that to Salvador Allende or to the Spanish Second Republic.
Using the shortcuts and tactics of the bourgeoisie leads to becoming the bourgeoisie
There is no bourgeoisie without economic exploitation of the working class. Excessive bureaucracy and lack of democracy? Sure as hell. But saying that there was a bourgeoisie in the USSR is mental gymnastics.
Every single time
As opposed to direct anarcho-communism, which has shown in the multiple times it's been applied, that it's everlasting and can endure any external threat. Come on, please tell me how internationally significant Rojava and Zapatistas are, and how they're not one step away from being crushed by US imperialism as soon as they're deemed too dangerous to be kept alive.
Deflections, bad faith arguments, and denial. Truly the copium of the proletariat. Right comrade?
You couldn't rebut a single point. And your best attempts teetered on cherry picked unrepresentative data. Oh for a short period things were different from what I claimed before becoming what I claimed?! Well then I stand....correct?
And seriously with the everything is the wests fault schtick? I'm not defending the west. But if all the bad things are the fault of the west. You're being dishonest. I will freely point out how the Union was industrialized. How, for a short time it brought around great benefit to the proletariat. As all automation should. And the marvels of science and research pioneered under the union. That doesn't justify or excuse the negatives. Don't bullshit me with there being no new ascendant bourgeoisie rot at the top. Greed and selfishness is a part of human nature. Not just "the west". And those with too much power and wealth, regardless of their ideology, always work things to their personal benefit. Don't think others can't see bullshit when you put it out.
Deflections, bad faith arguments, and denial. Truly the copium of the proletariat. Right comrade?
Why don't you go point by point instead of categorically dismissing my comment?
That doesn't justify or excuse the negatives.
I don't need to justify or excuse the negatives. Stalinism and the great terror were excessive, arbitrary, pointless, cruel, and harmful. Dekulakization and the collectivisation of land was a fucking mess. But there was no bourgeoisie in the USSR and there is no continuity of governance or system between the USSR and modern Russia. I beg you, answer my previous comment point by point, I'm dying to see how you call a bureaucrat "a bourgeois".
Please answer and give me examples of functioning anarcho-communist revolutions, or even the theory of how it would work.
And those with too much power and wealth
Again, I fully agree that there was too much of an accumulation of power in the top spheres of the USSR. There was an ossification of power. Leadership was until death which is absurd, and the lack of criticism of the leader is even more absurd. It's what led the USSR to its dismantling, I fully agree with it. I just don't agree with calling it "yet another form of capitalism" or saying that "there was a bourgeoisie" or that "there's a continuum in the form of government of the USSR and modern Russia". And no, there weren't people with too much wealth in the USSR, the only way to get a salary was through a job since nobody could exploit others using private capital, no rentists, no bourgeoisie.
I think the issue is not so much definitions, but who actually has a voice. Currently in US politics the far left does not wield any influence, but the far right does hold some sway over the Republican party.
I suppose some on the right toss out accusations of being far left, but that's just empty rhetoric.
If I say that we should have universal health care, or UBI, many people would say that I’m way far out on the left.
Just to support your point (and for the benefit of others not from the US), even people who are sympathetic to your views will often use the adjective "radical" when describing them if you espouse such beliefs. Everyone who votes R will cal you a radical and a high percentage of democrats will too.
And that's before you even get to the stuff about overt wealth redistribution.
Bernie Sanders is the radical left to a great many in the US. (personally I consider him just the right amount of left 😁 )
Look at the neck of the chad. He has a commie symbol so its clearly that far out. Not just universal health care or UBI
Allllllll the fucking idiots of all political flavors descended on this thread, fucking hell
Dumbest takes I've seen in months, and they're all different takes.
I just catalogue tankies as another flavor of right-wing. Any kind of authoritarianism is far-right as far as I'm concerned, whether it's supposedly in service of communism or anything else.
Being left is about finding actual working solutions that help people and make society more free, just and safe for everyone and it's about being willing to abandon solutions that have been tried and don't work towards that goal (or require massive amounts of blood to achieve).
A tankie insisting that you need to just purge the political undesirables to make a utopia is just as irrational and right-wing as MAGA chud thinking theocracy or an ethnostate will work.
"Centrists" in the US think you're meant to cut the difference between those two, which is why they end up conservative themselves. They're stuck in a conception of the political landscape that limits them to thinking of things as a spectrum of extremes, rather than a binary between stuff that works to produce material good and stuff that doesnt.
To everyone upvoting this: you're agreeing with the take of a guy saying "fascism can be both described as left and right wing and it wants to ensure the needs of the working people"
Edit: confused the above commenter with another user. Ignore this comment.
No? I'm referring to the meme up above where the sides being portrayed are far-left and far-right, and I'm inferring the ideologies they represent based on the appearance and the text of the characters within the meme (with far-left being tankies and far-right being fascists).
By definition, fascism is always far-right.
That's not to say there aren't dictators within the left wing though. It's more of a common treat in Latin America and Asia.
"we're gonna make sure everyone's needs are met" is literally a general leftist thing
Pretty sure most people who consider themselves leftists in western countries don't agree with the implications of this. Guaranteeing housing for everyone implies hard policy against landlords (including expropriation), construction of dense public housing... Guaranteeing equal rights in education means eliminating private education, and the same can be applied to medicine.
As for the human rights of people outside the western world, ensuring their human rights would imply stopping the abusive trade relations that they're forced into partaking. No more unequal exchange, so now chocolate is 5-10€ a piece. We also can't export our trash anymore to poorer countries. Good-bye to 3000€/month salaries in so-called "high added value" sectors of the economy when you submit to the reality that a western worker's hour shouldn't be paid at 5-times the rate of a non-western worker.
We need to degrow economically in order to preserve the climate, so the purchase power of people must be reduced when it comes to many consumer products which aren't basics. No more luxury vehicles (possibly restrictions on purchase of cars), no more buying clothes twice a month, and compulsory reduction of meat consumption.
Now, try to do all of those things within the logic of capitalism. Most self-described leftists don't see the logical and historical impossibilities of guaranteeing the needs of everyone within a capitalist system. So yeah, virtue-signalling and good intentions are good, but more than that is needed to actually achieve the goals in mind. The far-left is just aware of this.
Assuming you're trying to portray tankies and fascists
Wait. Fascists are left-wing now? Fascists want to "ensure working class needs"????
If you go far enough on the left sector then yes, they may say they want to "ensure the working class needs" but are so full of shit that they strike down anything that differs slightly from their views. We need part of a personal incentive and an individual focused economy to actually meet the needs of the people. Communism might just ensure the bare minimum. Degrowth might be what would be good for our planet but in no world do I see the majority of people willing to give up part of their purchasing power so its easier to push for a more green economy without degrowth.
Degrowth might be what would be good for our planet but in no world do I see the majority of people willing to give up part of their purchasing power so its easier to push for a more green economy without degrowth.
Thank you for agreeing with my point that self-described leftists don't want to experience the consequences of ensuring everyone's needs are met.
We need part of a personal incentive
Communism isn't against that. The USSR workers had salaries tied to their productivity more often than in the west, I literally don't know any worker in my capitalist country whose salary is increased if they increase their productivity. If by "incentive" you mean "the looming threat of unemployment and homelessness", then speak openly. How funny that people aren't willing to give up purchase power according to you, but the threat of unemployment is an adequate incentive.
and an individual focused economy to actually meet the needs of the people.
The needs of the people in developed capitalist societies are best met in socialized services such as public education, public healthcare, and public pensions. Typically, it's individual-based (i.e. private) sectors of the economy like housing (or healthcare and education in the US) that give the worst crises and stress to people, and the ones that ensure highest inequality between rich and poor.
Communism isn’t against that. The USSR workers had salaries tied to their productivity more often than in the west, I literally don’t know any worker in my capitalist country whose salary is increased if they increase their productivity.
It might seem abstract to you but if you are valuable to the company and another company offers you more money your pay is adjusted based on your economic productivity
If by “incentive” you mean “the looming threat of unemployment and homelessness”, then speak openly. How funny that people aren’t willing to give up purchase power according to you, but the threat of unemployment is an adequate incentive.
Why should I speak openly if I support a social safety net that ensures a basic standard of living and housing during times of unemployment?
None of this needs a communist state
and another company offers you more money your pay is adjusted based on your economic productivity
Meritocracy in capitalism is a myth. Low-wage workers often work harder than anyone else, and get no rises or other jobs for doing so.
Why should I speak openly if I support a social safety net that ensures a basic standard of living and housing during times of unemployment?
None of this needs a communist state
Sure, the capitalist west is doing so well electing the far right to erode our already-eroded social rights even more.
Its not about how hard you work tho. Its based on how much your work is worth to others and how replaceable you a company. Actually Finland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark are some of the happiest countries on earth with the highest standards of living so I'd say they're doing pretty well. I know that there are a lot worse capitalist countries but I specifically focus on a social market economy and the potential. I am not defending the lack of social welfare in the US.
Nordic European countries have rather decent social welfare, agreed, but their economy is as sustained on unequal exchange as those of the rest of the developed world. In the case of Norway arguably more since they're oil exporters. My point being, not every country, not even most countries, can be like Scandinavian countries because they rely on exploitation of people outside their borders.
