You must log in or # to comment.
Both things can be true.
One step at a time.Yeah, splitting up isn’t a great thing right now. Let’s team up together and fight the nazis.
It’s almost like some people here desperately want to create division in the left.
Glad to see it backfiring on one post.
You’re the only person in here talking about splitting up?
Let’s just make sure when this is over, that actual leftists are put in charge so we don’t get a repeat of this in 20 years.
Let’s just make sure when this is over, that actual leftists are put in charge
Leftist don’t want to get organized to be a third party or vote as left as they can in major parties. They won’t be in charge because they don’t want to be engaged.
Shitlibs can’t do anything but blame the left for their failures and deny we exist. And suck Nazi dick. They can fall in line or fuck off–if a shitlib wants to volunteer as a warm body for something I’m doing without trying to subvert it I won’t turn them away, but I doubt that would happen–i have seen zero interest in coalitions or opposing fascism.
Please feel free to prove me wrong.
What they were trying to say is now is not the time to divide eachother
Cool maybe they should fall in line then.
OR maybe you should team up on the incremental progress for now, and then show them why more work is needed. You don’t need to be the divisive one.
Some of the people you see that are dumping on any incremental progress are pro-authoritarian, accelerationists. I believe most of those ones are bad actors/bots though. Any real leftist is wanting to help people however they can/actively helping those in their communities.
Weird how ‘compromise to a common end’ always means ‘do my thing and ignore that other thing and also ignore what you wanted’.
Why are you pretending like that’s what they said? One concept is a progression of the same idea but taken beyond the other one - you’re just claiming it’s not because you want to be divisive and pretend like you’re holding the morally correct position to trigger people.
It’s transparent and like… nobody seems to be taking the bait, so why are you even still trying?
Can you kindly provide some examples of what you’re talking about?
of a thing not happening? um, sure; here i guess.
Great! Can you please explain some of the specific things you are doing? You mentioned this in your previous comment. Specifically the part about coalitions and such.
can you explain
No, sorry.
They can fall in line or fuck off–if a shitlib wants to volunteer as a warm body for something I’m doing without trying to subvert it I won’t turn them away
Cool! Was this just a lie then?
Specifically that first one, then we break your legs and shackle you to something so you dont get ideas.
Walking in the direction of only one.
Because the other is merely a stop on the way.If you don’t strive for the best option, you’ll settle for compromise.
That’s what politics is, compromise. That’s why “they” say to shoot for the biggest thing you want, because half way there is still better than when you first started.
No, that’s what centrism is, compromise with the right.
We fight for what we want, and we don’t stop halfway sorry.
When was the last time a lib compromised with a socialist or anarchist? With anyone to the left of mecha-thatcher?
Do you even know off the top of your head the compromise positions on police abolition Zionism worker control of the means of production/not living in exploitative tyranny half your waking life abolition of borders universal housing bodily autonomy massive inequality/billionaires the elimination of precarity or environmental sustainability? Like, have you ever heard any of them articulated by a lib?
Edit: has anyone ever in their life heard a lib articulate what a compromise with the left might look like? Once? One single time?
Leftists always have to shut up and fall in line. If we don’t we’re fracturing and we’re the problem, yet the centrist libs never make an effort to compromise or meet our modest expectations on the value of human life.
Right but have you literally ever heard a shitlib say what compromise with the left might look like? Like ever? Any proposal? An elected figure or your cringe shitlib aunt or literally any of them?
Or do they just mean ‘compromise the left’ as in ‘to a permanent end’?
What do you mean? Compromise on what issues exactly?
I agree with pretty much everything under the sun with left leaning policy. I’m a leftist-liberal since I don’t think those points are inherently mutually exclusive.
Gave a shortish list elsewhere in this thread, find it or don’t.
Liberals watching fascism evolve in real time: “Fuck your guns! Give them over!”
Leftists: “Uh, hell no, are you crazy?”
Liberals: “You’ll get KILLED!”
Leftists: “Yeah, that’s going to be the outcome whether you fight or not.”
