Far-left definitely isn’t that - “we’re gonna make sure everyone’s needs are met” is literally a general leftist thing. Assuming you’re trying to portray tankies and fascists, a more accurate depiction would be “we’re gonna make sure working class needs are met with an iron fist and extermination of anyone potentially rebellious”.
That being said, holy shit there are so many bad takes in this thread
Respectfully, I don’t think tankies are the farthest left, or even left at all. They seem far too concerned with statism and too unconcerned with uplifting the worker.
I also think that there is space for more than one type of far left.
EDIT: Witness below: a lengthy conversation about states, colonialism, whose team is worse, and other masturbatory topics. What average worker is going to engage with this ideology? Dorks.
I also think that there is space for more than one type of far left.
Yeah I did want to originally include this in my original comment - there’s ideologies like Anarchism that is also far-left, and same can be applied to the right, with their ancaps and libertarians though both of those are rarely ever referred to as far-right (wonder why’s that).
Not just tankies but ml. We should all be working towards communism generally. No question. And ML governments have helped industrialize their regions as capitalism did. Again no question. But in that process the ML governments have been oppressive and violent as most capitalist. Combined with the fairytale of the administrative state magically withering on it’s own. It’s safe to say that the vanguard of Marxist Leninism the Soviet Union splintered and fell to fascism of the administrative state. With China repeating their mistakes. Making they’re already unaccountable administrative State even more unaccountable. Appointing their president for life even as he moves into the Forbidden City and The Emperor’s Palace. Now largely emperor in all but name.
Honestly I think the reason they get shown so much is because there’s not a lot of other clear iconography relating to the left. There’s the upgrades fist. But it has been adopted for a number of other groups and movements. Outside of that most of the truly recognizable ones were adopted by the leninists.
i think whats missing from most anti-ml takes here is colonialism and the overbearing influence of the west everywhere else.
china wouldnt be able to break away from the washington consensus like it does if they didnt have enough force to show and use whenever necessary to keep it at bay.
likewise with pretty much every long lasting, large scale socialist experiment so far. people forget what happens to the likes of allende when they try funny business and can’t back it up with actual force.
i also have a problem with using ‘tankie’ for serious discussion because its a meaningless word at this point.
If things were perfect they would be perfect. However that’s circular reasoning/tautology. Everyone struggles with factors internal and external. And ultimately it’s not someone else’s responsibility what they do. So bringing up the West in a critique of marxist leninism he’s largely pointless and at best only a crutch. Because yes we can absolutely critique the west or similar things. The fact that they do them doesn’t make Marxist leninism better by comparison.
And let’s be clear. China and the Chinese government needed no help exploiting their proletariat for the benefit of the ascendant bourgeoisie. The West did not force that or cause it.
My critique of marxist leninism is not a defense of capitalism or the west. I see them as largely equal and opposed. Yes the West has been shitty to countries that have adopted Anti-Capitalist Stances. And I absolutely believe it is largely unwarranted and counterproductive.
Where it is warranted ironically one only has to look to Vladimir Lenin to understand why. The forceful annexation of much of Eastern Europe post World War ii. The division of Germany. No one from the West forced that. Remind me. Former Soviet block countries, what were their General feelings about the Soviet Union and Lenin / Stalin after it dissolved? I remember even until recently A lot of them tearing down statues of those men. Was it because they love them so much and wanted to have pieces of them in their house to worship? It wasn’t because they failed to deliver on their promises, and were largely hated and despised by survivors and family of people marched off to Siberia to die was it?
quite the contrary.
force is needed because things arent perfect, hence why i say the analysis misses neocolonialism.
Why, after that force is used to successfully establish themselves, those countries never actually empower the lower classes?
China has been secure on the world stage for decades, yet their people still work as wage slaves for the benefit of the western bourgeoise interests.
take a look at how quality of life, health, education and most aspects of society improves vastly under socialism.
also take a look at the time scale at which such things happen.
we also have capitalism.
To the contrary of your contrary. The French revolution. One of the most influential formative revolutions that helped influence and shape Karl Marx’s philosophy and much of marxist thought. Showed otherwise.
Sure sometimes Force can be needed to break free. But if you need Force to govern you are doing it wrong.
the french revolution didnt have a previous, but strong empire trying to stop it at all costs. you are subestimating neocolonialism. my country has a history of being interfered with by the empire at the hint of wanting free. and that won’t narrow it down.
there is a reason one country in the planet spends almost as much as everyone else combined on their military
But in that process the ML governments have been oppressive and violent as most capitalist
Please explain me how Marxist-Leninist governments have partaken in unequal exchange, colonialism, or how there was surplus extracted from workers.
Combined with the fairytale of the administrative state magically withering on it’s own
Isn’t that quite literally what happened in the USSR in 1991? A unilateral dissolution of the government and its institutions from the top-down.
Either way, you’re showing that you actually haven’t studied the ideas of Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism literally defines the state as oppressive in nature, it’s kinda the core point of Lenin’s “State and Revolution”. Marxist-Leninists defend a democratic form of government in which worker-councils elect representatives who enact Marxist policy in the most democratic fashion possible, and a constant back-and-forth dialogue between the communist intellectual vanguard and the people in which the needs of the people are translated to Marxist language and policy and enacted. Marxism-Leninism isn’t “when Stalin based”, that’s, well, Stalinism.
Please explain me how Marxist-Leninist governments have partaken in unequal exchange, colonialism, or how there was surplus extracted from workers.
Please at least give us a challenge. Okay let’s just stick to Russia otherwise I’ll be here all day. They forcefully /undemocraticaly annexed a large portion of Eastern Europe under threat of violence. Concentrated most of the wealth, power, and influence in the politburos of Moscow. Leaving rural areas largely destitute with no prospects. Though to their limited credit still providing them with a minimal subsistence. The Russian oligarchs of today as well as the bourgeoisie fascistic dictator now in charge. All roads lead back to the wealthy, privileged, and politically connected in Moscow.
We can do ole forbidden city bourgeoi-xi throwing around the peoples resources to buy off and debt trap smaller foreign nations to exploit if you want.
Isn’t that quite literally what happened in the USSR in 1991? A unilateral dissolution of the government and its institutions from the top-down.
Where’s the communism? We were promised communism. Unless you’re going to try and paint the fascistic Russian state as temu/wish brand communism. Which would be both hilarious and sad if you did. The state and it’s authority never dissolved. They released the captured territories. Letting them return to governing themselves. Which was good. But the modern government of Russia has well documented clear ties back to Soviet government and leadership. They just put on a different mask. But it’s hardly classless or stateless.
Either way, you’re showing that you actually haven’t studied the ideas of Marxism-Leninism.
Or, consider that I have. And that I understand that all “ideologies” are ideal. And as such divorced from reality. Capitalist theory was freeing and uplifting too. Not at all imperial. The practice and implementation of ideologies is their failing.
Marxist-Leninists defend a democratic form of government in which worker-councils elect representatives who enact Marxist policy in the most democratic fashion possible
Threats of isolation and violence? Democratic?! Seriously? Real talk, I’m all for worker and local councils being the government. Pragmatically I’m anarco-communist. Get rid of moscow, get rid of Beijing. Get rid of the party. Let the people choose how to organize themselves. Then it won’t be nothing but empty rhetoric.
