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.
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
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 understand your definitions, but I I think many Americans don’t use the same definitions. OP is pointing this out.
If we look at specific issues it’s easy to see. 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. What if I said that we shouldn’t allow people to be multimillionaires? Would that make me way far out on the left? Again, to a lot of people yes.
So your definitions might be reasonable, but they aren’t universal, and I think if you keep that in mind you can appreciate OP more.
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
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.
deleted by creator
“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?
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.
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.
The key being what constitutes being an asshole, and what you allow yourself to do to someone once the label can be pasted onto someone. It’s really the same thing seen through different gross stereotypes - they could literally say the same thing.
That’s not to say there aren’t very real differences between parties, but they aren’t extreme sides of a one dimensional line (or vague notions in a two dimensional mapping) which is basically a propaganda tool for the ego.
It’s funny. I have a blog post from Ken Arneson who talks about “The Right to be an Asshole” and here’s how he defines an asshole:
An asshole is a selfish person whose selfishness causes foreseeable indirect collateral damage to the people around them.
He goes on:
Assholes take risks that provide upside to themselves, but transfer the downsides of those risks to other people.
But the true test case for the limits of freedom is the asshole. Philosophically speaking, assholes walk the line between intentions and consequences. Assholes form the boundary between freedom and control.
Assholes don’t intend to do direct harm. They just don’t think about, and/or care about, and/or believe, and/or comprehend, that their actions can or will have negative consequences for other people beyond their direct intentions.
He goes on to recount the tale of COVID Patient 31 from Seoul, South Korea. Shortly after receiving her diagnosis, she decided to seek comfort at church. Hundreds of deaths and thousands of infections were traced back to her through contact tracing. So, now we come to intentions vs. consequences. Patient 31 wasn’t intending to make anyone sick or die, she was merely seeking comfort through faith. Any reasonable non-asshole could have told her and probably did tell her, that attending church while infected would cause others to be infected and possibly die. How should this asshole be judged? If we judge her by her intentions, then she’s as much a victim as anyone. But if we judge her by her consequences, then she’s a mass murderer.
So the question we have to ask as a free society is: What the fuck do we do about assholes?
Assholes have a very clever trick that allows them to keep being assholes.
If you try to stop them from being an asshole, they will declare you to be an asshole who, although perhaps intending to prevent some bad thing from happening, causes harm by denying some very fine people, who have no intention of harming anyone, their freedom. So who’s the real asshole here, anyway?
What the fuck do we do about assholes?
Simple. Dicks fuck assholes. Its necessary, but the problem is they get shit all over the place!
Why is he downvoted? One is not an asshole if one is just too dumb to get what they are causing. The problem is that we not educate our children good enough so that they not fail to get what makes sense and what not.
But as long as we have stupid religious fanatics in power, we are doomed. Fuck Religion!
Religion has done something very clever, too. Christianity in particular has, through some means, found a way to divorce actions from character, as opposed to viewing one’s actions as a reflection of their character. They see good and evil as things that someone is instead of what someone does.
You ever notice how suburban white Karens clutch their pearls when called racist? Well, consider what I just said about their view of evil. Now, make “racism” == “evil”. By calling one racist, you have effectively called them evil, and they most certainly do not view themselves as having an evil character.
Or how, when doing evil deeds, they don’t see themselves as being evil despite their actions? Or when someone does a good deed, they accuse that person of being evil?
It’s just intriguing how they’ve pulled off this alchemy.
You confused me a little with that text 😅
Socialism is literally transferring all risk to other people. Nice try though.
💎exacta-mundo friendileeno
Left-wing out-group: Everyone, especially other leftists
I mean, it doesn’t have anything to do with the ideology, but the far left is famously like that.
I don’t usually use this expression, but you might need to touch grass. I pretty regularly hang out with far left people and other than debates over personal philosophy we’re all pretty chill. The internet is not an accurate representation of any actual social dynamics.
Yup. That’s some truth.
All my liberal homies smoke weed and shoot the shit and try to vote for people who don’t want to kill outgroups. So agreed, he needs to touch grass.
The ones I’m thinking of would not appreciate being called “liberal”.
Well, I meant my lefty friends. If you look at my comment history, I’m not much a liberal myself, but I don’t consider tankies on the left. I consider them authoritarian fuckbags that will say anything to get power. Just like authoritarian fuckbags on the right.
