You're viewing a single thread.
What's the difference between a fascist and an "anarchist" who does everything they can to kneecap the only viable left leaning political party in the US?
There's no practical difference, just window dressing. They both cheer on oppression and pain for those suffering under Republicans.
And don't even get me started on communists. Left and right authoritarians, I've gotten death threats from both of them. Whether it's some leftist telling me I would "get the wall" when the Revolution comes or some fucking Republican telling me that the US was only for Christians and that they'll go after "traitors" soon, you get to the same fucking place at the end of the day. The only real difference is that there's far more Republicans, and they're far more organized than left authoritarians.
bOtH sIdEs
This is why libs get clowned on so hard. You claim to support "the only viable left leaning political party", and yet you're kneecapping large swaths of people on the ground engaging in direct action advancing left leaning values. Remember, segregation wasn't ended because black people voted, blood was spilt in the streets. Same with the LGBT community, see the stonewall uprising, aka, the first pride parade.
I don't care how you vote, but if you can't see the difference between an anarchist engaging in direct action against an oppressive state and fascists doing hate crimes; well, I'd say it's time to get off your high horse and do a little introspection.
yet you're kneecapping large swaths of people on the ground engaging in direct action advancing left leaning values
Direct action is meaningless if you're hostile to building a coalition broad enough to actually gain any significant political power. It doesn't matter how many lit memes anarchists and communists share on social media and how much they horn on about "direct action," this is a democracy and without votes going to candidates who can win, it is ultimately meaningless.
You want me to do some introspection? I did. I remember being young and convinced socialism was the way forward. Then I grew the fuck up and did some introspection.
Direct action is meaningless if you're hostile to building a coalition broad enough to actually gain any significant political power.
Spoken like someone who's never done organizing, participated in protests or any other direct action. You're a keyboard warrior who's probably never even interacted with a socialist IRL.
this is a democracy and without votes going to candidates who can win, it is ultimately meaningless.
Not a democracy and also I already gave 2 examples showing the contrary.
I remember being young and convinced socialism was the way forward. Then I grew the fuck up and did some introspection.
No need to be a condescending dick. I'm also guessing I'm older than you, not that it's relevant.
I've participated in dozens of protests. Protests with political organization can lead to change. Protests without political organization are just yelling at a wall.
No need to be a condescending dick.
If you don't want someone to take offense at what you write, don't smugly tell them to learn introspection. Act like an arrogant dick, get treated like an arrogant dick.
Protests with political organization can lead to change. Protests without political organization are just yelling at a wall.
Right... I'm not sure why you think I'm not in favor of organized resistance.
If you don't want someone to take offense at what you write, don't smugly tell them to learn introspection. Act like an arrogant dick, get treated like an arrogant dick.
You were doing a "both sides" between anarchists and fascists, eerily similar to Trump, while claiming to be "left leaning". I think my response was warranted, if not understated. But frankly, that's plain ignorant.
Like I said, attempting to degrade the only left leaning political coalition means someone is hostile to any sort of positive left leaning activism. If that doesn't describe a given anarchist, then what I said doesn't apply to them. If it does, then they might as well be a Trumpster.
Who or what is this sole "left leaning political coalition"? If you're referring to Democrats they are neither left leaning nor a coalition. They are a center-right political party. Coalition implies multiple parties. And the Democratic party isn't exactly known for activism, unless you're counting fundraising events.
Suuuuuure they're right leaning.
And the Democratic party isn't exactly known for activism
They're the only hope for getting anything actually done, like the climate change actions taken by Biden. I don't always agree with the Democratic Party, but nobody other than them or Republicans are organized better than a herd of cats or numerous enough to win office, so...
They're the only hope for getting anything actually done, like the climate change actions taken by Biden.
Then we're fucked. Because idk if you've noticed, but the planet is still dying. We are well on our way to passing the point of no return.
but nobody other than them or Republicans are organized better than a herd of cats or numerous enough to win office, so...
This actually has nothing to do with popularity or ability to organize. Its a problem with how our constitution is written, primarily the fact that we use first passed the post, see Duverger's law.
Then we're fucked. Because idk if you've noticed, but the planet is still dying. We are well on our way to passing the point of no return.
You're right. What's been done so far won't fully solve the problem. Better undermine support for people trying to get what can be done, done, and then doom all over the Internet.