What Lenin especially as well as engles and even marx failed to understand or account for. Was that anything acquired through force. Can just as easily be taken or destroyed through Force. It has happened with every single Revolution their ideology started. What’s built through consent, through solidarity, and cooperation cannot easily be destroyed or Taken. Using the shortcuts and tactics of the bourgeoisie leads to becoming the bourgeoisie. Every single time. No matter how well intentioned Marxist Leninist are.
They forcefully /undemocraticaly annexed a large portion of Eastern Europe under threat of violence
You mean when in 1917 the Russian Socialist Federation of Soviet Republics unilaterally decreed for the first time in history the right to self-determination for all ethnicities and peoples in the former Russian Empire, which gave most of eastern Europe the legal right of secession? And which nationalist elites of countries like Poland used to establish local elites as the form of government and to start nationalist expansionist wars like the Polish-Ukrainian war, including invasion of the RSFSR in an attempt to secure more of their “historical border claim” of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth? Or which they used to join the white armies in an attempt to destroy socialism? Or do you mean annexions in WW2 era in an attempt to prevent the rise of fascism in bordering countries that had declared anti-communist in the wake of their newly gained independence?
Concentrated most of the wealth, power, and influence in the politburos of Moscow
Patently false. Representation in the party was very representative of all republics of the USSR. Farmers in Central Asia had higher salaries than those in the Russian Republic, and Baltic republics like Estonia had higher average salaries than those in the Russian Republic. There were policies to subsidize life in places with harsh conditions such as the far north and east. There was immense investment in industrialization of Central Asia.
Leaving rural areas largely destitute with no prospects
Rural emigrations intensified after the USSR was dissolved, which again kinda disproves your point. Arable land in the Russian Republic has decreased since the USSR times further proving that more people wanted to be farmers before.
The Russian oligarchs of today as well as the bourgeoisie fascistic dictator now in charge. All roads lead back to the wealthy, privileged, and politically connected in Moscow.
Surprise surprise: the USSR was dissolved in 1991, and thanks to neoliberal shock therapy applied through western influence and with the help and doctrine of IMF and prestigious MIT economists, the country’s means of production and national wealth were unlawfully and corruptly sold to the most corrupt bidder.
You’ve made no claim to support that there was exploitation of surplus of the working class. Maybe because you can’t support that claim?
But the modern government of Russia has well documented clear ties back to Soviet government and leadership.
If by “well documented clear ties”, you mean “people who lived during the USSR still lived during the transition to capitalism, and those in higher positions of authority were in a better position to scavenge the remainings of the welfare state in their own benefit”, then yes. That’s not a centralized effort from a consistent and cohesive elite between 1990 and 2010, it’s literally the IMF’s capitalist policy of privatisation of the economy. There were no such thing as oligarchs or as economic elites within the USSR because productive property was publicly owned.
But it’s hardly classless or stateless.
The current Russian government is proto-fascist, of course it’s not classless or stateless. The USSR wasn’t stateless obviously, but it was classless since there was no exploitation of the working class by any other proprietary class.
The practice and implementation of ideologies is their failing.
Pragmatically I’m anarco-communist. Get rid of moscow, get rid of Beijing. Get rid of the party. Let the people choose how to organize themselves.
You really don’t see the irony there? Obviously the end-goal is the minimisation of the state (although a body of elected representatives of some sort will probably always be needed, call that however you want). The discussion is a matter of how quickly. As you can probably understand, feudal serfs in 1917 couldn’t spontaneously and flawlessly organize in communist, collective organizations who decide everything by themselves. A vanguard party of communist intellectuals that translates the demands of the people to communist policy is needed in the initial stages, or how else do you envision the transition from feudalism/capitalism to communism?
What’s built through consent, through solidarity, and cooperation cannot easily be destroyed or Taken
Tell that to Salvador Allende or to the Spanish Second Republic.
Using the shortcuts and tactics of the bourgeoisie leads to becoming the bourgeoisie
There is no bourgeoisie without economic exploitation of the working class. Excessive bureaucracy and lack of democracy? Sure as hell. But saying that there was a bourgeoisie in the USSR is mental gymnastics.
Every single time
As opposed to direct anarcho-communism, which has shown in the multiple times it’s been applied, that it’s everlasting and can endure any external threat. Come on, please tell me how internationally significant Rojava and Zapatistas are, and how they’re not one step away from being crushed by US imperialism as soon as they’re deemed too dangerous to be kept alive.
Deflections, bad faith arguments, and denial. Truly the copium of the proletariat. Right comrade?
You couldn’t rebut a single point. And your best attempts teetered on cherry picked unrepresentative data. Oh for a short period things were different from what I claimed before becoming what I claimed?! Well then I stand…correct?
And seriously with the everything is the wests fault schtick? I’m not defending the west. But if all the bad things are the fault of the west. You’re being dishonest. I will freely point out how the Union was industrialized. How, for a short time it brought around great benefit to the proletariat. As all automation should. And the marvels of science and research pioneered under the union. That doesn’t justify or excuse the negatives. Don’t bullshit me with there being no new ascendant bourgeoisie rot at the top. Greed and selfishness is a part of human nature. Not just “the west”. And those with too much power and wealth, regardless of their ideology, always work things to their personal benefit. Don’t think others can’t see bullshit when you put it out.
Deflections, bad faith arguments, and denial. Truly the copium of the proletariat. Right comrade?
Why don’t you go point by point instead of categorically dismissing my comment?
That doesn’t justify or excuse the negatives.
I don’t need to justify or excuse the negatives. Stalinism and the great terror were excessive, arbitrary, pointless, cruel, and harmful. Dekulakization and the collectivisation of land was a fucking mess. But there was no bourgeoisie in the USSR and there is no continuity of governance or system between the USSR and modern Russia. I beg you, answer my previous comment point by point, I’m dying to see how you call a bureaucrat “a bourgeois”.
Please answer and give me examples of functioning anarcho-communist revolutions, or even the theory of how it would work.
And those with too much power and wealth
Again, I fully agree that there was too much of an accumulation of power in the top spheres of the USSR. There was an ossification of power. Leadership was until death which is absurd, and the lack of criticism of the leader is even more absurd. It’s what led the USSR to its dismantling, I fully agree with it. I just don’t agree with calling it “yet another form of capitalism” or saying that “there was a bourgeoisie” or that “there’s a continuum in the form of government of the USSR and modern Russia”. And no, there weren’t people with too much wealth in the USSR, the only way to get a salary was through a job since nobody could exploit others using private capital, no rentists, no bourgeoisie.
I understand your definitions, but I I think many Americans don’t use the same definitions. OP is pointing this out.
If we look at specific issues it’s easy to see. If I say that we should have universal health care, or UBI, many people would say that I’m way far out on the left. What if I said that we shouldn’t allow people to be multimillionaires? Would that make me way far out on the left? Again, to a lot of people yes.
So your definitions might be reasonable, but they aren’t universal, and I think if you keep that in mind you can appreciate OP more.
I think the issue is not so much definitions, but who actually has a voice. Currently in US politics the far left does not wield any influence, but the far right does hold some sway over the Republican party.
I suppose some on the right toss out accusations of being far left, but that’s just empty rhetoric.
If I say that we should have universal health care, or UBI, many people would say that I’m way far out on the left.
Just to support your point (and for the benefit of others not from the US), even people who are sympathetic to your views will often use the adjective “radical” when describing them if you espouse such beliefs. Everyone who votes R will cal you a radical and a high percentage of democrats will too.
And that’s before you even get to the stuff about overt wealth redistribution.