Its not about how hard you work tho. Its based on how much your work is worth to others and how replaceable you a company.
How's that not a bad thing to reward people based on? We saw during the pandemic that the actually important jobs in our society are the ones that pay jackshit and are easily replaceable. Shouldn't these people get a better life?
I get your point. It's sad that for example football stars get millions a year while the people required to run a country don't get a good pay. But large parts of a society for example highly value those stars which is why they're so well-paid.
How’s that not a bad thing to reward people based on?
In an ideal world we could do that, but only because you put a lot of effort into something doesn't mean it is of higher value to society. If its standard stuff someone else could do or you just aren't better than many others you don't get valued as much. If everyone worked the same job (Its a ridiculous example, I know but stick with it one second) and worked their ass off it would just be nearly worthless since all the other jobs would be empty. Thats how the economy allocates the work force.
Nordic European countries have rather decent social welfare, agreed, but their economy is as sustained on unequal exchange as those of the rest of the developed world. In the case of Norway arguably more since they’re oil exporters. My point being, not every country, not even most countries, can be like Scandinavian countries because they rely on exploitation of people outside their borders.
This might be true, but even more industrialized countries like Germany or the Netherlands have a decent welfare state. They export a lot as well, yes, but I don't see it as much of an issue if the other countries were more industrialized and had higher pr capita productivity which would leave more things for everyone involved.
In an ideal world we could do that, but only because you put a lot of effort into something doesn't mean it is of higher value to society
Again, ESSENTIAL jobs during the pandemic. They are the ones of highest value to society, to the point that it would crash without them.
If its standard stuff someone else could do or you just aren't better than many others you don't get valued as much
I'm fully aware that's how it works now, I argue that it shouldn't be like this.
This might be true, but even more industrialized countries like Germany or the Netherlands have a decent welfare state. They export a lot as well, yes, but I don't see it as much of an issue if the other countries were more industrialized and had higher pr capita productivity which would leave more things for everyone involved.
Again, that's not how it works. If you allow currently poor countries to develop, they'll stop providing cheap labor and raw materials to wealthy countries, and stop buying expensive manufactured products like cars and planes at a premium. That's what the western welfare state relies on: exploitation through unequal exchange of the poorer regions of the world
Again, that’s not how it works. If you allow currently poor countries to develop, they’ll stop providing cheap labor and raw materials to wealthy countries, and stop buying expensive manufactured products like cars and planes at a premium. That’s what the western welfare state relies on: exploitation through unequal exchange of the poorer regions of the world
I don't agree with that assessment. I believe that the amount of manual labor and cheap outsourcing isn't needed for wealth. I believe we could all increase our standards of living
I believe we could all increase our standards of living
I believe that too, I just don't believe it can happen equitatively between countries in Capitalism. I'm not making up this "import raw materials, agricultural produce, cheap labor; export high added-value goods and services" approach to the economy, it's been there alive and kickin' since neocolonialism and the industrial revolution, and it's the boot that has been keeping the poor countries poor with the help of the CIA and the IMF. Countries that dare elect leaders who want to invest the surplus of the resources of their countries into modernizing them and into improving the lives of their citizens, are declared enemies of the west, like Venezuela (as bad as its policy may have been), like Libya under Gaddafi, like Iran under Mosaddegh, or like Patrice Lumumba in Congo. The list is truly endless. And simply by partaking in the system of international trade established by the western countries, who claim to want the best for everyone through free market but apply sanctions and economic warfare when their strategic economic sectors are threatened (see the current import taxes to Chinese EVs), the exploitation takes place and perpetuates itself. It's the reason why 1h of labour of Finnish or Swedish or Danish worker can be paid at 10 times the rate of that of a Congolese one.
The chinese government heavily subsidises EVs in a way unsuitable for the EU for example. I think 100% on top is too much but I guess that was Biden's gambit for not losing the public to Trump's protectionist agenda. Also, china has really done a bad job diplomatically to place itself as a rival of the US with their wolf warrior diplomacy.
The chinese government heavily subsidises EVs in a way unsuitable for the EU for example
How exactly else do you think other industrialised societies have developed high-tech manufacturing? South Korea, Japan, the former USSR... All of it was through protectionism, you can't outcompete a historically more developed industry (UK, Germany, USA) in the free market. The neoliberal dogma is that countries should focus on the sectors in which they're competitive even if they're low value-added, the reality is very different if we look at history.
Not happy with protectionism, though, the US and EU are now outright applying sanctions and bans to the Chinese economy, such as preventing them from importing high-tech lithography systems and technology. It's an economic war with China because the western hegemony is finally coming to an end and the west doesn't want that.
Also, china has really done a bad job diplomatically to place itself as a rival of the US
China placed itself as a rival of the US? The US is literally propping Taiwan, an island full of US military bases, and regularly sailing their warboats between the island and mainland China. Can you imagine if China had military bases in Cuba and they sailed warboats between the island and Miami? Or in Mexico and central America? Because the US has military bases all over southeast Asia. It's not "china placing itself as a rival of the US", it's simply the US imperialism resisting being overtaken.
Fascists want to ensure working class needs for the right working class people. Fascism is difficult to define, you can argue for it being either a left wing or a right wing ideology depending on the perspective of analysis.
God you're a fucking clown. Please tell me which fascist regime supports universal, free education for all children, universal social healthcare, or guaranteed housing. And tell me which fascist regime wants to ensure these rights for subsectors or the working class like racialized minorities or different ethnicities. Or women. Or queer people. "Fascism can be both described as left or right wing". Infuriatingly stupid take.
Unnecessarily angry reply. If youve taken a course on definitions of fascism youd understand what Im talking about. Quantifying the totality of what defines fascism is incredibly difficult considering the many forms it has taken throughout history. Hitler Naziism did have some social programs but not really enough to look at it from the perspective of left wing politics, therefor it is a majorly right right political movement. The current government of China and Maoism you can argue is both left wing and fascist due to the extremely strong social programs, rejection of western style capitalism, and the various slow genocides against non Han Chinese ethnic groups, such as the Uyghurs.
My response is angry because I'm Spanish, so I have good reference of what fascism is like, and you saying that it can be categorised as leftist when it's literally a reactionary movement that defends capitalist elites against rising leftist movements, is extremely apologetic of fascism.
The current government of China and Maoism you can argue is both left wing and fascist
Please tell me where's the militarisation of society. Please tell me where's the hierarchization of society. Please tell me where's the adoration of the distant idealized past. Please tell me where the anti-communist reactionaries are.
slow genocides against non Han Chinese ethnic groups, such as the Uyghurs.
"Genocide is when reeducation camps for 3-4 years as a response to domestic terrorism". Sorry mate, 4 years ago people bought this rhetoric. Now that people see what actual genocide and apartheid looks like (Palestine), and now that it's patently obvious that a few anonymous testimonies aren't a reliable source of information for such serious accusations, people don't actually defend that there was genocide. There's no genocide in China against Uyghur.
The militarization of society is not a marker of every form of facism, facism comes in many different flavors. Neither is hierarchization of society, that has existed in all forms social organization including communism, socialism, feudalism, etc. China does have a meritocratic system, exactly like the rest of the world for the most part. Another example of this could be the caste system of India, although I am not as familiar with that as I am with Chinese history and politics, so it is hard for me to make the fascist determination; although it does have the markers. Now for the adoration of the distant past, that is also not a marker of fascism, more so a marker of conservatism, but I will humor you. Have you heard of something called Shen Yun? It is an organization that puts on plays around the western world that focuses on glorifying the past of China prior to communism. It is no longer really supported by the CCP because of political disagreements, but is still a glorification of the past. Come on, dont say that fascism requires anti communism, thats just close minded and anti nuance. You need to look at fascism separately from the economic organizations of society: communism, socialism, capitalism. As for your point on the Uyghurs, if you think that rounding up an ethnic group and putting them in re-education, forced reproduction, and prison camps is not genocide, I dont know what to tell you. There were also hundreds more ethnic groups in China that have been culturally and literally genocided in recent history. We agree that Israels government is organized into a fascist apartheid state, Palestine is under a true attempted genocide. That doesnt mean, though, you should ignore what is happening and has happened in societies that are not strictly capitalist.
The militarization of society is not a marker of every form of facism, facism comes in many different flavors
Now for the adoration of the distant past, that is also not a marker of fascism
Come on, dont say that fascism requires anti communism
You can just say "I'm using my own definition of fascism which doesn't agree with the general consensus of what fascism is, to refer to any regime I consider loosely authoritarian".
You need to look at fascism separately from the economic organizations of society
"You need to look at the socioeconomic system separately from the economic organizations of society". Fucking lol.
As for your point on the Uyghurs, if you think that rounding up an ethnic group and putting them in re-education
Agreed, that's very sus and not a policy I support, even in the context of prior terrorist attacks.
forced reproduction, and prison camps
I assume you mean forced sterilization. Sorry, but there's no serious evidence for that. The best you can point to is an inform by Amnesty International that is based off anonymous interviews. There's nothing pointing towards mass forced sterilisation of Uyghur people, in fact they were mostly left out of the single-child policy that China adopted unlike Han people, which explains partly why Uyghur went from being a minority to the majority ethnicity in Xinjiang. What a weird genocide, where the supposedly oppressive ethnicity is displaced in numbers by the supposedly oppressed ethnicity.
