sounds like something a fuckin' lib would say 🤨🤔
post
MLs splintering and accusing each other of liberalism is a time honored tradition
This is kind of easily explained :
-
Evil does not care if you're not 100% evil. If you're tainted even a little, that's good enough for them.
-
Good is obsessed with purity. If you are imperfect, or if you disagree on any point, they consider you tainted and play right into Evil's hand.
And yes, Left vs Right is just Good vs Evil, I don't think that's an unpopular statement here.
People need to accept imperfect allies
I think using the basic approach that everything, including evil, is on a spectrum.
My biggest issue with people that at least presents themselves very loudly and publicly as left is that they call anyone that mildly disagrees with them right wing. And to them right wing, even center right, equals extreme right equals Nazis.
I’m not sure whether these people are too dumb to recognize they paint themselves into a corner all the time, are useful indoors idiots for the extreme right or worse some ultra right wing uboots.
If you want to shift society to the left, which is needed worldwide, you can’t be ultra purist holier than thou in your approach.
tl;dr: Evil is not an absolute.
Yup, because nobody is perfect. Everybody fucks up, thats just life.
People need to start throwing punches.
There's no such thing as good or evil. Everyone thinks they're good. And trust me neonazis are pretty obsessed with purity
thank you. yeah the "good is obsessed with purity" part made my skin crawl
I agree but Nazis will accept anyone until it’s time for their trip to the camps and chambers.
Also not true. These people have blood feuds and shootouts with each other mate. You can even see this playing out in real life on Xitter daily.
Yet we see one of the most destructive judges of the SCOTUS being black and the leader of the German right wing extremist party AFD being a lesbian in a relationship with a woman of color. These are just 2 examples on the top of my mind.
The guys on top are united by pure greed, the guys on bottom are united mostly by being brainwashed to perceive a common enemy.
The guys at the top share class interests. That's what unites them, not ideology. The ones at the top just say whatever needs to be said (whatever will benefit the plutocracy) to get to the top. But they're not united at all. As soon as cracks appear, they turn on each other. I just don't see this unity the OP is talking about. The problem is not that "evil is united". The problem is that it's too easy to propagandize vast amounts of the population when one controls the narrative through wealth and centralized media.
Proud Boys was literally headed by a black man.
What's your point?
I like to view it as Left vs Right is just People vs Machine.
made this a while ago, thought it applies here too:

Think we should move away from politics, and focus on the more practical, economic changes. Like helping each other have less workload, creating victory gardens, and so on.
100% agree.
Practical and economic changes are literally politics
Unless it's a seemingly apolitical group of permaculture farmers, and the like, helping each other out.
But im an organized, near-industrial way.
Except leaderless, so no bribes and "accidents".
Nothing to feel threatened by or latch onto, until the momentum is too strong.
Communists and Liberals are natural enemies!
Like Fascists and Communists!
Or Social Democrats and Communists!
Or Anarchists and Communists!
Or Communists and other Communists!
Damn Communists! They ruined Communism!
It's so frustrating. Time and again in democracies, we're shown that most people are best served by the policies of the left. But the left keep losing with breathtaking consistency, because of ignorance and infighting. If the politically aware were able to compromise with each other enough to organise and campaign, they would be able to inform the politically ignorant enough to walk every election.
Communists and liberals should be able to find some common ground and just work from there, instead of focusing on their differences. This is what the right does, and that's why it's winning.
It's because the left are bad at propaganda (maybe on purpose). Really stupid ppl need rituals. The right provides those. The left doesn't want to manipulate ppl and doesn't want to be a cult or look conform. So they don't unite under one banner.
The right has chants and new racist drinking songs every year. They like dressing up in uniforms, wave qestionable flags. This appeals to ppl who want to belong.
If a large group of leftist parties could agree on things like that, the differences would just be factions within a united group.
You know, like maga hats. Vague. Harmless at first glance. No difficult history. Unites the sheeple.
I dunno, the left does it differently. 1984 is one of the most acclaimed novels of the 20th century and it's leftist propaganda. Star Trek is leftist propaganda. The Beatles are leftist propaganda. Mr. Rogers. The Muppets, countless other kids' TV shows.
We've got all the best tunes, the best messages and the depth to back it up. We just need to stop disagreeing about stupid shit, and stop treating discomfort like it's a war crime.
