top 97 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 153 points 1 year ago (70 children)

Greta could have become a very rich liberal grifter.

keep them Davos cheques coming in.

instead she's risking her life to help those humanity has abandoned.

respect

  • source
  • hideshow 70 child comments
  • [+] -55 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (69 children)

    And you got leftist piling on liberals for some reason

    Edit: oh shit I'm in .ml my bad(not really) lol hey at least you don't ban dissent I guess

    Edit 2: Leftists once again can't see the forest for the trees with your ideological purity test pitted against defeating a common enemy. For people so smart you really need to understand that your power lies with NUMBERS

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 69 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 1 year ago (29 children)

    “For some reason”

    Liberals in the US are MAGA enablers. To the last individual.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [+] -15 points 1 year ago (28 children)

    Yeah what and you're going to resist the us gov with what percent of the population?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

    We can leave USA & support countries where leftists have a stronger presence. Let US implode under right-wing fascism

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    liberals will do nothing to resist

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I'm right and you know it loser

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (11 children)
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Coward? I'm saying you need friends not enemies

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Fascists and their enablers are not our friends.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (8 children)

    I'm not a fascist enabler. I believe in personal liberty above all

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    "Personal liberty" is what allows capitalists to exploit us. They have all the "liberty" you think you have. The "liberty" to put lies in the media, to pay you less than the value of your labor in order to extract a profit, to charge extortionist prices for healthcare and other basic needs, to influence politics and to crush competing public industries. These are all the things that "liberty" gets you under capitalism. "Personal liberty above all" != working class liberation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    So there's no liberty under communism? I'd say class freedom is extreme liberty

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    Communism operates under what was referred to by Marx as a 'dictatorship of the proletariat', which we regard as complete liberation of the working class, because it allows the public to have control which is simply not possible under the liberal framework of "personal liberty for all". Under the liberal framework, even the smallest most democratic intervention is decried as "government overreach"; that is, if it is even made democratically possible in the first place.

    Which isn't totally incorrect, because what you're talking about isn't "personal liberty for all". You exclude billionaires. Us socialists/communists exclude capitalists as a whole, because the sole interest of a capitalist is to enrich themselves at the direct expense of the working class and our liberty. Billionaires are certainly the worst and most visible offenders, but a materialist lens allows one to see that each and every capitalist serves interests that are fundamentally in conflict with those of the working class. To operate any other way would be to betray their own interests, and wouldn't make for a very effective result.

    Liberation will only come when the working class has the power to decide collectively how our resources will be used, which will only come when we have majority control over the means of production, which will eventually lead to the capitalist class becoming completely obsolete. Liberation means being able to provide for our needs above anything else; for the sake of our humanity alone, and from the work that we are already doing; rather than our labor power being extracted for private gains and our needs provided only to the extent that it serves capitalists' profit motives.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    I understand that. I just don't think it's possible

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Why is that? Have you ever spent time thinking about how that would be any more or less possible under the current system than, say, seizing the wealth of billionaires and socializing it back to the working class? How would the latter ever be possible by any means short of revolution, especially now if Trump gets his way? What will you do when the ruling class doesn't put that kind of relief on the table? How much oppression and destruction will you consent to, if you believe liberation is not possible and things can only get worse from here?

    If you don't believe in it, you won't fight for it. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. That's exactly why our system does everything in its power; both to obscure revolutionary working class history, and to inflate the state's ability to repress dissent. So I'll repeat this until the day I die: it's been done before under worse circumstances.

    Russians and Cubans were under brutal dictatorship. Haitians were completely enslaved by one of the most powerful colonial forces in their time. Vietnamese guerillas successfully fought off invasion by the single most militaristic nation in the world, and they aren't alone in having done so (see North Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, so on). If I could speculate, I'd say China's political and economic situation in 1950 is a pretty reasonable outcome for the direction we're heading now in the US. Regardless of how you feel about what came after each of these struggles, the factual reality is that these weren't armies sponsored by any state. These were working class people fighting directly against the states that profited from their exploitation.

    All of those people got organized and won liberation from their domestic oppressors, doing their part to weaken the empire, despite what would seem as insurmountable odds to a disorganized worker. It's on us now to organize ourselves against our own oppressors, to get them off both our backs and theirs, and we can't do that without maintaining optimism about our ability to win should we fight. We know that Fascism can only exist for so long until it cannibalizes itself. As a collective we are capable of beating it long before that comes to pass. If we allow the state to beat that optimism out of us then we are only greatly delaying our liberation and doing the ultimate disservice to our people.