There were also hundreds more ethnic groups in China that have been culturally and literally genocided in recent history
I'd love to read on that, can you send me a source?
That doesnt mean, though, you should ignore what is happening and has happened in societies that are not strictly capitalist
I'm not ignoring it, I'm looking at the available evidence and determining that there's no active genocide. It's these types of false claims that were used to justify military intervention in other countries. Remember Nayirah's testimony used to justify in the US military action against Iraq. Or the exaggerated calls of genocide in Yugoslavia that were used to allow NATO to bomb the shit out of it and break it up into a collection of weak states, separating families.
I believe you are misunderstanding a lot of what I am writing. And I don't think much of your reply to my comment has been constructive or an attempt to retort any of my opinion, just a "lol ur wrong" statement on all of it which in no way proves you right or me wrong. I am not using my own definition of fascism, if you read what I wrote, I am saying that what you are asking me to find in modern chinese society is not a marker of every form of fascism, and to quantify fascism by only those parameters is distracting from every other form of fascism that has been present in history. Its possible to be fascist and communist at the same time, its possible to be fascist and capitalist at the same time.
Yeah no, I'm not misunderstanding. And no, I'm not doing a constructive answer because you're keen on talking about a definition of fascism that most people would disagree with, especially those who've spent a minute researching the origins of fascism and why it's an intrinsically reactionary movement that pops as a response from capitalism to threatening leftist movements.
I use an academic definition not a reddit definition
Please show me where you found that academic description
I'm not a both-siders, but I was just arguing with a leftist yesterday that was saying we should jail people for voting for trump.
So I'm hesitant to pretend there are not wack jobs on the left who would happily exterminate people for their political gain.
The left absolutely has nut jobs. That's why it's important that us normal, reasonable left people call them out and check their shit.
The right let their right wing nut jobs take over. That's why we're in this mess.
The second layer to both-sides is false-equivalence fallacy. A majority of Republicans believe in the Big Lie; their literal nominee tried to overthrow a free & fair election.
Let that sink in: A MAJORITY of Republicans believe 2020 was stolen.
Do you see the broader Democratic party or any of their high-level leaders calling for jailing people voting for Trump? No.
Being fooled is not a crime. Trump (along with many accomplices) is a criminal that needs to be prosecuted and thrown in jail, but unfortunately the morons who have fallen for his lies aren't breaking the law by doing so, so any claim to have them jailed is anti democratic authoritarianism.
Being fooled is not a crime
I take it you defend the same of the percentage of Russian citizens who are brainwashed into voting for Putin? Or the Germans who went to marches and cheered on for Hitler?
Assuming they believe they have not committed a crime, absolutely.
Fair enough, I appreciate your consistency, and actually support your viewpoint
You can pretend all you like the problem is that there have been leftist wack jobs that very much did exterminate people for political gain.
Things would be so much easier if we could simply argue about ideology without anyone getting the 'clever' idea that you can simply exterminate everyone who disagrees and end up with a harmonious society of people all working towards the same ideal.
Some ideals are so dangerous they need to be exterminated. If you can show me a method that does this while leaving the bigot alive, I would happily see it implemented.
Education.
If you place killing an ideal beyond implementing your own you're making exactly the same mistake.
The best we've come up with is to try to ensure people are educated and well informed and only a majority can make certain decisions. Not all countries are doing too well on all 3 (heck the U.S. doesn't even manage to ensure decisions require a majority) but if an ideal gets accepted under anything resembling those conditions then killing the bigots is no longer an option.
Sorry, no.
WWII was an excellent example of how some ideologies cannot be met with peace. Shame you forgot it.
Absolutely not.
WWII was an excellent example of how some actions cannot be meet with peace.
If you think you can suppress an ideal with violence, you have a poor grasp of the situation.
One can respond to ideals that are bad by having a better, more effective way of life - one that addresses the underlying needs that those with bad ideals are trying to meet, and that has a path for them to join you.
But if you simply suppress it, it will fester and grow.
Education and human relation. Standing your ground in a conversation without getting combative. Being winning willing to fight if needed, but actively choosing not to when it's not truly necessary.
No, if you exterminate an ideal, you also lose the resistance to it and the generational cognizance of it. Instead, you let it survive, and teach people, by example, how to deal with it - not through suppression, but through response.
You just admitted my clause:
Being winning to fight of needed
No, if you exterminate an ideal, you also lose the resistance to it and the generational cognizance of it.
Yes, and it stops being relevant. Just like every dictatorial regime that has been put down.
I did not "admit your clause". Being willing to fight does not necessitate extermination.
Although, perhaps you're right, and I should adopt your ideology of ideological extermination, starting with your ideology.
No, if you exterminate an ideal, you also lose the resistance to it and the generational cognizance of it.
Yes, and it stops being relevant. Just like every dictatorial regime that has been put down.
Oh, is that what you think happens? Go live it, then, and good luck with that.
I will not abide intellectual dishonestly.
You are hereby cast out from my internet experience for all time.
Whew.
Voting is a sacred right in our society, even if it’s for a treasonous corrupt felon wannabe fascist. I don’t understand why anyone would give him their vote but that just makes them an idiot
It seems like you’re the one jumping from someone wanting jail time to those voting to overthrow our democracy, all the way to exterminate. Yeah, I suppose those people exist but a huge difference is there is no widespread support for left wing nut jobs
I don’t remember what politician was convicted a few years back where a lot of people kept trying to make the point that a left wing criminal is a criminal that we all want brought to justice, whereas too much right wing criminal behavior is ignored or even lionized. Both sides are very much NOT the same
It seems like you’re the one jumping from someone wanting jail time to those voting to overthrow our democracy, all the way to exterminate.
It's part of the submission.
But I'm not equating the two sides, but every right winger I know, including Trump supporters who I unfortunately have way too many of in my family, wish no ill will on anyone and don't believe trump does. So this claim that there is widespread support for exterminating people on the right does not reflect the reality I experience.
No one says that. But Trump has repeatedly said variations of acting as dictator, subverting the constitution and the checks and balances that are fundamental to our government. He is guilty of instigating treason. He repeatedly acts racist and extremely misogynistic. He should be held responsible for the hundreds of thousands of excess Covid deaths during his term when he denied reality and prevented a coordinated response. He has decades of history with contract fraud and likely tax fraud. His speeches are falsehood after falsehood and he contradicts himself depending on what his audience wants to hear. He was a disaster of a president, and certainly this time around no one can claim to not know what to expect.
I don’t know your family, but how can they support the constitution and vote for some who ignores it and has announced fascination as a goal and has already committed election fraud , how can they claim to not be racist and elect a racist, how can they claim to not be sexist and elect someone that disdainful of women’s rights, how can they elect someone noncoherent and expect anything, how can they believe they will get whatever they think he promised when he also promised the opposite and has a history of not following through with either? How can they claim to be nice people and elect someone with a history of spite and who has already professed revenge on people not sufficiently loyal?
That I think it's the scariest thing we have right now: a lot of people that forgot we need to live together and trying to shove your ideology down others throats is not the way to go, no matter how right one believes to be.
The whack jobs on the left are a vanishing minority, so if you're pretending they're equivalent to the right wing who actually attempted a fucking coup and want to do another one, you're either disingenuous or an idiot.
I've seen far more calls from the left for actual violence since the rise of trump than probably combined the rest of my life. I agree the right wing is currently more violent, but the claim that they are vanishing, rather than rising, doesn't match up with the reality I've experienced. Especially surprising to claim it here on Lemmy where I see it most.
How many right wing people do you hang out with?
Lemmy is not reality.
Yeah that person you talked to is crazy. But let's also not act like the Republicans haven't been calling for a civil war if Troomp looses.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/07/23/republican-calls-for-civil-war-if-trump-loses/
That was a senator who said that
So like, yeah jailing people for thinking diffrent is wrong, but....
I feel they mean well...most of them anyway. They don't want shit to go further south and feel jailing Trump to be the correct course. Admittedly, I do agree to an extent, though only because he keeps weaseling his way out of taking real responsibility for all of his bullshit. Mostly because we rolled the judicial equivalent of a Nat1 with Cannon.
The comment argued for jailing Trump voters, not Trump himself in this case.
Oop, my mistake. Thank you for pointing that out.
Extermination and jailing people aren't really equivalent.
You have plenty of out and about fascists who would vote for trump, actual groypers and nazis and shit. As a kind of, probe question, right, do you think it would be pertinent to go and actually kill those motherfuckers, given the kind of, borrowed time on which we're living right now, the lack of resources, right, lack of popular support from a mainstream political system and their ability to so clearly co-opt it in this moment, and impending climate change which means we can't waste time on them really more than is necessary. Those are some of the justifications that somebody might give for exterminating out and about fascists, right, even if they can't guarantee that those people are actual fascists, in their heart of hearts, and that it would've taken too many resources to convert them, or too much time. That's all normal shit, right, normal death sentence justification, which I usually don't agree with, maybe greased up a little bit since you can have the apologia of a kind of wartime or desperation, right. You get what I'm saying?