This actually has nothing to do with popularity or ability to organize
Nah, even in areas with ranked choice voting, third parties are jokes. Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of reforms designed to allow them a more reasonable and equal access to the political levers of power, but the two most significant third parties are the Greens and Libertarians. Neither one is a political force, and not just because of first past the post voting. Niche, ideologically focused parties will always underperform wide coalitions within democracies.
hey’re the only hope for getting anything actually done, like the climate change actions taken by Biden.
HAHAHAHA....
You mean his approving more oil drilling than Trump?
I’ve participated in dozens of protests. Protests with political organization can lead to change. Protests without political organization are just yelling at a wall.
Protests !== organizing. Organizing achieves political change. Protest does not. Leftists know how to organize, liberals do not.
If liberals don't know how to organize and leftists do, why does the Democratic party dominate elections
Liberals don't know how to organize precisely because the Democratic party dominates the elections. No need to organize when the organization already exists. All they need to do is to "vote blue no matter who".
This is unnecessary aggro, and you are the only one here making sweeping assumptions.
This is delusional. Direct action absolutely has its place, but all the things you mentioned were ultimately won at the ballot box. As it should be. Don't let a childish revolution fetish blind you to what constitutes a viable framework for lasting progress.
Edit - "Has." As in he has a ball. Or she has a textbook.
It's funny how libs think they can tell me when direct action is necessary, and it's always in the past tense, never in the present.
It's funny when ML thinks they are the only leftists
I am a ML and everything I have seen of Jenkem's posting here makes me think they are probably a leftist.
We probably don't agree on everything, but they're no liberal.
Can you define direct action for me? What do you think it is?
Is your issue with anarchists or authoritarians? I somehow doubt that anarchists are sending you death threats. Nor do I see anarchists kneecapping the Democrats. Anarchists don't want a state, though many do vote for the moderate right-wing (not "left leaning") Democrats simply because they think it's the right thing to do.
Your sweeping generalizations and attempts to paint all of us with the same brush betray your own lack of knowledge, but don't worry, I'm sure the planet will last long enough for the Democrats' slow incremental change, and I'm sure my family in border camps are very thankful to be in liberal concentration camps.
Democrats aren't right wing, sorry. Conservatives aren't reformers.
An anarchist is fighting against military/police. A fascist belongs, or wants to, to military/police. An anarchist is fighting against people who hold some power. A fascist is fighting against people because of their religion or origins. An anarchist likes to vote and discuss. A fascist likes to follow orders. An anarchist tends towards decentralization. A fascist tends towards centralization.
This are only some differences but spoiler alert : anarchist and fascist are not the same. They do not act the same way, they do not think the same way.
I understand that you hate them both, it is your point of view, and it's okay. But please, follow my advice : avoid trying to justify it with sentences as universal and strong as "There is no practical difference", it makes the whole thing ridiculous.
In the end, saying there is only "one viable [...] party", and even believing in a party itself, are also part of the problem imo. If you truly believe in this sentence, no wonder why you dislike anarchists and why they probably dislike you. But does it imply that either you or them are fascistic ? And if yes, did you considered that it could be you, who are defending a single "viable" party as the only solution, hating on every other option ?
His point was that "anarchist" was in quotes because they self-identify as an anarchist but behave in contradictory way.
And I would say my experience with a few lemmy instances is exactly that. "I am an anarchist" is a way of creating group lines, consisting of the in-group of anarchists, and everyone else in the out-group (fascists and liberals together).
It's really silly because it's an inherent contradiction. The point of being an anarchist is that there is no out-group, and yet they've just recreated the in-group out-group mentality all over again.
Oh, okay thank you for clarification. I agree with you, sectarianism is to me one of the biggest problem in far-left groups. But I still think that this is not enough imo to justify that "There is no practical difference" between them and fascists, even if restricted to their behavior on those communities. Anyway, i understand this comment better now, thank you <3
Oh yeah, there's a huge difference between tankies and fascists. Tankies are 10,000% better.
Suppose my only two choices in a vote were between a tankie that punched me in the face and slept with my mother, and a fascist. I would not just vote for the tankie, I would also donate money, canvas for them, and tell all my friends to vote for them.
I think it's just an online problem, anybody who gets radicalized in an echo chamber loses the plot of their own cause. It's just optics.
If an "anarchist" is trying to undermine any politician with a realistic chance of making office who is at all sympathetic to efforts at police reform, they're not fighting the police, they're fighting reform efforts.