Bernie Sanders is the radical left to a great many in the US. (personally I consider him just the right amount of left 😁 )
Look at the neck of the chad. He has a commie symbol so its clearly that far out. Not just universal health care or UBI
Allllllll the fucking idiots of all political flavors descended on this thread, fucking hell
Dumbest takes I’ve seen in months, and they’re all different takes.
I just catalogue tankies as another flavor of right-wing. Any kind of authoritarianism is far-right as far as I’m concerned, whether it’s supposedly in service of communism or anything else.
Being left is about finding actual working solutions that help people and make society more free, just and safe for everyone and it’s about being willing to abandon solutions that have been tried and don’t work towards that goal (or require massive amounts of blood to achieve).
A tankie insisting that you need to just purge the political undesirables to make a utopia is just as irrational and right-wing as MAGA chud thinking theocracy or an ethnostate will work.
“Centrists” in the US think you’re meant to cut the difference between those two, which is why they end up conservative themselves. They’re stuck in a conception of the political landscape that limits them to thinking of things as a spectrum of extremes, rather than a binary between stuff that works to produce material good and stuff that doesnt.
To everyone upvoting this: you’re agreeing with the take of a guy saying “fascism can be both described as left and right wing and it wants to ensure the needs of the working people”
Edit: confused the above commenter with another user. Ignore this comment.
No? I’m referring to the meme up above where the sides being portrayed are far-left and far-right, and I’m inferring the ideologies they represent based on the appearance and the text of the characters within the meme (with far-left being tankies and far-right being fascists).
By definition, fascism is always far-right.
That’s not to say there aren’t dictators within the left wing though. It’s more of a common treat in Latin America and Asia.
deleted by creator
“we’re gonna make sure everyone’s needs are met” is literally a general leftist thing
Pretty sure most people who consider themselves leftists in western countries don’t agree with the implications of this. Guaranteeing housing for everyone implies hard policy against landlords (including expropriation), construction of dense public housing… Guaranteeing equal rights in education means eliminating private education, and the same can be applied to medicine.
As for the human rights of people outside the western world, ensuring their human rights would imply stopping the abusive trade relations that they’re forced into partaking. No more unequal exchange, so now chocolate is 5-10€ a piece. We also can’t export our trash anymore to poorer countries. Good-bye to 3000€/month salaries in so-called “high added value” sectors of the economy when you submit to the reality that a western worker’s hour shouldn’t be paid at 5-times the rate of a non-western worker.
We need to degrow economically in order to preserve the climate, so the purchase power of people must be reduced when it comes to many consumer products which aren’t basics. No more luxury vehicles (possibly restrictions on purchase of cars), no more buying clothes twice a month, and compulsory reduction of meat consumption.
Now, try to do all of those things within the logic of capitalism. Most self-described leftists don’t see the logical and historical impossibilities of guaranteeing the needs of everyone within a capitalist system. So yeah, virtue-signalling and good intentions are good, but more than that is needed to actually achieve the goals in mind. The far-left is just aware of this.
Assuming you’re trying to portray tankies and fascists
Wait. Fascists are left-wing now? Fascists want to “ensure working class needs”???
If you go far enough on the left sector then yes, they may say they want to “ensure the working class needs” but are so full of shit that they strike down anything that differs slightly from their views. We need part of a personal incentive and an individual focused economy to actually meet the needs of the people. Communism might just ensure the bare minimum. Degrowth might be what would be good for our planet but in no world do I see the majority of people willing to give up part of their purchasing power so its easier to push for a more green economy without degrowth.
Degrowth might be what would be good for our planet but in no world do I see the majority of people willing to give up part of their purchasing power so its easier to push for a more green economy without degrowth.
Thank you for agreeing with my point that self-described leftists don’t want to experience the consequences of ensuring everyone’s needs are met.
We need part of a personal incentive
Communism isn’t against that. The USSR workers had salaries tied to their productivity more often than in the west, I literally don’t know any worker in my capitalist country whose salary is increased if they increase their productivity. If by “incentive” you mean “the looming threat of unemployment and homelessness”, then speak openly. How funny that people aren’t willing to give up purchase power according to you, but the threat of unemployment is an adequate incentive.
and an individual focused economy to actually meet the needs of the people.
The needs of the people in developed capitalist societies are best met in socialized services such as public education, public healthcare, and public pensions. Typically, it’s individual-based (i.e. private) sectors of the economy like housing (or healthcare and education in the US) that give the worst crises and stress to people, and the ones that ensure highest inequality between rich and poor.
Communism isn’t against that. The USSR workers had salaries tied to their productivity more often than in the west, I literally don’t know any worker in my capitalist country whose salary is increased if they increase their productivity.
It might seem abstract to you but if you are valuable to the company and another company offers you more money your pay is adjusted based on your economic productivity
If by “incentive” you mean “the looming threat of unemployment and homelessness”, then speak openly. How funny that people aren’t willing to give up purchase power according to you, but the threat of unemployment is an adequate incentive.
Why should I speak openly if I support a social safety net that ensures a basic standard of living and housing during times of unemployment?
None of this needs a communist state
and another company offers you more money your pay is adjusted based on your economic productivity
Meritocracy in capitalism is a myth. Low-wage workers often work harder than anyone else, and get no rises or other jobs for doing so.
Why should I speak openly if I support a social safety net that ensures a basic standard of living and housing during times of unemployment?
None of this needs a communist state
Sure, the capitalist west is doing so well electing the far right to erode our already-eroded social rights even more.
Its not about how hard you work tho. Its based on how much your work is worth to others and how replaceable you a company. Actually Finland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark are some of the happiest countries on earth with the highest standards of living so I’d say they’re doing pretty well. I know that there are a lot worse capitalist countries but I specifically focus on a social market economy and the potential. I am not defending the lack of social welfare in the US.
Nordic European countries have rather decent social welfare, agreed, but their economy is as sustained on unequal exchange as those of the rest of the developed world. In the case of Norway arguably more since they’re oil exporters. My point being, not every country, not even most countries, can be like Scandinavian countries because they rely on exploitation of people outside their borders.
Its not about how hard you work tho. Its based on how much your work is worth to others and how replaceable you a company.
How’s that not a bad thing to reward people based on? We saw during the pandemic that the actually important jobs in our society are the ones that pay jackshit and are easily replaceable. Shouldn’t these people get a better life?
Fascists want to ensure working class needs for the right working class people. Fascism is difficult to define, you can argue for it being either a left wing or a right wing ideology depending on the perspective of analysis.
God you’re a fucking clown. Please tell me which fascist regime supports universal, free education for all children, universal social healthcare, or guaranteed housing. And tell me which fascist regime wants to ensure these rights for subsectors or the working class like racialized minorities or different ethnicities. Or women. Or queer people. “Fascism can be both described as left or right wing”. Infuriatingly stupid take.
Unnecessarily angry reply. If youve taken a course on definitions of fascism youd understand what Im talking about. Quantifying the totality of what defines fascism is incredibly difficult considering the many forms it has taken throughout history. Hitler Naziism did have some social programs but not really enough to look at it from the perspective of left wing politics, therefor it is a majorly right right political movement. The current government of China and Maoism you can argue is both left wing and fascist due to the extremely strong social programs, rejection of western style capitalism, and the various slow genocides against non Han Chinese ethnic groups, such as the Uyghurs.
My response is angry because I’m Spanish, so I have good reference of what fascism is like, and you saying that it can be categorised as leftist when it’s literally a reactionary movement that defends capitalist elites against rising leftist movements, is extremely apologetic of fascism.