I agree with you also, that there are plenty (I would even say, a majority) of supporters that legitimately just don't realize how bad he is, and how bad things are in general, lots of them because they're coked up on denial and lack of imagination, lots of them because they stand to benefit from these systems as they currently operate. They might not be "racist", but they might still be perpetuating racism, they might not be fascists, but they might still be perpetuating fascism, through their ignorance and incompetence. Those people, right, sure, doesn't make much sense to kill them.
But then, how do you propose to change their minds? A staunch communist might propose that we change the system, and then the majority will more naturally come to like, normal conclusions, right, and then you can just round up the rest that are sort of very staunch in their misinformed support, and then you can perhaps "re-educate" those people, right.
This is a process most people have problems with, but I dunno, what's your take, what's your alternative? If you're dealing with those people, and you're still giving them the freedom to attain power, control the economy and other people's lives, even as misguided as they are, just sort of, for the sake of not having them in jail, right, then I dunno if that's really going to work long term. It locks you into an untenable position, especially as many of these people will be actively dedicated to your dissolution, even if they're just fooled, which dooms your movement from the start. You have to remove them from power, and if you want to remove them from power and ownership, while also not expatriating them from your country, an act which is usually viewed as genocide and for which you will constantly hear bitching from gusanos in the miami herald about, then you need to put them in some sort of reeducation camp, basically, and that camp is going to constitute jail.
So I dunno, hit me with your argument against that kind of jailing.
I don't really think there's any level of like, very natural reform that you're going to engage in, or slow convincing over time to get people to give up their own power, that's going to improve things, or that's going to improve things at nearly the rate that we need right now considering what's on the horizon. I might be wrong on that, but my basis for that belief is that people are in the positions of power that they're in because they are naturally groomed and ensured to be the ones who have the beliefs and attitudes most suited to retain that power. If you have a business size of like, hundreds, and you're promoting people in your business to positions of power, promoting people to become CEO by the board of directors, then naturally the system is going to start appointing people which reinforce the system. Asskissers who will do anything to get promoted, are usually the ones to get promoted, we know this. This doesn't even need to be a universal tendency, this just needs to be a tendency more of the time than not, for it to be really problematic, for the majority of people in power to be assholes. The board of directors doesn't want to start appointing CEOs that turn their companies into co-ops, that take the power out of their hands, there's a natural incentive structure there. The same is mostly true of political systems which are mostly autocratic.
So, I dunno if there's really much of an alternative, if we're taking a sort of, step back look down at that idea of jailing your opposition. Maybe you have one, I dunno.
The far left has guillotines for that purpose and they're not ashamed to say so. Lemmy has been an interesting education on what far left actually means.
On lemmy you see first and foremost the tanky left. Andrewism made a great video against the guillotine and he is very left. You don't have to agree with him either, just know The Left isn't a monolith and it's not that linear actually.
we should jail people for voting for trump
-
Donald Trump is launching a full fascist coup on the American democratic state and if he wins he will kill millions of people, primarily those who are poc, lgbtq, and foreign born. We need to stop him at all costs.
-
Hey, listen, who you vote for is your call and I'm not here to judge. Its just an election, I don't see why you need to make a federal case out of it.
These two views are in sharp contradiction with one another.
So if Trump is proposing ideas going against the foundation of the State and its constitution we should not let Trump run. How is jailing people for voting Trump a solution?
What if someone told you aid to an enemy of the state is the definition of treason. The man tried to overthrow our government with an insurrection, there is no question he is an enemy of the state. (So all who have donated to his compaign and broadcasted for his rise to power have committed treason)
I don't think we should jail Trump voters, but they should at least make aware that just because they believed his/medias lies, doesn't make them immune from all ignorant actions. The first civil war set precedent that you don't need to punish them, but any members who partook who held office prior to the attempt (currently still ongoing) should not be able to hold office in the future as written in the amendment MADE for insurrectionsts. (Even this seems extreme with current events)
Now as we learned from the last time, we should ignore our previous actions and follow what Robert E Lee suggested, that all statues of Trump & the confederates should be taken down (flags as well) and should not be built nor allowed outside museums/textbooks in the future.
His reason was because history showed countries heal faster that way. Ours hasn't healed since the conferency, we did it wrong.
Make possession charges harsh, so they hide again, but next time when the NAZI flag and the KKK burning crosses came to light, they would legally shut it down before it gained traction and spread their hate so far and wide.
So if Trump is proposing ideas going against the foundation of the State and its constitution we should not let Trump run.
He was President for four years and he did a lot worse than "propose ideas". Perhaps we should throw him in jail.
How is jailing people for voting Trump a solution?
It strongly discourages people to support a fascist who threatens my existence.
So we have an undemocratic state if voting one out of two candidates gets you in jail. This is literally the playbook definition of an autocracy. He should be judged by the actions he took and shouldn't be above the law like the supreme court decided but judging the voters is crazy
This is literally the playbook definition of an autocracy. He should be judged by the actions he took and shouldn’t be above the law like the supreme court decided but judging the voters is crazy
He's not above the law. Congress Impeached him for it and 57 Senators (less than the 67 needed) voted to convict (including 7 Republicans). But the Democrats rushed it for political reasons. The Nixon Impeachement process took 9 months and it had several hearings evidentiary and others that gave Republicans who didn't and couldn't support impeachment at the start of the process justify impeachment to their constituents. Impeachment is a political process, and Dems politicked like morons.
So we have an undemocratic state if voting one out of two candidates gets you in jail.
The Tolerance Paradox is only resolved when you refuse to tolerate intolerance.
Then drop the candidate but not the masses voting for change.
Since we're wishcasting here, I'd say "¿Por Qué No Los Dos?"
But I agree, getting fascists off the ballot would be the highest imperative. I'd also say that we're not going to do either, so getting angry at someone online for suggesting either one seems silly.
I said nothing about not judging them. They are, at best, gullible rubes. I judge them very harshly. However, I was very explicit that it was about jailing them.
So, sure, if you just make up my position, I can see how you can make it contradictory. Good for you.
They are, at best, gullible rubes.
They know exactly what they're asking for. It isn't as though the homophobia and xenophobia of the American right is some kind of secret. Persecuting minority groups is a signature issue.
However, I was very explicit that it was about jailing them.
And if we were voting on changing the speed limit, I'd agree that taking voting to the level of incarceration would be extreme. But we're talking about policies of mass incarceration, seizure of property, and execution of dissidents. That's the threat that a future Trump Presidency is supposed to present.
So either I was lied to and Future President Donald Trump isn't an existential threat to my existence. Or the reports are sincere and a vote for Donald Trump is the same as a vote for my summary execution.
If a lynch mob shows up outside your door and starts voting on whether or not to string you up, what would you say the remedy is? Lobby them not to kill you? Politely ask them to leave? Or show up on the porch with a shotgun and tell them all to piss off?
They know exactly what they’re asking for.
For some, sure. For most? It reads more like a justification to act like an authoritarian and jail political opponents. It sounds exactly like when people like trump say the left is coming after Christians.
But we’re talking about policies of mass incarceration, seizure of property, and execution of dissidents.
We're not tho. You're just assuming this will happen. I agree with you it's a distinct risk and we must stop trump because it's far greater than a zero percent chance. But he's not outright calling for it. These people believe he is protecting them and their way of life. Dumb? Yes. Criminal? No.
But can we stop and laugh for a second about you pointing to assumption of mass incarceration as a justification for outright calling for mass incarceration? Which does, pretty clearly, demonstrate my point.
For most? It reads more like a justification to act like an authoritarian and jail political opponents.
When the political opponents are, themselves, violent domestic terrorists and anti-democratic authoritarians, you'd be a fool to wait until they're installed in the highest levels of government before taking action.
You’re just assuming this will happen.
I am being told "Go out and vote against Trump or this will happen". This was the primary Ridin' With Biden argument and the reason we were supposed to swallow a little like genocide in Gaza for the greater good. There were a bunch of memes and everything. People insisting that a Trump Presidency would amount to a domestic holocaust. People insisting that failure to vote for the Democrat or even a vote for a third party candidate was a tacit endorsement of this pending holocaust.
But can we stop and laugh for a second about you pointing to assumption of mass incarceration as a justification for outright calling for mass incarceration?
Sure. The joke is funniest right down on the US/Mexico border where we've got toddlers behind razor wire, because the governors are all pandering to a political base that wants to end birthright citizenship and deport anyone browner than a cup of milk.
When the political opponents are, themselves, violent domestic terrorists and anti-democratic authoritarians, you’d be a fool to wait until they’re installed in the highest levels of government before taking action.
Except we're not talking about terrorists and anti democratic authoritarians, we are talking about jailing people for the way they vote. You are, by claiming people should be jailed for the way they vote, being the anti democratic authoritarian.
Again, we both agree that trump is a risk and we need to stop him. But jailing people for falling for his rhetoric and commiting the crime of voting makes you a risk to our democracy as well. The only difference I see between you and trump, on this point at least, is you're explicitly espousing it. He's just using a dog whistle.
Except we’re not talking about terrorists and anti democratic authoritarians
We're talking about their donors, their canvasers, and their supporters.
Again, we both agree that trump is a risk and we need to stop him.
