You must log in or register to comment.
The one that wants to provide universal basic income based on a wealth tax.
I know this is a meme but i fundamentally disagree with what lots of other people call “left politics”. I’m against immigration (for purely economic, not for racist reasons!), and i think that “men are the root of all evil” is a false and meaningless statement. It creates unnecessary tension within society and in my opinion provokes a civil war. It’s literally that meme:
I’m against immigration (for purely economic, not for racist reasons!),
I’m against brown people (for purely cultural, not for racist reasons!)
…facepalm so big it became an asspalm
If you have a country that’s below it’s replacement rate then you need net positive immigration to compensate for this. Likewise if your above replacement rate and have problems with overpopulation then you need net negative immigration. This is fairly straightforward demographics and economics. Being too far below replacement rate without immigration leads to an aging population, and even countries like China which used to have serious overpopulation issues can fall fowl of this. Aging population is the root of a lot of economic and cultural issues. Saying immigration is bad is not just wrong, it’s the exact opposite of what the situation calls for in most European nations, the USA, Japan, and South Korea.
2% of workers produce enough agricultural output to provide for 200% of society. And it’s similar in other branches of the economy. We’d be able to live well with a significantly lower number of workers. The reason why people still work so much is because we’re not actually working for the wellbeing of society, but mostly towards the pockets of the rich. That’s what causes a shortage of workers.
There’s not actually a shortage of workers if society produces for the wellbeing of society, instead of for the pockets of the rich.
On top of that, if AI replaces workers in the near future, we’d have the opposite problem of a mass unemployment crisis. Having fewer people in the country is then a good thing because there’s less workers to fill the remaining workplaces.
Note that it doesn’t matter whether you think that AI can replace workers. What matters here is what companies think. And we’re already seeing mass layoffs due to AI.
I mean this is full of stuff that dosen’t pass the sniff test.
Modern society has a lot more than just agricultural workers, and in western countries much of the food is imported anyway which I am not sure you have accounted for. If you want modern standards of living your going to need a lot more workers than that.
As for the whole thing of us working for rich people. You are exactly right that they have the most money. That doesn’t mean they actually spend all that on themselves, and it certainly doesn’t mean they consume the lions share of physical goods requiring work for their personal pleasure. If you look at someone like Elon for example, as evil as they are most of the money they spend will be in investments to public companies. Things like the development of SpaceX rockets, new electric cars, data centers to push AI, and so on. Very little of that is spent on their personal needs. Still way more than we could ever afford, none of us are getting rides in private jets, but since there are only so few people at that level it doesn’t add up to much in the scheme of things. Even if we got rid of Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and so forth we would still have to fund R&D somehow, and all those scientists and engineers still want to be paid or taken care of. Things could potentially be made more efficient by combining the efforts of some of these companies, but that doesn’t mean you ask scientists to go home, it just means innovation happens that much faster. Heck sometimes competition can be good for innovation, so you might still keep around competing teams even if they are all technically funded by the same government or public institution.
If anything we might need to work harder for a time after capitalism to repair the damage done to people and the planet. Certainly all oil and gas infrastructure needs to be replaced, and that means lots of new stuff needs to be built and research needs to be done at break neck pace. Ending economic exploitation doesn’t magically fix everything that’s wrong with the world, it would only be step 1.
It’s also unlikely that capitalism is going away soon anyway, so this is all moot. It is after all the most efficient system we have built to date, even if it’s crazy bad in some areas, and coming up with something to replace it that wouldn’t just be worse is a tall order. Many have died trying.
I’m against immigration (for purely economic, not for racist reasons!)
I really hope you are being sarcastic here.
No, i’m sick of being lied to.
I’m not a nationalist in the sense that i think my country’s any better than any other country.
But I do comprehend the significance of borders. Imagine people had no skin. They couldn’t survive. When you go to a restaurant and ask for a glass of apple juice, you wouldn’t expect a server of another restaurant to give it to you. Because one server is associated to one restaurant, and not to the other restaurant.