I consider them flat Earth theorists that weren’t right-wing enough for the normal conspiracy pipeline. The Stalin stuff is pretty much just decoration.
I’ve seen plenty of anarchist gatekeeping, too, although when you haven’t organised in the first place there’s less to split.
TBH there’s barely a center-left where I live, even, so you’re right that I wouldn’t know. However, the history of real-world Western socialist organisations doesn’t inspire confidence that it’s any different.
to be fair, tankies arn’t left wing, they fully support the most Draconian right wing solutions to everything, but pretend that their führer isn’t evil or something.
Anarchists are in this picture too. Gatekeeping about who’s anti-authoritarian enough is one example.
I mean, they have a point, you literally can’t go “but Lenin created vanguardism” as a reason why the all powerful single party state supposedly controlled by the “will of the people” and get upset when people call you out for being an authoritarian.
Anarchists gate keeping tankies isn’t some moral wrong, it’s just learning from history, because they would rather work with literal Nazis/ ethno-fascists than with an anarchist, the anarchists were the first to be shot by all the fascists, German, Romanian, Italian, or Soviet.
Yeah, but even if you allow that, they’ll gatekeep each other over dietary systems, for voting or not voting, over which economic systems are too market, over who was on the right side of a personal falling out, for believing in rules of any kind and on and on. There never is an end to it.
I don’t know who you’ve been hanging out with, but anarchists don’t care if you’re vegan or not, and generally their issue isn’t with markets, it’s with the system giving all the power to a small group of feudal lords, but I think the issue is that you only know anarchists by shitty online memes, maybe you should go get in contact with your local lawn dealer
Sure. All the anarchists fucking up for the last 150 years don’t count. You folks in this thread swear there’s different, cool ones; they’re just conveniently invisible.
and generally their issue isn’t with markets, it’s with the system giving all the power to a small group of feudal lords
And yet, pretty much none of them like ancaps. Mutualists or whatever other in-between are prime targets for purging from your not-a-political-party.
Hope the left sees that there are assholes turning to nice people if you take away the fear right-wing media puts on them.
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”
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.
Its almost as if the USSR was just fascism with red trim.
I agree, but the author used hammer&sickle as the illustration of “far left”.
Its the symbol of communism, as opposed to the USSR alone.
It originated in the Soviet Union, it’s associated with Communism because of the Soviet Union. It’s only a symbol of Communism within the context of the USSR, if you believe the model of the USSR to be fascist then you believe the Hammer and Sickle to be symbolic of fascism.
Alternatively, you can dissapprove of the model of the USSR while recognizing it as Socialist and not fascist.
It originated under tsarist Russia. So, by your own “logic”, its a symbol of pre-industrial surfism.
Sure, I could recognise it as that but then we’d both be wrong. You see, much like the peoples democratic republic of Korea, simply declaring your country to be something doesn’t make it true. Its actually a bit more complicated than that.
It originated under tsarist Russia. So, by your own “logic”, its a symbol of pre-industrial surfism.
“Surfism?” Sounds rad 🏄
In all seriousness, the Tsarist Regime was overthrown in 1917, while the Hammer and Sickle was first proposed in 1918, and adopted officially by the Bolsheviks and the USSR as it formed out of the Russian Civil War. It has since become a symbol of Marxism through association with the USSR, not despite it. The H&S was symbiolized for the USSR, not necessarily Marxism itself.
Sure, I could recognise it as that but then we’d both be wrong. You see, much like the peoples democratic republic of Korea, simply declaring your country to be something doesn’t make it true. Its actually a bit more complicated than that.
The DPRK did not invent the concept of Democracy, nor have groups since the DPRK adopted their symbolism as a means to associate themselves with Democracy. This is a flawed comparison foundationally, because the various Communist groups that have brandished the Hammer and Sickle are at minimum supporting Marxism-Leninism, the state ideology of the USSR, even if these groups support or denounce Stalinism (ie, Trotskyist orgs).
If you can find a significant number of groups brandishing the Hammer and Sickle but denouncing the USSR in totality, then please, be my guest.
*Serfism
Cool story, still a poor argument.
The DPRK did not invent the concept of >Democracy,
Whats that got to do with anything? Are you attempting to claim the USSR invented socialism? I sure hope not.
or have groups since the DPRK adopted their symbolism as a means to associate themselves with Democracy. This is a flawed comparison foundationally, because the various Communist groups that have brandished the Hammer and Sickle are at minimum supporting Marxism-Leninism, the state ideology of the USSR, even if these groups support or denounce Stalinism (ie, Trotskyist orgs).
