• PieMePlenty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 hour ago

    The “left” is way too broad of a grouping today. The classic political compass is 2D with left-right referring to economic and up-down (authoritarian-libertarian) to social policy. And even that is oversimplifying it, many saying it should be 3D. Grouping everyone into either A or B is I guess what humans do when their understanding of a topic is too narrow.

    I find this especially funny with Trump’s tariffs. You know, the mechanism with which you control the market… closing it… like leftist economic policy does. Trump is a leftist now? Any more tariffs and he’ll be a complete communist! Dismantle more government and he’ll be an anarchist! It just completely falls apart.

    • ziproot@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 hour ago

      This is supposed to be a tetrahedron, but I suck at drawing 3D shapes. Just imagine that anarchism is the top of the tetrahedron and that the triangle is the base.

  • gearheart@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 hours ago

    There two sides.

    1% and their zombies

    The rest of us.

    Let’s not split up and weaken. 💪

      • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 hours ago

        The term “tankie” was originally used by dissident Marxist–Leninists to describe members of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) who followed the party line of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). Specifically, it was used to distinguish party members who spoke out in defence of the Soviet use of tanks to suppress the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and the 1968 Prague Spring, or who more broadly adhered to pro-Soviet positions.

        The term was literally created by Marxist-Leninists to insult the kind of person who wants to use tanks to suppress a worker’s revolution. Tankies aren’t communists. They’re counterrevolutionaries who want to stop all progress made towards dissolving the state as Marx said.

          • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 hours ago

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demands_of_Hungarian_Revolutionaries_of_1956

            We demand general elections by universal, secret ballot are held throughout the country to elect a new National Assembly, with all political parties participating. We demand that the right of workers to strike be recognised.

            We demand complete revision of the norms operating in industry and an immediate and radical adjustment of salaries in accordance with the just requirements of workers and intellectuals. We demand a minimum living wage for workers.

            So you’re saying the revolution demanding minimum wage and the right to strike wasn’t a worker’s revolution? Are all tankies this right-wing or just you?

              • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 hours ago

                One of the biggest and most dangerous mistakes made by Communists is the idea that a revolution can be made by revolutionaries alone. On the contrary, to be successful, all serious revolutionary work requires that the idea that revolutionaries are capable of playing the part only of the vanguard of the truly virile and advanced class must be understood and translated into action.

                - Lenin, 1922

                It probably means they read Lenin and liked his ideas a lot better than Stalin’s nonsense. Now, you were explaining how tankies oppose minimum wage and the right to strike?

  • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 hours ago

    We should make a special political spectrum just for these people. Let’s call it the imperial political spectrum.

    • ziproot@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 hour ago
      1. Those who didn’t vote, or voted third party, due to the pointless war in the middle east that involved war crimes just like every war I can think of since the Geneva Convention became a thing, that President Biden funded, did so in safe states that VP Harris won.
      2. The makeup of the United States means that Republicans have an advantage in the Senate and therefore also the Electoral College.
      3. Republicans gerrymander, Democrats half-heartedly gerrymander, since that is against the ideology of liberalism. This gives Republicans an edge in the House of Representatives as well.
      4. The Republican advantage in the Senate is so great that the only way for Democrats to get a majority is to include neoliberal or conservative senators like Manchin, meaning progress is continuously stifled.
      5. The Republicans are allowed to get away with stretching the rules, while the Democrats have to follow the rules at all times. Part of this, again, is due to adhering to liberal ideology, and part of it is due to the ruling class favoring Republicans. There has been a conservative majority in the Supreme Court since the 1980s. Democrats are controlled opposition, in that no matter how hard they try, they will never be able to enact meaningful change.
      6. An actual left-wing candidate would not be liberal, as is the point of this post. Therefore, they would have no chance of winning the Democratic primary. That would force them to run as an independent or in a third party, and our system makes it almost impossible for a third party candidate to win, at least at the national level.