That has exactly nothing to do with thinking you’re superior. It’s just a concept to help organize the world. I hope i’ve made my point clear enough.
You don’t think people should ever move to a different country than the one they were born in? Sounds like a boring world. If your county is a monoculture then there will definitely be xenophobia and racism.
Because one server is associated to one restaurant, and not to the other restaurant.
Why do you feel that is a good thing worth preserving? That’s one of the worst aspects of wage labor.
How else would you have it? Every server serves at every restaurant? There are no restaurants? Restaurants are all self-service? In the latter case, what’s the difference to a kitchen?
It’s not about which way I’d rather have it (Though that’s a worthwhile conversation of it’s own), it’s that the analogy doesn’t work because wage labor is immisterating and not something most wage laborers themselves would want to uphold in their ideal society. That is to say, your analogy doesn’t support your argument for borders. And yes I know you said immigration and not borders, but immigration isn’t a thing without border.
This isn’t even complex Bistromathics my friend and people like you have already tried to foot the bill for hateful people far to many times for this ideology not to be a dead end composed of us resisting you.
Removed by mod
You lost some of us at the presumption of restaurants and servers.
Maybe imagine no countries (nothing to kill or die for, etc. etc.)
Presume that everyone is a person and has all the rights you do.
apart from the issue with borders. states also serve a second purpose:
the state is the only thing that restricts company’s powers and protects the people from companies. at least that’s how it works in every sane country (which includes the US). how do you avoid company-towns if there’s no state? do the physical violence yourself and threaten companies to treat the people not completely shitty? would you really do that?
Removed by mod
Actual democracy and collective decision making solves that
I am not anti-immigration because I prioritize social factors in my country’s situation, but that is a real position that people make valid arguments for.
Immigration is a real economic factor used by the owning class to lower wages. It exploits both local and immigrant workers. Look at Trump voters complaining in the news about how anti-immigration has ruined their workforce - they were exploiting immigrants to save money instead of paying local workers a (…relatively) reasonable wage.
Except this is not true. Immigration does not depress wages. It boosts the economy.
What do you mean by boosting ‘the economy’? GDP (PPP) per capita? Median wages? Labor productivity? A nebulous all-encompasing concept of a country’s production, distribution and trade? It’s not a meaningful term on its own, it’s usually just a rhetorical trick in mass media to make it sound like shareholders making more money is somehow good for the country.
I was not talking about the abstract grand scheme of things, like benefits from their diverse experiences and overall population benefits, I’m talking about the direct immediate effects on worker wages. Due to social circumstances, companies can, and often do, save wage costs by replacing local labor with immigrant labor they can underpay, and with the special case of illegal immigrants, even pay illegally small amounts. Immigration increases the reserve army of labor that compete for lower wages. This is happening in my workplace, actually, not with immigration but with outsourcing, the human resources department are replacing trained capable local workers with undertrained workers in countries with lower labor costs and regulations (e.g. India) purely to cut wage costs. But the principle is the same, outsourcing like this only applies to work capable of being done remotely (e.g. call centers, graphic design, tech work), for manual labor then immigration has a similar benefit to a business owner.
Once again, I’m not talking about whether immigration is beneficial, (and like I said, I believe it is) I’m talking about how immigration is used by the owning class to reduce wages and enrich themselves.
“men are the root of all evil”
I’ve never heard this claim, only “money is the root of all evil”.
Patriarchal society is profoundly harmful, but that’s not an issue that divides sex or gender - patriarchal culture also directly hurts men. Men aren’t immune from its problems simply because patriarchy systematically positions them above others. We can generalize this false-attribution error to other identity conflicts like sexuality, race, ethnicity, appearance, etc., it’s easier to notice and then blame the tangible benefactor rather than identify the underlying system and its roots.
The love of money is the root of all evil.
“men are the root of all evil”
I’ve never heard this claim
well then i guess it’s dependent on your environment and who you spend your time with. i’ve definitely heard a friend say it just this week, although she said it jokingly.
well then i guess it’s dependent on your environment and who you spend your time with
It definitely is! I didn’t mean it to dismiss or anything, I know there are people out there who would say that, I just haven’t heard it said around me.