We both agree he should be stopped. I'm not sure we agree on actually stopping him. It seems like we're just going to roll the dice on the election and hope for the best, because doing anything else would be unfair to the fascists.
Hey, listen, who you vote for is your call and I’m not here to judge. Its just an election, I don’t see why you need to make a federal case out of it.
It's clear, even in your own post, that you know we are talking about voters.
It seems like we’re just going to roll the dice on the election and hope for the best, because doing anything else would be unfair to the fascists.
Well, certainly becoming a anti democratic authoritarian seems like a terrible idea to avoid an anti democratic authoritarian. I'm hoping the electorate wakes up and, if it doesn't, the institutions designed to protect us against authoritarianism hold up. I certainly will never get behind jailing people for the crime of voting a way I don't like.
becoming a anti democratic authoritarian seems like a terrible idea to avoid an anti democratic authoritarian
Don't lift a finger against the lynch mob or you will be no better than the lynch mob.
I’m hoping the electorate wakes up
Maybe they just won't lynch me. Maybe it'll be fine.
the institutions designed to protect us against authoritarianism hold up
Those institutions will be run by the anti-democratic authoritarians you just said you didn't like.
Don’t lift a finger against the lynch mob or you will be no better than the lynch mob.
I'm pretty sure I'm every post you've lied about my position in order to make yours. It's gotta tell you something at this point.
Good message overall, but man what a terrible choice to depict the left
How so? What do you disagree with?
It reinforces the stereotype of "leftist = rebellious teenager"
Only that there are also a lot of commies who would exterminate a whole lot of centrists.
"We are gonna make mankind happy even if we have to exterminate half of it!"
Unfathomably based. If they said it like this half of the far right would join.
well when you say it like that, it makes me think that's cool as long as I'm part of the half that doesn't get exterminated
Is happiness the reason why almost everyone living in communist countries in 1900s wanted to change the system or gtfo?
Right-wing in-group: "So long as you be just like us in every way and fall in line, you will be accepted. Sort of."
Left-wing in-group: "So long as you're not an asshole, we don't care what you believe or do."
Right-wing out-group: Anyone not like them.
Left-wing out-group: Anyone who is an asshole.
Bolsheviks literally exterminated entire social groups because they believed they were impure. Calling people "kulaks" and such.
They also deported (as in half dying in the way) to Siberia whole peoples, like Chechens and Ingushs.
Also some peoples by ethnicity alone were deemed suspicious in certain parts of USSR and forcefully moved from there. That's how there are very few Greeks in Crimea.
And you have those hammer and sickle on the "far left" pic.
As a centrist I can say with certainty that both sides are being misrepresented here.
Wrong!
Source: We're on Lenny
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Anyone still claiming to be an undecided voter in 2024 is quite frankly full of shit
It has always been a myth. Humans are inherently political.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-moderate-middle-is-a-myth/
Anyone claiming that the Democrats goals are to ensure everyone's needs are met is full of shit.
The meme says "leftists" not democrats. Democrats are rarely leftists, and usually centrists/right wing.
I was not responding to the meme.
ok, so you're undecided between trump/republicans and harris/democrats?
why?
Are Democrats committed to ensuring everyone's needs are met?
If not, discussion here is irrelevant.
If you're not responding to the meme, then why is your discussion on whether "everyone's needs are met"? OP you responded to was only talking about undecided voters.
How are undecided voters going to make a decision to support the party where "everyone's needs are met" if there is no option to do so.
Because he's a fucking Russian plant and the only memes he's paid to talk about are "Democrats bad".
the discussion has moved on to see if you're actually on the left, or are trying to discourage people on the left from voting, or are just a straight up accelerationist/fascist/glowie
The discussion seems to be based on the false assumption that Democrats are left wing and they want to ensure that everyone's needs are met.
are YOU left wing?
I don't see how my political opinion is relevant to a discussion about this meme and the Democrats.
so you're a russian plant. great. see you later.
Ah. So you are an amateur communist hunter. Good luck with that.
At this point Dems are moderate right wings and the Republicans are far right. We don't really have a "far left" party.
So why does the above post refer to undecided voters?
Because majority of left people vote dem and right vote for rep and centrist are undecided. This doesn’t mean left = dem, it just means dems are the best option right now for the left.
OK, so the dems are committed to ensuring everyone's needs are met. Yes?
No one in this comment chain said that, they said they were the best option.
No one in this comment chain said that.
It's in the picture right at the start.
Why mention the Democrats if they aren't relevant to the meme being discussed?
My comment was there is no far left, you abandoned that discussion and just jumped to a part of the meme.
there is no far left
Exactly. Yet people in this thread are acting as if the Democrats are promising that "everyone's needs are met".
Some people sure, but I never said that and no one else did in this comment chain. Are you asking me to defend what other people are saying?
I wish
Centrists: My 3-year old child can tell that both of these characterizations are bullshit. Why cannot you?
Yes, they certainly made sure everybody's needs were met during the Holodomor.
That was under Stalin's rule which was a fascist regime like any other 'communist' regime that gained power in the last century.
I get what you are saying, but wasn't Stalin "just" a dictator (with an iron fist, killing millions) but not faschist?
If one applies a strict definition of fascism, probably yes as stalinism is a kind of it's own.
Yes, but far left can go that far. Note there are no far left politicians in serious play in American politics. Radical far left means you are ready to go all in on on bad stuff because you think it's the only means to the correct end.
The far right is currently more dangerous in American politics because they are actually in serious play, but let's not assume tossing in some far left would make things better.
Far-left would be something like anarcho-communism. Fascism is, in fact, far-right.
I suppose this is a way the 'left<->right' spectrum to align everything breaks down.
Some would graph 'authoritarianism' on the right and more liberty on the 'left'.
Except some 'leftists' would love to use authoritarian strategies against malicious capitalism and people responsible for environmental misbehavior, which are also seen as "leftist" ideals.
As evidenced in the scenario today, where the far right is in rabid support of a convicted felon and the left is rallying behind someone seen as a pretty aggressive prosecutor. Generally opposite of the traditional view of what 'right' and 'left' would tend to favor.
Authoritarianism tends to assert itself when people feel like they can use it to advance their own stance and minimize opposition, regardless of side. We just don't have people that far left in US politics currently.
fascism is right wing
"policy failure in one occasion creating a famine in a preindustrial country which used to have 10 famines a century proves that communists want to murder people!"
This is literally the bravest and most important thing I've seen all week. Bravo OP, you've convinced me
No, its the most cowardly and destructive thing posted here in a year. OP is a tankie who wants to Stalinized you to Death with illegal woke national socialists. Don't trust him. Its a trick to make you cucked, soy, and chinese.
Ummm, I know it's gotten a lot of popularity lately, but the Fallout Series, and especially Liberty Prime, is not real
I think people who've enjoyed years under communist governments might disagree a little about the comparison here.
Lol. Had to depict the left with hammer and sickle-- a communist symbol. And it isn't like the communists are constitent on LGBT rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_and_LGBT_rights?wprov=sfla1
It's pretty much the default Chad Leftist Wojak drawing. It's been around for years.
Careful! last time I mentioned that I got called Sinophobic! =P
And it isn't like the communists are constitent on LGBT rights.
It is in the west for the past 40+ years.
Centrists are the real communists. They just want everyone to come together and hug it out.
Don't you ever fucking joke around in my meme community, you monster
No, wait, he's got a point...
It's more often the far left I see rejecting the centrist candidates and thereby ironically helping the right wing because they refuse to comprehend the difference between right wing "exterminate everyone" and centrist "how about maybe don't do that though".
Come on people, this is a strawman fallacy at its finest. Let's at least try to be objective so we can have interesting conversations, and not turn this into an eco chamber for one of the sides.
Yeah, that's really what the far left does. OP must be delusional. Far right is pretty accurate tho.
I am far left
Yes, clearly
centrist -> far liberal, there I fixed it for you.
I hate that stupid centrist word which makes them sound like reasonable people. Deregulation, globalization, privatization of public services, these all have brutal consequences on many people. Selling that as a compromise or a status quo is just an advertising stunt.
Evaluating groups based on their goals rather than their methods is a problem. The Far Left wants everyone's needs met, but historically (and even today in places like China) end up putting a bunch of people in camps and gulags to achieve that goal, squashing dissents to meet that goal, and banning the practicing of religions to meet that goal, kill political dissidents to meet that goal.
If the Left wants to win those Centrists they need to assert their belief in individual rights; they need to disavow the Socialists and Communists of the past and present who implemented those horrible things. When you have prominent American leftists like Bernie on record praising Venezuela; praising the USSR etc... it makes them appear equivalent.
I always see memes aimed at centrists to be smug and disingenuous.
All these arguments about left is this, right is that, no one can tell which is what...
It's almost as if just one axis can't describe the unending variety of beliefs people have. I'm sure one day we'll find a way to describe all those permutations of values everyone holds so dear in just one axis going left to right. Yes. Then the tribes will be clearly defined!
Based meme
Except they both say what the left guy says and accuse the other of being the right guy. You both also use all of the same strategies. Silver your opposition, throw shit, and make shit up wherever media is owned by you.
Yah except can fact check and see one side is making up a lot more BS. Hell, one news station got sued for making up stuff so bad.