      Yes, it is better to vote for a Democrat than a Republican, but it is much better to build grassroots support for leftism, which, shocker, is what leftists have been trying to do in the US for centuries. If anything, the leftists are doing the most to fight fascism, by trying to get rid of the US system of government that is biased towards the status quo, which by definition benefits the ruling class.

  • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    12 hours ago

    I’m really struggling to find a party that i fully agree with.

    For one, i like true leftist ideals, but i don’t like guns, so i guess the left parts of the image doesn’t apply to me.

    On the other side, i think the long-standing support for Ukraine is an atrocious mistake, because it prolongs the suffering unnecessarily (after all, the uproar in Ukraine is mostly an CIA-inspired action after all i believe, and diplomatic solutions were not sought). But shitting on that pink hat (which is clearly a symbol for queer/trans people) is just unacceptable. just leave the people live their own private life as they want. What’s so difficult about that?

        • Z_Poster365 [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          8 hours ago

          this is laughably utopian and ahistorical, i’m sorry but this is fantasy. There’s a reason that the “violent” and “authoritarian” communists have actually won and seized power while the utopian eurocommies have never accomplished a single thing.

          Your nation has never successfully had a revolution. They need to be listening and learning from those that have, following their example, and not trying to invent their own perfect (white) system from whole cloth

          • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 hours ago

            There’s a reason that the “violent” and “authoritarian” communists have actually won and seized power while the utopian eurocommies have never accomplished a single thing.

            Well yeah i can tell you what the communists have achieved in the Sovjet Union, and that’s 20 million people dead due to stalinistic terror. So much for “winning”. No thank you.

            Meanwhile, lots of european economies (and people!) have been doing well since after the second world war. Maybe they have accomplished something.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              7 hours ago

              Life expectancy over doubled from the 30s to the 70s in the USSR. Literacy rates went from the 20s and 30s to 99.9%, above Western European and USian rates. Famine was ended by collectivization and industrialization in a country where famine was common under the Tsar. This same nation, barely industrializing at the start of the 20th century, beat the United States into space, and continued beating it with the first man and first woman in space.

              Social Safety Nets expanded greatly. Healthcare and Education were free and high quality. Housing was incredibly affordable, and there was full employment. Abortion was not only legalized, but free. Women played a role even in the highest ranks of politics. The economy was democratized.

              Sadly, there were excess deaths, but 20 million people did not die, such a number comes from anti-communist myth-makers before the opening of the Soviet Archives. The numbers given by the Black Book of Communism include Nazis killed during World War 2, and use various other misdirections to grossly inflate the number of excess deaths. Were there excess deaths? Sadly, yes, and nobody denies this. However, when compared to contemporary peers like the British Empire who intentionally starved millions of Bengalis, the French who were colonizing Vietnam, Algeria, and more, or the United States who killed millions of Iraqis, Koreans, Vietnamese, Cambodians, and more, the USSR played a far more progressive role. From supporting Palestinian resistance against genocide, to helping China throw off their colonizers, to helping Algeria throw off the French, to helping Vietnam against the US Empire and French Colonialists, the Soviets played a far better role.

              Wealth inequality went far down, whike GDP growth was constantly positive except during World War 2. It was one of the most rapidly growing economies in the 20th century.

              Western Europe (and of course the US to a greater degree), to this day, relies on brutal expropriation of the Global South through outsourcing industry and brutal IMF loans. They have been doing well because they are Imperialists. To say they are doing well is to say the Trust Fund kid working at his father’s investment firm is doing well, he does so on the backs of actual laborers and did not earn his vast wealth, but inhereted it from former and current Empire.

              • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                7 hours ago

                well i guess it’s good for you to spit these facts but i gotta make my own judgement, and i can see the things around me, and saying “They have been doing well because they are Imperialists. To say they are doing well is to say the Trust Fund kid working at his father’s investment firm is doing well, he does so on the backs of actual laborers and did not earn his vast wealth, but inhereted it from former and current Empire.” does not make me believe your point, just fyi

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  7 hours ago

                  Colonization and now Imperialism have been the driving forces of Western European Economies for centuries. All of this sheer expropriation of wealth hasn’t gone away in any capacity, the IMF still debt traps countries in Africa, Latin America, and other areas in the Global South. Especially during the latter 19th and early 20th centuries, countries like Britain, Germany, and France had industrialized to the point of monopolization, and a blending of financial and industrial Capital. This turned towards the Global South, seeking to export Capital to super-exploit for super-profits.