I’m a noob leftist. Maybe a reformed (reforming?) liberal. I am anticapitalist.
I don’t think a 19th century European necessarily devised the perfect economic system. Maybe we don’t have to be obliged to label ourselves by which 19th century European we agree with the most. There are a lot of people smarter than me who know more than me who disagree with each other, I don’t know if we can move society in my lifetime enough that the difference between anarchism and communism will make a huge public policy difference. I’m more concerned with stopping fascism and working for universal healthcare.
Punk bitch…. :P
An armed one.
I want a society that is a democratic communist society ruled by a democratically elected council. None of this single person has ultimate authority, because that’s the worst weak point. All laws apply to the leaders as well as the masses. Money should either be abolished, or capped. No individual should be able to acquire enough influence that they can dictate anything about others lives. Democratize and co-op all workplaces. All basic rights of humans are absolutely not allowed to be profited off of.
Your ideal society in the best case scenario is… 500 or so years away!
Anarcho-communist
The type that really like logistics, respects anarchists, and wants universal militia.
Anti-Conservative
There is no such thing as liberalism — or progressivism, etc.
There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists; by the political analogue of Gresham’s Law, conservatism has driven every other idea out of circulation.
There might be, and should be, anti-conservatism; but it does not yet exist. What would it be? In order to answer that question, it is necessary and sufficient to characterize conservatism. Fortunately, this can be done very concisely.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.
For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual.
As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence.
So this tells us what anti-conservatism must be: the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.
Then the appearance arises that the task is to map “liberalism”, or “progressivism”, or “socialism”, or whatever-the-fuck-kind-of-stupid-noise-ism, onto the core proposition of anti-conservatism.
No, it a’n’t. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh. The core proposition of anti-conservatism requires no supplementation and no exegesis. It is as sufficient as it is necessary. What you see is what you get:
The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.
Also, those who insist on political purity tests reveal themselves to be temporarily-inconvenienced-dictators-in-waiting.
the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.
it’s a nice sentiment, but you really need to have criticisms of the political economy if you want to address the root cause. the reason “the law” doesn’t protect everyone is because the law is set up to prioritize the will of people with money and property over everyone else. I think the more common through-line is anti-capitalism rather than “anti-conservatism”.
I think the more common through-line is anti-capitalism rather than “anti-conservatism”.
I will concede that this clarification makes sense if one regards capitalism and conservatism as de facto interchangeable.
Personally, I like the “Anti-Conservative” label as defined by Wilhoit because it more accurately describes my own political position within the specific constraints of voting and engaging in political discourse as a U.S. citizen.
Personally, I like the “Anti-Conservative” label as defined by Wilhoit because it more accurately describes my own political position within the specific constraints of voting and engaging in political discourse as a U.S. citizen.
So as someone who doesn’t actually want to address the systemic mass inequalities, because it might require something other than voting, got it.
What a vapid and obtuse thing to say.
What other actions do you want me to take, other than organizing and voting?
Shall I run for office? Shall I take up arms against the government? Should I abandon my family to do those things? I will have to in order to be remotely successful at either.
On the latter, I am not a combat veteran. I wouldn’t know where to begin, and I’m not inclined to throw my life away easily.
Furthermore, I believe wildcat strikes would be far more effective at dismantling the machinery of disenfranchisement, subjugation and oppression than armed revolution.
Shall I run for office? Shall I take up arms against the government? Should I abandon my family to do those things? I will have to in order to be remotely successful at either.
Start by being honest with yourself about what the problem is. That’s why I raise the point that the political economy is at fault and won’t be fixed by simply purging the people you see as engaging in wrongthink. Personally I organize with like-minded people and do direct actions.
The original work you quote talked a tough game:
Then the appearance arises that the task is to map “liberalism”, or “progressivism”, or “socialism”, or whatever-the-fuck-kind-of-stupid-noise-ism, onto the core proposition of anti-conservatism.