Yeah, you’ve got yourself mixed up with the symbolism here. I understand why you don’t want to venture away from it but we are going to have too.
Its a perfectly good comparison for showing why simply declaring a country to be something is, at best, problematic. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make but I’m sure you made it well enough for whatever argument it would actually fit in.
Let’s make it real simple, is the peoples democratic republic of Korea a democracy?
Well, others have answered you that it’s the symbol of “worker and peasant Red Army”, as hammer and sickle symbolize. And a five ended star was, I think, a military symbol of limited popularity in Russia before Communism, while Red Army simply made the color constant. The star was also initially upside down, as a way to defy Christianity, this is not a joke. But later they, apparently, decided that it being upside down is juvenile.
Almost like Fascism was a branch of Italian Socialism.
Only fascists pretend that fascists were socialists.
Its almost as if mussolini got kicked out of the Italian socliast league specifically for not remotely socialist.
Movements don’t rise from nothing. His first supporters were card carrying members of the Italian Socialist Party. “Kicked out” of a party you replace is a weird way to say it.
His first supporters were nothing of the sort and the fascists fought the socialists.
If fighting socialists disqualifies you as a socialist, then there would be no socialists.
I agree. However, fascsists aren’t socialists. If it isn’t socialism for everyone it isn’t socialism at all.
The national socialists had to change their name from what it was previously. Hitler wanted to use “socialist” as a buzzword to trick idiots.
because ironically the author of the meme made the best of fucks up made an unironic meme, Tankies are just Nazis wearing red.
Yes, and they destroyed most of the Baltic intelligentsia via exile to Siberia.
Forcefully relocated Ukrainians, Germans and Poles to purify post war borders which helped to turn Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine into nation states.
Then they accused Lithuanians, Ukrainians and the Polish of nationalism during 1980s independence movements, the same nationalism they actively helped create since 1945.
No need to single out Baltics really. The same happened everywhere.
Then they accused Lithuanians, Ukrainians and the Polish of nationalism during 1980s independence movements, the same nationalism they actively helped create since 1945.
Let’s please remember that inside USSR the first such movement to gain traction was the one of NK’s unification with Armenian SSR. And also the first one to be met with force. Independent Azerbaijan basically took the matter where USSR’s central government left it.
Dunno why I’m trying to make a case of NK’s independence being as solid as that of Baltic countries or something. It’s not about laws, but about strength anyway. All the “international institutions” have made it clear that any principle is sold cheap.
the same nationalism they actively helped create since 1945.
Actually since middle 30-s Soviet ideology started turning in that direction. During WWII this, of course, accelerated with war propaganda.
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.
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
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.
“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!”
I think people who’ve enjoyed years under communist governments might disagree a little about the comparison here.
Read. Page 116, par. 3, “We Didn’t Realize What We Had.”
“Communist governments” have never been truly communist. Well the big ones that we know at least, I guess smaller folks like indigenous people or other ancient form of living were why more communist.
All the “communist governments” that one thinks about under that term were/are just non fair dictatorships that claim to be fair
AES countries never reached Communism, yes, but they were very much real attempts at building Socialism. A lot of bad came from them, yes, but so did a lot of good. It’s important to critically analyze them as such.
Well, of course! We have to learn from every failure any human has done in the past, else we don’t get smarter.
Yes, which is why I take issue with the idea that these were not “true Communists.” Some may have taken advantage of their positions, yes, and none of these attempts were or are perfect, but by and large these have been countries made up of the masses attempting to build Communism. The idea that all attempts were merely hijacked by opportunists is an easy way to avoid actually having to analyze them critically. It’s a sort of analytical non-starter.
That is only your view, I can easily say that they were not true communists and still analyse why they were not a true communist systems. If I would say they where truly Communist systems, I would just lie and there would not be failures to analyse since it should have worked since they were truly communist systems.
That’s a lot of nonsense if you aren’t going to actually analyze anything.
What is “true” Communism?
😂how to get to that I don’t analyse?
For me true communism would be living in a group in consensus that nobody owns but the whole group together
So in my mind extremism is bad either way you go and it is not something that anyone should brush off and say “these left wing extremists are fine” because reality never works out that way. Extremism is monstrous either way.