There are some fundamentals that we all agree on, like equality, the sanctity of human life and human dignity and the freedom to do what you want as long as it harms nobody.
I mean, I would be happy to work together, but historically speaking (almost) every time we did we were fucked over.
That's true for the right as well. No one faction gets everything, or often anything it wants.
Centrists typically win big wars between the left and right not because they have the numbers or ideological superiority, but because radicals and true believers are the most likely to volunteer to die and the most likely for the other side to actively target.
That propaganda isn't propagandy enough, or do you run around every day with a Star Trek com badge or wear a Star Trek uniform to protests? And even if you did, how willing would the Average Joe be to follow your lead? Further more, these are commercial franchises. You can't have some company have the power to change the meaning of them.
Ok fair point. But I think that just any level of critical thinking is leftist propaganda in a way. Science says there is a gender spectrum, autism is real, the climate is collapsing, our current economic models don't work, sociopaths tend to get into power, all of these scientifically verifiable facts are considered leftist. True art that asks you fundamental questions is leftist, because examining the human condition leads you to conclusions that abhor suffering. That can be graffiti or a scene in a Pixar movie.
I think my point is that the left don't need manipulative propaganda, because we have truth on our side. And if we were able to rally properly, that would be enough.
That truth doesn't say "be one of us and be proud".
Also, you have it reversed: We are not able to rally properly, because we don't do manipulative propaganda. You have to get ppl off their asses nowadays. Most ppl are like really, really stupid. They need to be led. If we don't do it, the fascists will. Also the regressives (often called conservatives) actively make ppl more stupid, because they know the left won't harvest those sheeple.
It fucking does. I'm proud of who I am.
I'm not sure I agree that stupidity and lack of conviction go together. You don't need to be able to do calculus in order to understand that hurting people is wrong.
Manipulating people into doing what you want them to do is a cunt's trick. It introduces the kind of hierarchy that eventually fails.
1984 is more anti-authoritarian propaganda, than leftist propaganda I would say.
In the current timeline, in the current atmosphere, if I can agree with someone 50.1% of the time, that's good enough for now. After we get literal fucking fascists out of power we can have a debate about if Grannie and Grampa renting out their guest cottage to finance their diabetes medications count as the same kind of landlords and deserve the same amount of vitriol as Blackstone.
Commies never question why vanguarding buro✱jacketing disenfranchises solidarity 🤦
What the fuck is a borujacketing
If leftists aren't calling each other libs, then we're calling each other tankies. Pick an insult and throw it at anyone that doesn't want to do the same type of fighting Nazis as you want to do.
Kind of like how Newsome and Trump called each other communists.
Meanwhile cummunists call everyone they don't like virgins.
Wow, what a lib take. You're just as bad as the fascists /s
Ironically on lemmy it is the more "liberal" flavors of leftism really not wanting anything to do with the more hardcore leftists on certain instances, to the point that we have dedicated communities and users making it their digital purpose to further that goal.
Before someone jumps me over this, i'm not a tankie myself. I just think the nazis are a bigger problem right now and i wish those people would spend their efforts on that instead.
Before someone jumps me over this, i'm not a tankie myself. I just think the nazis are a bigger problem right now and i wish those people would spend their efforts on that instead.
That's exactly why the tankies are a problem. They're so anti-lib that they wind up helping the Nazis.
I'm not a Democrat myself, but I vote for them because I think Nazis are the bigger problem. This has led to multiple bans from certain instances. Those instances are the ones spending their efforts in the wrong direction, for now.
Libs straight up create the conditions that enable fascism. No leftist wants to partner up the with light-right.
And this community has rules against disparaging anti-electorialism.
Libs straight up create the conditions that enable fascism.
Which is what makes them preferable, in a two-party state, to the fulfilled fascists. Baby tigers grow into adult tigers, but if I have the chance to choose which one I'm locked in a cage with, it's gonna be the baby.
And this community has rules against disparaging anti-electorialism.
Stupid rules, if you ask me. It is always preferable to try to nudge things in your favor, if even slightly. I'm an anti-electoralist in the sense that it's obviously insufficient to enact actual change, and no one should be encouraged to rely solely on electoral reform; that would be equally stupid. But it is an available tool. Even if it only makes things slightly easier for all the other, more effective means of enacting change, that's still a valuable tool.
