You're viewing a single thread.
I’m so fucked up by all of this. I don’t know what anything means anymore and depending on who I’m talking to, I’m either a faithless child-diddling monster, or I’m a genocide-supporting class traitor.
And like. I’d consider myself a far left liberal, in the sense of how the U.S. defined liberal when I learned the terms, where it was more a place on the political spectrum, rather than a codified set of ideas.
Right to left, I’d define the that spectrum as Reactionary (Alt-right), conservative, centrist, liberal, and revolutionary (leftist, I think?). I know that those terms have different meanings in other countries.
I’d consider the Republican Party to currently be between conservative and alt-right, with the Democratic Party being centrist with liberal window dressing.I think the U.S. political system is fucked. It was never intended to accommodate political parties, let alone the nearly 250 years of maneuvering by capitalists to slip reigns onto the government, which now appears to have fully succeeded. I believe that the embrace of fascism by the Republican Party is a means to control the ~60% of people who are left of center and without cohesive political representation because of limitations of the U.S. political system/bastardization of it/the pernicious influence of capitalism.
I don’t support the Democratic Party, nor do I really feel the U.S. government is in a place to fix itself without some foundational things changing. I don’t think, realistically, that those things can be changed without mass engagement and effort, which… sigh. I’m doing what I can.
But also, I don’t believe a revolt or some form of dramatic U.S. government reformation is possible. As a result, the folks that are already demanding change and have given up hope for reforming the system are hostile to me, and the other folks fall into the camp of being disengaged/only mildly upset or even desirous of a slide into fascism. It feels like there isn’t really enough people who are unified who want to change course without throwing the whole thing out.
I honestly feel kind of alone.Here comes the ramble:
What happens if the U.S. does elect Trump and it swings full fascism?
Will the disengaged people even know if it gets bad enough that they should start engaging? Congress is already working on banning TikTok because of Gaza. A congress that doesn’t need to pretend to abide by the law would have already done that 8-10 months ago. The media, owned by a few corporations, already mostly shapes the U.S. worldview. What happens when the outliers - PBS starts parroting Fox News talking points by government mandate, and independent news sites are suddenly no longer reachable?
If folks do know things are bad, and they do band together to try to do something about it - how do they manage? Any number of reasons can be dreamed up to disenfranchise. In my state, weed is legal. A quick cross-reference of the state weed registry with the voter registry and possibly a quick demographics check (because we know they’d do that), and the federal government can throw whoever they want in jail, prevent us from ever voting, or remove our ability to earn a living for any dreamed up reason. Revolution? A country that’s geographically unassailable will continue to be unassailable. Plus you have the propaganda/information control and the general docility of the U.S. population.I’m not trying to challenge or debate anyone here. I don’t think you’re stupid, nor do I think the ideals are bad. I fucking wish society was more altruistic and smarter.
I just… don’t see any realistic or actionable outcome other than to keep fighting for every inch using the tools we have, even if they are faulty, entrenched systems.
Call me propagandized, unimaginative, cynical or stupid, or… whatever, I guess. I just don’t see other viable options, and I think broadcasting moral superiority, embracing divisiveness and exhibiting hostility is going to create roadblocks, should we need to unite. If we can.And like. I’d consider myself a far left liberal, in the sense of how the U.S. defined liberal when I learned the terms, where it was more a place on the political spectrum, rather than a codified set of ideas.
The funny thing is, the US defined liberal is the codified set of ideas, liberalism is just to the left of the median in America. America is that far-right.
Right to left, I’d define the that spectrum as Reactionary (Alt-right), conservative, centrist, liberal, and revolutionary (leftist, I think?). I know that those terms have different meanings in other countries.
The problem is that you jump straight from Liberal to Revolutionary, there's a spectrum of thought among leftists. Revolution may be correct, but there are schools of reformist thought as well. Additionally, liberals and all those to the right of them are Reactionary, just in varying degrees. A "centrist" would be left of liberalism, ie a Social Democrat or Market Socialist.
I’d consider the Republican Party to currently be between conservative and alt-right, with the Democratic Party being centrist with liberal window dressing.