I suspect “true” Communism is something you’ll only find on the pages of a book. Because in reality it goes from being a revolution, to a party, to cliques, to a power struggle, to a purge, to a dictator. And people get shot, tortured, beaten and sent to death camps every step of the way.
The point I’m making, which I think is obvious and demonstrable, is extreme left aren’t just do-gooders while the extreme right are evil. It’s hard to think of any communist / marxist-leninist / whatever revolutions that weren’t followed by purges, gulags, education camps, progroms or what have you. In some cases, the body count was in the millions, e.g. Pol Pot.
So in my mind extremism is bad either way you go and it is not something that anyone should brush off and say “these left wing extremists are fine” because reality never works out that way. Extremism is monstrous either way.
Thinking in terms of right and left as string with two poles is what causing all this mess Like if there would only be two views about any topic and if you are thinking “left” at one topic you have to think “left” on very different topics as well. Kinda strange in my opinion.
About this followup of revelations: you can not simply suddenly force your opinion on how humans have to live on a crowd, well, without violence, fear monger or blackmailing.
I like the way nordic european countries handle politics. They have some of the greatest democracies and many very social laws that help the poor to live normal lives. You should visit those once.
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 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?
The overton window has been pushed so far right that literal fascism is back on the table, so where does that place centrists?
In the center of left and right. Think this is the root of the problem, people hear centrist and they think center of overton window, I have never and will never mean this.
Is the center of left and right between the US left and right or in general? Even without the overton window the US left is mostly dems who support corporations and occasionally throw social programs in as well, while the right is teetering on fascism. If you’re looking at all of US history there are periods where social programs, workers rights, and higher taxes on the rich had more support, but again you’d have to balance that with the historic fascism.
If you’re talking in general, do you look at the furthest left and right political philosophies to ever have been implemented? Because while you can get leftist policies beyond what the US does, you’ve still got the nazis to contend with. So I guess I’m still not really sure where a centrist of your stripe is looking when deciding what center line to walk.
Just general left and right. I think the majority of the issues people have with centrists is they’re looking at the overton window (and also lets be real the majority of americans thoughts dont go past “my side best side”). Which honestly i think even acknowledging the overton helps guide us farther right by allowing it to change what we see as left and right.
That’s a lot of words for saying you haven’t ever read a book
You can tell someone has read a lot based on a 14 word insult, you got me.
Sure, I’ll answer your comment in more detail.
First of all, you saw a post about the left and the right, and you automatically went to talk about the USA as if it was a USA specific meme.
Secondly, there’s no problem with “the far left and the far right” in the USA. There’s a problem of a far right party called republican, and a milquetoast party called democrat. There’s no far left with representation in the USA since McCarthyism. There’s no “polarisation between far left and far right”, there’s nobody in the US advocating expropriation of the means of production, there’s a party with a milquetoast rightist genocide supporter, and another party with a literal pedophile maniac who’d bomb Palestine even harder. There’s no leftist calling for relax of tensions with China and Russia, no leftist for the decolonization of Puerto Rico, no leftist for the establishing of a quality public retirement pension.
You’re a centrist complaining about “polarization” and about “both sides” when there’s a far right party and leftist progressive people have no representation. There’s a problem with the right wing polarization of the USA, not the left wing polarization.
There’s a problem with the right wing polarization of the USA, not the left wing polarization. there’s a far right party and leftist progressive people have no representation.
True but left rhetoric was rampant throughout the 2010s and it polarized the right into the facist shithole it is today. Look into trevors axiom, attacking a thing publicaly creates a platform for a thing. Its what happened to anti vax, used to be a meme, now its a significant portion of the population.
True but left rhetoric was rampant throughout the 2010s and it polarized the right into the facist shithole it is today
Again, no. The funding that pro-fascist media like Fox or Ben Shapiro or the Daily Wire get is what polarised the right, not a few SJWs on the internet and the #MeToo movement.
True. Fox, Shapiro, and how do you miss the original right wing shithead Rush Limbaugh. Have you ever listened to what they say? I wouldn’t blame you for not, but all it is is putting a lens on shit like cancel culture, tricking them into believing that’s the way the world is ,well maybe 20% that and 80% fabricating their own new lies, but its almost entirely built off of stuff that was all originally made throughout regular news which anyone could see, which allowed people who didn’t like louis c.k. being canceled because they liked his comedy and now they’re mad, but look fox news agrees with me, ill start watching their news instead. People as a whole are extremely simple.