I understand that you may not like it, or that you may think this is stupid, but to the eyes of the anarchists, they could be fighting both reforms and police. I think some (maybe most of) anarchists are against the idea of reform itself, thinking that complete revolution is the only way. This may sound dumb to you, but they have reason for this : the main argument i know of is that police has already been reformed and still is a problem, or even that police is a problem in itself, reformed or not. (It is reasonable to disagree with this statement, i'm not saying it's right, just reminding their point of view, which explain why they could be against a police reform, and still fighting the police. In other words, it's not just "defending the police / reforming the police", but rather "defending the police / accepting the police / reforming the police / abolishing the police"). There are many ways to fight anything, and it's in the very nature of anarchists to dislike the ways that imply governement/laws/authority.
the only viable left leaning political party in the US?
I might be misunderstanding you, so I apologize if that is the case, but if you are referring to the Democrats they are far from left leaning. They aren't even center leaning.
You can't even say they have a better track record than the Republicans. They bomb countries as much (or in recent years even more) than the Republicans. They advocate for wars. They fund ICE even more than the Republicans. They stand up just as much for reproductive rights (read: not at all). They just do all of it while waving a rainbow flag.
I really hope you meant the Greens or the CPUSA; which have their own issues but are certainly more left than either the Democrats or Republicans.
Link to them bombing more than Republicans? And also several blue states have abortion rights and protections while the red states have none.
Whatever lies you need to tell yourself, I guess.
Don't lump anarchists with way too online MLs.
That's why I am specifically criticizing people who spend all their time undermining the Democrats rather than trying to engage in real activism
This comment is giving me so much whiplash.
I was sure it was gonna be ironic when they started comparing anarchists to fascists, but fun fact: no, they actually mean it. Anarchists are fascists, everyone. You've heard it here first!
I swear, if there's something liberals hate more than what's on their right, it's what's on their left.
What’s the difference between a fascist and an “anarchist” who does everything they can to kneecap the only viable left leaning political party in the US?
Sorry which party is this? Dems are not even a remotely left-leaning party. Joe Biden literally criminalized the rail workers using their legal right to strike.
This is also like a children's picture book-level of understanding of fascism. As if the Dems' policy of 4 more years of the status quo could prevent fascism at all. That has literally never worked as a way to combat fascism.
Joe Biden literally criminalized the rail workers using their legal right to strike.
And then used his platform and office to force the rail companies to address their concerns. You fucks are so dishonest
Do you have a source for this? I have never heard the other side of this story so I am interested.
This happened right before CSX announced an agreement on sick leave
Unfortunate and very true.
What’s the difference between a fascist, a democrat, and a Republican? At least the fascist makes the trains run on time while he’s running concentration camps and murdering minorities in the streets.
You're deranged.
Oh so Title 42 didn’t expand under Biden, and the concentration camps haven’t grown multiple-fold in the last few years? They didn’t put literally record breaking funding into the very police forces that have been proven definitively not only to NOT reduce crime, but to systematically oppress the poor and minorities? The democrats pulled out of all of our foreign invasions and curtailed military industrial spending, closing bases around the world and bringing troops home? They stopped the absurd sanctions regimes intended to specifically starve civilians in many countries around the world?
I guess when you’re a middle class American, you have the luxury of not caring about the explicitly fascist behavior of thecUS government. Those of us in minority groups and the lower classes, and even more so those of us not in the US, don’t have that luxury. US fascism is maintained by force both internally and externally.
The Biden administration ended title 42, kid. And police forces do reduce crime. What's needed is to get accountability for bad cops and to reform training, not neuter the justice system.
You're such an arrogant dick in your ignorance.
Police forces don’t reduce crime, and it’s laughable that anyone could still think so after this many years of empirical data showing that increasing police presence and funding is not correlated with a decrease in criminality. Improving economic conditions for lower classes, however, is correlated with reduction in criminality.
Biden admin didn’t end title 42, they ended the pandemic which prevented them from continuing the policy(and also resulted in the eviction of thousands of people and is implicated in the current covid wave by ending free testing), and so now they’ve gone back to Trump Era policy of refusal at the border for anyone who came through another country along the way, a definitive violation of international refugee laws. Even that only happened after years of use of Title 42 to deport hundreds of thousands of refugees and migrants a year.