Liberals: “Where my 2A people at?!” (got a burn in there. tee hee hee)
Me: “I have loads of guns, practice best I know how, several times a week. Tell me what you would have me do.”
Liberals: <FUCKING SILENCE>
Never heard a single word, not one reply to that question. Here’s your chance to shine!
I haven’t seen masked men in my town. None have come for my brown, legal, immigrant wife. As of this year, I am not outdoors unarmed. Indoors? You can’t catch me shitting without a firearm in reach. Insane? Abso-fucking-lutly insane. No one should live like that. But this is where we’re at in America.
Want to hear something nuts? I was just now showing my wife that I can buy all the gear these fascists are wearing on Amazon.com. Yes, POLICE patches, all of it.
So, to sum, they’ve demonstrated that they’ll kill me. They’ve demonstrated that anyone can look like them. You go figure out how to take that information.
Ban for “inciting violence” in 3, 2…
damn right. in the US, performing labor is seen as more important than human life. that tells you a lot.
And most of them defend it.
I guess it’s some variation of Stockholm syndrome.
This is a bit like responding “All lives matter” when hearing about Black Lives Matter.
It’s more like “End Slavery” not “End Debt Bondage”.
One is clearly more serious than the other and it’s not the 40 hr workers.
I’m sure you can get into the anti-confederate nature of that.
I’m “collectivize the farms and factories” left, and even I recognize that it’s a hell of a lot easier to get to the second state from the first state than from where we are now.
Well the only people who are talking about stopping at one state are the centrists arguing we must ‘compromise’ and accept the top only.
I fully support going to both…
Are you aware of how many people starved when farms were collectivized in the Soviet Union?
The Kolkhoz system in the Soviet Union is really not to dissimilar to modern farming practices.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolkhoz
The system of petty/peasant farming is over. Successful farms are already “collectivized”, and hire farmhands to do the work.
https://www.epi.org/blog/how-many-farmworkers-are-employed-in-the-united-states/
WTF are you talking about? Undocumented immigrants are the peasant class of the USA. Are you so out of touch you don’t know who harvests the food you eat?
Proletarians work for a wage, peasants do not. The undocumented immigrants on USA farms are proletarians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasant
Your main claim was that, the Soviet Union “collective” farming system caused famine; but in reality it was just the conversion from traditional feudal peasant farming to modern capitalist farming, entirely orchestrated by the state.
Modern farms are already “collectivized” and so your claim does not hold water or is at best accurate but completely irrelevant to the modern day.
Well you’re a pedantic one aren’t you? Undocumented immigrants don’t have the rights of a citizen and therefore are a lower class. They work in the agricultural sector for the landowner while having no rights. That’s a peasant to me, but go a head and continue be pedantic about everything to avoid having any new thoughts.
Are you aware of how many tens of millions of people were saved from Nazi genocide thanks to the industrialization that underpinned the collectivization of farms in the Soviet Union?
Are you aware that many other countries industrialized without collectivizing farms? That’s not at all a requirement for industrialization and doesn’t have anything to do with the Nazis stupidly entering into a two front war because of the general incompetence that goes hand and hand with fascism.
Are you aware that many other countries industrialized without collectivizing farms?
Yes, the other countries at the time who had industrialized had done so through slavery (USA) or colonialism (UK, France, Germany, Japan), all of which killed tens of millions more than collectivization failures ever did.
Nazis are stupid, but don’t diminish the Soviet war effort. 80% of dead Nazi soldiers died in the Eastern Front, and it costed the lives of 25 million Soviet heroes to achieve this.
Fuck the Soviets. The reason we went to war is because the Nazis invaded Poland, and the Soviets were complicit in that. Just because Hitler was a dumbass and attacked the Soviet Union doesn’t mean we owe that fucked up government anything. I respect the soldiers that fought despite the fact they had that asshole Stalin oppressing them, but I have no respect for the Soviet Union or Stalin because of the events of WWII, and neither should you.
It is possible to improve on the methods and priorities of previous attempts.