Its also ignoring how a lot of people on the right were raised that way, so these thoughts aren’t even their own, they’re victims in all of this too. Useful idiots yes, but also victims. I knew many people who voted for trump only because Bernie wasn’t allowed to run. Many trump voters just want to burn down the system that has robbed them of the life the country used to promise us, they see trump as that cure. they’re wrong, but the intention is important in finding common ground. In fact when I meet them, unless they’re the super unhinged maga hat wearing dipshits, which has definitely become more common. I mean meeting the “anything but dems” voters, I have real talks with them, when u get past the rhetoric the majority of them want the same stuff as anyone else, they want a home, they want a life, they want to be paid well, they dont want a billionaire class ruling us instead of ourselves. They’ve just been manipulated into thinking the republican party is the only way they’ll get it. This is why i preach cohesion. So many of us want the same thing but were too busy fighting this culture war, which the majority of Americans wouldn’t care about if the entirety of news media wasn’t shoving it down our throats, all paid for by billionaires that want us to keep fighting a culture war, so we forget they’re the true enemy.
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,
I’m bisexual and an atheist. Do you honestly expect me to have cohesion with the alt right, who would like to see me assaulted/deported/dead? This is a ridiculous suggestion.
The alt right has made themselves very clear, they want to end democracy, and install a theocracy. At best they simply want to destroy all progress and protections that the queer community has had, and at worst they straight up want the death penalty.
You can’t make friends with somebody trying to kill you (directly or indirectly).
our voting system to ranked choice,
Ranked choice would certainly be better (approval and star would be best), but there is no way that a change like that fixes the problem on its own. This is a cultural problem, a problem with election financial regulations, it’s a problem with the media, etc.
You don’t cure fascism with ranked choice voting.
I’m bisexual and an atheist. Do you honestly expect me to have cohesion with the alt right, who would like to see me assaulted/deported/dead? This is a ridiculous suggestion.
I’m not saying be friends of the right, I’m saying that both sides demonizing each other only pushes the left farther left and right farther right. Until it becomes untenable and the country unravels, which is where it is going. See trevors axiom.
Ranked choice would certainly be better (approval and star would be best), but there is no way that a change like that fixes the problem on its own. This is a cultural problem, a problem with election financial regulations, it’s a problem with the media, etc. You don’t cure fascism with ranked choice voting.
Really? I believe you do fix facism with ranked choice. Allowing us actual representation with multiple parties would allow for things like trump to be forced to make their own party, which would have zero real power, because the majority of people wouldnt have rallied behind him, the only reason he has as much sway as he does now is because moderate republicans felt forced to vote for him purely through 2 party tribelism.
I’m saying that both sides demonizing each other only pushes the left farther left and right farther right. Until it becomes untenable and the country unravels, which is where it is going. See trevors axiom.
So are you saying we should just not point out that they are fascists? Because calling them (rightfully) fascist is demonizing.
Allowing us actual representation with multiple parties would allow for things like trump to be forced to make their own party
And that would be great, but ranked choice alone doesn’t get us to actual representation. As long as lobbying is still legal, the problem will persist. As long as SCOTUS remains an unelected political position, the problem will persist. And so on.
There are a million reasons why our elections and political system is fucked. Disproportional voting systems is only one of them.
So are you saying we should just not point out that they are fascists? Because calling them (rightfully) fascist is demonizing.
Great question, Lets try not calling every single person who votes republican a facist (even though we know thats were its going, a majority of the voters are truly victims of rhetoric), because then you force them to only be allowed to associate with facists. Make sure to keep it clear that trump and his chronies are the facists, and remember that the republican voters are victims (of their own ignorance? yes, but also from the hands of the biollionaire media moguls, and a country that has been cutting back education for this exact reason).
And that would be great, but ranked choice alone doesn’t get us to actual representation. As long as lobbying is still legal, the problem will persist. As long as SCOTUS remains an unelected political position, the problem will persist. And so on.
So in my first post i mentioned that ranked choice voting is only the first step, i believe abolishing the two party system is the only way we can ever achieve the next goals youve mentioned. ESPECIALLY when its clear if u read every post here that both sides of the aisles refuse to work together, so we cant affect any of those changes. A two party system will naturally bring both extremes of the aisle back in and then we can actually fix the other problems plaguing us.