The Democrats are Neoliberal, there's no set dressing. Liberalism is just right-wing. Conservatives are far-right populists, ie fascists in some cases.
I think the U.S. political system is fucked. It was never intended to accommodate political parties, let alone the nearly 250 years of maneuvering by capitalists to slip reigns onto the government, which now appears to have fully succeeded.
On the contrary, the US was designed by wealthy Capitalists to benefit themselves. The system is working as intended, protecting Capitalists.
I believe that the embrace of fascism by the Republican Party is a means to control the ~60% of people who are left of center and without cohesive political representation because of limitations of the U.S. political system/bastardization of it/the pernicious influence of capitalism.
Fascism is a class-colaborative alliance between the bourgeoisie and petite bourgeoisie against the proletariat and lumpenproletariat along nationalist lines to attempt to forcibly return to a less-decayed state of Capitalism.
I don’t support the Democratic Party, nor do I really feel the U.S. government is in a place to fix itself without some foundational things changing. I don’t think, realistically, that those things can be changed without mass engagement and effort, which… sigh. I’m doing what I can.
Correct. Join an org!
But also, I don’t believe a revolt or some form of dramatic U.S. government reformation is possible. As a result, the folks that are already demanding change and have given up hope for reforming the system are hostile to me, and the other folks fall into the camp of being disengaged/only mildly upset or even desirous of a slide into fascism. It feels like there isn’t really enough people who are unified who want to change course without throwing the whole thing out.
I honestly feel kind of alone.Reform cannot work, Revolution is the only way. Build up dual power, organize, and try to build up parallel structures. Organize!
What happens if the U.S. does elect Trump and it swings full fascism?
Beating Trump won't stop the conditions for fascism, only Leftism can. Fascism can only be kicked down the road, until the ratchet effect takes us there anyways, unless Leftists organize.
I’m not trying to challenge or debate anyone here. I don’t think you’re stupid, nor do I think the ideals are bad. I fucking wish society was more altruistic and smarter.
I just… don’t see any realistic or actionable outcome other than to keep fighting for every inch using the tools we have, even if they are faulty, entrenched systems.
Call me propagandized, unimaginative, cynical or stupid, or… whatever, I guess. I just don’t see other viable options, and I think broadcasting moral superiority, embracing divisiveness and exhibiting hostility is going to create roadblocks, should we need to unite. If we can.You've got the core of it, but not the theory. Try reading Leftist theory! Whether it be Marxist or Anarchist, leftists have been attempting to fix the system and are growing in power.
I’ve said this to you previously, but - I appreciate you.
When I find the ability to tame my ADHD and time constraints a bit more than current, I’ll work on digging into The State and Revolution - because you are kind, and you are thoughtful.
Fellow ADHDer here, I'm an anarchist so it might not be the kind of thing you're looking for but I've found the Audible Anarchist podcast to be really good. Relatively short (10-20 minute) essay readings, I like them when I'm doing chores and need the stimulation.
Hell yeah a fellow adhd anarchist
🥳
Not who you replied to, but I've spoken with them before. They haven't read much theory at all, if any, hence the recommendations last time. I'm sure they will appreciate your recs as well, they aren't a committed Marxist or anything.
Oh, it's you! I remember! Thanks for the kind words.
For what it's worth, eReaders make reading theory much easier for me, and I also have ADHD. Audiobooks also work for people too, but I like to reread sections sometimes.
Because every proletariat revolution has resulted in equality and not a speed run to mass poverty... Why would it work this time? When has it ever worked in reality? Where's the beautiful shining example of Marxist success?
Let's copy that now. (I can't find an example of it).
When do you realize revolution is an acceleration of entropy in society.
You're proposing to bloodlet society and end up with less for the people, and more for the rich.
Because every proletariat revolution has resulted in equality and not a speed run to mass poverty... Why would it work this time? When has it ever worked in reality? Where's the beautiful shining example of Marxist success?
Cuba, the USSR, PRC, etc. All resulted in vastly improved conditions with respect to their previous conditions. Cuba was a fascist slave society, Russia was under the underdeveloped tyranny of the Tsar, and China was run by Nationalists and had been colonized for a century. In the USSR and PRC, life expectancy doubled.