The current government of China and Maoism you can argue is both left wing and fascist
Please tell me where’s the militarisation of society. Please tell me where’s the hierarchization of society. Please tell me where’s the adoration of the distant idealized past. Please tell me where the anti-communist reactionaries are.
slow genocides against non Han Chinese ethnic groups, such as the Uyghurs.
“Genocide is when reeducation camps for 3-4 years as a response to domestic terrorism”. Sorry mate, 4 years ago people bought this rhetoric. Now that people see what actual genocide and apartheid looks like (Palestine), and now that it’s patently obvious that a few anonymous testimonies aren’t a reliable source of information for such serious accusations, people don’t actually defend that there was genocide. There’s no genocide in China against Uyghur.
The militarization of society is not a marker of every form of facism, facism comes in many different flavors. Neither is hierarchization of society, that has existed in all forms social organization including communism, socialism, feudalism, etc. China does have a meritocratic system, exactly like the rest of the world for the most part. Another example of this could be the caste system of India, although I am not as familiar with that as I am with Chinese history and politics, so it is hard for me to make the fascist determination; although it does have the markers. Now for the adoration of the distant past, that is also not a marker of fascism, more so a marker of conservatism, but I will humor you. Have you heard of something called Shen Yun? It is an organization that puts on plays around the western world that focuses on glorifying the past of China prior to communism. It is no longer really supported by the CCP because of political disagreements, but is still a glorification of the past. Come on, dont say that fascism requires anti communism, thats just close minded and anti nuance. You need to look at fascism separately from the economic organizations of society: communism, socialism, capitalism. As for your point on the Uyghurs, if you think that rounding up an ethnic group and putting them in re-education, forced reproduction, and prison camps is not genocide, I dont know what to tell you. There were also hundreds more ethnic groups in China that have been culturally and literally genocided in recent history. We agree that Israels government is organized into a fascist apartheid state, Palestine is under a true attempted genocide. That doesnt mean, though, you should ignore what is happening and has happened in societies that are not strictly capitalist.
The militarization of society is not a marker of every form of facism, facism comes in many different flavors
Now for the adoration of the distant past, that is also not a marker of fascism
Come on, dont say that fascism requires anti communism
You can just say “I’m using my own definition of fascism which doesn’t agree with the general consensus of what fascism is, to refer to any regime I consider loosely authoritarian”.
You need to look at fascism separately from the economic organizations of society
“You need to look at the socioeconomic system separately from the economic organizations of society”. Fucking lol.
As for your point on the Uyghurs, if you think that rounding up an ethnic group and putting them in re-education
Agreed, that’s very sus and not a policy I support, even in the context of prior terrorist attacks.
forced reproduction, and prison camps
I assume you mean forced sterilization. Sorry, but there’s no serious evidence for that. The best you can point to is an inform by Amnesty International that is based off anonymous interviews. There’s nothing pointing towards mass forced sterilisation of Uyghur people, in fact they were mostly left out of the single-child policy that China adopted unlike Han people, which explains partly why Uyghur went from being a minority to the majority ethnicity in Xinjiang. What a weird genocide, where the supposedly oppressive ethnicity is displaced in numbers by the supposedly oppressed ethnicity.
There were also hundreds more ethnic groups in China that have been culturally and literally genocided in recent history
I’d love to read on that, can you send me a source?
That doesnt mean, though, you should ignore what is happening and has happened in societies that are not strictly capitalist
I’m not ignoring it, I’m looking at the available evidence and determining that there’s no active genocide. It’s these types of false claims that were used to justify military intervention in other countries. Remember Nayirah’s testimony used to justify in the US military action against Iraq. Or the exaggerated calls of genocide in Yugoslavia that were used to allow NATO to bomb the shit out of it and break it up into a collection of weak states, separating families.
I’m not a both-siders, but I was just arguing with a leftist yesterday that was saying we should jail people for voting for trump.
So I’m hesitant to pretend there are not wack jobs on the left who would happily exterminate people for their political gain.
The left absolutely has nut jobs. That’s why it’s important that us normal, reasonable left people call them out and check their shit.
The right let their right wing nut jobs take over. That’s why we’re in this mess.
The right didn’t “let their nutjobs take over,” as Capitalism has continued to decay Capitalists have consolidated power. There wasn’t a cognizant decision to shift towards fascism, but fascism itself arose as the material conditions of society declined.
Fascism doesn’t spread because “it’s an appealing idea,” fascism specifically is a result of Capitalist decline, and pretending it’s just something that happens randomly makes combatting it difficult.
The second layer to both-sides is false-equivalence fallacy. A majority of Republicans believe in the Big Lie; their literal nominee tried to overthrow a free & fair election.
Let that sink in: A MAJORITY of Republicans believe 2020 was stolen.
Do you see the broader Democratic party or any of their high-level leaders calling for jailing people voting for Trump? No.
Being fooled is not a crime. Trump (along with many accomplices) is a criminal that needs to be prosecuted and thrown in jail, but unfortunately the morons who have fallen for his lies aren’t breaking the law by doing so, so any claim to have them jailed is anti democratic authoritarianism.
Being fooled is not a crime
I take it you defend the same of the percentage of Russian citizens who are brainwashed into voting for Putin? Or the Germans who went to marches and cheered on for Hitler?
Assuming they believe they have not committed a crime, absolutely.
Fair enough, I appreciate your consistency, and actually support your viewpoint
Removed by mod
You can pretend all you like the problem is that there have been leftist wack jobs that very much did exterminate people for political gain.
Things would be so much easier if we could simply argue about ideology without anyone getting the ‘clever’ idea that you can simply exterminate everyone who disagrees and end up with a harmonious society of people all working towards the same ideal.
Some ideals are so dangerous they need to be exterminated. If you can show me a method that does this while leaving the bigot alive, I would happily see it implemented.
Education.
If you place killing an ideal beyond implementing your own you’re making exactly the same mistake.
The best we’ve come up with is to try to ensure people are educated and well informed and only a majority can make certain decisions. Not all countries are doing too well on all 3 (heck the U.S. doesn’t even manage to ensure decisions require a majority) but if an ideal gets accepted under anything resembling those conditions then killing the bigots is no longer an option.
Sorry, no.
WWII was an excellent example of how some ideologies cannot be met with peace. Shame you forgot it.
Absolutely not.
WWII was an excellent example of how some actions cannot be meet with peace.
If you think you can suppress an ideal with violence, you have a poor grasp of the situation.
One can respond to ideals that are bad by having a better, more effective way of life - one that addresses the underlying needs that those with bad ideals are trying to meet, and that has a path for them to join you.
But if you simply suppress it, it will fester and grow.
Education and human relation. Standing your ground in a conversation without getting combative. Being
winningwilling to fight if needed, but actively choosing not to when it’s not truly necessary.No, if you exterminate an ideal, you also lose the resistance to it and the generational cognizance of it. Instead, you let it survive, and teach people, by example, how to deal with it - not through suppression, but through response.
You just admitted my clause:
Being winning to fight of needed
No, if you exterminate an ideal, you also lose the resistance to it and the generational cognizance of it.
Yes, and it stops being relevant. Just like every dictatorial regime that has been put down.
I did not “admit your clause”. Being willing to fight does not necessitate extermination.
Although, perhaps you’re right, and I should adopt your ideology of ideological extermination, starting with your ideology.
No, if you exterminate an ideal, you also lose the resistance to it and the generational cognizance of it.
Yes, and it stops being relevant. Just like every dictatorial regime that has been put down.