No, it a’n’t. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh.
which you immediately walked back:
within the specific constraints of voting and engaging in political discourse as a U.S. citizen.
If you really think that out-groups should not be getting ruled over by in-groups, then you really need to recognize that US hegemony has been the most powerful ‘in-group’ in history. Workers in America get paid more not because their work is more valuable but because money can flow freely over borders while people cannot. Labor aristocrats are the workers who are given a small share of the spoils from the rest of the world in exchange for their political inaction. Capitalism is wildly authoritarian and much of what you take for granted as ‘constraints of US political discourse’ are predicated on the US’s hegemonic role within that system.
This entire line of argument seems like you’re trying to pose as if you’re maximally defiant against the status quo, but you also want to continue being anti-communist.
Furthermore, I believe wildcat strikes would be far more effective at dismantling the machinery of disenfranchisement, subjugation and oppression than armed revolution.
Revolutionary organizing has been far more effective, historically speaking.
While I am totally in the “bind all and protect all” camp and really against the “in group protect, out group rules” and I think conservatism is often in practice “protect me and rule others”, I am not sure if I agree with it being called conservatism.
I think fundamentally the hierarchy in right wing politics imply an in/out group. But just like conservatism is a form of right wing political views, so you could argue that the hierarchical political views are a Form of “in group protect, out group bind”.
Whatever you want to call it, is part of conservatism, I believe. But I don’t like to call it conservatism, so it feels like we are defining two related but different things with the same name, which will be confusing and could be used by e.g. “progressive” capitalists to claim that they aren’t conservative and therefore not “in group protect, out group bind”.
I am not sure if I agree with it being called conservatism.
Yes, Wilhoit, if I’m understanding his treatise correctly, addressed this point:
For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual.
The corollary label could be “Anti-Establishment”. Perhaps, “Anti-Authoritarian”.
I don’t know what the best term is, but I fairly certain conservatism is probably one of the worst. I think tribalism and anti-tribalism would be a better starting point while that was a meaning already too.
I think tribalism and anti-tribalism would be a better starting point while that was a meaning already too.
On this, I agree.
However, I propose that the “Anti-Conservative” label, with all of its flaws, has more utility in presenting its economic and political implications within the admittedly linguistically absurd political discourse in my country (U.S.A.).
I think, there, we have a disagreement. To me, it would sound like you reject the republicans specifically in a us political discussion, a position that I wouldn’t be interested exploring, because of how strong the tribalism in us politics is. I would just assume that you are supporting the democrats. While with the understanding of the conversation, I would assume you aren’t supportive of any of the us political party and vote for the least bad option.
In other words, I wouldn’t want to explore your political position if you use that term as I would assume I understood. Consequently I would misunderstand your position. And I think others would do the same.
If someone would identify as a conservative, they wouldn’t take you seriously anymore, as they would understand it that you reject them, even tho in practice they would agree with you on a lot of stuff and you aren’t necessarily rejecting them.
😅 My apologies, I’ve been re-reading this reply many times and I’m not following your argument against the utility of using the “Anti-Conservative” label for myself if someone asks what is my political position (within the United States)?
Is your thesis that “Anti-conservative” is not specific enough?
My apologies!
For a conservative™ (the way most people use the word), hearing “anti-conservative”, probably makes them reject you immediately as from their pov, you reject them.
For a left wing person, hearing “anti-conservative” probably makes them assume that you talk about conservative™ and not conservative as you mean it.
So in both cases, you don’t have the conversation that you want if you want to promote your political stance, as you kinda encourage them to not engage with your political stance.
Also, those who insist on political purity tests reveal themselves to be temporarily-inconvenienced-dictators-in-waiting.
I hope this isn’t about leftists refusing to support biden/kamala in the US.
You didn’t have to support them. You just had to use your brain and choose the lesser of two evils. Like which one of these people is more likely to illegally deport me for exercising my first amendment rights? I think you’ll find the answer to that question soon.