If your current understanding is that society was fine and dandy, and then became worse after implementing Socialism, then you really need to open a history book. Life certainly didn't become amazing and perfect, but life did get better gradually after overthrowing their brutal previous conditions.
Let's copy that now. (I can't find an example of it).
What do you mean by this? There are AES states like Cuba today.
When do you realize revolution is an acceleration of entropy in society.
There's no "entropy" in society, society is not made up of "energy." Revolution is a consequence of unsustainable conditions, like previously shown.
You're proposing to bloodlet society and end up with less for the people, and more for the rich.
How? Please explain what this means. I am advocating for democratically controlling production so that it can service the needs and wants of the people, rather than wealthy Capitalists as it does in curreny society.
As I mentioned, the examples of this working out in real life. Not so good. The USSR, currently dissolved and not a model I'd be interested in emulating. The folks I know who lived in it don't want it back either.
Cuba, I'd say they had equality for citizens which they don't, not a good example either.
China... Really?? Marxism? Really?? We're glossing over Mao Zedong and a history of mass murder.
"The truths of Marxism are myriad, but it all comes down to one line: 'Rebellion is justified!'" When the CCP was waging revolution and still trying to gain national power, this statement was a powerful shot in the arm. Once it became the ruling party, to bring this up again was to invite revolt against itself. That was exactly what happened in the Cultural Revolution. Its result was catastrophic, because Mao as a revolutionary was unable to make the transition from "breaking" to "making". He once claimed: "There is no making without breaking. The making is in the breaking." But that was just revolutionary romanticism misaligned with reality. In truth, it is much harder to "make" than to "break". Source - https://www.thinkchina.sg/politics/new-paradigm-needed-china-cannot-achieve-common-prosperity-marxism-and-class-struggle
You're expressing wonderful ideals.
They don't seem to line up with the execution in the real world though.
My argument is that it won't and hasn't ever.
When a developer writes a program that doesn't do what it's supposed to, it gets rewritten. Marxists just keep trying the same philosophy. Maybe if we murder more people it'll work.
As I mentioned, the examples of this working out in real life. Not so good. The USSR, currently dissolved and not a model I'd be interested in emulating. The folks I know who lived in it don't want it back either.
This is nothing but anecdotal evidence and a blanket claim that the USSR was bad just because it was illegally dissolved. Although it varies from State to State, the majority of residents polled in former-Soviet countries approved of the USSR and wished for it to remain.
Cuba, I'd say they had equality for citizens which they don't, not a good example either.
Genuinely, what do you mean by this? They have far better quality of life metrics like life expectancy, and more democratic means to sway things than they did under Batista and fascist slavery. It has a more progressive LGBT legal code than America does these days.
China... Really?? Marxism? Really?? We're glossing over Mao Zedong and a history of mass murder.
China is currently Dengist, ie practices Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. If you want to read about it, consider reading China has Billionaires. The PRC shifted away from Maoism, an evolution on Marxism-Leninism, after the Cultural Revolution. Despite the myriad failures of the Cultural Revolution, Life Expectancy still doubled under Mao, and there was a nearly totally equal redistribution of land from the landowners to the peasants.
You're expressing wonderful ideals.
They don't seem to line up with the execution in the real world though.
My argument is that it won't and hasn't ever.
You haven't really made an argument yet, you've made blanket statements like "I don't think so" and whatnot. You haven't analyzed anything, and some of your points are directly disprovable with a quick google search, such as the bit on Cuba and the USSR.
When a developer writes a program that doesn't do what it's supposed to, it gets rewritten. Marxists just keep trying the same philosophy. Maybe if we murder more people it'll work.
Again, false and vibes-based. Marxism has evolved over time, Marxist thinkers have introduced new analysis with existing theory. That's why there's even such a thing as Marxism-Leninism or Maoism.
Additionally, you make it seem like Marxism is when you murder people, which outside of Revolution is historically false again.
Do you have any real points, with supporting evidence, or are you content with just vibing your position?
Do you have any real points, with supporting evidence, or are you content with just vibing your position?