Oh, is that what you think happens? Go live it, then, and good luck with that.
I will not abide intellectual dishonestly.
You are hereby cast out from my internet experience for all time.
Whew.
Voting is a sacred right in our society, even if it’s for a treasonous corrupt felon wannabe fascist. I don’t understand why anyone would give him their vote but that just makes them an idiot
It seems like you’re the one jumping from someone wanting jail time to those voting to overthrow our democracy, all the way to exterminate. Yeah, I suppose those people exist but a huge difference is there is no widespread support for left wing nut jobs
I don’t remember what politician was convicted a few years back where a lot of people kept trying to make the point that a left wing criminal is a criminal that we all want brought to justice, whereas too much right wing criminal behavior is ignored or even lionized. Both sides are very much NOT the same
It seems like you’re the one jumping from someone wanting jail time to those voting to overthrow our democracy, all the way to exterminate.
It’s part of the submission.
But I’m not equating the two sides, but every right winger I know, including Trump supporters who I unfortunately have way too many of in my family, wish no ill will on anyone and don’t believe trump does. So this claim that there is widespread support for exterminating people on the right does not reflect the reality I experience.
No one says that. But Trump has repeatedly said variations of acting as dictator, subverting the constitution and the checks and balances that are fundamental to our government. He is guilty of instigating treason. He repeatedly acts racist and extremely misogynistic. He should be held responsible for the hundreds of thousands of excess Covid deaths during his term when he denied reality and prevented a coordinated response. He has decades of history with contract fraud and likely tax fraud. His speeches are falsehood after falsehood and he contradicts himself depending on what his audience wants to hear. He was a disaster of a president, and certainly this time around no one can claim to not know what to expect.
I don’t know your family, but how can they support the constitution and vote for some who ignores it and has announced fascination as a goal and has already committed election fraud , how can they claim to not be racist and elect a racist, how can they claim to not be sexist and elect someone that disdainful of women’s rights, how can they elect someone noncoherent and expect anything, how can they believe they will get whatever they think he promised when he also promised the opposite and has a history of not following through with either? How can they claim to be nice people and elect someone with a history of spite and who has already professed revenge on people not sufficiently loyal?
That I think it’s the scariest thing we have right now: a lot of people that forgot we need to live together and trying to shove your ideology down others throats is not the way to go, no matter how right one believes to be.
I feel they mean well…most of them anyway. They don’t want shit to go further south and feel jailing Trump to be the correct course. Admittedly, I do agree to an extent, though only because he keeps weaseling his way out of taking real responsibility for all of his bullshit. Mostly because we rolled the judicial equivalent of a Nat1 with Cannon.
The comment argued for jailing Trump voters, not Trump himself in this case.
Oop, my mistake. Thank you for pointing that out.
The whack jobs on the left are a vanishing minority, so if you’re pretending they’re equivalent to the right wing who actually attempted a fucking coup and want to do another one, you’re either disingenuous or an idiot.
I’ve seen far more calls from the left for actual violence since the rise of trump than probably combined the rest of my life. I agree the right wing is currently more violent, but the claim that they are vanishing, rather than rising, doesn’t match up with the reality I’ve experienced. Especially surprising to claim it here on Lemmy where I see it most.
How many right wing people do you hang out with?
Lemmy is not reality.
Yeah that person you talked to is crazy. But let’s also not act like the Republicans haven’t been calling for a civil war if Troomp looses.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/07/23/republican-calls-for-civil-war-if-trump-loses/
That was a senator who said that
So like, yeah jailing people for thinking diffrent is wrong, but…
we should jail people for voting for trump
-
Donald Trump is launching a full fascist coup on the American democratic state and if he wins he will kill millions of people, primarily those who are poc, lgbtq, and foreign born. We need to stop him at all costs.
-
Hey, listen, who you vote for is your call and I’m not here to judge. Its just an election, I don’t see why you need to make a federal case out of it.
These two views are in sharp contradiction with one another.
So if Trump is proposing ideas going against the foundation of the State and its constitution we should not let Trump run. How is jailing people for voting Trump a solution?
What if someone told you aid to an enemy of the state is the definition of treason. The man tried to overthrow our government with an insurrection, there is no question he is an enemy of the state. (So all who have donated to his compaign and broadcasted for his rise to power have committed treason)
I don’t think we should jail Trump voters, but they should at least make aware that just because they believed his/medias lies, doesn’t make them immune from all ignorant actions. The first civil war set precedent that you don’t need to punish them, but any members who partook who held office prior to the attempt (currently still ongoing) should not be able to hold office in the future as written in the amendment MADE for insurrectionsts. (Even this seems extreme with current events)
Now as we learned from the last time, we should ignore our previous actions and follow what Robert E Lee suggested, that all statues of Trump & the confederates should be taken down (flags as well) and should not be built nor allowed outside museums/textbooks in the future.
His reason was because history showed countries heal faster that way. Ours hasn’t healed since the conferency, we did it wrong.
Make possession charges harsh, so they hide again, but next time when the NAZI flag and the KKK burning crosses came to light, they would legally shut it down before it gained traction and spread their hate so far and wide.
So if Trump is proposing ideas going against the foundation of the State and its constitution we should not let Trump run.
He was President for four years and he did a lot worse than “propose ideas”. Perhaps we should throw him in jail.
How is jailing people for voting Trump a solution?
It strongly discourages people to support a fascist who threatens my existence.
So we have an undemocratic state if voting one out of two candidates gets you in jail. This is literally the playbook definition of an autocracy. He should be judged by the actions he took and shouldn’t be above the law like the supreme court decided but judging the voters is crazy
This is literally the playbook definition of an autocracy. He should be judged by the actions he took and shouldn’t be above the law like the supreme court decided but judging the voters is crazy
He’s not above the law. Congress Impeached him for it and 57 Senators (less than the 67 needed) voted to convict (including 7 Republicans). But the Democrats rushed it for political reasons. The Nixon Impeachement process took 9 months and it had several hearings evidentiary and others that gave Republicans who didn’t and couldn’t support impeachment at the start of the process justify impeachment to their constituents. Impeachment is a political process, and Dems politicked like morons.
So we have an undemocratic state if voting one out of two candidates gets you in jail.
The Tolerance Paradox is only resolved when you refuse to tolerate intolerance.
Then drop the candidate but not the masses voting for change.
Since we’re wishcasting here, I’d say “¿Por Qué No Los Dos?”
But I agree, getting fascists off the ballot would be the highest imperative. I’d also say that we’re not going to do either, so getting angry at someone online for suggesting either one seems silly.
I said nothing about not judging them. They are, at best, gullible rubes. I judge them very harshly. However, I was very explicit that it was about jailing them.
So, sure, if you just make up my position, I can see how you can make it contradictory. Good for you.
They are, at best, gullible rubes.
They know exactly what they’re asking for. It isn’t as though the homophobia and xenophobia of the American right is some kind of secret. Persecuting minority groups is a signature issue.
However, I was very explicit that it was about jailing them.
And if we were voting on changing the speed limit, I’d agree that taking voting to the level of incarceration would be extreme. But we’re talking about policies of mass incarceration, seizure of property, and execution of dissidents. That’s the threat that a future Trump Presidency is supposed to present.
So either I was lied to and Future President Donald Trump isn’t an existential threat to my existence. Or the reports are sincere and a vote for Donald Trump is the same as a vote for my summary execution.