I'll quote Lenin
Whilst you lack the strength to do away with bourgeois parliaments and every other type of reactionary institution, you must work within them because it is there that you will still find workers who are duped by the priests and stultified by the conditions of rural life; otherwise you risk turning into nothing but windbags.
Whilst you lack the strength to do away with bourgeois parliaments and every other type of reactionary institution, you must work within them because it is there that you will still find workers who are duped by the priests and stultified by the conditions of rural life; otherwise you risk turning into nothing but windbags.
He's advocating running a communist electoral party as a means to spread the communist message and gitate amongst the masses, not voting for Graham totenkopf Planter or Copmala Harris. Literally the opposite of the point your trying to make about "lesser evil voting".
He's advocating running what you can to reach the yokels. Sometimes that's someone who once was so ignorant they accidentally got a totenkopf tattoo. Platner and Harris are further left than most of the masses are willing to go as it is. We're fighting an uphill battle, and there are like a handful of proper options across the entire nation. You.work with what you've got, and we've got work ahead of us. That work isn't going to get any easier if we keep trying to fight the lesser evil before the greater one.
Again not at all what he's advocating. Did you even read the book? I'm not particularly interested in arguing the point at large but if you're going to make the point you should at minimum use quotes that actually agree with you. Lenin’s point in that passage is not “support whatever vaguely left bourgeois candidate is available because the masses are backward”. It is that communists should not abstain from bourgeois parliaments while workers still have illusions in them. The “you” in the passage is communists, organised independently, entering reactionary institutions under their own programme in order to reach workers, expose bourgeois democracy, and build communist influence. That is completely different from backing liberals/progressives/Democrats as the best available option. “Work within reactionary institutions” does not mean “support the candidates produced by those institutions.” It means communists use those arenas as platforms for communist agitation rather than standing outside them.
I did read it, and I think you're interpreting the point far, far too narrowly.
But that's besides the point entirely. The point is, Lenin disparaged anti-elecrorialism. Having rules against disparaging anti-elecrorialism is stupid.
I think you’re interpreting the point far, far too narrowly.
I disagree especially when taken into account with how much time he spent writing polemics about how terrible and idiotic all the Kautskyites, social chauvinists, etc were.
Having roles against disparaging anti-elecrorialism is stupid.
I would agree if the rules were against the Leninist view of electoralism as a platform for agitation etc but I believe the rules are more targeted towards your view of vote blue no matter who and the view of electoralism as a means to bring meaningful change. It is however an anarchist community that I'm not 100% acquainted with so I could be wrong but that's the vibe I get from it and other communities with similar rules.
I believe the rules are more targeted towards your view of vote blue no matter who and the view of electoralism as a means to bring meaningful change.
I never said electoralism was a means to bring meaningful change. My argument is that it's one tool that can be used to slightly influence the landscape to mitigate the worst of the damage. Obviously real change comes from dual power and organization, voting blue just gives us a slightly easier battle, and slightly slows the descent into fascism.
never said electoralism was a means to bring meaningful change.
I never said you did and If I did it was an accident I meant to say your views of vote blue no matter who (as you advocate voting for, as far as I'm aware, unrepentant enforcer for the empire Graham Totenkopf Planter over running a PSL or otherwise communist/leftist candidate) and other people's views of voting being a means of real change as 2 separate views on electoralism that would be banned under my understanding of the rules.
I'm all for running the furthest left candidate with the chance to win. It's just not a good strategy when that causes the furthest right candidate to actually win. In safe blue districts, absolutely do that. In purple districts, blue is better than red, and an actual leftist is just going to spoil the vote.
You are in duty bound to call their bourgeois-democratic and parliamentary prejudices what they are—prejudices. But at the same time you must soberly follow the actual state of the class-consciousness and preparedness of the entire class (not only of its communist vanguard), and of all the working people (not only of their advanced elements).
Modern Americans are even less class-conscious and prepared than the Germans Lenin was referring to. We must soberly recognize that fact, and suit our strategies to this particularly stunted working class.
As far as I can tell, that currently means promoting leftists in the tiny enclaves where they stand a chance, nudging the Dems left in the primaries where they don't, and voting for the lesser evil when that's the best the consciousness of the proletariat allows.