Yeah, I'm not trying to vomit a bunch of falsehoods at folks to try to make a point by point argument. I don't think I need to write a book to make a point.
You aren't arguing in good faith. You're ignoring facts and history.
Murders don't end in those countries because the revolution is 'finished'. Anytime someone disagrees they have to be disappeared or reeducated.
Is China such a success that they're using hostages in China to threaten folks to keep their social media compliant with CCP ideals?
https://rsf.org/en/beaten-death-state-security-rsf-shocked-gruesome-murder-independent-journalist-china https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_August https://www.cato.org/blog/death-cuban-dissidents https://2017-2021.state.gov/chinas-disregard-for-human-rights/
Do you have any argument that doesn't involve a bloodletting of society?
Yeah, I'm not trying to vomit a bunch of falsehoods at folks to try to make a point by point argument. I don't think I need to write a book to make a point.
But you have been, as I proved.
You aren't arguing in good faith. You're ignoring facts and history.
Enlighten me. I have posted sources for my claims.
Murders don't end in those countries because the revolution is 'finished'. Anytime someone disagrees they have to be disappeared or reeducated.
Do they? Is that historically accurate? If by "disagreement" you mean collaboration with the Nazis or the fascist White Army, you're deliberately obfuscating the facts.
Is China such a success that they're using hostages in China to threaten folks to keep their social media compliant with CCP ideals?
China certainly isn't perfect, not by any stretch. Don't confuse support for Marxism for saying every single AES country is perfect in every way. That would be idealism, not Materialism. Overall though, the scope of harm committed by China pales in comparison to US and the rest of the West.
Do you have any argument that doesn't involve a bloodletting of society?
Revolution will happen regardless of how we feel about it. Blaming the oppressed for turning against their oppressors instead of blaming the oppressors for creating the conditions for Revolution in the first place is victim blaming.
Do you condemn Dessalines for the blood in history's most successful Slave Revolt in Haiti?
Oh so we're moving on from the topic of a working example of Marxism then. Why because I posted some links on the topic?
Overall though, the scope of harm committed by China pales in comparison to US and the rest of the West.
You really went to what-about? I provided sources as to why they aren't examples of working Marxism and you did a what about.
I'm frustrated with trying to have a reasonable debate with people who think that they have the right to tell others what they can or cannot do. I don't pretend I can tell others what to do. I don't think our system is perfect. I'm not about to pretend that a revolution will end up better than where it started. Historically, it's rare. Even when it happens, it doesn't last.
Revolutions are as inevitable as the people who are willing to cooperate to make things better allow. In other words, it's completely evitable.
I think treating folks fairly and not exploiting labor is a good idea. Marxism hasn't led us there historically.
Oh so we're moving on from the topic of a working example of Marxism then. Why because I posted some links on the topic?
We aren't moving from it, I don't see what cherry-picking has to do with the subject at hand.
You really went to what-about? I provided sources as to why they aren't examples of working Marxism and you did a what about.
No, you provided a single example of the CPC doing something bad in the context of a country with citizen approval of the CPC at 95.6%. It is important to compare the US and other non-Marxist states because your point appears to be that Capitalism is better than Marxism.
I'm frustrated enough trying to have a reasonable debate with people who think that they have the right to tell others what they can or cannot do. I don't pretend I can tell others what to do. I don't think our system is perfect. I'm not about to pretend that a revolution will end up better than where it started. Historically, it's rare. Even when it happens, it doesn't last.
What do you mean by saying I have the right to "tell others what they can or cannot do?" That doesn't make any sense, are you arguing against the French Revolution, Haitian Revolution, etc.?
Additionally, Revolution absolutely improved Cuba, Russia, Haiti, China, France, etc. You have to be arguing for fascist slavery, Tsarist Monarchy, colonial slavery, colonial nationalism, and monarchism to be better than what came after. I hope you aren't a fascism or slavery supporter.
Revolutions are as inevitable as the people who are willing to cooperate to make things better allow. In other words, it's completely evitable.
Capitalism itself decays over time, conditions get worse. The Capitalist class will not willingly hand over the reigns and improve society via giving up power.
I think treating folks fairly and not exploiting labor is a good idea. Marxism hasn't led us there historically.