                  If you want to read about the origins of this system, the book Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism is quite a quick read, written in the early 20th century (though it mentions many entities that exist today in the same forms, like Deutsche Bank). For modern analysis, Super-Imperialism by Hudson, though it is US based Western European Imperialism is intricately tied to US Imperialism.

    • moody@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 hours ago

      On the other side, i think the long-standing support for Ukraine is an atrocious mistake, because it prolongs the suffering unnecessarily

      So you suggest they should have let Russia annex and genocide the rest of Ukraine like they did with Crimea?

    • But shitting on that pink hat (which is clearly a symbol for queer/trans people) is just unacceptable

      Actually queer and trans people found the hats exclusionary. So did non white people whose genitalia aren’t that color. The entire pussy-hat movement was feel-good liberal activity that accomplished nothing and made no difference. Much like the liberal “support” for Ukraine.

      but i don’t like guns

      This is extreme privilege. None of us like guns just to like guns. Brother Malcolm was being threatened with his life daily and his home was firebombed then he was assassinated, he was trying to protect himself. Fred Hampton was literally murdered by the police. The Zapatistas and Palestinians don’t resort to violence because they “like it” either, they are targets of the state that act with violence on them and both have learned that civil disobedience has its limits. Sacco and Vanzetti were anarchists that were executed by the state after being framed and falsely accused of a bombing, armed robbery and murder which the state of Massachusetts apologized for in 1977.

    • Maturin [any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 hours ago

      its time to read theory. you are currently at the utopian anarchist stage. which is a step in a better direction, but ultimately irrational.

      you need to better understand that the people in the image [conveniently] on the left incorporated violence because they lived under the constant threat of deadly violence. 99% of the violence was directed at them. Fred Hampton was executed by the police not long after that picture of him was taken.

      • mortemtyrannis@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Do you really need to read volumes of theory to grasp what is fundamentally a rather straightforward concept?

        Leftism shouldn’t be locked behind intellectual elitism.

        TL;DR the capitalist state will use threats of violence/actual violence against threats to capitalism which includes those who stand for progressive ideals. Leftists believe this is a justification to use violence against the state.

        • Maturin [any]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Not volumes. As you say, a little can go a long way. But rather than relearn the lessons of history from first principles, engaging with writings from people who have already seriously grappled with these things is the only efficient way to wrap one’s mind around many different major factors working simultaneously in the material world.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          9 hours ago

          There’s merit to your question. Ultimately, as someone who largely hadn’t taken theory seriously until the last couple of years, I think theory is not only useful, but necessary. There are good comrades who do good work without theory, I don’t want to discredit that. However, theory has had a profound impact on my understanding of history, tactics, and life itself. Theory is important because our predecessors have given their lives discovering and handing down the lessons they’ve learned.

          From Marx, who dedicated his entire life to discovering the mechanisms of Capitalism to give the Proletariat the tools to surpass it, to Lenin, who analyzed Capitalism’s monstrous evolution to Imperialism, to Gramsci who spent the later years of his life rotting in prison and reflecting on Marxian teachings, to Politzer who stood against the Nazis and taught Parisan workers Dialectical and Historical Materialism before being captured and executed for his Jewish heritage and Communist alliance, to modern theoreticians such as Losurdo, Parenti, and the many Communists who dedicated their lives to the working class. Revolutionaries like Mao, Fidel, Guevara, Ho Chi Minh, Lenin, and more all have unique lessons to tell from their experiences in their existence. People like Mao, Deng, Xi, Zhou Enlai, Liu Shaoqi, and more have helped build and design the largest economy in the world. What can we learn from them? What should we copy, what should change?