The problem with “lesser of two evils” was that it traps you in short-term thinking.
In 2020, the lesser of two evils would have actually been Donald Trump. Looking back with 20/20 vision, it’s unambiguously clear that between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, voting for Donald Trump in 2020 would have been, on the whole, a better outcome for the country. Voting lesser of two evils in the short term gave us the worst long-term outcome.
How can this be? Because Biden winning in 2020 guaranteed that Trump would win in 2024. Biden was never going to hold Trump accountable. He was never going to push through meaningful reforms that could prevent a second Trump term. Every vote for Biden in 2020 was a vote for a Trump 2024 presidency. And I knew this at the time, and held my nose and voted for Biden anyway.
And Trump winning in 2024 is far worse for the country than Trump winning an election in 2020. The first Trump term was incredibly disorganized. They didn’t know how to govern. They had four years out of power to figure out what went wrong and how to do it right a second time. If Trump had won in 2020, then he wouldn’t have come in on a second wave, with complete control of government and Project 2024 and its organization behind him. Trump in 2024 is vastly, vastly more dangerous than a second Trump term in 2020 would have been.
But “lesser of two evils” is meant to be a thought-terminating command. We’re not supposed to ask what lesser evil we’re supposed to consider. Are we only supposed to look at the immediate evil, or the long-term evil? Because by default, just using “lesser of two evils” simply causes you to myopically focus on only the election in front of you.
Again, lesser of two evils gave us this outcome. We would have been far, far better off now if the liberal third of voters in 2020 just refused to vote for Biden. Because again, a Biden victory in 2020 guaranteed a Trump victory in 2024. And Trump in 2024 is a lot worse than Trump in 2020 would have been.
Before reflexively recommending people vote for lesser of two evils, you should first ask, “have my previous judgments of the lesser evil actually been correct?”
a vote is an offering of “support” by it’s very nature.
Here you are protecting conservatives that have a vested interest in the genocide of palestinians.
Dude, I’m just waiting for this actual genocide to happen so we can stop talking about it. Anyone who’s wage a genocide for 100 years and not accomplished the goal of genocide…… I’m guessing in 100 years your brain dead grandchildren’s will still be crying about “genocide”. After 200 years of being waging a genocide against a non peer neighbor at what point do we decide it’s just a war used by the people in power to stay in power.
You will never get me to Care about that fucking conflict because I’ve been watching it happen for 30 fucking years. You’ve been watching it for a year.
Here you are protecting conservatives by attacking and dividing the liberals. Focusing on a country you’ve never been within 2,000 miles of while the conservatives turn us into Palestine. Enjoy bitching while you can. We’ve already seen the pro Palestine kids are the first ones on the to go list. So the conservatives are actually helping us here in the long run. Enemy of my enemy is my friend type shit.
Or maybe support someone who isn’t one of the two evils
Our (U.S.A.) best option for that in recent history was Bernie Sanders in the 2016 election.
Thats still one of the two parties
Bernie is certainly a diamond in the rough - but don’t ignore that rough.
He is an independent as a Senator. But you’re correct in that he ran as a Democrat in 2016.
I keep doing this hoping the centrists will get the message and enact PR or else risk losing to the Big Bad which threatens us all. But so far I’ve been disappointed…
I only have my one measly little vote. They determine the entire platform and what policies get proposed. It’s so unfair. I just want to vote for the representative who actually represents me without risking fucking feudalism. I’m not even asking for direct democracy here…
what if im pro imperialist but anti capitalist?
Like the CCP? At least rhetorically.
Fuck you?
Trolls usually vote for Republicans
Remember, Republicans are the proletariat, at least at the bottom, and they are the reactionary forces that you eventually will need to adopt if you would want to see a better day. They are the reactionary elements of capitalism in crisis. They are those that were left to their own devices to fester in agony due to liberalism.
Then you’re neither a leftist nor a Democrat.
The leftist thing depends on if imperialism in their eyes brings about egalitarianism.