It has.
We aren’t moving from it, I don’t see what cherry-picking has to do with the subject at hand.
No, you provided a single example of the CPC doing something bad in the context of a country with citizen approval of the CPC at >95.6%. It is important to compare the US and other non-Marxist states because your point appears to be that Capitalism is better >than Marxism.
My argument is that violent revolution doesn't seem to work out as well as advertised, especially with Marxism. The Chinese revolution killed millions of people, many who were innocent. All to end up with an oligarchy ruling over them and fabricating statistics.
Who is cherry picking? Everyone knows that China's economic data is much worse than the official numbers. Just how big are the lies?
Abstract: China's statistics are widely viewed as unreliable...
What do you mean by saying I have the right to “tell others what they can or cannot do?” That doesn’t make any sense, are you >arguing against the French Revolution, Haitian Revolution, etc.?
By Tell others, I mean just that. Marxism may have started out wonderfully ideal. In reality if you express opinions outside of the acceptable party lines - You are silenced or worse. This is true of all of your examples of Marxism.
China From the Report: "The government continued to systematically target human rights defenders..."
Cuba From the Report: "Surveillance and harassment of activists, opponents, journalists and artists continued to be widespread. Arbitrary detention and criminal processes without fair trial guarantees remained common and people deprived of liberty faced harsh prison conditions."
Definitely not telling folks what to do. Definitely Ideals to hold up in arguments.
I'm concerned for America too. I didn't hold them up as an ideal. USA
The French Revolution didn't kill its intended targets. Except for that whole mishap, totally worked out. They punished the wrong people and led to a decent system for a while. (https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/01/why-is-france-so-corrupt-fillon-macron-le-pen/)
The American Revolution seems good on paper. It worked for awhile. Citizens United is an issue to me. Admittedly didn't read everything about the Haitian revolution, though slaves(opressed) rising up against their opressors has a bit of schadenfreude in it for me.
Those didn't end up in regimes that are not (at least temporarily) governed by their people.
Additionally, Revolution absolutely improved Cuba, Russia, Haiti, China, France, etc. You have to be arguing for fascist slavery, Tsarist >Monarchy, colonial slavery, colonial nationalism, and monarchism to be better than what came after. I hope you aren’t a fascism or >slavery supporter.
I disagree that revolution has resulted in the best possible position for Cuba, Russa, China and other Marxist regimes you've held up.
As stated, I'm not for telling people what to do. Doesn't seem as if you asked, but I'm against slave labor, authoritarianism, patriarchies, colonialism, corporotocracy and feudalism. Not all revolutions have ended poorly, they have almost all been very bloody.
Capitalism itself decays over time, conditions get worse. The Capitalist class will not willingly hand over the reigns and improve >society via giving up power.
Capitalism never died in the places you think Marxism ruled.
It has.
Thanks for providing the wonderful shining examples of: Russia(what remains of the USSR), China, & Cuba.
How? Please explain what this means. I am advocating for democratically controlling production so that it can service the needs and wants of the people, rather than wealthy Capitalists as it does in curreny society.
You're advocating revolution, if I'm reading your words correctly.
That involves a radical restructuring of society. You're advocating violently modifying the roles of individuals to fit your new goals. That has historically and always involved a bloodletting.
As I understand it Marxism is about being authoritarian in government (telling people what to do, and punishing those who don't comply) and ensuring via government that resources are equally distributed. This concentrates power among the ruling elite. Historically, this continues the corruption it claims to end. So, what I'm saying essentially - that Marxism is a neat philosophy - It doesn't line up with reality or achieve its stated goals.
It does kill all the dissenting opinions and create the echo chamber that has consistently been corrupted and hasn't stood the test of time.
So if there's to be a bloodletting. Let it begin with those asking for it, first.
You're advocating revolution, if I'm reading your words correctly.
That involves a radical restructuring of society. You're advocating violently modifying the roles of individuals to fit your new goals. That has historically and always involved a bloodletting.
I'm advocating for Marxism. Revolution will happen regardless, Capitalism continues to decay and conditions for the Proletariat continue to crumble. Marxists should do their best to make sure this revolution is equitable for the people and democratic in nature, rather than be co-opted by fascists.