Mamdani was the most leftist candidate we could get in a deep blue district. In less blue districts, we will certainly have to settle for Platners. It's not a question of whether Platner is good enough, the question is whether Platner is better than Collins right now. While we lack the ability to elect good candidates, elections do little more than allow us to block the worst candidate.
When there are real options besides blue and red, blue no matter who will have outlived its usefulness. We aren't there yet.
You’re still hung up on winning, but winning bourgeois elections is not the goal, or even on the same playing field as the goal, for communist electoral work. Again the goal is agitation: using the election to expose bourgeois democracy, spread an independent communist programme, and pull people left from their actual lived conditions.
This new quote still does not vindicate lesser-evilism the way you seem to think it does; Lenin is saying communists must soberly assess where the masses are and tailor their platform accordingly, keeping it intelligible, concrete, and tied to people’s direct experiences of rent, wages, war, policing etc. He is again absolutely not saying communists should be advocating voting for the less awful administrator of empire. Meeting people where they are means starting from their present consciousness in order to raise it, not endorsing the blue fascist because the red fascist is worse.
You’re still hung up on winning
That's not accurate. It's not about "winning", it's about mitigating losses so that the real methods of change can be more successful.
This new quote still does not vindicate lesser-evilism the way you seem to think it does;
And again, that quote was directed towards Germans, who already had popular leftist parties. The principle is thus:
Lenin is saying communists must soberly assess where the masses are and tailor their platform accordingly
In Germany at the beginning of the 20th century, that tailored platform was one thing. In modern America, it is a very different thing. Meeting the working class where they are means meeting them to the right of progressive liberalism. When that fact changes, so will the appropriate platform.
Meeting people where they are means starting from their present consciousness in order to raise it, not endorsing the blue fascist because the red fascist is worse.
It's not a matter of "endorsement", it's strategic mitigation. Where the masses are, in terms of class consciousness, is center-right at best. Raising that consciousness is going to necessarily pass through liberalism, progressivism, democratic socialism, etc. It's very difficult to drastically shift the perspective of hundreds of millions of people. That will take time, decades if not generations. Blue "fascists" are slower than red fascists, which means less damage in that period of consciousness-raising. Again, baby tigers vs adult tigers.
It's not about endorsement, it's about choosing the easier enemy to defeat.
Honestly again I'm not interested in debating the point at large even if I disagree completely you should feel free to continue to believe what you do I just think you should use quotes that back up what you're saying as opposed to ones that are entirely about communist parties running their own candidates as a means of agitation and absolutely 100% not about voting for the kautskyites or reactionaries that might be nicer managers.
I think you misunderstand my point in quoting Lenin. I support my decision based on my own reasoning. Yes, I extend Lenin's argument to encompass actions that suit the class-consciousness of the American masses, but the larger point of quoting Lenin is just to show that disparaging anti-electoralism has significant precedent on the left. Banning it is bad policy.
And again Leninist style electoralism and what you're advocating are 2 entirely different things even if both are technically electoralism and as far as I'm aware only what you're advocating for and advocating for electoralism as a means to make meaningful change is what people take issue with.
what you're advocating for and advocating for electoralism as a means to make meaningful change
Two completely different things. Not even remotely related, except for the mechanism of voting. The problem is people keep trying to treat them like the same thing.
Again I'm not treating them as the same thing hence the "and". They are 2 separate kinds of/views on electoralism that many see as harmful in comparison to the Leninist view.
You're treating them both as harmful. I agree that one is, but the other very much is not.
the other very much is not.
Depends on who you ask. I think that many of the people affected by Graham Totenkopf Planters "fun adventure" or Copmala Holocaust Harris abhorrent history etc. might disagree with enabling this behaviour as acceptable in any way even if it is the "lesser evil" as not being harmful.
If only anarchists and communists joined forces Lemmy and started making unfunny antifa memes, fascism would be defeated...!
That means reconsiling our shit and self awareness to be compatible and not try to crab buvkey when our primary differences are organizational theory, among those of us absolute fucking nerds who have read theory. I'm not sure the productivity/chilling the fuck out spectrum really comes into play as a terrain of struggle during emergencies.
They actually prefer Republicans in power, Trump in particular, because they harm America.