If a lynch mob shows up outside your door and starts voting on whether or not to string you up, what would you say the remedy is? Lobby them not to kill you? Politely ask them to leave? Or show up on the porch with a shotgun and tell them all to piss off?
They know exactly what they’re asking for.
For some, sure. For most? It reads more like a justification to act like an authoritarian and jail political opponents. It sounds exactly like when people like trump say the left is coming after Christians.
But we’re talking about policies of mass incarceration, seizure of property, and execution of dissidents.
We’re not tho. You’re just assuming this will happen. I agree with you it’s a distinct risk and we must stop trump because it’s far greater than a zero percent chance. But he’s not outright calling for it. These people believe he is protecting them and their way of life. Dumb? Yes. Criminal? No.
But can we stop and laugh for a second about you pointing to assumption of mass incarceration as a justification for outright calling for mass incarceration? Which does, pretty clearly, demonstrate my point.
For most? It reads more like a justification to act like an authoritarian and jail political opponents.
When the political opponents are, themselves, violent domestic terrorists and anti-democratic authoritarians, you’d be a fool to wait until they’re installed in the highest levels of government before taking action.
You’re just assuming this will happen.
I am being told “Go out and vote against Trump or this will happen”. This was the primary Ridin’ With Biden argument and the reason we were supposed to swallow a little like genocide in Gaza for the greater good. There were a bunch of memes and everything. People insisting that a Trump Presidency would amount to a domestic holocaust. People insisting that failure to vote for the Democrat or even a vote for a third party candidate was a tacit endorsement of this pending holocaust.
But can we stop and laugh for a second about you pointing to assumption of mass incarceration as a justification for outright calling for mass incarceration?
Sure. The joke is funniest right down on the US/Mexico border where we’ve got toddlers behind razor wire, because the governors are all pandering to a political base that wants to end birthright citizenship and deport anyone browner than a cup of milk.
When the political opponents are, themselves, violent domestic terrorists and anti-democratic authoritarians, you’d be a fool to wait until they’re installed in the highest levels of government before taking action.
Except we’re not talking about terrorists and anti democratic authoritarians, we are talking about jailing people for the way they vote. You are, by claiming people should be jailed for the way they vote, being the anti democratic authoritarian.
Again, we both agree that trump is a risk and we need to stop him. But jailing people for falling for his rhetoric and commiting the crime of voting makes you a risk to our democracy as well. The only difference I see between you and trump, on this point at least, is you’re explicitly espousing it. He’s just using a dog whistle.
Except we’re not talking about terrorists and anti democratic authoritarians
We’re talking about their donors, their canvasers, and their supporters.
Again, we both agree that trump is a risk and we need to stop him.
We both agree he should be stopped. I’m not sure we agree on actually stopping him. It seems like we’re just going to roll the dice on the election and hope for the best, because doing anything else would be unfair to the fascists.
-
The far left has guillotines for that purpose and they’re not ashamed to say so. Lemmy has been an interesting education on what far left actually means.
On lemmy you see first and foremost the tanky left. Andrewism made a great video against the guillotine and he is very left. You don’t have to agree with him either, just know The Left isn’t a monolith and it’s not that linear actually.
Extermination and jailing people aren’t really equivalent.
You have plenty of out and about fascists who would vote for trump, actual groypers and nazis and shit. As a kind of, probe question, right, do you think it would be pertinent to go and actually kill those motherfuckers, given the kind of, borrowed time on which we’re living right now, the lack of resources, right, lack of popular support from a mainstream political system and their ability to so clearly co-opt it in this moment, and impending climate change which means we can’t waste time on them really more than is necessary. Those are some of the justifications that somebody might give for exterminating out and about fascists, right, even if they can’t guarantee that those people are actual fascists, in their heart of hearts, and that it would’ve taken too many resources to convert them, or too much time. That’s all normal shit, right, normal death sentence justification, which I usually don’t agree with, maybe greased up a little bit since you can have the apologia of a kind of wartime or desperation, right. You get what I’m saying?
I agree with you also, that there are plenty (I would even say, a majority) of supporters that legitimately just don’t realize how bad he is, and how bad things are in general, lots of them because they’re coked up on denial and lack of imagination, lots of them because they stand to benefit from these systems as they currently operate. They might not be “racist”, but they might still be perpetuating racism, they might not be fascists, but they might still be perpetuating fascism, through their ignorance and incompetence. Those people, right, sure, doesn’t make much sense to kill them.
But then, how do you propose to change their minds? A staunch communist might propose that we change the system, and then the majority will more naturally come to like, normal conclusions, right, and then you can just round up the rest that are sort of very staunch in their misinformed support, and then you can perhaps “re-educate” those people, right.
This is a process most people have problems with, but I dunno, what’s your take, what’s your alternative? If you’re dealing with those people, and you’re still giving them the freedom to attain power, control the economy and other people’s lives, even as misguided as they are, just sort of, for the sake of not having them in jail, right, then I dunno if that’s really going to work long term. It locks you into an untenable position, especially as many of these people will be actively dedicated to your dissolution, even if they’re just fooled, which dooms your movement from the start. You have to remove them from power, and if you want to remove them from power and ownership, while also not expatriating them from your country, an act which is usually viewed as genocide and for which you will constantly hear bitching from gusanos in the miami herald about, then you need to put them in some sort of reeducation camp, basically, and that camp is going to constitute jail.
So I dunno, hit me with your argument against that kind of jailing.
I don’t really think there’s any level of like, very natural reform that you’re going to engage in, or slow convincing over time to get people to give up their own power, that’s going to improve things, or that’s going to improve things at nearly the rate that we need right now considering what’s on the horizon. I might be wrong on that, but my basis for that belief is that people are in the positions of power that they’re in because they are naturally groomed and ensured to be the ones who have the beliefs and attitudes most suited to retain that power. If you have a business size of like, hundreds, and you’re promoting people in your business to positions of power, promoting people to become CEO by the board of directors, then naturally the system is going to start appointing people which reinforce the system. Asskissers who will do anything to get promoted, are usually the ones to get promoted, we know this. This doesn’t even need to be a universal tendency, this just needs to be a tendency more of the time than not, for it to be really problematic, for the majority of people in power to be assholes. The board of directors doesn’t want to start appointing CEOs that turn their companies into co-ops, that take the power out of their hands, there’s a natural incentive structure there. The same is mostly true of political systems which are mostly autocratic.
So, I dunno if there’s really much of an alternative, if we’re taking a sort of, step back look down at that idea of jailing your opposition. Maybe you have one, I dunno.
Good message overall, but man what a terrible choice to depict the left
How so? What do you disagree with?
It reinforces the stereotype of “leftist = rebellious teenager”
Only that there are also a lot of commies who would exterminate a whole lot of centrists.
“We are gonna make mankind happy even if we have to exterminate half of it!”
Unfathomably based. If they said it like this half of the far right would join.
well when you say it like that, it makes me think that’s cool as long as I’m part of the half that doesn’t get exterminated
Is happiness the reason why almost everyone living in communist countries in 1900s wanted to change the system or gtfo?
Right-wing in-group: “So long as you be just like us in every way and fall in line, you will be accepted. Sort of.”
Left-wing in-group: “So long as you’re not an asshole, we don’t care what you believe or do.”
Right-wing out-group: Anyone not like them.
Left-wing out-group: Anyone who is an asshole.
The key being what constitutes being an asshole, and what you allow yourself to do to someone once the label can be pasted onto someone. It’s really the same thing seen through different gross stereotypes - they could literally say the same thing.