    "We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art, and very often in our art, the art of words." - Ursula K. Le Guin

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    I hear you and I don't want to diminish your hope because I do think the younger generation sees the benefit of it. I just think you'd have to convince the right it's a good idea

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    I don't think we should waste our time trying to convince fascists of anything (most of whom are the wealthy elites we outnumber anyways), other than by carrying out the consequences of their actions. Their interests are simply not aligned with ours.

    That's okay though, because threshold number of people required to disrupt the system and make real change is much smaller than you would think. All it takes is coordination between those of us that believe in upholding the dignity of the working class, and we gain that coordination by organizing and spreading class consciousness.

    The thing is that most of the everyday people in the US already agree with us. Even Republican voters. Most people believe that housing, food, and healthcare should be affordable; that there should be real solutions to homelessness and crime; even bodily autonomy (pro-choice, gender affirming care) is popular among the people. It's just that neither party puts up real solutions, both of them make excuses for why those things are not possible, and the Republicans are really good at making up scapegoats and creating non-solutions that sound really good to someone already conditioned to accept them, which the Democrats generally play along with and split the difference rather than putting up any real challenge or counter-argument.

    As for the aesthetics of socialism, even Castro eventually had to spell out that it was, in fact, socialism that was responsible for all the gains they had made since their revolution - that the bogeymen they were so afraid of were simply projections made by their former oppressors. Working class consciousness doesn't have to be 100% before anything can ever happen. It can grow as a result of our success after the fact.

    Excerpt from Fidel Castro's Speech on Marxism-Leninism

    Formation of the ORI

    These forces were called upon to unite in a single organization, and we organized the ORI. It was not easy, it was also a lengthy process; but, in the end, we organized the Integrated Revolutionary Organizations.

    Sectarian attitudes are gradually disappearing; so are the attitudes of exclusivism. In the same way, people are no longer being excluded because they are socialists, and, consequently, sectarianism and similar attitudes are disappearing. Some attitudes of extremism are also disappearing. Extremism, which is often called "the measles," should, of course, not be confused with revolutionary firmness. Extremism is another manifestation of the petit bourgeois spirit in the revolutionary movement which we must fight against just as we have to fight against sectarianism.

    There are many things our people have already had time to learn. They have had time to get rid of some of the prejudices that many people had who depicted socialism as something terrible something inhuman, something harsh, something enslaving, which is exactly all that imperialism is and which it accuses socialism of being.

    Well, we are in a socialist regime. How different is this socialist regime from everything that had been said about socialism So much so that even those who have had problems, like the reactionary clergy, who have had problems with the Revolution, can't blame the socialists for them, can't say the socialists tried to close the churches, prohibit and persecute religious ideas. On the contrary, Aware that religious sentiment is a part of the feelings of some people, revolutionary power must respect the religious sentiment of that part of the people. It does respect it, and gives it every facility. It was those who waged war on the revolutionary regime who said that they would be deprived of parental authority over their children. And the people have learned the truth. Who were they who took away parental rights? Saboteurs who murdered young men and women, counter-revolutionary criminals who murdered a 16-year-old teacher and deprive his mother forever of parental rights, of affection, of warmth and the hope of having her son at home again.

    Not only did they murder him; they tortured him. Why did they torture him? Did they torture him, as the Batista secret police used to do, to force a secret from a revolutionary? No, they did not torture him to get any secrets out of him. They tortured him because they were sadists, because of their love of torture, because that boy was there teaching. What secret could he have had? Thus, it was not to squeeze out any secrets. They stabbed him fourteen times. They stabbed him simply to torture him, to fill him with anguish, to make him suffer, to sow terror in the hearts of all mothers. We found out that what robbed people of their parental rights was exploitative - capitalism, which dragged peasant girls away from the countryside to put them to work as servants, to force them into a life of prostitution. We found out that it was capitalism that condemned the daughters of workers and the daughters of peasants to that fate. And it turns out to be precisely socialism that wipes out illiteracy, that educates a million Cubans, that makes plans to rehabilitate prostitutes, to teach typing and shorthand to domestics, to wipe out unemployment, to bring teachers to the remotest corner of the country, to fight and die defending the country from the claws of imperialism, to bring hospitals, to bring roads, to organize social activities, to organize children's activities, to organize youth activities, to develop culture and to struggle for the happiness of the people. That is what we have given our people.

    Socialism behaves very generously toward its enemies -- too generously. The social system which captured over a thousand mercenary traitors -- paid by and serving the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon, and who came here escorted by foreign ships -- the system that captured 500 counter-revolutionaries -- among whom were many murderers who had already committed blatant crimes against the peasants -- without even applying the maximum penalty on them, the social system that sees with anguish its calm and generous attitude repaid by the cowardly and vile murder of a 16-year-old youth -- that is socialism.