Also note how you ignored the concentration camps on the border… do you support their existence?
Yes, police forces do reduce crime. That's long been established in social science. I don't care what your ideology is, if you're denying reality, then I don't know what the point of having a conversation with you is.
And I'm glad you admitted that the Biden administration ended Title 42.
Lmao. Still nothing on the concentration camps, nor their expansion under Biden, nor the illegal use of Trumps pre-covid policy, and nothing but apologia for Biden using title 42 for 2 full years to deport well over a million refugees.
If it were the case that more police means less crime, crime rates around the country would be at record low rates after the billions of dollars pumped into law enforcement by the federal government. Not to mention that the average city spends between 30-60% of its entire yearly budget on police forces. Is your belief that if they increase that to 70%, 80%, 100%, it will reduce crime? Do you not realize funding is indeed a zero sum game, and that putting more money into police necessarily means putting less money into social programs that have shown actual efficacy in reducing criminality?
Left is literally the opposite of authoritarian. You seem to be conflating a whole lot of ideas and terminology here. You sound like an ideological leftist who has been confused by the right's deliberate language-muddying.
Left is egalitarian. That takes many different forms: socialism, communism, direct democracy, anarchism, etc.
Right is authoritarian. That also takes many different forms: monarchy, feudalism, oligarchy, corporatism, etc.Authoritarianism (or vertical/hierarchical power structure) is THE defining characteristic of the right. "Auth-left" is Doublethink; an oxymoron meant to distract from the fact that wealth and power are one and the same.
State-imposed collectivism is left-leaning authoritarianism. It is the authoritarian and non-voluntary implementation of leftist economic policy. It is an extremely simple concept that I cant fathom how you aren't able to grasp.
This is very easy. I provided the definitions of left and right.
Think about what you mean by "the state". Which definition does it fit?
Um, "the state" is whatever the government is. Are you actually suggesting that True Anarchy is the only leftist organizational structure that can fit the definition of "Leftist"? Because that's what you are alluding to.
Also, you absolutely did not provide the "definitions of left and right". These definitions aren't even universally agreed upon. I am assuming you mean "Liberalism and Conservatism" when you say "left and right", and it is just untrue that Liberalism is incompatible with authoritarianism, and it is equally untrue that conservatism must be accompanied by authoritarianism. For example, Libertarianism is a patently right-leaning ideology that completely rejects authoritarianism. At the same time, communism is state-imposed redistribution of economic means; that is 100% undeniably a left-leaning ideology that accepts and implements authoritarianism.
Are you actually suggesting that True Anarchy is the only leftist organizational structure that can fit the definition of “Leftist”?
I provided specific examples, as well as clear, concise definitions.
Also, you absolutely did not provide the “definitions of left and right”. These definitions aren’t even universally agreed upon.
You can brush up on the origins and meaning of the left-right spectrum here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_political_spectrum
I am assuming you mean “Liberalism and Conservatism” when you say “left and right”
I do not, because those are not the same thing in the same way buttered toast is not a pizza. Liberalism is "centrist". It appears egalitarian at first glance, but if focuses heavily (if not entirely) on means rather than ends, allowing for (and even encouraging) consolidation of wealth & power; that is: rightward drift. "Conservatism" is a relative term, not an absolute.
Libertarianism is a patently right-leaning ideology that completely rejects authoritarianism.
Libertarianism's origins are leftist/anarchist, but the term itself has recently been co-opted by rightists and liberals the same way authoritarians always always co-opt leftist terms.
communism is state-imposed redistribution of economic means; that is 100% undeniably a left-leaning ideology that accepts and implements authoritarianism.
That is not the definition of communism. Regardless of what you think about Marxist concepts themselves (or their feasibility) Marxism/Communism requires the "withering away of the state." So long as there is entrenched leadership, that society is not leftist in the same way the Nazis were not socialist, and Republicans are not "pro-life". And yes, that means the USSR was right wing, not left. At no point did the USSR meet the criteria or definition of communism. The definitions lead to the label, not the other way around.
Regardless of what you think about Marxist concepts themselves (or their feasibility) Marxism/Communism requires the "withering away of the state." So long as there is entrenched leadership, that society is not leftist in the same way the Nazis were not socialist, and Republicans are not "pro-life". And yes, that means the USSR was right wing, not left. At no point did the USSR meet the criteria or definition of communism. The definitions lead to the label, not the other way around.