          We owe it to them to learn from the lessons they dedicated their lives to teaching us. We have a duty to humanity to move beyond the wretched system of Capitalism before the planet is destroyed by Climate Change for the pursuit of profit. We owe it to our predecessors to continue the work they started. We owe it to our successors to use the best tools we can to make their struggles easier. We owe it to ourselves, so that we have a future.

          Theory is a tool. If you don’t take every advantage you can against the most heartless, greedy, brutal Empire in history, do you really care at all? If you refuse to truly learn your enemy, in all its complicated facets of expropriation, or learn the successful tactics and strategies for overcoming them, or learn from the missteps of our predecessors or the correct actions they’ve taken, we will not have a decisive victory.

  • culprit@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    13 hours ago

    leftist : anti-capitalism :: liberal : pro-capitalism

    Why is this so hard for some radlibs to understand? I think it is all the propaganda they passively consume.

      • davel@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Liberalism means PRO CAPITALISM.

        The first sentence from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism:

        Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, the right to private property and equality before the law.

        From the first paragraph of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property†:

        Private property is foundational to capitalism, an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.

        Liberalism: A Counter-History (online copy)


        †Not to be confused with personal property.

        • Quadhammer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          36 minutes ago

          That line says nothing about capitalism. Pro ownership? That is a tenet of some branches of leftism. I dont agree with corporations or the state having a monopoly on land ownership. Though the government cant come and take an individuals shit for no reason. Being an abusive billionaire though has an asterisk in the foot notes.

          Though I’d argue that anyone owning shit comes a large and wide second or 3rd to human rights.

          philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed

          It says it right there.

      • dubyakay@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Liberal means pro capitalist liberty. Nothing about personal freedom, equity and social safety nets in that.

    • lewdian69@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      12 hours ago

      I’ll say it again, in the United States the term “liberal” is used to refer to liberal social ideas NOT liberal economic ideas. To the average US citizen left and liberal are synonyms. This doesn’t mean your definition isn’t correct for academics and the entire rest of the world. But this meme, and this left vs liberal argument for this post, are US based.

      • bloubz@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Isn’t it progressism?

        But anyway liberalism is the ideology of capitalism. The artificial differences created between conservatives and progressists is just a smoke screen to create a false debate and prevent from challenging capitalism, switching the enemy from the rulling capitalist class to the person next door with different views

      • davel@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 hours ago

        You can tell us what we already know ’till you’re blue in the face, but that won’t dissuade us from trying to deprogram Americans from the Orwellian newspeak they’ve been mistaught so they can develop class consciousness.

        • lewdian69@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 hours ago

          I’m not sure how colloquial vocabulary usage prevents developing class consciousness. I’d potentially argue refusing to accept the evolution of language and refusing to communicate to people in the terms they use and understand inhibits said deprogramming.
          Again very US centric in this definition but it’s who needs deprogramming.

            • lewdian69@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              5 hours ago

              What? That’s literally the opposite of what I’m saying… I’m saying words can have multiple meanings depending on context.
              But the point of this was how does “liberal” having a different colloquial definition from how op was using it have anything do with “developing class consciousness” which can be done regardless of this single word?

              Yes

          • davel@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 hours ago

            Sometimes the evolution of language isn’t so much organic as it is a political project, such as a century of red scares and socialist purges.

            Americans believe Sanders when he calls himself a socialist because they’ve lost a vocabulary for socialism itself. And they think Sanders’ centrism is “the left,” because the Overton window has shifted so far right that there is no left left.

            We can’t simply use their terms, because their terminology is both muddled and lacking.

            • lewdian69@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 hours ago

              Sometimes the evolution of language isn’t so much organic as it is a political project, such as a century of red scares and socialist purges.

              Ok. But regardless of the cause, organic or political project, it doesn’t change the fact that the language has moved on correct?

              We can’t simply use their terms, because their terminology is both muddled and lacking.