    In other words, with all its power, socialism does not abuse it. It is calm. It is conscientious. It struggles to overcome all its defects. It struggles to overcome-extremism, sectarianism, abuses, injustices, simply because it is socialism, simply because it is what Marx and Engels conceived of, what Lenin and all the revolutionaries fought for -- a better life for man, a happier life for the people, a freer life for the people, that replaces the regime of class oppression, the regime of an exploiting class over the workers, with a workers' democracy. In Marxist terms, this is known as the "dictatorship of the proletariat". (applause).

    Source: https://www.marxists.org/history/cuba/archive/castro/1961/12/02.htm

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    I'm not from the US, but from the outside it looks like you are threatening to not help, when the issue and criticism is that US liberals didn't help in the first place, and still aren't helping.

    Can you see why what you said could be seen as a silly take?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Liberals are not leftists or allies, you object to "purity tests" because you know you'll fail them

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (30 children)

    Wym some reason? Y'all get off too easy imo.

    Stop with the woe is me shit, you know perfectly well how complicit y'all are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [+] -12 points 1 year ago (29 children)

    Wait so Greta is a liberal and doing right but other liberals are enables but leftists are ... checks notes... circle jerking themselves to completion over a captured "ally"? Make it make sense

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (28 children)

    Greta is very clearly not a liberal. She's been very vocally anticapitalist these past few years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [+] -12 points 1 year ago (27 children)

    You can be liberal and anticapitalist

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (19 children)

    You quite literally cannot. Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (18 children)

    No, it's not. It means I believe in personal liberty over economic system

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (17 children)

    Economic liberalism is associated with markets and private ownership of capital assets. Economic liberals tend to oppose government intervention and protectionism in the market economy when it inhibits free trade and competition, but tend to support government intervention where it protects property rights, opens new markets or funds market growth, and resolves market failures.[2]

    Shitlibs even too lazy for wikipedia

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    People who call themselves liberal are not economic liberal you completely dense morons. In the sense that the government can't seize your shit for no reason well ddduuuuhhhhh MOST people are going to feel that way that doesn't mean we can't tax the shit out of billionaires or drag them out into the street

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

    you completely dense morons

    You not wanting to understand what we're telling you does not make us the morons.

    edit:

    In the sense that the government can't seize your shit [...] that doesn't mean we can't tax the shit out of billionaires

    Doesn't it? Where do you draw the line between taxes and government seizure, especially in the context of capital owners? Also, wouldn't it be far more effective for the government to simply own the means of production and operate at the behest of the people? Does taxing capitalists more while still allowing them to have full control over the means of production - which they'll use to influence the people and government in their favor - not simply set up the same situation we find ourselves in now, just some amount of time down the road?

    I would say it does set that up (in fact it has in the past, just look at what was in the new deal and how it's been eroded since it was signed. Assuming you're familiar with US history...), and that is why liberalism is incompatible with anti-capitalism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    No, liberalism means INDEPENDENT of the economic system I believe in personal liberty. Billionaires shitting on everything INTERFERES with my and my peoples personal liberty therefore it must be destroyed

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    You might feel that way, but committed ideological liberals would strongly disagree with you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    And those liberals are who?.. JohnTravolta.gif

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Oh you know, only the ones making the laws.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    So which neoliberal dems are referring to themselves as liberals? No, it is a derrogatory perjative to both the nazis and the leftists at this point, by design. Most of the dems are going to claim to be either progressive or conservative

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    lol that's not what I'm referring to. What they call themselves doesn't matter, what matters is whether their policies/laws and/or philosophy/ideology align with neoliberal principals. In other words; we only care about the material reality of the matter. This is because Marxists follow a framework called dialectical materialism.

    Words, especially those which a politician or lawmaker uses to market themselves to the public, are not material. They can't be measured in any meaningful way and they don't necessarily reflect reality. (You can, however, measure the material indications and effects of those words if you're inclined to do so, but that's besides my point.)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    You basically want the government to only intervene in your life or people's life in ways you agree with.

    If you want to call yourself a liberal, you are a pretty piss poor one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    that doesn’t mean we can’t tax the shit out of billionaires or drag them out into the street

    "I believe in personal liberty over economic system"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    A billionaire is no longer a person

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Sure, if you ignore the meaning of both of those words.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Economic liberalism is associated with markets and private ownership of capital assets. Economic liberals tend to oppose government intervention and protectionism in the market economy when it inhibits free trade and competition, but tend to support government intervention where it protects property rights, opens new markets or funds market growth, and resolves market failures.[2]

    Shitlibs even too lazy for wikipedia

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 172 points 1 year ago (23 children)

    They abandoned her around the time her environmental protests started being a little too effective. I mean disruptive.