Everyone can say stuff. How am I to know which stuff said is true?
Look into situations yourself. Like if someone says X person did Y, you can look and see if that's true. There are plenty of face checking sites that list sources for you to verify information independently. Like when Trump said KH wants to raise retirement age, you can look and see she's never said that or purposed that.
Also legal action on a topic is a good indicator as there has been proceedings done so the outcome can be more trusted.
But as a general rule of thumb I find the side that bans books and education, calls any criticism a lie, and has had a track record of lying on the record countless times as the less trustworthy side.
Where am I gonna look? I personally have a conviction for something I didn't do because the legal process is lazy and malicious, so I won't be trusting that either. Who am I to believe any digital story?
You're not helpless to look up facts. If you're asking where to look go to the source. For the example I mentioned you can look at her platform. Your stance seems to be very close to the "how can we know anything" which is often pushed as a mindset when a group of bad actors calls everything into question to avoid accountability. Truths can be known, things can be confirmed.
As for court, I said it's more trustworthy, but not absolute by any means. It's controlled by people, and people are not infallible.
Nothing is knowable. The map is not the territory and mappers have motivations.
So you don't know your own name, how to read or type? Impressive.
Names are arbitrary and I think the officiation of my name is only useful for financial purposes. I can read and type for sure, but who is to decide that the way I'm doing it is correct? Besides, these are working knowledge rather than truth of the matter. We can work with electricity without knowing it's full nature. Apparently electricity is incredibly weird.
You can clearly understand the concepts I'm conveying. We're having a conversation. Acting like we can't know anything is silly.
Yes, we can use things without knowing how they work, but even then we know how to use it. You know how to type to express yourself, and clearly you're doing it right because I can read it. I feel like this is trying to be existential but is just very 13 year old "deep thoughts".
What can a computer know? Only what signals you feed it. Whether those signals are true or not can't really be determined. Doesn't matter if you send a million of the same thing. Labeled as "peer review". There is no determining what is the certain truth of something. It's the reason we have English prime.
Yes there is. You're acting like objective truths don't exist. Water is made of 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen atoms. We know this, we can repeat it, it is predictable. This is why the scientific method exists.
I mean you're expressing a lot of strong opinions for someone who says they don't know anything. You seem to know enough to disagree with me at the very least lol.
Objective truths only exist in information handling from a singular perspective. That water you're talking about can just as easily be part of a simulation. A better example of an objective truth is that 2 inputs in an AND gate turned on outputs on. You can show me something you call an AND gate and show me a million results with various inputs and outputs and I can learn to trust it even, but I can't determine with absolute certainly that it's an AND gate. I'll still play with it though. It's working knowledge, not absolute truth. You should look up English prime.
Ahhh so we've devolved to "everything could be a simulation were living in." But of a cop out since that's all "what ifs" with no proof, the thing science and reality is based on.
Again you keep mixing up concepts. You are taking a situation where you only know inputs and outputs and the unknown is a black box. We can go and look at a logic gate and look at the circuit and say, yes, it is an AND gate. We can just look at how it's structured and know for sure. Logic gates have physical characteristics that govern how they operate.
By your own logic you could be absolutely wrong about all this but you feel confident enough to keep arguing it. Does that mean you're arguing a point you don't understand or even know is true?
If you're not even trying to get the point, I'm not gonna sit here and try to make you get it. You just wanna be better than someone.
You don't know that, I mean you can't know anything right?
Like I said, for a guy who claims nothing is knowable you make some bold, confident claims.
me when I love solipsism
This isn't solipsism or anything close to it. It's purely rational. The point is for people to describe their experience and observations without determining what something is on some kind of ridiculous inherent level. Y'all just wanna dictate facts and feel like you're authority. That is not science.
The irony of that last sentence lol.
I am an actual centrist and not a caricature. These memes constantly portray us as morons who think "both sides are equal" which is honestly just more inflammatory tribalism which makes it easier to villainize everyone who isn't in your in group. Its the ultimate strawman, and its somehow super effect, since any time I try to make this point I'm downvoted into the floor. I can recognize the flaws in both sides and make informed decisions. Just because I don't wave your fucking banner doesn't mean I'm on the other side it means I vote with my brain instead of blind allegiance.
The problem is that stupid hard left - hard right tribalism is destroying the country. We will NEVER see the changes we want in this country if we are too busy villainizing each other, all that does is push us farther left/right.
If you want real change you should be pushing not for your fairy tale extreme right or extreme left America, push for the first step towards cohesion, we need to overhaul our voting system to ranked choice, this would allow us to have more than 2 parties. So we can get actual hard left, left, center, right, hard right candidates. This will allow us to have parties that truly help our country, and actually represent the people in us. It will curtail extreme political ideologies by allowing, what is a significantly small but loud portion of our population to flounder and die on the ends of the spectrum, and get more common sense political parties into power. Sadly this will never happen, because we have become too good at forcing significant portions of the country into fighting each other versus changing the system.
All of this being said its super clear in this specific election there is only 1 side not trying to steer us off of a cliff. But that isn't the point, the point is we need to come together somehow to fix this broken 2 party system before it destroys the country. I don't feel properly represented, do you?
Hivemind moment
He even had a horseshoe tattooed on his neck.
Exterminate social groups!?!?!? The far left would never do that to the kulaks, ukrainians, perceived ideological opponents, jews, political opponents, poles, and a quarter of Cambodia, ever.
The far left never eliminated Ukrainians, it's the literal protofascist Putin that's invading Ukraine.
If you're referring to Holodomor, there's no evidence that there was an attempt to particularly affect Ukrainians, and hunger took place in other parts of the USSR. There are no other similar events leading up to it, or afterwards, to make me believe that the USSR wanted to exterminate Ukrainians, and as a matter of fact the second president of the USSR was Ukrainian. There was no war in Ukraine since WW2 during the USSR, until the dismantling of the USSR and the establishing of capitalist regimes in the region.
Saying that the USSR eliminated Jews is purely conspiracy and outright false, there's no historical example of that, and Jewish people were overrepresented compared to other ethnicities over the whole history of the USSR in government and high-education positions.
Similarly, poles were never eliminated. There was oppression in Poland during the Stalinist oppression as much as there was in the rest of the USSR, but there was no extermination of Polish people for being Polish.
Funny that being so concerned with Poles and Ukrainians, you don't mention the USSR ending the occupation of Ukraine by Polish nationalists in 1917-1918 during the Polish-Ukrainian war.
Very cool, justifying the extermination of a social group as "deserved". Any more who "deserved it"?
Just to be clear, "extermination of a social group" wasn't ever the extermination of the individuals. Dekulakization was mostly carried out by poor farmers, not by a central authority, and the harshest penalty was normally forced relocation, not murder. The masses were so hungry against the kulaks that the soviet government literally had to introduce maximum quotas of who was designated a kulak because poor farmers were rabid against them.
Dekulakization was a fucking mess, but it wasn't an extermination in the genocidal sense of the word.
Oh, that clears it up, I see now liquidating the right sort of people "who deserve it" is a far-left thing that is righteous, and liquidating the wrong people who, as the right say """""deserve it"""" is a far-right thing that is evil.
Before I read this, I was a stupid centrist who thought you shouldn't liquidate groups of people at all, thank you for showing me the right way
Man that guy really went all out to assist you in making your point didn't he?
Is it possible that there is a better a solution to the issues of Capitalism which doesn't involve the liquidation of entire groups of people?
Being a person who have visited communist meetings, this is my biggest gripe with the ideology. Yes, capitalism today has become corrupted, perhaps even beyond repair. But, I refuse to believe that the only solution is to round up and kill the capitalist bosses in order to bring back power to the working class. At this point, we would be dehumanizing an entire group of people which wouldn't make us much better than what the far-right does.
I believe you've misunderstood what "eliminating a social class" means, and the history of socialism.
Eliminating a social class doesn't mean murdering everyone who belongs to it, it means eliminating the position they hold in society. If you take all capitalists, and take all of their means of production and redistribute them among the workers, you've eliminated the capitalists as a class, without the need to exterminate the individuals.
An example would be dekulakization in the USSR. Rich peasants, or kulaks, who owned lands and employed other peasants to work their lands, were subjected to forced collectivisation of their lands, between the late 1920s and throughout 1930s. This was promoted by the soviet authorities, but mostly enacted by peasants themselves who denounced kulaks for expropriation. The policy was so popular and poor peasants had such desire to expropriate the kulaks, that the central authorities had to enforce limits on percentage of people denounced as kulaks in a given territory, because it was too much. But the penalty to kulaks was rarely ever execution, it was expropriation itself, and in more extreme cases, exile to other parts of the USSR. Dekulakization took place without the murder of all kulaks, although it was a very chaotic, inefficient, and rather violent process. Of course, Marxist-Leninists are interested in the mistakes of the past, and on how we'd enforce this policy in a more efficient, less violent way. That's why we're interested in Marxist history and communist countries, and the reasons why policies were applied a given way, instead of superficial analysis of "X person was bad and that's why things were bad".
This is a fair point, but a general premise to Marxism is a bloody revolution where the working class takes the assets from capitalist bosses. Perhaps some Marxist are interested in alternative methods, but the group of communist members with which I was able to discuss this topic with were not concerned with that.