The old “let’s put socialism in the name” trick
Removed by mod
I hope they all vote for Democrats though, in places where FPTP voting is still used
Btw what’s up with all these states up and banning Ranked Choice Voting? Most of them in the past 1-2 years too. I’m not exactly sure of the context, like if there was a bill or a referendum, but with a referendum I would have expected it to say “rejected”/“not adopted”, instead of “banned”. Definitely seems like RCV needs to be really fought for, and seems like the major parties are afraid of it.
RCV experiments have gotten a lot of backlash from establishment parties, usually because they lost and they want to blame the “new process” instead of their platforms, policies, or actions.
It’s almost like it threatens their duopoly power
I agree, but I have to say, the term “duopoly” doesn’t ring the same in this environment where Republicans are frothing at the mouth to mass arrest the Democrats.
Sure, but your conflating the common man who votes that way and who we also prescribe the same labels to with the actual representatives with power. Chuck shumer and Nancy pelosi do not want the Bernie’s of the world getting power. They like being the lesser of two evils because they can do almost as much as the trump admin does and be praised for it when in reality it’s still evil. You really think they want citizens United repealed? The patriot act repealed? Federally elected officials banned from buying investments? Fptp voting changed to ranked choice means independents can win and actual implement change.
It’s a duopoly.
That’s true, I was just pointing out that the Schumer types at the DNC really don’t understand that their Republican “colleagues” are taking active steps to throw them in jail or worse. In this sense it feels weird to call it a duopoly given that the only ones giving any direction the whole time were the GOP, while the establishment Dems were their useful idiots, always following their lead and trying to triangulate their policy and rhetoric between status quo and fascism, you know, to appeal to the “middle” and the “moderate Republican”. It’s absolute madness! And you might say they know what they’re doing, that they planned this like a good/bad cop routine, but honestly… I find it much easier to see them as old stupid out of touch aristocrats with big piles of money going blindly wherever capital leads them, than as scheming double agents, because the latter would imply some actual awareness of their surroundings, which they don’t have! They’re totally blind to the fact that the only logical conclusion to their triangulation strategy with fascists is them in a gulag. It’s plain as day, it’s happening right now under their very eyes, but their priorities are… fighting David Hogg??
I’m referring to the politicians here btw, not the voters. I think the voters are really mad at Schumer and the DNC right now, and I think they’re looking for new leadership. In that sense, AOC has risen in popularity recently because she’s been engaging with people directly both IRL and on social media, but I’m not getting my hopes up until I see something real actually happen, and I mean nothing short of seeing the establishment Dems gone. Because even now as the world burns, the DNC is fighting tooth and nail against anyone challenging them from the left. And honestly, it may already be too late as it is, like for the whole country. I hope not, but I don’t have much hope left tbh.
I can’t argue with that angle tbh, they really might just be that stupid lol
It’s really down to the individual as to what they believe the Democrats are really up to. It certainly isn’t helping the middle and lower classes. The bar is so low right now…any change that drags us back to the left at all would be mind blowing at this point.
I’m hoping for someone like mayor Pete in 2028 if we are lucky enough to have a fair election by then, he’s a great speaker and likeable to a ton of people I think. He has a shot at uniting the voters.
“I’m scared of the bad cop so I will put my trust in the good cop”
This is a torture/interegation tactic to manipulate you.
I’m not having this conversation. Good luck.
Removed by mod
Yeahhhh, I hate to break it to you but…there’s a lot of them that do not vote blue especially when it counts.
Hillary lost because the DNC ran a corrupt campaign where they ignored the will of their voters.
Kamala lost because the DNC ran a corrupt campaign where they ignored the will of their voters.
Your statements and mine are both true. The first time we didn’t know what a trump presidency would be like. In 2024 we did. I didn’t vote for Hilary over the Bernie snub, but I knew better in 2024.