The problem with the previous attempts was prioritizing ideology over real life problems. Doesn’t sound like socialists are capable of understanding why that’s a problem because they believe that conforming to ideology will magically solve all problems. Just like they believed that in the Soviet Union… which is what caused the famines.
The problem with the previous attempts was prioritizing ideology over real life problems
It was actually not the case, the USSR was the most materialist and least idealist country. The 1929 collectivization drive was kicked together with the first 5-year economic plan of the Soviet Union, which drove a growth of 10%+ in economic output YEARLY during the following decade. This was a necessary preparation measure against the constant threat of external invasion for the sin of being communist, as demonstrated during the Russian Civil War when the Reds were invaded by England, France, the USA, Italy, France and Germany, all of whom helped the Whites in hopes of restoring absolutist monarchy and the Russian Empire. Stalin famously gave a speech in 1931 saying that the USSR was 50-100 years behind in industrialization and they had 10 years to make up for it or they would be crushed. 10 years later, Nazis invaded the Soviet Union.
If it hadn’t been for the industrial boom made possible by the rapid collectivization of agriculture, the Soviets would have lost to the Nazis, leading to the extermination of tens of millions of Eastern Europeans according to the Generalplan Ost, ideologically very similar to the contemporary genocide of Palestinians by Isn’treal as an attempt of settler colonialism. Additionally, the industrialization led to the total elimination of famine in a formerly backwater feudal Russian Empire, raising the life expectancy from about 30 years in the 1920s to 60+ years by 1955.
There were mistakes and failures in the collectivization policy which led to a degree of unnecessary suffering, but these weren’t due to idealism, Marxist-Leninists are fundamentally materialist in their analysis which is the polar opposite of idealism, they were the consequence of lack of knowledge and of hurries to do the first successful complete collectivization of land of a nation in human history.
So you’re saying it’s fine that 8 million people starved because ideological bullshit goals were achieved? Fucking commie Marie Antoinette over here. Let them eat ideology!
So you’re saying it’s fine that 8 million people starved because ideological bullshit goals were achieved?
Not because ideological goals were achieved. If you read my comment you’ll see I’m concerned with material outcomes. Eliminating Nazism saved tens of millions of lives. Industrializing the Soviet Union eliminated hunger and gave universal healthcare, saving tens of millions of lives. Compare the life expectancy of the USSR in 1929 with that of Brazil 1929 (countries with similar level of development) and you’ll see that the rapid industrialization by the 1970s had led to such massive improvements of life expectancy that tens of millions of lives were saved in comparison with Brazil, no other country industrialized so quickly up to that point in history. I care about saving tens of millions of lives, yes, and you’re also inflating the number of deaths from starvation
This is a fallacy. You’re assuming only socialism in Russia could’ve lead to the defeat of the Nazis. I’m explaining the Nazis were stupid (as all fascists are) and their defeat was inevitable, but you’re completely what I’m saying. You’re also ignoring that fact that socialism is not required for a country to industrialize.
This is something like the anthropic principle. Just because it went A -> B -> C doesn’t mean it’s not possible to get to C any other way. Socialism is not a requirement for industrialization and socialism is not a requirement for defeating fascism. It’s just a flawed system that a lot of people starved under.
I do wish the left broadly could unify under the idea that we need to make incremental progress.
A lot of people on this very site think there’s going to be a glorious people’s revolution any day now. I could spend hours describing how unrealistic that fantasy is, but I think more people rather live with their indulgent fantasies than go out and plant trees that they will never sit in the shade of.
Welcome back Karl Kautsky. Excited for World War 1?
The label we’re gathering under is progressives, it’s mostly leftists but you leave the praxis at home and recognize that no one is going to read a pamphlet
Turns out, when you have good messaging, most people are on board with the practical changes we could make today. Mumdani is a rockstar at it
go out and plant trees that they will never sit in the shade of
I forget about this colloquialism, but find it a good description for how I try to be day to day
Oh man am I ever with you. I’m absolutely an idealist, I agree with the OP’s sentiment. But I will absolutely support anyone with any ideology that gets us closer. Small steps are easier to take, this bullshit that everyone thinks we need the perfect candidate with the one weird trick.