Lets try not calling every single person who votes republican a facist
I don’t. But I will still call republicans/GOP voters fascist sympathizers, because at a bare minimum if you’re still voting red, you’re sympathetic to Trump and therefore sympathetic to fascism. That’s still demonizing language, and it is deserved.
And for those of his supporters who are fervent, and genuinely believe in his messaging, they’re clearly fascists. Nazis didn’t get a pass for falling victim to rhetoric, neither do fervent Trump supporters.
i believe abolishing the two party system is the only way we can ever achieve the next goals youve mentioned.
And better voting systems will never be achievable until the two party system is abolished. The DNC and GOP establishment are both married to the two party system. We either take over the DNC with reformists, or things will continue to degrade until the point where people have nothing left to lose and take to the streets violently.
So in my first post i mentioned that ranked choice voting is only the first step, i
I’d recommend you look into approval and star voting, as RCV has a number of critical weaknesses.
I don’t. But I will still call republicans/GOP voters fascist sympathizers, because at a bare minimum if you’re still voting red, you’re sympathetic to Trump and therefore sympathetic to fascism. That’s still demonizing language, and it is deserved.
Yes keep pushing people closer to the middle farther to the right, dont try to meet them in middle in ideology, tell them theyre facists sympathizers so they go farther right.
And for those of his supporters who are fervent, and genuinely believe in his messaging, they’re clearly fascists. Nazis didn’t get a pass for falling victim to rhetoric, neither do fervent Trump supporters.
Yeah i agree with the fervant supporters, theyre fully in a cult now, nothing will bring them out of it.
And better voting systems will never be achievable until the two party system is abolished. The DNC and GOP establishment are both married to the two party system. We either take over the DNC with reformists, or things will continue to degrade until the point where people have nothing left to lose and take to the streets violently.
Yeah ive said about the same thing in other comments on this thread, its a pipe dream, but i can see no other way the country doesnt slip into destruction, so ill keep advocating for it.
I’d recommend you look into approval and star voting, as RCV has a number of critical weaknesses.
I will take anything that removes our 2 party system, i dont care what it is. But RCV has name recognition at this point.
Yes keep pushing people closer to the middle farther to the right, dont try to meet them in middle in ideology, tell them theyre facists sympathizers so they go farther right.
I never said anything about the middle. I was specific to the GOP/Trump supporters.
If you vote for a fascist, or support a fascist, you are a fascist sympathizers at a bare minimum. We’re not getting out of this situation by shielding fascist sympathizers from criticism. We didn’t stop racists from being racist by shielding them from criticism.
Dealing with this requires criticism, and forcing them to see the error of their ways whether they like it or not.
The germans didn’t change their minds until they were forcibly marched to the camps to see the death and destruction they wrought upon the jews and other prisoners.
Yeah i agree with the fervant supporters, theyre fully in a cult now, nothing will bring them out of it.
I’m glad we can agree on this.
I will take anything that removes our 2 party system, i dont care what it is
If we are going to put effort into fixing this problem we should fix it right, we shouldn’t take half measures.
But RCV has name recognition at this point.
So does McDonald’s but that doesn’t mean it is a good choice.
we need to overhaul our voting system to ranked choice.
In the US you may as well be a communist.
It will never happen, dems and gop would have to work together to dilute their own power? Its a pipe dream to be sure, but the only way i think the country can fix itself.
Welcome to Revolutionary Socialism.
Removing a two party system is not socialism by anyone’s definition of the word though?
Alright, I guess revolutionary revolutionarianism?
So i was going to say that this isn’t even revolutionary, its just representation. Now I’m chuckling thinking about how the founders warned us against the poison of a two party system, and they WERE revolutionaries, so shit maybe haha.
This.
So I think people like me are one of the groups you need to convince. I used to be more of a Centrist and used to make sure I at least understoid where both sides are coming from, to try to establish common ground and a way forward.
But we’re so divided now and the “sides” are completely alien, binary, with nothing in common. I can no longer see wtf “the other side” is thinking, how that makes any sense, or what sane person could support it. Maybe a big part of it is pundits and politicians “saying the quiet part out loud”, admitting to denying reality, admitting to offensive stereotypes and goals, being an proud of actions that in previous years would lose their entire audience, admitting to playing political games, corruption , or obstruction as the only goal. Even if you claim those are extremists, those are the voices of the Right and to all appearances people are voting for them against their own best interests, their humanity, and toward fascism, corruption, hatred. Most no longer seem to bother expressing any constructive goal. Meanwhile an entire generation of Republicans is retiring out of the mainstream to be replaced with that extremism. I may not agree with Mitt Romney but he recognized realities, had constructive goals that I could understand, he was willing to put in effort to achieve them and he was generally honest. I can work with that. Where are those Republicans?