Despite Kamala being the most centrist thing we could ever elect, we wouldn’t be in a crisis in this country like we are today if she won. virtue signaling, self righteous, no compromise, bite my nose off to deport my neighbor ultra leftists can’t be bothered to use a little empathy. They are too wrapped up in their fee fees about the establishment not listening to them to do the tough thing and minimize the harm. Help the Dems win. elect someone who will respond to pressure.
There’s no excuse for letting trump win and enabling his administration to hurt untold numbers of people through illegal raids, deportation, support of genocide, pulling support from Ukraine, cutting social security and Medicaid benefits, removing narcan from first responders, driving stigma against trans people, overturning abortion laws and criminalizing it, and much more I can’t keep track of or has yet to happen…we had the data from 45. We knew what p2025 was going to do. We still put him there. There is no excuse. This electorate is so embarrassing, they’ve completely lost the plot.
Yeah the brand of leftist that cannot understand two things can be true is so annoying.
Yeah it’s sad human beings have issues accepting doublethink
Exhibit A
Nuance /=/ doublethink. We were trying to save people… You’re not a good person if you threw your vote away in spite to send a message. People are suffering and dying because of this.
Blaming voters for the outcome of an election will never be a viable strategy unless you want infighting.
Are you confused about how voting works? The eligible voters are the ones responsible for who wins in a free and fair election.
Ok so you’re telling us you want infighting.
Because blaming voters for not voting is something that never has gotten people to magically make the “correct” decision.
If someone wants another person to vote for them they have to communicate to and appeal to that person.
Democrata have not seriously listened or helped their voters my entire life, when they feel like forcing the rich to make concessions then people who would benefit from those concessions will vote for them.
Until then you whining about a voting block that has and probably never will show up is only dividing people.
Ahh yes, the “left party”
I agree we need a third party where leftist policies are allowed to exist
deleted by creator
Where is the bubble that says “imperialism by Russia is fine”?
One of them can actually pass policy unfortunately
They keep saying that but…
Well, compared to the other one which one would you say passed more policies?
Republicans without a doubt pass more policies.
Democrats pass policies that funnel money into corporations, but fail to pass meaningful policy that helps the majority.
We clearly need different leadership than the Duopoly.
I’m not doing a good job communicating what I’m trying to say and I take full responsibility.
To me the Dems are liberals – or republican lite with sprinkle of some progressive social policies.
I know the left is constrained to building it’s coalition within the big tent that is the democratic party. But when I look at the way the left goes about building power --especially when looking at the nature of online discourse – I get the sense they are not interested in building effective power or accomplishing their goals. It feels more like verbal mental masturbation 99% of the time.
We could put the dems in the same circle with the left if we paid them enough. Have we tried that yet? Everyone empty your pockets on the table here and lets count.
Personally? For me, I don’t care what kind of leftist you are.
For now, we are united against one singular goal, the total annihilation of Donald Trump’s fascist regime of religious cultists and billionaire oligarchs.
Before we throw a single punch at one another, we have to solve this first. We’d all rather eachother’s ideals than him if given the choice.
Idk. The kind where I believe that every adult over 18 should be given 80m2 by the government. Apartment, office space, storage space, workshop, lab, whatever.
I believe that you shouldn’t need to worry about a place to live at the bare minimum, and I believe that not having space for people to use and experiment with is one of the main hindrances of economic development (development, not “growth”)
As far as I can tell I’m an anarchist collectivist. But I don’t really read much theory (because of a memory retention disorder) or try very hard to categorize myself.
I’m so tired of the labels, I just want things to be better for everyone
so you’re with the no labels party then, Joe Manchins party?
/s
Don’t worry anytime you have a slightly different opinion they’ll force the label on you then insult you for the label they applied.
By far the worst trait on the left by a mile.
Not this lifetime buddy.
Better could be just one step, it might feel hurceulian but we can start with just the little steps.
only if you go to .ml and hexbear instances. or if you go on politics.
.ml users love telling people “kys” and actually threaten you with death for not sharing their opinions. Also they will judge you according to your nationality and then deny being racist. At least that was my experience. Although i’m sure it’s not all .ml users, just a very radicalized minority.