See what that got us. I have no goddamned idea where to go from here. I’ll support any ham sandwich that drags us in the right direction.
More and more I’m convinced most Americans have no idea what a liberal, leftist, or other terms actually are. They’re just parroting the words they hear from their feeds.
‘Liberal’ is the funniest because both red and blue accuse each other of being them. My guess is blues think liberalism is laissez-faire and the reds think it’s woke social freedoms. They’re both slightly on the right track, but not at all.
And in the rest of the free world…
Liberals: No one should live in poverty regardless of their ability to perform labour.
Leftists: Yoooo, 40 hrs is fucked. What is this, the 1300s?
Liberals: Actually, yeah that is kind of fucked. An employer shouldn’t be ble to encroach on an employee’s life that much. This is an imbalance of liberties.
Leftist: Great! So what are we going to do bout it?
Liberals: Fuck all. We can’t be sure employees don’t want this too. Besides, someone will sort it out soon, they always do.
Leftists: I’ll donate a union $5 so I can tell my friend I’m left.
And in the next five years, some prolific young gun politician swoops in the 35 hour work week. But due to cultural reasons, everyone keeps working 40 hours and gets plenty of overtime for it. This having the employer pay more and the employee see little benefit because the state haven’t adjusted their now dated tax brackets. But along with very good minimum wage standards and an unemployment rate < 5%, both the leftist and the liberal never found the true source of the poverty and so continued using foreign corporations and large franchise to fulfill almost all of their needs. And everyone but their local infrastructures and communities lived happily ever after until the next global recession hit. The leftist and liberal “really meant it this time” when they said they’d support local and try to live more independently, but the inconvenience of it meant they silently did not.
Liberals: Fuck all. We can’t be sure employees don’t want this too. Besides, someone will sort it out soon, they always do.
Leftists: I’ll donate a union $5 so I can tell my friends I’m left.
The most real understanding of our political world tbh.
The difference is liberals believe in a system of laws that can be tweaked and perfected for the greatest good but never fundamentally changed, leftists believe in change
Of course you’re over there arguing over less hours or not, we’re over here arguing if we should still have science
We don’t have a functioning system to tweak
This misses the point. The point is no one, especially someone who has given back to society by preforming labor, should be left out in the cold.
I think the point is nobody should live in poverty. Fullstop. Addendum to that, workers should be paid a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work. But the first sentence is the core of everything.
They don’t agree with that, they think that if you have a job you are more worthy of being allowed to live.
Consider an example of a women, who does not work but raises childern and perform other chores to support her husband.
She is quite important in contribution to the society, but when we talk just about working people, we overlook her.
And I am sure there are many such people who are critical for the function of the society, but do not “make money” (i,e wage labor nor even owning capital for that matter)
This is why, IMO, this distinction of “people who work” is counter productive. Everyone should be able to live without poverty.
She is quite important in contribution to the society, but when we talk just about working people, we overlook her.
…even then, since her contribution is to her own household should that marriage collapse society decides that not only is she owed a share of their produced assets to date but also a share of his future production for her part in enhancing it to date (alimony), including the requirement that he must continue to produce at that level at a minimum (aka alimony is based on what a judge believes you can earn, not what you actually are earning). Sometimes this also includes a share of any future retirement income as well.
Everyone should be able to live without poverty.
Ultimately, what you would consider living without poverty requires the labor of some number of people to maintain, and eventually the question of why they do that labor for people who don’t do that labor will be asked, by them if not by you. Usually the answer is that those people are doing other labor which benefits the first group, usually abstracted out to some generalized representation of debt (aka money).
You missed their point.
No one, not only workers.
Still not getting it. These people have sacrificed a substantial part of their life and have nothing to show for it.
People are saying “no one should live in poverty,” not “no one should live in poverty, by which we mean no one should make money for their labor.” You’re tilting at windmills.
I think youre tilting at the windmills. To say a liberal doesnt believe every one deserves a basic standard of living just isn’t true and is not what was said in the first statment.
You don’t get it, you don’t have to sacrifice anything to have value as a human.
