submitted 7 months ago by to c/mop
 
Alt text: A tweet from Erica, the white trash socialist, stating: "Liberals: no one working 40 hours a week should live in poverty. Leftists: No one should live in poverty regardless of their ability to perform labor."

top 82 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 64 points 7 months ago

Either would be an upgrade at this point.

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 7 months ago (50 children)

    The next line should read

    Liberals: "You're not who I'm trying to convince."

  • source
  • hideshow 50 child comments
  • [–] [S] 24 points 7 months ago (49 children)

    Followed by

    Leftists: “We’re trying to convince you”

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 49 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 7 months ago (48 children)

    Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. There will always be a more ideal goal. If you refuse to work towards something that's actually achievable because you want more, well, that's why leftists fight each other more than fighting the fascists that have taken over the usa and are well on the way to taking over the rest of the world too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 48 child comments
  • [–] [S] 17 points 7 months ago (34 children)

    Don’t let lesser be the enemy of what’s right. There will always be liberals seeking compromise on the right thing, and they’re wrong. That’s why the left fights and resists these right wing half measures.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 34 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago (32 children)

    That’s why the left fights and resists these right wing half measures.

    But historically, leftists in the strongest age of labor agitation have supported 'half-measures' that didn't bring about full socialism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (29 children)

    But historically, leftists in the strongest age of labor agitation have supported ‘half-measures’ that didn’t bring about full socialism.

    Modern incrementalists are not fit to speak of people who accomplish things other than genocide.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago* (15 children)

    Modern incrementalists are not fit to speak of people who accomplish things other than genocide.

    "Incrementalism is when harm reduction"

    I see one of my tankie bootlicker fans has come to chime in. Sorry that I didn't want tens of thousands of Iranians murdered, while you view it as a price you're willing to pay for moral purity and absolutely no positive change.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (14 children)

    Sorry that I didn’t want tens of thousands of Iranians murdered, while you view it as a price you’re willing to pay for moral purity and absolutely no positive change.

    And you view it as an acceptable price to pay as long as no one got to vote against the genocide you masturbate to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (13 children)

    And you view it as an acceptable price to pay as long as no one got to vote against the genocide you masturbate to.

    Sorry that I've been calling out the Palestinian genocide for a decade-and-a-half.

    I guess you weren't paying attention until recently.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (12 children)

    Sorry that I’ve been calling out the Palestinian genocide for a decade-and-a-half.

    As the best shit you've ever seen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (11 children)

    As the best shit you’ve ever seen.

    Sorry that you think calling out Israelis for genociding Palestinians is praise. I'd say I hope you get better, but I know fascist bootlickers never do. :)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (10 children)

    Sorry that you think calling out Israelis for genociding Palestinians is praise.

    Why should anyone believe you when all you do is carry water for people who sell them weapons?

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

    Why should anyone believe you

    Because genocide is bad, but I guess since I'm not one of your fellow bootlickers, you instinctively take the opposite position.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (8 children)

    Because genocide is bad

    So why do you carry water for its arms dealers?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (7 children)

    So why did I tell people that voting for the less genocidal of the only two realistic candidates was necessary?

    Because I thought more support for genocide was a bad thing. Something you don't agree with, I know.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (6 children)

    The election is over and you're still carrying water.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    "Carrying water" here meaning "Defending the choice of harm reduction."

    I get it already, you don't think that reducing harm is worthwhile. You don't have to belabor the point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    "carrying water" here meaning defending whatever any pro-genocide centrist does.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (3 children)

    “carrying water” here meaning defending whatever any pro-genocide centrist does.

    lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    You've always found genocide hilarious, yes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    PugJesus defending liberal capitalism and not really caring about genocide. What else, banned from blahaj.zone for transphobia?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago

    And trying to hide behind the flimsy excuse of "harm reduction" while actually doing nothing to end the harm.

    What these "lesser evil" arguments always ignore is that they never have any answer for how to actually prevent the harm from happening, just slow its pace. The end result is still that everyone ends up dead.

    Harm reduction is mutual aid and community defense. Direct Action that materially changes the lives of the oppressed.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (12 children)

    And yet the leftists accomplish nothing other than empowering the right through their weaponized political ineptitude. They are not fit to gatekeep liberals from political action.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (10 children)

    And yet the leftists accomplish nothing other than empowering the right through their weaponized political ineptitude

    Like all those elections liberals are winning. Oh wait.

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

    😂 Leftists out here pitting the Dems into a two-front war because Dems didn't provide a post-pandemic Marxist revolution with a 50-50 Senate, then trying to say they should be winning more elections if they want support. Hysterical.

    They did just in just the last 12 months expand a liberal supreme court majority in WI, have the first statewide wins in GA against incumbent republicans since 2006, flip a TX state senate district where Trump had won 58-41, and flip the FL state house district where Mar a Lago is.

    But leftists:

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (8 children)

    Leftists out here pitting the Dems into a two-front war

    Democrats should stop fighting the left, then.