This is just something y'all say, it's made up. On the rare occasions where I've encountered a Trump supporter on here I call them out the same way. I suppose I could go over to Truth Social and try to sell them on communism but I doubt they'd be particularly receptive (and you wouldn't see it if I did), and besides, our people built the platform.
They want to divide the left and create litmus tests for DNC candidates that are impossible to achieve.
"Met with the news the Israelis delivered the most devastating bomb & artillery attack on W. Beirut lasting 14 hours. Habib cabled—desperate—has basic agreement from all parties but cant arrange details of P.L.O. withdrawal because of the barrage. King Fahd called begging me to do something. I told him I was calling P.M. Begin immediately. And I did—I was angry. I told him it had to stop or our entire future relationship was endangered. I used the word holocaust deliberately & said the symbol of his war was becoming a picture of a 7 month old baby with it’s arms blown off. He told me he had ordered the bombing stopped—I asked about the artillery fire. He claimed the P.L.O. had started that & Israeli forces had taken casualties. End of call. Twenty mins. later he called to tell me he’d ordered an end to the barrage and plead for our continued friendship. Spent rest of day meeting with Congressmen on Tax bill."
Diary entry of Ronald Reagan, August 12, 1982.
Don't try to tell me supporting an end to the genocide is "impossible."
Notably, the MAGA grifters benefiting from this division are unbridled by these requirements.
No they fucking aren't.
These are the same people who started the whole “Genocide Joe” mantra in order to breed apathy on the left.
Were you literally born yesterday, or are you intentionally "forgetting" that the post October 7th phase of the Gaza Genocide started under Biden and was funded by Biden's administration?
It doesn’t seem to matter that Trump wants to kill or displace every Palestinian and turn their home lands into a resort.
Well it doesn't seem to matter to you that Biden wanted to do the exact same thing but in a "norm-preserving" way.
Yeah, it's especially obvious when you call them out on how silly or ridiculous their take is and they just come back at you with some extreme non-sequitor that does nothing to engage with the argument you make. I'm sure there are some "real" people on those instances, but they're definitely drowning in the flavor-aid at this point.
Dehumanising people for disagreeing with you and being racist towards Chinese and Russian people is so amazingly leftist of you. I wish I could be this principled and progressive.
Yeah, here's a great example. Claiming anything op or I said is racist is wild. And also, Russia and China both have very well known state-sponsored disinformation/trolling campaigns running around online, so it would be expected that you would find dishonest accusations of "dehumanization" all while these trolls are merely "disagreeing". That shit sells with the terminally online left and big-brain centrists, which is why they push that rhetoric. The worst part is you never know if it's one of the state-sponsored professional trolls, one of the real people caught in the echo chamber, some rando dickhead that thinks it's funny, or maybe someone who is using terrible translation methods.
Yes I agree everyone who doesn't believe everything ever said about china and Russia is State sponsored or brainwashed and anyone pointing out how that is cpuld easily be dehumanising is also state sponsored or brainwashed. Really getting more and more leftist, principled, and progressive with each post. Fuck investigation, criticism, and debate true principled leftism is all about fedjacketing and bot jacketing.
Russia and China both have very well known state-sponsored disinformation/trolling campaigns running around online,
So does the US but I'm not about to call you or any of the idiots I see running around spreading blatant falsehoods CIA or NSA or brainwashed because that's shitty and unhelpful.
You know, I can't help but wonder if you and I truly disagree with one another on this particular subject. On top of that, I think it's important to point out that we certainly have much more in common with each other than we do with our own political "leaders". So I find it interesting that this particular conversation has devolved into criticism of state-sponsored bullshit at each other. While it's certainly true that every major country in the world sponsors bullshit online, I think the number of actual propagandists is wildly overestimated, and the efficacy/subtlety of rhetorical propaganda is wildly underestimated. Hence how those in power are able to get people, who would otherwise recognize their common struggle, to be at each other's throats instead of their common enemy. No one is immune to propaganda and I think we all tend to habitually forget that about ourselves.
No badjacketing allowed here. Even if it's against instances and not people.
I think it goes hand in hand with call out culture, it's good to try and hold people accountable or be critical of ideas -- but too many people push it too far for their own vanity or ego

top 99 comments