  • source
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [+] 83 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)
  • [+] -47 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 53 points 1 year ago

    Y'all got to take the word "distract" out of your vocabulary. Israel is not committing genocide to distract from the Epstein files.

    I don't really know or care much about Greta Thuneberg. But I wouldn't criticize her unless my activism was objectively more effective than hers...and I don't think that describes either of us.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 82 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Wasn't that also when she started being critical of the impact of capitalism on the environment? 🤔

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    It’s going to always come down to wealth inequality, which is bred by unregulated capitalism, which is bribed into existence by money in politics.

    And getting politicians to reject money is impossible since they don’t want to end up on the eating side of the inequality gap.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -24 points 1 year ago (17 children)

    Effective? Come on.

    I mean she's great, gave a voice to what a lot of people have been thinking for decades before she was born. Maybe what most people think today. But there is really nothing that's effective. It's not dissing her, it's just that the machine is too strong and it's able to even use the opposition to itself for the machines purpose, like the article says.Usually. It didn't work with Greta, so she's just ignored.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Everything made by humans can be destroyed by humans. No social system is forever. The rest is just skill issue.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

    Sure. Skill issue. Says the skilled warrior changing the world.

    Sure. Whatever you say.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    I actually teach how to plan, execute, and assess political and social impact, beyond practicing it in my orgs. Are you aware there are plenty of disciplines working exactly on this? Your rethoric is just a way to justify your inaction. If nothing can change, it means you're exempted from your responsibilities. Too easy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Your teach? Wow. I thought you are a psychic since you know everything about me from one Lemmy post lol.

    I hope you aren't such s duche with you students. Anyway, in any case it makes sense to asses effectiveness every now and then. For academic purposes of nothing else.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    "We live in capitalism, its power seems inescapable – but then, so did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings." Ursula K Le Guin

    It's been done before, even under more oppressive conditions. It can and will be done again.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    That's great, but nothing to do with what I'm saying.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    I get it. You find it comforting to believe there's nothing you can do to change things, so you refuse to consume anything that would challenge that notion. Otherwise, you might feel obligated to do something you aren't willing to do, like join a cause or think critically about how you might make change.

    I suppose ignorance is bliss, after all, but if you did want to challenge that notion, I'm happy to share the following:

    That's only what I could name off the top of my head

    It is in this context alone that we see serious peace talks taking place, with Trump and other US negotiators getting directly involved, and Israel actually seemingly motivated to engage in negotiations on Hamas's terms (i.e. their demands for a permanent ceasefire, unrestricted humanitarian aid, full IOF withdrawal, prisoners exchange, resisting the disarmament of their people, etc). That deal most certainly won't be enough, but it's a start. We both know that Israel wouldn't even come to the table without overwhelming pressure to do so. The cracks in the empire are showing and the empire is desperate to close them, but the thing about cracks is they tend to permanently weaken the structures that stand on them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Dumb take, we have abandoned many an undefeatable system in the past, and giving people's feelings a voice is what got us there

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

    We have also not abandoned many systems many times, that's not an argument. Show me the effect and disruption. I'm not against it, just right now there isn't much there.

    You can say she was the head of that flotilla and without her it would be at least much smaller and you are right, but in this case, considering what Israel did to them and there is still a lack of any real effects.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    It's incredibly hard to prove things like this so if you don't believe it you don't, but I don't think the effects are just meant to be directly bringing food to Gaza. If that were the only way to measure it you'd be right. But the only thing which could possibly stop Israel is strong political pressure from the West and we are getting closer to that, the world is angry about it in a way they weren't before. Even Germany, the most hard-line Israel supporter is changing its stance. These massive protests in Italy wouldn't have been like this otherwise. Yeah maybe I'm wrong because these things are nebulous and slow but that's how activism is and I think those things are real changes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    I am thinking of the political effects. I'm surprised that there doesn't seem to be any after what they did to her and others on the boats.

    But on the other hand, the world has stood by for more than half a century of torture of Gazans, so it shouldn't be surprising.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    I'm surprised that there doesn't seem to be any after what they did to her and others on the boats.

    This stuff takes longer than a news cycle, that was two days ago.

    But on the other hand, the world has stood by for more than half a century of torture of Gazans, so it shouldn't be surprising.

    Agreed.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -11 points 1 year ago

    I think the opposite. The climate thing hasn't been working as well, so they are flipping to the other side of the coin to push their authoritarianism.

    Or maybe I just have an American bias. I'm too use to watching the false dichotomy see-sawing ever couple decades.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›
    31 comments in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post
    3 comments in c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world view that post