    Dems didn’t provide a post-pandemic Marxist revolution with a 50-50 Senate

    They got the one thing you wanted done. They sold weapons for genocide.

    flip a TX state senate district where Trump had won 58-41,

    That was one of the progressive candidates you hate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (7 children)

    You’re collapsing progressives and leftists and just making my policy positions up in your head because otherwise your point falls apart.

    A progressive Democrat winning a red seat inside the party (as in working with and within the party like Rehmet did) is not proof that Democrats should “stop attacking the left.” It’s proof that better Democrats, even progressives in the party, can win and don't need to resort to attacking their own potential coalition partners in the rest of the party.

    Also, if you have to rewrite my position as “I support genocide and hate everything that tries to upend the status quo” to answer me, you’re not rebutting me. You’re constructing a straw man.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (6 children)

    You’re collapsing progressives and leftists

    and you're collapsing progressives and centrists.

    A progressive Democrat winning a red seat inside the party (as in working with and within the party like Rehmet did) is not proof that Democrats should “stop attacking the left.”

    I doubt there's much you would consider evidence that the party should stop attacking those to your left like they did with Mamdani.

    It’s proof that better Democrats, even progressives in the party, can win and don’t need to resort to attacking their own potential coalition partners in the rest of the party.

    I mean, the animosity didn't come out of nowhere. This has been going on for decades, and it's not progressives who betrayed the center.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (5 children)

    This is another dodge.

    I did not say progressives are centrists. I said Rehmet won as a progressive Democrat, inside the party, which is evidence for improving the party from within.

    It is certainly not evidence that Democrats should stop pushing back against a left that attacks basically everyone to the right of dem-socs.

    Even Mamdani undercuts your point.

    He’s an actual dem-soc, but even he has tried to build a broad coalition, not just declare war on everyone to his right (despite getting called a bootlicker for his approach). He got support from progressives within the party and, after proving himself electable, eventually some more mainstream Democrats endorsed him too. And I hope he stays popular and his policies work, so support for progressive policies grows from there.

    But Mamdani's process highlights exactly my issue with leftists who attack everything to the right of dem-socs. Mamdani is doing politics - even going so far to have friendly meetings/calls with Trump. Too many other leftists would rather practice the type of purity politics that only shrinks their ability to influence reality, then complain that dems are the ones who need to "do something."

    With friends like these...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago* (4 children)

    It is certainly not evidence that Democrats should stop pushing back against a left that attacks basically everyone to the right of dem-socs.

    They should stop attacking everyone to the left of netanyahu. And so should you.

    He’s an actual dem-soc, but even he has tried to build a broad coalition, not just declare war on everyone to his right (despite getting called a bootlicker for his approach). He got support from progressives within the party and, after proving himself electable, eventually some more mainstream Democrats endorsed him too.

    And the "no matter who" wing of the party lobbed Islamophobic attacks at him after he won the primary.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

    You’re on, what, straw man number four now?

    You’ve spent this entire exchange inventing dumber versions of my argument because the real one is too hard for you.

    My point remains that in the US winner-take-all two-party system, the leftists whose whole strategy is shitting on everyone to their right are not building power. They are helping the right. That’s why the people actually winning like Rehmet, and even Mamdani, are doing coalition politics, not purity-addled self-harm.

    If you still need that distorted into “you hate everyone left of Netanyahu” to reply, that’s more a confession than a response.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Keep attacking. You expect surrender from your left.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago*

    The issue is that we aren't asking for perfect. We are asking for the bare minimum.

    Liberal and neoliberalist politics are not progress. They are regressive holding actions of the capitalist state that gives meager concessions to pacify any revolutionary action as they continue to consolidate power until they can impose their fascist rule later down the line.

    Liberalism and Neoliberalism, fundamentally being a capitalist Imperialist ideology, intrinsically enables fascism to exist and acquire power.

    You are trying to say that one step forward and two steps back is forward progress.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago (10 children)

    Voting for the lesser evil is still voting for evil. Just because they're not as bad doesn't mean they aren't just as unpalatable to leftists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    Then let's vote for good! there's dozens of us!

    How many people are voting? oh.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    If there's so few leftists it doesn't matter, why blame them, hrm? Oh, it's virtue signalling for the Democrats screwing up the election and for their winning strategy of going for the former MAGA vote? Well damn, you convinced me!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    This seems utopian, akin to one saying "participating in wage labour empowers capitalists - working most jobs is still evil".

    What is the point of such abstract declarations? I'm an anti-capitalist because I want to improve the world, not to be "good" or "correct" or some other philosophical purity; "the point is to change it".

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 7 months ago* (3 children)

    Let's have a moment of silent gratitude for all those US leftists who preserved their personal sense of moral superiority by not voting or voting third party in the 2024 election. Where would we be without them?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Evidentially nowhere because the Dems when leftist vote for them shout they weren't needed and proceed to not pass anything. But keep on compromising your morals and values for the lesser evil, I'm SURE that'll win them over in the end.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

    Biden-era Democrats: passing child cash payments, drug-price negotiation, insulin caps, the biggest climate bill in US history, and the biggest federal gun-safety law in decades. With a 50-50 Senate and an obstructionist opposition.