As I understand it Marxism is about being authoritarian in government (telling people what to do, and punishing those who don't comply) and ensuring via government that resources are equally distributed. This concentrates power among the ruling elite. Historically, this continues the corruption it claims to end. So, what I'm saying essentially - that Marxism is a neat philosophy - It doesn't line up with reality or achieve its stated goals.
You're wrong on quite a few things here.
-
Marxism is about having a Democratic Worker-State. All governments "tell people what to do and punish those who don't comply," even Anarchists. There were forced labor camps in Revolutionary Catalonia.
-
Marxism is not about even or equal distribution of resources. Marxism is about meeting everyones needs with what is produced as best as possible. People have unequal needs and unequal contributions.
-
This does not "concentrate power around the ruling elite." It's a shift from power in the hands of Capitalists to power in the hands of the Workers.
-
There is corruption in AES states, yes, but this is not "the same corruption," not even close. Capitalist states function via corruption, and anti-corruption policies are extremely popular in AES countries.
Marxism does line up with reality and does meet its goals, you have been wrong at every line and supported it with your feelings, not supporting evidence.
It does kill all the dissenting opinions and create the echo chamber that has consistently been corrupted and hasn't stood the test of time.
It allows dissenting opinions, just not the resurgence of Capitalism, just like now we do not allow Monarchists to retake power. Marxism has also withstood the test of time.
So if there's to be a bloodletting. Let it begin with those asking for it, first.
More vibes and unclear positions.
More vibes and unclear positions.
A person doesn't have to have a clear position or solution to know that something isn't right. This revolution you're expecting, when does it start?
The Revolution starts when the Material Conditions call for it. Imperialism is weakening, and more countries in the Global South are turning their backs on the US and trying to develop themselves.
I see. I'll keep waiting for that to happen. I fully expect human nature to continue as it has.
Please make sure you are ready to be the first since this is your ideal. The grinder needs meat to keep going.
History will continue to repeat itself as it has.
I see. I'll keep waiting for that to happen. I fully expect human nature to continue as it has.
What is "human nature?" More vibes and no facts.
Please make sure you are ready to be the first since this is your ideal. The grinder needs meat to keep going.
I truly wish Revolution could be avoided, but just like the Kings of Feudalism, Capitalists will continue to extract and brutalize the working class until it can sustain itself no longer. I would like to survive, of course, but it doesn't change what will happen.
History will continue to repeat itself as it has.
For better and for worse.
-
In 2019 I realized America was going fascist and there was nothing to stop it. So, I’m with you. I don’t give up hope though, because I don’t want to be bitter.
I think the big thing is to not demean the people who are calling for bigger measures. Plenty of us appreciate that gradual sustainable reform where life goes on and everyone keeps going to work then going home would be super cool, but dont think its possible. I don't really see people get confronted for wanting to try reform, its when reform types tell more revolutionary folk that they're "just as bad" for not wanting to roll over for something thats increasingly imminent.
You seem like a fine, thoughtful person. Thats great, we need that. Just understand we also need people who are preparing for and discussing what comes next if reform doesn't work.
Funny how you say people voicing support for revolution have given up hope. That's literally the most hopeful wish I can think of. Liberals resigned to a system that ... systemically ... rejects any real structural change may have hope, but with very limited scope of imagination, and disregarding a lot of the structural harm.
I have no idea what any of these terms mean anymore. For a long time, I thought Liberal was just everything left of center and leftist was just synonymous with Liberal. It's too fucking confusing.
Right wingers are way better about ignoring their differences and I suspect much of the granular nature of left wingers right now may be a "divide and conquer" tactic by bad actors.
Liberal only means "left of center" in places where Liberalism, the ideology, is left of that location's median. Ie, in America, Liberalism can be considered left, despite Liberalism as an ideology being right-wing, in favor of Capitalism.
Leftism refers to Socialism, ie Anarchism or Marxism. Liberals are not in that spectrum, it isn't "divide and conquer," liberals have historically sided with fascists against leftists, because liberalism and fascism are uncomfortably close.