That’s not to say there aren’t very real differences between parties, but they aren’t extreme sides of a one dimensional line (or vague notions in a two dimensional mapping) which is basically a propaganda tool for the ego.
It’s funny. I have a blog post from Ken Arneson who talks about “The Right to be an Asshole” and here’s how he defines an asshole:
An asshole is a selfish person whose selfishness causes foreseeable indirect collateral damage to the people around them.
He goes on:
Assholes take risks that provide upside to themselves, but transfer the downsides of those risks to other people.
But the true test case for the limits of freedom is the asshole. Philosophically speaking, assholes walk the line between intentions and consequences. Assholes form the boundary between freedom and control.
Assholes don’t intend to do direct harm. They just don’t think about, and/or care about, and/or believe, and/or comprehend, that their actions can or will have negative consequences for other people beyond their direct intentions.
He goes on to recount the tale of COVID Patient 31 from Seoul, South Korea. Shortly after receiving her diagnosis, she decided to seek comfort at church. Hundreds of deaths and thousands of infections were traced back to her through contact tracing. So, now we come to intentions vs. consequences. Patient 31 wasn’t intending to make anyone sick or die, she was merely seeking comfort through faith. Any reasonable non-asshole could have told her and probably did tell her, that attending church while infected would cause others to be infected and possibly die. How should this asshole be judged? If we judge her by her intentions, then she’s as much a victim as anyone. But if we judge her by her consequences, then she’s a mass murderer.
So the question we have to ask as a free society is: What the fuck do we do about assholes?
Assholes have a very clever trick that allows them to keep being assholes.
If you try to stop them from being an asshole, they will declare you to be an asshole who, although perhaps intending to prevent some bad thing from happening, causes harm by denying some very fine people, who have no intention of harming anyone, their freedom. So who’s the real asshole here, anyway?
Why is he downvoted? One is not an asshole if one is just too dumb to get what they are causing. The problem is that we not educate our children good enough so that they not fail to get what makes sense and what not.
But as long as we have stupid religious fanatics in power, we are doomed. Fuck Religion!
Religion has done something very clever, too. Christianity in particular has, through some means, found a way to divorce actions from character, as opposed to viewing one’s actions as a reflection of their character. They see good and evil as things that someone is instead of what someone does.
You ever notice how suburban white Karens clutch their pearls when called racist? Well, consider what I just said about their view of evil. Now, make “racism” == “evil”. By calling one racist, you have effectively called them evil, and they most certainly do not view themselves as having an evil character.
Or how, when doing evil deeds, they don’t see themselves as being evil despite their actions? Or when someone does a good deed, they accuse that person of being evil?
It’s just intriguing how they’ve pulled off this alchemy.
You confused me a little with that text 😅
What the fuck do we do about assholes?
Simple. Dicks fuck assholes. Its necessary, but the problem is they get shit all over the place!
Socialism is literally transferring all risk to other people. Nice try though.
no, socialism is transferring everything to the people, the current not-socialist capitalist model already transfers all the risk to the people, but keeps the gains to the few
Removed by mod
💎exacta-mundo friendileeno
Hope the left sees that there are assholes turning to nice people if you take away the fear right-wing media puts on them.
Left-wing out-group: Everyone, especially other leftists
I mean, it doesn’t have anything to do with the ideology, but the far left is famously like that.
I don’t usually use this expression, but you might need to touch grass. I pretty regularly hang out with far left people and other than debates over personal philosophy we’re all pretty chill. The internet is not an accurate representation of any actual social dynamics.
Yup. That’s some truth.
All my liberal homies smoke weed and shoot the shit and try to vote for people who don’t want to kill outgroups. So agreed, he needs to touch grass.
The ones I’m thinking of would not appreciate being called “liberal”.
Well, I meant my lefty friends. If you look at my comment history, I’m not much a liberal myself, but I don’t consider tankies on the left. I consider them authoritarian fuckbags that will say anything to get power. Just like authoritarian fuckbags on the right.
I consider them flat Earth theorists that weren’t right-wing enough for the normal conspiracy pipeline. The Stalin stuff is pretty much just decoration.
I’ve seen plenty of anarchist gatekeeping, too, although when you haven’t organised in the first place there’s less to split.
TBH there’s barely a center-left where I live, even, so you’re right that I wouldn’t know. However, the history of real-world Western socialist organisations doesn’t inspire confidence that it’s any different.
to be fair, tankies arn’t left wing, they fully support the most Draconian right wing solutions to everything, but pretend that their führer isn’t evil or something.
Anarchists are in this picture too. Gatekeeping about who’s anti-authoritarian enough is one example.
I mean, they have a point, you literally can’t go “but Lenin created vanguardism” as a reason why the all powerful single party state supposedly controlled by the “will of the people” and get upset when people call you out for being an authoritarian.
Anarchists gate keeping tankies isn’t some moral wrong, it’s just learning from history, because they would rather work with literal Nazis/ ethno-fascists than with an anarchist, the anarchists were the first to be shot by all the fascists, German, Romanian, Italian, or Soviet.
Yeah, but even if you allow that, they’ll gatekeep each other over dietary systems, for voting or not voting, over which economic systems are too market, over who was on the right side of a personal falling out, for believing in rules of any kind and on and on. There never is an end to it.
I don’t know who you’ve been hanging out with, but anarchists don’t care if you’re vegan or not, and generally their issue isn’t with markets, it’s with the system giving all the power to a small group of feudal lords, but I think the issue is that you only know anarchists by shitty online memes, maybe you should go get in contact with your local lawn dealer
Sure. All the anarchists fucking up for the last 150 years don’t count. You folks in this thread swear there’s different, cool ones; they’re just conveniently invisible.
and generally their issue isn’t with markets, it’s with the system giving all the power to a small group of feudal lords
And yet, pretty much none of them like ancaps. Mutualists or whatever other in-between are prime targets for purging from your not-a-political-party.
Left-wing in-group: “So long as you’re not an asshole, we don’t care what you believe or do.”
Since fucking when?? The far left is famous for infighting and purity tests, has been for decades. It might even be the number one thing Leftism is known for.
deleted by creator
Meme says far left, not left-leaning. Left-leaning is cool. Far left are fucking idiots.
I’d love to hear your answer to his question, you forgot to answer it.
It was the wrong question, dumbass. Left-leaning people don’t use purity tests.
Why are you calling me a dumbass? Are you angry? You forgot to answer his question. There are no wrong questions, maybe some you don’t want to answer. Every group uses some form of purity test.
Calling you a dumbass because you’re a fucking dumbass. No other reason. It’s not a difficult concept, but then again you would have trouble with it.
Not only are you wrong, you’re a total prick about it lmao
Just matching the energy. But also, no I’m not wrong.
I mean, the only groups using purity tests are shit stains like tankies and terfs, they of course are SOOOOOOOOOoooooo… left they routinely work with literal neo-Nazis (hint they arn’t left wing at all)
Such as… ?
I mean if you need to narrow your scope to the “fAr LeFt,” in America to make your point then I can narrow my scope to the “fAr RiGht” and the difference is eco terrorism versus lynch mobs, so…
Theres a lot of nuisance in the definitions of left and right that are lost in reductive and polarizing statements like this. For instance a far left idea is an extreme belief in the philosophy of equity. When brought to its pure conclusion you end up in a communist environment where the state ends of being the dictator of exactly how much resources every individual is allowed to have. The conclusion to radical left and radical right policies is actually exactly the same. Authoritarianism.