Maybe it’s the media degenerating but I make more effort than ever to look for balanced views, avoid outrage clickbait, step outside my echo chamber but it no longer works
Maybe it’s my environment. I’ve spent decades in a state that consistently votes for one party and no one campaigns in a non-swing state anymore, so maybe there’s just no one with a sane version of what the heck they’re thinking. But Mitt Romney was one of the very few Republicans from my state and he came together with Democrats to agree on universal healthcare that later came to the national level as ACA. They made something happen with something for everyone. But then again I’m proud of my state. I’m a proud of compassion toward others, leadership in healthcare and education, quality of life. We vote for things that make this one of the best states to live in. I understand others may think that as well, but how can you keep voting for people who lose jobs, reject healthcare, deny reality, dilute your children’s education, keep your state poor and downtrodden. How can you vote for someone with pride in their ignorance, their maliciousness? How can you vote in the face of fact checking, self contradictions, and some of the offensive attitudes some politicians have? Stand up for yourself and vote for someone who wants to build your future.
It’s really difficult to understand the other side of the political spectrum. I don’t know how to reconcile the destructive, fascist, racist views so many politicians keep espousing with their constituents or what could possess people to vote for some of it
I don’t know how to reconcile the destructive, fascist, racist views so many politicians keep espousing with their constituents or what could possess people to vote for some of it
Yeah me neither. When the sides get too far out it breeds vocal minorities swaying people who used to be center out to their corners. I fucking hate it.
Too many people misattribute center to mean center of existing parties, that isnt what it means
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.
And it isn’t like the communists are constitent on LGBT rights.
It is in the west for the past 40+ years.
Removed by mod
I am far left
Yes, clearly
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…
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.
deleted by creator
Very cool, justifying the extermination of a social group as “deserved”. Any more who “deserved it”?
deleted by creator
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?
deleted by creator
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.
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.
deleted by creator
The good ol whataboutism here again I see…
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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
deleted by creator
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”.
This is a misframing of the general Leftist argument.
The Far Left, ie Anarchists, Marxists, etc, believe the Capitalist Status Quo to be the mechanism that brings about fascism. Ie, decay of Capitalism (which is a necessary component of Capitalism itself) results in the bourgeoisie and petite bourgeoisie to ally themselves against the proletariat, in an attempt to violently “turn the clock back.”
Historically, centrists have sided with the fascists against the leftists, which is why over time leftists have been less willing to compromise, as said compromise has resulted in backstabbing. Additionally, Centrism itself preserves the mechanisms that result in fascism, centrism just kicks the can down the road.
When put into context, the far-left is willing to do what it takes to stop fascism.
Nazis literally rose to power because the centrists in Germany allied with them, thinking that the far right wouldn’t be that bad.
Yep, and for many of the centrists, they stood to profit a ton from collaboration with the Nazis. Numerous companies worldwide profited off of colaboration with the Nazi regime.
The idea that fascism is just a “dangerous idea to be stopped in debate halls” ignores the economic reasoning for why it appears in the first place, which is why liberals always side with fascists.
And it happens again, like, everywhere 😔
except when they instead end up actually not doing jack fucking shit about it other than attacking the leftmost available political option for not being left enough but curiously never getting around to confronting the ACTUAL FASCISTS THEMSELVES.
Which is so astonishingly unhelpful that sometimes it seems like they’re some kind of psyop or plant BY the fascists.
Maybe instead of whinging about supporting the lesser of two evils we should be focusing on PUNISHING THE GREATER OF TWO EVILS UNTIL IT FUCKING DIES so that the lesser evil no longer has cover to hide behind???
That hasn’t happened, historically, unless you’re dismissing all of the organizing and campaigning done by Leftists as “jack fucking shit.”
Liberalism leads to fascism, decay in liberal Capitalist society allows fascism to take root and spread like a mold. You cannot “beat fascism until it dies” without also beating liberalism. Liberalism will always remain the lesser evil until either fascism takes root, or socialism does. Eventually, liberalism will transform into fascism unless leftists win.
it happened in 2016 when trump won due to dipshit idealists like me who allowed hillary’s shitty behavior and dogshit strategy to disenfranchise us because we were too weak willed and petty to see the big picture.