That's a stupid as hell naming scheme. I routinely criticize criticize American's left of being too comfortable with consumerism and baby steps, but I stay away from using buzz words.
And fascist leaders are working hard as hell to divide any opposition they have. We spend too much energy on infighting. Want me to vote for a Socialist? I already do in primaries. I wont give Trump an edge by throwing away my vote on a third party in the general election.
That's a stupid as hell naming scheme. I routinely criticize criticize American's left of being too comfortable with consumerism and baby steps, but I stay away from using buzz words.
Genuinely don't know what you're getting at, here. America is so far right that right-wing Capitalism is considered Left. In reality, the Left/Right divide is Socialism/Capitalism. It's not aboht buzzwords, nor is it about consumerism.
And fascist leaders are working hard as hell to divide any opposition they have. We spend too much energy on infighting. Want me to vote for a Socialist? I already do in primaries. I wont give Trump an edge by throwing away my vote on a third party in the general election.
It would be nice if Liberals ever sided with Leftists, but historically they have sided with fascists to maintain their own positions. If by voting for a Socialist you mean Bernie, the Social Democrat center-right politician, he would certainly be an improvement. Still not a Socialist.
The reason I hate "leftist" being the name for a specific ideology is because it's such a nonspecific name. Capitalism, Socialism, Marxism are much more specific names for specific ideas. "Leftist" just sounds like casual description for a general idea.
If you want to know why I consider this to be a right wing psyops Divide and Conquer tactic, ask yourself, who benefits by convincing left leaning people to not vote for the left leaning politician? I know a card carrying Communist who vote for fringe Green Party candidate in every presidential election.
The reason I hate "leftist" being the name for a specific ideology is because it's such a nonspecific name. Capitalism, Socialism, Marxism are much more specific names for specific ideas. "Leftist" just sounds like casual description for a general idea.
Leftism is a group of ideologies surrounding collective ownership of the Means of Production, and opposition to Capitalism. It is a general through line.
If you want to know why I consider this to be a right wing psyops Divide and Conquer tactic, ask yourself, who benefits by convincing left leaning people to not vote for the left leaning politician? I know a card carrying Communist who vote for fringe Green Party candidate in every presidential election.
Biden is a right wing politician, Trump is far-right. The only way to get left-wing change electorally is to vote for Greens or PSL.
Right to left, I’d define the that spectrum as Reactionary (Alt-right), conservative, centrist, liberal, and revolutionary (leftist, I think?).
You are mixing desire of change(conservative vs reformist) with relations of policy and economy(socialism vs capitalism).
I’d consider the Republican Party to currently be between conservative and alt-right, with the Democratic Party being centrist with liberal window dressing.
You call them centrist, I call them center-right at best. It looks more right-wing than LDPR(former LDPSS, first right-wing party in USSR) or Russia of the Future(Navalny's party, center-right).
But also, I don’t believe a revolt or some form of dramatic U.S. government reformation is possible.
Yeah, it's 21st century. I don't see it happening.
I fucking wish society was more altruistic and smarter.
Smart society needs members of that society to be smart. Which means they need to attend school regardless of having a farm.
I just… don’t see any realistic or actionable outcome other than to keep fighting for every inch using the tools we have, even if they are faulty, entrenched systems. Call me propagandized, unimaginative, cynical or stupid, or… whatever, I guess. I just don’t see other viable options,
Welcome to political apathy.
and I think broadcasting moral superiority,
If only legism was moral superiority. Then legists of Third Reich would be "morally superior". Well, they did claim to be superior everywhere. Didn't help in Nuremberg.
Meanwhile people who built universal education, universal healthcare, public transit and welfare systems in my country weren't legists.
Fascism is like the rising ocean. Imagine all the "brown people" near the shores and the white people at The high ground. You know out group versus in group.
The rise in fascism is causing the ocean level to rise drowning the people who are closest to the shore. This is analogous to people dying to political nonsense that otherwise wouldn't.
If Trump gets elected. The ocean rises faster. In the next 4 years we'll see a lot more people. Drowned.
If Biden gets elected the ocean still rises but it rises slower than with Trump. People still die, but less people die.