There are plenty of ideas and philosophies on the right and left that are absolutely reasonable. Universal Healthcare on the left. Some immigration reforms or trade tariffs on the right.
These types of memes are very reductionist an unhelpful in terms of influencing people who are already woefully uneducated in the world of politics, philosophy, or trade and finance and only serves to try and convince stupid people that one very large and diverse group of people are literally evil while another very large group of diverse people are the good and virtuous.
Communism is when the shared public mechanisms under socialism run so well a government is no longer necessary at all. If it has a dictator or a government it is, by definition, not communism.
If it has a dictator or a government it is, by definition, not communism.
Ignoring the dictator bit, this is an anti-Marxist take, Marx never stated that Communism would have no government. When speaking of the State, Marx specifically speaks of the institutions of a Capitalist Government that etrench the Capitalist class, ie Private Property Rights and the militarized institutions that uphold them (the Capitalist police).
Marx was not an anarchist, he was advocating for central planning, and you cannot have central planning without central planners. Simply saying that the public mechanisms would “run really well” hides the fact that government would remain, planning and administrating.
Even Cybernetics would still need to have human administration, elections, and so forth to represent the will of the people.
You may wish to visit Critique of the Gotha Programme.
I may be misremembering, but the way I recall Engles describing it in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific is that as you dissolve class relations you remove the previous purpose of government, which was to enforce class roles through, for instance, enforcement of private property rights. As the “Administration of People” becomes unnecessary, the government is relegated to “Administration of Things” which moves it away from controlling people, and let’s it “melt away” as it’s remaining functions become less “governmental” and more of just managing logistics of things.
Sort of. You remove the classist aspects of previous society. Socialism itself emerges from Capitalism, and Communism emerges from Socialism. When I say Communism has a government, I very much mean there would still be laws, social workers, central planners, administrators, elections, even police, but not the elements of previous class society like Private Property Rights.
This is why Marx specifically describes this process as “whithering away.” He is not arguing that the government will dissolve itself, this argument has been levied against AES countries falsely. Instead, it is through lack of maintenance that these aspects erode over time, like how the Monarchy in the UK is vestigial, or how there are no longer streetlamp lighters. As technology and society progresses, what once was considered necessary makes itself obsolete and fades.
This is the core of dialectical materialism, ie a tree contains within it elements of its past as a seed and elements of its future as an older and eventualy dead tree, everything is a transformation of its previous self.
Bolsheviks literally exterminated entire social groups because they believed they were impure. Calling people “kulaks” and such.
They also deported (as in half dying in the way) to Siberia whole peoples, like Chechens and Ingushs.
Also some peoples by ethnicity alone were deemed suspicious in certain parts of USSR and forcefully moved from there. That’s how there are very few Greeks in Crimea.
And you have those hammer and sickle on the “far left” pic.
As a centrist I can say with certainty that both sides are being misrepresented here.
Wrong!
Source: We’re on Lenny
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Anyone still claiming to be an undecided voter in 2024 is quite frankly full of shit
It has always been a myth. Humans are inherently political.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-moderate-middle-is-a-myth/
Anyone claiming that the Democrats goals are to ensure everyone’s needs are met is full of shit.
The meme says “leftists” not democrats. Democrats are rarely leftists, and usually centrists/right wing.
I was not responding to the meme.
ok, so you’re undecided between trump/republicans and harris/democrats?
why?
Are Democrats committed to ensuring everyone’s needs are met?
If not, discussion here is irrelevant.
If you’re not responding to the meme, then why is your discussion on whether “everyone’s needs are met”? OP you responded to was only talking about undecided voters.
How are undecided voters going to make a decision to support the party where “everyone’s needs are met” if there is no option to do so.
Because he’s a fucking Russian plant and the only memes he’s paid to talk about are “Democrats bad”.
the discussion has moved on to see if you’re actually on the left, or are trying to discourage people on the left from voting, or are just a straight up accelerationist/fascist/glowie
The discussion seems to be based on the false assumption that Democrats are left wing and they want to ensure that everyone’s needs are met.
At this point Dems are moderate right wings and the Republicans are far right. We don’t really have a “far left” party.
So why does the above post refer to undecided voters?
Because majority of left people vote dem and right vote for rep and centrist are undecided. This doesn’t mean left = dem, it just means dems are the best option right now for the left.
OK, so the dems are committed to ensuring everyone’s needs are met. Yes?
No one in this comment chain said that, they said they were the best option.
No one in this comment chain said that.
It’s in the picture right at the start.
Why mention the Democrats if they aren’t relevant to the meme being discussed?
I wish
Centrists: My 3-year old child can tell that both of these characterizations are bullshit. Why cannot you?
Yes, they certainly made sure everybody’s needs were met during the Holodomor.
That was under Stalin’s rule which was a fascist regime like any other ‘communist’ regime that gained power in the last century.
I get what you are saying, but wasn’t Stalin “just” a dictator (with an iron fist, killing millions) but not faschist?
If one applies a strict definition of fascism, probably yes as stalinism is a kind of it’s own.
Yes, but far left can go that far. Note there are no far left politicians in serious play in American politics. Radical far left means you are ready to go all in on on bad stuff because you think it’s the only means to the correct end.
The far right is currently more dangerous in American politics because they are actually in serious play, but let’s not assume tossing in some far left would make things better.
Far-left would be something like anarcho-communism. Fascism is, in fact, far-right.
I suppose this is a way the ‘left<->right’ spectrum to align everything breaks down.
Some would graph ‘authoritarianism’ on the right and more liberty on the ‘left’.
Except some ‘leftists’ would love to use authoritarian strategies against malicious capitalism and people responsible for environmental misbehavior, which are also seen as “leftist” ideals.
As evidenced in the scenario today, where the far right is in rabid support of a convicted felon and the left is rallying behind someone seen as a pretty aggressive prosecutor. Generally opposite of the traditional view of what ‘right’ and ‘left’ would tend to favor.
Authoritarianism tends to assert itself when people feel like they can use it to advance their own stance and minimize opposition, regardless of side. We just don’t have people that far left in US politics currently.
fascism is right wing
“policy failure in one occasion creating a famine in a preindustrial country which used to have 10 famines a century proves that communists want to murder people!”
This is literally the bravest and most important thing I’ve seen all week. Bravo OP, you’ve convinced me
No, its the most cowardly and destructive thing posted here in a year. OP is a tankie who wants to Stalinized you to Death with illegal woke national socialists. Don’t trust him. Its a trick to make you cucked, soy, and chinese.
Ummm, I know it’s gotten a lot of popularity lately, but the Fallout Series, and especially Liberty Prime, is not real
deleted by creator
I think people who’ve enjoyed years under communist governments might disagree a little about the comparison here.
Lol. Had to depict the left with hammer and sickle-- a communist symbol. And it isn’t like the communists are constitent on LGBT rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_and_LGBT_rights?wprov=sfla1
It’s pretty much the default Chad Leftist Wojak drawing. It’s been around for years.
Careful! last time I mentioned that I got called Sinophobic! =P
And it isn’t like the communists are constitent on LGBT rights.
It is in the west for the past 40+ years.
It’s more often the far left I see rejecting the centrist candidates and thereby ironically helping the right wing because they refuse to comprehend the difference between right wing “exterminate everyone” and centrist “how about maybe don’t do that though”.
Centrists are the real communists. They just want everyone to come together and hug it out.
Don’t you ever fucking joke around in my meme community, you monster
No, wait, he’s got a point…