I have disagreed with almost everything you have said, and am likely a member of the group you are railing against in this discussion. However, IMO you are spot on here.
Thank you for that. Keep this in mind though: I'm just saying the same thing over and over in different ways each time.
"Auth-left" is just another kind of "both-siding". It's rightists claiming that other rightists are actually leftists so that the masses will be too afraid to consider actual leftist proposals seriously.
Leftist/egalitarian systems tend to be inherently unstable because of the existence of human greed. Greed will always lead to certain people trying, and succeeding, to hoard wealth and power for themselves. I refer to this as "rightward pressure". The trick is pushing the dial as far left as possible while ensuring it remains stable and preventing rightward drift.
Lenin and other revolutionaries recognized this catch a long time ago, and tried to justify "temporary tyranny" as a means to establish a leftist ends. Lenin didn't have a lot of success with that in life, and in death Stalin seized power and never let it go... trading one right wing authority for another. Same story in China... And North Korea... And Cuba...
On the flip-side you have liberalism; which are leftist means that deliberately ignores "rightward pressure", eventually resulting in rightist ends.
So the question is: how do we reach leftist ends while using only leftist means?
My personal stance? Democracy. We use Democracy to bolster Democracy a bit at a time... and the first thing we need to do to make that possible in implement a very aggressive progressive taxation system that caps how much wealth (and therefore power) any one individual or entity can control. Until we can fix that one thing, the politicians will continue to control the public instead of the other way around. That is the essence of leftism.
I consider myself a leftist, not a liberal, but looking at the totality of your comments, I'm doubtful you consider me one.
However, I'm also in the camp of "I have one party I can vote for who leans more to the right than I wish they did, and another who is literally courting fascism in the short term. So why are you busting my balls?" 😁
No, you provided head canon which would get you a failing grade in a freshman political science course.
Authoritarianism (or vertical/hierarchical power structure) is THE defining characteristic of the right. “Auth-left” is Doublethink; an oxymoron meant to distract from the fact that wealth and power are one and the same.
This is so incredibly naive. Stalin? Mao? Evil authoritarianism comes in all flavors left and right. If you truly believe leftists aren't capable of evil you need to study more history.
So close. You came soooo close to getting it. Just a little further...
Authoritarianism is literally a defining feature of communism. Redefining terms to escape the reality of what ideologies look like when implemented is just dishonest.
Communism literally - by Marx and Engel's own definition - requires the "withering away of the state". As the creators and originators of the very concept of "communism", can you name one society that has met their criteria or achieved the goals laid out in their definition?
Yes, I understand that Marx and Engels did not have realistic political ideals and that every attempt to implement their ideology has diverged from their utopian vision into authoritarianism when reality hits that ideology. That's the point.
Yes, I understand that Marx and Engels did not have realistic political ideals
Have you read any of Marx? I'm not an ML but if you even glance at Capital you can tell that Marx's whole schtick was using science to come up with realistic political ideals.
Then why didn't he come up with realistic political ideas
I see you moved the goal post to a different field.
If you want to criticize the specifics of Marx/Engels proposals, that is very different than - whether by ignorance or malice - outright lying about them.
I didn't say anything about Marx or Engels. I talked about communism.
I didn’t say anything about Marx or Engels. I talked about communism.
Oh dear. 🤦🏽
Pick a communist nation, any communist nation
Ok, let me spell this out…
-
Marx and Engels created the concept of Communism. They carefully defined it.
-
No nation in the history of the world has come close to meeting the criteria/definition of Communism.
-
You cannot pick a Communist nation because not one has ever existed. Literally. By definition.
A dictator who lies about their dictatorship is still a dictator, just as a wolf in sheep’s clothing is still a wolf.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Since communism has proven to be impossible to implement and every attempt has resulted in brutal authoritarian regimes, we can either say communism is an incoherent mess of a utopian ideology which can't exist, or an ideology that de facto endorses brutal authoritarianism. Dealer's choice
-
What’s the difference between a fascist and an “anarchist” who does everything they can to kneecap the only viable left leaning political party in the US?
what's the difference between a cuckold and someone who votes for racist, homophobic, classicist establishment politicians no matter what; there is no difference.
Whatever lies you have to tell to make sure America gets worse, I guess. No honest, thinking human being could think there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. That's how we all know people like you are either useful idiots or just cosplaying Republicans.