From a defeating fascist perspective. A slower rising ocean means more time to organize and spread information.
Also, politics is both the hardest thing and the easiest thing to understand. I consider myself a pretty intelligent person and it still took me awhile to really understand what was going on and I needed help. It's crazy! It's like everyone is playing chess on the same board. Some people are making basic moves. Some people are just pawns. Only a few people are playing 5D chess and mopping up the field.
How can the world become more altruistic and smarter when the hard right is actively destroying our public education system and right wing media causes stochastic terrorism with zero accountability?
Humanity isn't getting better. We are seeing the final results of secularization, the end goal of a godless world where all that was once sacred are now open season for mockery and destruction. And even worse is that so much of the left is actively to blame for this.
None of you will get it, you will just blanket downvote because you cannot grasp that religion has a necessary place in human culture and the social chaos we have now is partially caused by the mockery of an institution that has literally held together human society for more than two and a half thousand years of human history.
The stuff in your first paragraph is being done by religious people. Hard right=religious... Religion hasn't "held together human society", it stopped human progress in is tracks for more than 2 thousand years, and continues to fight to destroy any progress we've been able to achieve.
I think you limit your understanding to western Christianism, which infamously decided to establish a direct connection between political and religious authority as well as deeply institutionalized religion. These concepts already struggle when looking at the original, orthodox Christians like they survived in Palestine, the Levant and Turkey.
If you look at diaspora Judaism in large parts it has been a beacon of scientific and social progress in many areas. Which is why these groups strongly oppose Zionism as a religiously themed imperial project, which directly contradicts their religious values and bastardizes the understanding of Judaism into a barbaric version.
If you look at Islam it brought great scientific and social progress, in particular allowing for Christian and Jewish communities to thrive, building social infrastructure and implementing rule of law. Look at the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Iberian Jews, after the Christians won against the "Moors". Extremist Islamism is a product of hundreds of years of genocidal Western Christian occupation, largely absent in places where people could life and practice in peace.
If you look at the Western "war on terror", Chinas subjugation of the Uighur, the Serbian genocide in Bosnia and Putins supression of Muslims, you should wonder, what brings all these powers together? It is their fear of a reemergence of religion, not as a cheap trope, like with the evangelicals in the US, but as something people take serious. In particular Islam is dangerous to established powers and capitalist rule, as it provides a balanced approach to life, where the relationship to god is a priority but sustained by thriving for a good and just life for oneself and their community.
Meanwhile both capitalism and communism reflect on humans as purely economic beings, whose struggle should always be materialistic rather than holistic.
I guess I can agree that there's a type of religion that isn't evil, and minds it's own business, and just tries to live a wholesome life and be good to people. I don't think people necessarily NEED religion to live like that, but for those that do, I'm all for it.
Yes I know and I can guaran-fucking-tee you that as a progressive Christian myself, whatever dislike you have for conservative evangelicals I bear times five because OUR BOOK LITERALLY TEACHES NOT TO DO THESE THINGS.
I'm not arguing with butthurt atheists today, my positioned is far more nuanced than your ilk can respond to but I want to point out:
I didn't say MY religion, I said religion in general. Every cohort study reports people with strong religious convictions consistently report higher life satisafaction. Your claims of 'holding us back for 2k years is not only ridiculously incorrect, it is based on memes you have consumed and not historical fact. Nearly every prestigious university in the U.S. was founded as a Jesuit school and that order has LONG been proponents of education and technological advancement.
Lastly, your opinion of religion is formed from the memes and news articles you see about angry conservative evangelicals, because that's what feeds the ratings beast. You really have no fucking clue what it looks like from the inside otherwise you wouldn't be blanked bombing all theists for the rancid and unbliblical acts of the extremists.
Enjoy your block because I certainly enjoyed blocking you.
But the Bible is very inconsistent on its messages, which is exactly why it can be used in ways you don't agree with. Christianity in particular has often been used by those in power to keep their power and subjugate others. It's certainly not the only religion that has done it, but it is one of the most prominent.
You believe what you want to, but when Christofascists are able to use the same book to push their regressive, violent policies, then maybe you should take a look at why that is.
Man... Angry autist is angry