They demonized and dehumanized capitalist and talked about them as if they were not worth saving, and it was this kind of rhetoric that turned me off from their cause.
Though, it was also their rhetoric which presumed racism and sexism would be solved if we all just view eachother as workers. This seemed to underplay the effects these caste systems have on people.
I personally don't know what collective you've been engaged with, but I can tell you in my experience Marxists take racism and feminism very seriously, and that while revolution is a necessary step for the emancipation of the oppressed, it's by no means the only one since we have a lot of biases and behaviours ingrained in our cultures and societies.
A general premise of Marxism isn't necessarily a bloody revolution, it's just that the owners of the means of production normally won't just give those away to the workers without resorting to violence. In the USSR, there was a civil war started by the tsarist supporters. In Cuba, there was a war first against the Spanish, then against the American and Batista. In my home country, Spain, progressive policy during the democratic Spanish Second Republic was trumped by a fascist coup that plunged the country into authoritarianism for 40 years. In Chile, reformist Salvador Allende was also toppled and murdered by a fascist coup (CIA-backed). Mosaddegh in Iran was also deposed by capitalists. I could go on and on listing examples but I think my point is clear.
I don't know of any revolution (by revolution, I mean a change in the class-structure of a system) which has succeeded without the former ruling class exerted violence to keep their power. It's not that revolutionary Marxists want violence, it's just that historically, there doesn't seem to be a possibility of emancipation for the working classes without having to respond to violence from the ruling class.
And again, historical examples show how, generally, once these revolutions triumph, they're not as oppressive and violent against individuals formerly in power as the term "extermination of the capitalist class" suggests. I already showed you with Kulaks how they weren't murdered en-masse, simply expropriated and at worse forcibly relocated. Another example would be the last emperor of China, who wasn't murdered, but instead was forced into prison for rehabilitation and reeducation for 10 years, came out of prison openly saying that he regretted his actions as emperor, and went on to become an influential person within the institutions of the new China.
I was engaging with a collective in the US, and they seemed to be wishing for a global revolution; so excommunication would not be an option like the Kulaks unless the idea is to remove them from Earth.
I guess I can't judge all collectives when I only engaged with one (go figure, right). I appreciate you taking the time to share information with me. It was enlightening.
All good mate, thanks the discussion!
Liquidation of assests
So you believe that there's something like a group of people that will always be striving to be these capitalist overlords and that there's no one in the rest of the population that would display that corrupt desire for power? Either this stinks of eugenics or you're simply naive. Firstly what does it help us killing that group, when the system doesn't change? Secondly if both change, the system needs to be so that people striving to corrupt power will not be able to achieve that power. I've yet to see a system that managed that. The soviet union for one certainly didn't. In fact that is a playbook example of how not to do it, right besides the first french revolution. If you believe that by killing the "corrupt overlords" you won't be getting any more corrupt people striving for power, we're once again at the point is this eugenics or are you naive.
Yes and that state only still exists because the lend-lease their doctors to the entire world and make the high-priced rum and cigars.
The good ol whataboutism here again I see...
Wait aren't the far lefts not those who want to "kill the rich"?
While I agree that "far-left" is a lot more sane sane option than far-right, it doesn't change the fact that sometimes the behavior of individuals who identify as such is outrageous. I especially see that in open-source community with various hate groups targeted to anybody identifying right of center and defending their actions, just because they fight for the good of all, therefore being nothing more than buch of hateful hypocrites.
This truth doesn't stop the fact that democrats aren't moving in the same direction every single time. The "exceptions" are veils because they're dancing to be in the same location. Saying one foot a crock of bullshit is just me insulting cows.
If you want Left, BURN THE FUCKING DOLLAR.
Everything else is a fucking con man, sucker.
You really know how to alienate the centrist vote, don't you? Very clever. Very powerful. Surely you are doing The Good Work.
Both sides have fine people, except for those God damn commies who want to open the border and give all of the people houses, food, education, and healthcare.
Just stopping by to say I admire your commitment to the bit.
Downvotes be damned
And also send to the gulag all those who oppose their inept program. You can make anything look nice if you omit all the negative stuff.
I don't think Stalin liberated anyone. His own subordinates were terrified of him, and he murdered his political enemies like Leon Trotsky.
Hello, I live in ex-Soviet country and it's a bit disingenuous to say that. It's true that there are a lot of nostalgia over here, but it's just that - people tend to remember all the good bits and none of the bad ones when recounting the past. When asked about life during Soviet occupation, nostalgic people recall how things were cheaper rather than how their loved ones were sent to concentration camps for being "too intelligent therefore a potential revolutionary threat" (happened to my grandpa).
There's also the fact that the satellite states were viewed by Soviets as "resource wells" rather than actual settlements, so rather than developing them they'd act more like a monarch and designate collective farms from which they'd take the majority of produce. I wasn't born in time to witness the collapse, but for a large majority of my childhood a lot of houses in the city didn't have things like sewage or running water, so people, me included had to use the bucket to do their things or have basin stands.
I do still believe that communism could work, but Soviets were just horrible imperialists using "working class interests" as a meme rather than policy. No ML country has reached the "stage 2" of their version of communism which is a classless society, Soviets included, and it's not something I see criticized in tankie communities.
It's true that there are a lot of nostalgia over here, but it's just that - people tend to remember all the good bits and none of the bad ones when recounting the past
Well, that wasn't the case during the early 1990s, there were massive problems created through the dismantling of communism in Eastern Europe that ruined millions of lives, and many people regret switching systems at that time. You know this saying, "we knew what the government said of itself was wrong, what we didn't expect is that what they said about capitalism was true".
people recall how things were cheaper rather than how their loved ones were sent to concentration camps for being "too intelligent therefore a potential revolutionary threat" (happened to my grandpa)
Probably because labour-camp-type repression was mostly confined to a 5-year period leading up to WW2. It's a characteristic of systems under heavy pressure. McCarthyism is an example of this. That doesn't justify soviet oppression during Stalinism, it was extremely harsh and mostly arbitrary and unjustified and a product of hysteria. But that doesn't deny that hundreds of millions of people were freed from Tsarism and imperialism and lived a life free of economic exploitation, with guaranteed education, healthcare, pensions, jobs and housing.
There's also the fact that the satellite states were viewed by Soviets as "resource wells" rather than actual settlements, so rather than developing them they'd act more like a monarch and designate collective farms from which they'd take the majority of produce.
Can you pass me a good source about this with numeric data about it? Sounds interesting.
Presumably those are excluding the hundreds of millions of soviet citizens killed by the state during Stalin's reign?
hundreds of millions of soviet citizens killed by the state
Sorry, don't you mean trillions? Seriously, if you're gonna talk numbers, please at least try to land within 1000% of the original figure.
It's enough. Blocking community. Thanks bye.
Begone then
Far leftists aren't trying to make sure everyone's needs are met. They just like crying and bitching about how their perfect utopia hasn't been handed to them yet.
Democrats (aka "liberals") are actually working to improve lives for everyone.
Democrats (aka "liberals") are actually working to improve lives for everyone
Democrats support the genocide in Palestine and the drone strikes of Obama's era.
No, we don't. Dumbass.
I meant the politicians.
Ah ok fair enough. I'd still say "support" is a strong word. Democrats want the genocide to end, but aren't willing to directly oppose Israel. Republicans, by contrast, want even more genocide.
Democrats want the genocide to end, but aren't willing to directly oppose Israel.
Sure, that's why they gave Netanyahu multiple standing ovations.
That line brought him huge applause, though the standing ovations Mr. Netanyahu received were mostly partisan, as Republicans clapped loudly and Democrats hung back, some sitting silently and stone-faced.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/24/us/politics/netanyahu-congress.html
You can watch it happen, the Democrats largely supported him with thunderous applause. Some dems did express minor resistance, but even Kamala stood up and condemned the protestors outside as "anti-semetic."
“I condemn any individuals associating with the brutal terrorist organization Hamas, which has vowed to annihilate the State of Israel and kill Jews,” Harris said in a statement, her first on antisemitism since she launched her bid for the presidency this week.
“Pro-Hamas graffiti and rhetoric is abhorrent and we must not tolerate it in our nation,” she said. “I support the right to peacefully protest, but let’s be clear: Antisemitism, hate and violence of any kind have no place in our nation.”
Fuck Israel, but let's not forget, fuck Hamas too. Wanting the genocide to end does not mean you have to support the OTHER group of genocidal fucks. They both fucking suck. We just want the slaughter of innocent civilians to stop.
Hamas and their violent rhetoric is a product of the Material Conditions imposed on Palestinians by fascist Zionists. Condemning the bully and the bullied that lashes out in equal measure is "both-sides" nonsense.
The fact of the matter is that the ongoing conflict can only be resolved with a One Secular State solution, dissolving the settler colonial regime and giving former Israelis and Palestinians equal democratic say with minority protections.
The fact of the matter is that the ongoing conflict can only be resolved with a One Secular State solution, dissolving the settler colonial regime and giving former Israelis and Palestinians equal democratic say with minority protections.
First of all, I totally agree.
Condemning the bully and the bullied that lashes out in equal measure is “both-sides” nonsense.