              But there’s the rub. You/we ARE using their terms and the message is muddled and lacking BECAUSE OF the difference in perceived definitions. And as the past couple decades have shown there is zero chance of getting the American people to learn things, or unlearn as the case may be.

              I assume very few people this far down a thread into a political discussion, on Lemmy, don’t know what the Overton windowS are and how fucked the US is because of the current far right position on the left/right scales. I find it lacking and dislike it’s libertarian origins. We are even now discussing the difference of a word being used for social vs economic ideas and these two scales do not necessarily overlap.

    • Belly_Beanis [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Capitalism is so all-consuming it’s like water to fish. “Capitalism” becomes synonymous with words like economy, markets, trade, laws, and government. It no longer is an ideology, but an immutable force in the universe.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 hours ago

      I think unity can only be achieved through a genuine alliance in values and methods. Liberals, fundamentally, disagree on what the prime issue is and how to fix it. Marxists and Anarchists, despite having different goals and methods, are at least aligned in opposition to Capitalism and Imperialism and can work together. Liberals support Capitalism and therefore, intentionally or not, support its Imperialism, so any feigned resistance towards the atrocities of the US Empire rings hollow coming from Liberals.

      • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Exactly! Marxists, anarchists, and leninists are alllies. Statist liberals on the other hand, whether they be social democratic corporate capitalists or stalinistic state capitalists, will always try to infiltrate and divide the communist movement.

        It’s just like this motte-and-bailey meme. The implied position is that the communists were wrong to tell the Americans to vote against fascism. The strong position, which is claimed to be the only position when it meets resistance, is that it’s only against capitalist liberals.

        • Lunar@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          13 hours ago

          lemmy.world users and completely missing the point of every single argument

          name a more iconic duo

            • Lunar@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              12 hours ago

              cowbee is being neither self-righteous nor arrogant, you got in over your head with this conversation and don’t know what to do with yourself lmao

              • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                12 hours ago

                I never once tried to engage them in the way they wanted. I’ve been really close to blocking them (finally did) several times because fuck tankies. Yes there I said it, I used a label. Because that’s all I was afforded. Y’all don’t need to get so butthurt about being self righteous. The fact that you are is telling.

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  12 hours ago

                  I got blocked for asking what you mean? I just wanted to hear what you were genuinely trying to ask about, but guess that doesn’t matter anymore because you can’t read this.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          14 hours ago

          I don’t know what you mean by “pure,” nor what value that would have. If Leftists seek to establish some form of Socialism, and Liberals wish to perpetuate and maybe tweak the current system just a bit, then these people are never going to be able to meaningfully work together. “Purity” has nothing to do with it, and never has.

                • kasai (he/him)@lemmy.eco.br
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  13 hours ago

                  My dear fellow user, there is no need to be so defensive. No one is going to kill you or shame you because you express your views. I and many others here may even be convinced by you. Your opinion does matter, and so does you, so, there is no need to disregard someone open to discussion just because you diverge in something. If you don’t want to discuss on something, there is always the option to not give these quick-witted responses, saying few words and assuming positions from “the enemy” that the person has never said. No one here is your “enemy”.

                  If you really think u/Cowbee is wrong, and wish for other people to understand you, articulate your answers. Say in a comprehensible way WHY he is wrong, instead of making arguments like “oh yes because my opinion is shit and you are the only pure socialist” or some ironic weak shit like that. We are (mostly) all adults, there is no need to engage in childish behavior, and you should not expect that we will understand what you mean by saying “his definition is wrong” without saying what “definition”.

                  If you really think that there is no convincing anyone here, because we are all hopeless mfs or smth, just stop arguing and save yourself the time and sanity.

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  14 hours ago

                  Can you elaborate in any way? I thought I gave a fairly well-thought out response to why division exists between Leftists and Liberals in the first place, and you responded with vague character assassinations. I don’t know what to make of this, really, it just seems silly.

    • liyunxiao@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 hours ago

      You have to be together to be divided. I don’t consider the people that have caused or enabled all of the suffering in the US to be united with the working class, personally.