    Obama-era Democrats: passing ACA, Fair Sentencing Act, Dodd Frank, creating CFPB, etc. With only like 70 days of having 60 votes in the senate.

    Leftists: dems pass nothing.

    Question for you: do you think Palestinians should thank you for rejecting imperfect Democrats and helping to hand the presidency, house and senate to the party whose members openly support fewer restrictions on Israel?

    But keep rejecting them to preserve your sense of superiority, I'm SURE that'll help the most vulnerable more than keeping Republicans out of power.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 7 months ago (10 children)

    The top-one is soc-dems. Liberals are more like "👏 More 👏 black 👏 women 👏 CEOs!" and "👏 They 👏 go 👏 low 👏 we 👏 go 👏 high!", sometimes even "Obama proves that real christians see secularism as a christian value, because «love thy neighbor», we need a second Obama instead of meaningfully fighting the dominionist cult!".

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (9 children)

    Leftists really need to drop the "Holier than thou" ego. Like many social-democrats have their political worldview specifically because they are/have vulnerable people in their life.

    Like I want stronger, higher societal floors built from recycled pieces of ceiling. I want a society that is built to support people from the bottom not control people from the top. I don't want my standard of living to be held up by the backs of other people sacrificing their lives, domestic or abroad.

    Everyone trying to divide voters left of center are either misguided or misguiding.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (8 children)

    voters

    More than voting matters. Im not sure viting does.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    There's a pretty hard attempt at making voting irrelevant by the right. I think this proves, that voting matters. I do however not fully blame you if you got disillusioned by voting, due to liberals masquerading as leftists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Or the left beong ratfucked constantlu.

    The whole harris thing. I worked with that monster's victims for years. Trans women that shit pig put in the rape gulag. Then i see them choosing it as their presidential candidate because it's its turn. Then being yelled at because i couldn't support it or a party that would do that. Nope. Not bothering with bourgoise electoralism again. The investiture of power in a non-revocable idiot is already a compromise, the culture is more toxic than watching 'rick and morty' at the afterparty of a 'tool' concert. Im done.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (5 children)

    Yeah, if you don't do it it doesn't work, duh.
    But if you can get enough power to do whatever you mean by more, you can just use it to elect whomever you want, and if you can't do even that, than you don't have any power.
    All this talks about "stop voting better do my version of firebombing wallmart" just reveals that you want to do your version of firebombing wallmart and don't actually want meaningful changes politically

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    elect whomever you want

    I dont think anyone suould be invested with that kind of power, and compromising on that seems to always end in epic ratfuck or betrayal that feels like straight up diablous ex machina. If you remember that time we elected a charismatic community organizer from w rough neighborhood, the time we elected the kinda tech literate environmentalist former vp, or the various sanders campaigns here in the states.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (3 children)

    Concentration of power always leads to disasters, that's absolutely true

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (2 children)

    Not just that, but compromising with the bourgouse american electoral version always seems to end with betrayal that makes the bolsheviks look like steadfast loyal friends in comparison.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 17 points 7 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 15 points 7 months ago (10 children)

    The constitutional right to basic living necessities; food, water, shelter, and medical treatment. Capitalism would still be there, but anyone could fall back on these "minimums" whenever they wanted ... no questions asked.

    Is that "left of leftist"?

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 7 months ago (8 children)

    No, that's modern social democracy, which is generally considered fairly centrist. The issue with that is that capitalism still allows massive accumulation of power into the hands of individuals who can they leverage that power in an oppressive manner which is difficult to combat by ordinary folk.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (7 children)

    They will just roll it back eventually.

    I would honestly just start making so much of my own stuff for just myself, do only gig work for the occasional extra, produce and sell food. If everyone did as I did, we would only have the bare minimum alright...

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

    They will just roll it back eventually.

    Capitalists will always try, which means that leftists will be forced into the position of either wasting effort defending those hard-fought-for rights, or be discredited by their failure to do so (see: literally every leftist critique and analysis of popularity of mainstream parties in Western democracies for the past 40 years).

    It doesn't mean that what has been gained is doomed, and certainly not that it's worthless. But it does mean that as long as capitalism lives, it will always fight against everything that's been torn from it.

    Tear if there's nothing more to be done at a given moment. But kill it if you can.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    We have to how do I put this...rig things, so that there can be no rollback.

    Specifically, empower the individual enough, that it will be really hard to convince them that they need a government at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    I think that goes under 'killing capitalism'.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Everything comes down to "billionaires should not exist" literally, a couple of thousand people vanishing off the Earth would start fixing things.

    We need a Death Note.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Liberals; no one working 40 hours a week should live in poverty, bit what are you gonna do?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 7 months ago

    Proper leftist argument that glitches liberals’ material conditions:

    Don't force poverty on the incapable to overperform you.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›