No. Fuck that. Hamas didn't just "lash out" like a fucking kid on a playground, they murdered innocent civilians. That is crossing a line. Fuck Hamas and anyone who supports them, they would do the same as Israel if not worse, given the chance.
Hamas and Israel both want to do a genocide. Only Israel has the capability. Hamas are the same ignorant savages as the IDF at heart.
No. Fuck that. Hamas didn't just "lash out" like a fucking kid on a playground, they murdered innocent civilians. That is crossing a line. Fuck Hamas and anyone who supports them, they would do the same as Israel if not worse, given the chance.
Why does Hamas exist?
Hamas and Israel both want to do a genocide. Only Israel has the capability. Hamas are the same ignorant savages as the IDF at heart.
What are the reasons driving Hamas vs Israel?
Don't care.
Do. Not. Murder. Civilians. It's a very simple rule.
Gotcha, so because Israel has murdered far more civilians both in total and as a ratio of the total killed by each side, Israel is the greater of two evils, and the direct creator of the other evil.
I mean sure, in a "killed more people" way. Both are unacceptable though.
It's why the great majority of the conversation is about stopping Israel. It's about harm reduction, and Israel is doing the most harm by far. They need to be stopped. Stopping Hamas takes a back seat to that, practically speaking.
But do not make the mistake of thinking Hamas is the good guy just because they oppose Israel. They're terrible too. Sure, they're a monster that Israel created, but they're still a monster.
But do not make the mistake of thinking Hamas is the good guy just because they oppose Israel.
When, exactly, did I say this? There are good groups within Palestine like the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, sure, but they are unfortunately not the group in power. What we are left with is an existing situation:
Hamas is the major group Palestinians support against Israel, and Isreal and the IDF are against Palestinians.
We also have historical context:
Israel is a settler-colonial apartheid regime that has murdered Palestinians and stolen their land for the greater part of a century, and has thus fostered hatred against itself.
We know the origin of these issues: Israel. We therefore know the direction of the solution: dissolution of the Israeli State into a One State Solution for Palestinians and Israeli's alike, with Minority Protections.
Anything else is moralism and pandering.
It is perfectly possible to protest Israel's genocide of Palestinians without spray painting pro-Hamas slogans or holding Hamas flags, which is what the protesters that Harris condemned did. She very specifically called out the pro-Hamas and antisemites among the protesters, not the ones simply calling for an end to the genocide.
As I said at the beginning of this tangent, fuck Israel, but fuck Hamas too. Calling out Hamas supporters is a perfectly reasonable thing to do and is not a mark against Harris.
Again, you are drawing far too much importance on the optics of condemnation and support, and no importance whatsoever on Material Realities and conditions. Is Harris moving in favor of ending all US support for Israel, putting a stop to the genocide? No, and she won't, and as such we recontextualize her statements. She is very deliberately maintaining the Party Line.
So why did you bring up her statements if they don't matter?
She is very deliberately maintaining the Party Line.
Yes. And the party line is to disapprove of Israel but not directly oppose them.
The optics don't matter.
Yes. And the party line is to disapprove of Israel but not directly oppose them.
Finger wagging in public, handing guns and bombs in private, got it.
I didn't say I agreed with it, but that's the line she's walking.
"Ah ok fair enough. I'd still say "support" is a strong word. Democrats want the genocide to end, but aren't willing to directly oppose Israel. Republicans, by contrast, want even more genocide."
Now that we know the Democrats are actively pursuing genocide, do you walk back the part of this statement that the Dems want it to end?
Nice how you ignored the part where I very specifically said that they are NOT pusuing genocide. Like that's literally the opposite of what I said, damn you didn't even moderate it or anything. Just full on lying to me about what I said. Neat.
You said they don't want to, which is generally false.
Oh I'm sorry I didn't realize that a) you were a mind reader, and b) Democrats are conveniently lying every single time they talk about Israel, which you conveniently know due to your mind reading powers.
Come on, man. That's bullshit conspiracy talk. Democrats are calling for an end to the slaughter. Very publicly.
They give standing ovations to Netanyahu, send vast amounts of bombs, and decry protestors as antisemetic. You're projecting onto the Zionist Dems.
You got 1 out of 3. I thought you were better than repeating obvious lies.
I already proved all of them correct, stop batting for Zionists and hold them accountable.
Sad.
Let me know when the material reality of the situation changes.
Not every place is the US
I'm sorry, I didn't realize there was a Democratic Party in other nations.
I bet you're fun at parties
Liberals have the best parties because we can actually afford to provide an open bar.
I'm far left, gay, live 3 blocks from the beach in the Los Angeles area, and work in tech with a 6 figure salary. F centrists and F conservatives.
So your privileged self would be fine if Trump was elected lol
Makes sense why you've only been posting anti-voting and anti-dem propaganda the last few months. Fuck those gay people who live in Florida and make minimum wage! Lol what a pompous techbro
The far left ain't paying your salary rofl
You gotta work the system you're provided.
Boom! You're a liberal now, congratulations.
How long does this take? I'm 40 and still see the D's do much better in this regard in general. The first example that comes to mind is the Dodd-Frank act that Obama signed that added loads of consumer protections against predatory bank practices. I worked at a bank at the time and this was life changing for a lot of victims customers that were bad with money.
I mean, you can just actually take an honest look at Biden's record and see the good he's done. For instance the Infrastructure Bill was a big fucking deal. Right along with him and the Democratic Senate in appointing Federal Judges that are actually qualified.
It's cute when obvious teenagers try to accuse someone else of being young because they lack life experience showing them X, when X is demonstrably untrue. Which you would know if you'd actually lived through any history. Or read a Wikipedia article.
Or maybe you're just a Russian troll.
Oh, well. Update us when Putin dies and you're no longer being paid to shout "Democrats bad!" all the time.
Because communism worked out so well every other time.
there is a cure for political illiteracy
there is a cure for political illiteracy
They'd have to cure their normal illiteracy first, and that's kind of a tall ask I think
You haven't found it yet.
Neither have you it seems
I can't tell if you are talking about the right or the left.
Neither can the communists.
I can't think of any successful communist countries. They've all quickly devolved into totalitarian regimes, or else they've had to adopt a capitalist economy because a communist economy just didn't work.
This why the right conflates socialism with communism, because they don't want to acknowledge that northern Europe is absolutely crushing it in both wealth and services.
No country in Europe is even close to the original definition of socialism. Having public health care is not socialism.
I wish we made decisions based on happiness levels rather than GDP.
These countries are obviously doing something right and the rest of the world should take notes from them: https://worldhappiness.report/news/happiest-countries-prove-resilient-despite-overlapping-crises/
These countries are obviously doing something right and the rest of the world should take notes from them
What they're doing right is a mixture of rather progressive social policy (in the process of being abandoned in favour of the extreme right), and exploitation of poorer countries through unequal exchange. It's high-school level knowledge of colonialism: import raw materials and agricultural produce from poor countries at low prices, export high-added-value goods and services at a high cost. If every country were to adopt that model, it wouldn't work because there'd be nobody to exploit. I suggest you read into the concept of unequal exchange
I cannot believe this report, because Bhutan isn't on top.
Northern Europe also depends heavily on Unequal Exchange, and has seen sliding safety nets. They are happiest because they are generally the wealthiest, and that wealth must be seen in the international context, as they do not practice Autarky.
They've all quickly devolved into totalitarian regimes
Tell me you haven't studied the political structures of Cuba and the USSR since the 60s without telling me you haven't.
While both countries have a high level of concentration of power on bureaucratic elites when it comes to big policy, there were/are a ton of democratic mechanisms that simply don't exist in the west. Extremely high rates of unionization with unions having big decision-making power in the workplaces and outside them, party-membership being encouraged with extremely high rates of it compared to western democracies, neighborhood councils having actual decision-making power both through legal mechanisms and through funding to enact desired local policy... If you want to learn of a particularly interesting instance, you can read the book "how the worker's parliaments saved the Cuban revolution" by Pedro Ross, in which it's detailed how massive democratic participation in the early 90s after the dismantling of the USSR ensured the survival of the country in an astronomical economic crisis.
You also say this as if western countries were democratic at all, as if putting a ballot once every 4-5 years ensured popular decision-making. Study after study show that public support for policy in the west is a terrible predictor of whether that policy is adopted or not, and vice-versa, i.e., public opinion and policy are uncorrelated. The fact that you can't easily point to a particular authority responsible for this, doesn't make the system any more democratic, it just makes it look less authoritarian. Who in France supported the rise of the retirement age? Who in Europe supported austerity policy after the 2008 crisis? What percentage of US citizens don't support socialized healthcare?
there is no such thing as a communist country: communism is stateless
Orrr the US overthrows their government and replaces them with a fascist regime or monarchy whenever there's even a hint of socialism. Latin America, Asia, post-ww2 Europe... they have a tendency to do that a lot.
The only ones we know of are all authoritarian regimes because they're the only ones which actually have enough resistanace from outside interference to not fall victim to the USA's shenanigans. Democracies are extremely vulnerable to outside influence / bad actors, and when you have the most powerful country in the world working to destroy your democratic government, without the centralization to resist that it's no use fighting back. We created this problem.