LEARNED FROM THAT FUCKING MISTAKE, I TELL YOU WHAT.It happened in 2000 when Gore didn’t get a clear enough edge to choke out W because people fucked their votes away on the “better” option of Nader. Those 97,488 votes would’ve utterly annihilated W’s meager 537 vote lead, if only people would have gotten their shit together and realized what was at stake.
it happened in 1968 when George Wallace siphoned NINE MILLION VOTES away from Hubert Humphrey and handed our country off to FUCKING. RICHARD. NIXON. THE crook himself owes his opportunity to FUCK america raw to people failing to understand the FUNDAMENTAL MECHANICS of First Past The Post
Most notorious of all, to me, though, was in 1912 when the republican party (who were at the time the LESS fascistic and bigoted party) fucked Teddy Roosevelt out of the nomination. His founding of the tragically shortlived Progressive Party (whose policies would largely still have been a massive leap forward for quality of life among all first world nations even TODAY) split the vote and stuck us with Woodrow. Fucking. Wilson. The trump of his day. The bloviating self-entitled racist piece of shit who resurrected the ku klux klan with a screening of “Birth of a Nation” in the gods damned whitehouse, and set back civil rights by three generations by firing all persons of color from all federal administrative offices.
You could not possibly be more wrong about “that hasn’t happened historically”.
Get. Your. SHIT. TOGETHER.
and UNDERSTAND that the bluedog scum centrists will NEVER be vulnerable to the consequences of their FUCKERY
UNTIL
and
UNLESS
we exterminate their favorite token excuse, the modern post-southern-strategy Republican Party.America pulled it off before when the Federalist party got curb stomped into oblivion with several years of consistent loss. We need to do that again. Because the last thing I want to see is your ‘noble’, ‘principled’, ‘high minded’ CORPSE being shoveled into a mass grave with the rest of us at GOP-operated deathcamps.
it happened in 2016 when trump won due to dipshit idealists like me who allowed hillary’s shitty behavior and dogshit strategy to disenfranchise us because we were too weak willed and petty to see the big picture.
LEARNED FROM THAT FUCKING MISTAKE, I TELL YOU WHAT.Trump didn’t win because people sat out from Hillary, Trump won because he appealed to rising fascist ideals in the conditions of decaying Capitalism. Putting the blame on a tiny percentage of the electorate and not the system itself that gave rise to Trump and fascism itself is misplaced.
It happened in 2000 when Gore didn’t get a clear enough edge to choke out W because people fucked their votes away on the “better” option of Nader. Those 97,488 votes would’ve utterly annihilated W’s meager 537 vote lead, if only people would have gotten their shit together and realized what was at stake.
See previous point.
and UNDERSTAND that the bluedog scum centrists will NEVER be vulnerable to the consequences of their FUCKERY
UNTIL
and
UNLESS
we exterminate their favorite token excuse, the modern post-southern-strategy Republican Party.You can’t, without eliminating Capitalism. The reason the Republican Party exists at all is because the Material Conditions of declining Capitalism support it. Beat Capitalism and the fascists go away with it.
America pulled it off before when the Federalist party got curb stomped into oblivion with several years of consistent loss. We need to do that again. Because the last thing I want to see is your ‘noble’, ‘principled’, ‘high minded’ CORPSE being shoveled into a mass grave with the rest of us at GOP-operated deathcamps.
And yet we have another fascist party now.
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!
Ah, the good old “it’s too complicated” centrism. No. Some people are inclusive and some are exclusive. It’s not rocket science
The more a person values the definition and maintenance of hierarchies, the less inclusive they can functionally be. Conservatives tend to venerate hierarchy. Christian Conservatives sanctify it.
ISIS too. They do not get along with Conservative Christians, though.
Both can be true.
I’m sure one day we’ll find a way to describe all those permutations of values everyone holds so dear
The problem with that is that there is essentially an infinite number of permutations for that, because there is basically an infinite number of political issues. And if any one issue is enough to distinguish another person’s view point, then a method to describe all political beliefs would need to distinguish between those view points.
So the real question is what description/number of axises describes enough to be “good enough”?
This one seems to be imo “good enough”.
