This should show everyone clearly, unambiguously, without a doubt that conservatives in America have zero idea what progressivism or leftism is about at all.
It’s just words to them. They do NOT care. It’s WWE wrestlemania. They want to paint their faces and get swept away in a stageplay and die as heartbroken as the hero if they don’t succeed and make all their enemies pay.
We need to like, mass-spam the entire Midwest america with historical romance novels with bodice-ripping sex scenes. I think if more guys just got lost in that shit, we would have a lot less tension and pain in the world.
We need to like, mass-spam the entire Midwest america with historical romance novels with bodice-ripping sex scenes. I think if more guys just got lost in that shit, we would have a lot less tension and pain in the world.
Doing that to somewhat compensate for harm from romantic chatbots and porn would be absolutely beneficial.
Look, look… both of you make excellent points but I think the real important common goal is a better life for everyone and I will fistfight both of you until we all agree or some fascist assnugget comes by and makes us forget our pedantry.
Since nobody here has said anything about IMPROVING life for everyone, only making life better and other “Better centric” topics, I’m going to throw my vote in a shredder and actively tell everyone how awful you are.
Yeah there are a lot of slam dunks. Getting rid of citizens united, reinstating roe, universal healthcare. I don’t know of anyone who would identify as left that are against those for sure. All the same I see a lot about how peoples voting decision should come down to one particular thing that is not any of those or they are like I dunno not realy progressive or left or like horrible monsters or just not good people or such.
Yeah, exactly, people even say stuff to dissuade leftists from voting like “Biden is responsible for the Gaza Genocide” as if that were even a issue when running against Single State Solution Trump. Those people aren’t really left by definition if they’re either directly or inadvertently supporting a literal theocratic fascist, they’re right by definition.
So I would say the left has unity, but it also has fakes trying to sow dissent.
“The united front tactic is simply an initiative whereby the communists propose to join with all workers belonging to other parties and groups and all unaligned workers in a common struggle to defend the immediate, basic interests of the working class against the bourgeoisie.” - 4th World Congress of the Communist International
Basically the thing Trump does where he hears some antiquated information and then his brain re-interprets it into a pre-school level understanding.
As usual this isn’t something to be taken as an observation of reality, but an attempt to create a reality for conservatives to be afraid of…
It’s “the big bad left” all organized like an army ready to steamroll your beautiful conservative values! Of course it has no bearing in reality, but that’s not the point. The point as always with them is “be afraid of the left!!”
Can’t have a conspiracy theory if you see your so-called oppressors as atomized, alienated, confused, and largely helpless.
But then the trick fascists always pull is to describe their enemy as simultaneously weak and strong, brilliant and foolish, hyper-surveillant and utterly blind.
I think this just generally highlights the importance of opening a book and reading. There have been centuries of Leftist thought, questions have been raised and they have been answered. Many considering themselves “left” can sympathize with Leftist goals, or even jab at the sources of modern struggles structurally, but lack the organizational and practical knowledge obtained from Theory and applying theory to practice.
The more you read, the more you realize how little you actually know.
What are you familiar with, what do you feel weak in? I’m a Marxist, so I can recommend some generally good introductory works, but if you have specific interests or pre-existing knowledge I can make specific recommendations.
I’m not particularly far left compared to the Lemmy Lunatics, but I suspect that is far more true for the right than it is for the left.
I’ve seen people go from “are all these COVID precautions necessary?”, and tumble down a rabbit-hole to “we need to kick the foreigners out, Trump is the best choice for the US, and Russia is entitled to Ukraine” in a matter of months.
They’re very good at keeping people on message. They grab people on one issue and make them go all-in.
The right may not have great organization, but they have an astounding ability to put their blinders on for the Ten Minutes’ Hate when it’s called for. The right’s problem is that when they smell blood in the water, THEN the unity falls apart. It’s power games for them.
Parts of the left, or what passes for it in this country, would prefer martyrdom to cooperating with heretics.
This is because “the left” tries to unite groups that ultimately are at odds with each other. Anarchists of all types work very well with each other usually, but not with Auth left because they have bad praxis and care about being in control of the movement. Likewise it’s difficult to align with social democrats who think electoralism and reformism is a solution and stifle direct action.
Likewise Auth left and social democrats tend to infight, even within themselves, because their hierarchical praxis causes power play friction.
I take great offense in you saying that tankies and socdems infight, lol. (I mean, I get it, they are both statists, but I feel on a emotional level most socdems feel more for anarchism than for leninism.)
I would be an anarchist if I weren’t socdem. The problem with anarchism is that it only works on a very small scale, where people know each other well enough to work on mutual understanding. That wouldn’t work on a very large scale due to people having their own ideas. I was told before that anarchism is basically the norm for most of human history and thus it could be implemented. Well, look around, aren’t we already living in anarchism under the nation-state model? Even though there is the United Nations, most of their power is non-binding and could easily be ignored by a more powerful member. And thus we are already living in anarchism; and it’s not working as idealised.
Well if meant to in the context of the occasional big tent movements. I don’t think most socdems think much about anarchists at all except when it comes time to scold us for not voting.
Was under the impression that most anarchists are aware that voting is still important. like it or not, we are still citizens of some state for the time being, but we can use that to promote useful change or to exercise damage control, as part of the overall praxis arsenal. especially with some organization within your local groups, it can be a good tool.
How does one then answer the question “If you think elections don’t work, then why do you participate?” by a non-anarchist?
You’ve made plenty of good points throughout the article about the problems with the system. I don’t see why that can’t be your answer. There’s no contradiction in acknowledging major problems and still exerting what little influence you do have.
But if they “work a little” for an anarchist, certainly they would work a lot for a non-anarchist.
How does that logic follow? Assuming you both have the same values and are trying to achieve the same thing, then a solution that works for one person will work just as well for another. The difference in opinions is on which solution will work, not on what you’re trying to achieve.
It’s simpler than that - the left has principles, while the right has unity and message discipline driven by deference to authority, a victim complex fear, hate, and thirst for power.
You’re mistaken that the right is unified. The fight among each other quite a lot. They can only manage to unite under a charismatic strongman, but quickly fall into infighting when that falters.
The fact that they have conflicting ideologies (e.g. Nazis and Zionists as I said below) and continue to push in the same direction is pretty straightforward evidence of this.
The unification pre-dates Trump - the rise of the tea party saw ideological rifts, but they all fell in line when the time came. Bush wasn’t a charismatic strongman… nor was McConnell for that matter.
You only think they’re pushing in the same direction because you’re on the outside looking in. As the op points out, they think the same about leftists.