Why do Libs always have to dehumanise people?
If you work 100 or 0 hours a week, you have exactly the same right to basic life needs.
You dont get. Beyond your idea utopian society the society these people labor to build has forsaken them.
I feel like you hear the top line because those specific liberals are trying to convince independents, moderates, conservatives, and people on the right to agree on at least something. Many of the people they’re trying to convince would give a big “NO” if they didn’t include that 40 hours part.
The fact that there isn’t even a “YES” with the 40 hours part caveat is the bad sign.
I don’t think most of the people labeled as liberals would disagree with what the people labeled leftist are saying, but their trying to convince the other people that aren’t even bought in to the first step.
This is also an issue where the people that don’t want to help others have over 50% of the power in the US federal government currently.
Our energy should be focused on bringing these progressive help options to everyone at the state level right now to have the greatest chance of getting these programs implemented.
Ask the top to apply their thinking to retirement. That might make them think a little deeper.
“Oh it’s different, we’ll have earned our welfare” - Liberals
Progressive purity tests help the billionaires and right more than they help us make progress toward a future were common people aren’t treated like trash.
Nothing and no one will ever be good enough for some of these people, so fascists will continue to keep their power.
Lots of people are good enough, they’re just not lifetime DNC candidates with compromised allegiances and paid by lobbyists.
Such a low hurdle will forever be insurmountable to some of these centrists.
What are you talking about? When i was born in the '80s, being unemployed for more than a few month was criminal offense in most socialist European countries. Leftism is beneficial in moderation, but definitely not every leftism is bestism if this is your only criteria for “bestism”
Which European countries were socialist in the 80s?
Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Chekoslovakia, Poland, the whole USSR. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_parasitism_(offense) Yugoslavia and Albania were socialist too but I’m not sure if there was law against unemployment there.
The soviet union was an authoritarian one party state my guy
I agree. But I don’t get why are you saying it like that. It was a socialist, authoritarian state. All of these countries were at the time. Maybe I’m missing something.
How can the workers be in control of the means of production if they aren’t even in control of their own lives? What a silly thing to say.
To be honest I do feel a bit silly continuing this. However, are you trying to say that socialism is not a leftist mode of government? How would you categories the policies of socialist/communist dictatorships, centrist? Workers were not above the law, and had no input what sad laws were. But workers did own the factoryies and the kolhoz. Most of these governments collapsed because they lost the support of the proleteriat (workers). It was not the will power of the political elites that hold it to gether, but the millions of workers sincere belief that they are making the world a better place.
Social democracy is good to live in; yeah true. Leftism (in general) is bestism; hell no.
I am a Leftist and agree with the Leftists take but the Liberal in this meme has a more effective message. The majority of people have issues neurologically with truly caring about things they can’t at least imagine affecting them and there are a huge number of people working their asses off 40+ hours a week while struggling to get by. Not that we should abandon the elderly or disabled but we should be diverse in our messaging and who it targets.
The leftists have the easiest message, it’s provide for everyone. It can literally effect anyone.
The liberal messaging muddies the message up, making it unimaginable that it could effect people outside of the narrow scope it presents
that’s not how it works though
No shit. If it worked a different way people wouldn’t be talking about it.
Neither is how it works, the point is to change how it works so that we achieve these goals.
Liberals: Works 40 hours a week.
Leftists: Whines 40 hours a week without working.
Conservative weirdo says what, what are you work-maxed
If taking care of a family, working, and not demanding entitlements without putting any effort into anything like the billionaires and bottom feeders makes me conservative then I guess I’m conservative, even though I’d rather see conservatives thrown into the everglades one by one.
Seriously though, what have you actually contributed to society other than Lemmy platitudes?
Ok. Brevity is the source of wit, so what were you saying again🫣🫣🫣
OP doesn’t understand what these terms mean.
You think the democrats are radical leftists, don’t you?
No? But you probably think Trump is since you’re comparing liberals and leftists.
I am one of the radical leftists.
Why would I think right wingers are us?
Liberals are the opposite of authoritarians, they aren’t left or right but a description of people’s view towards government regardless of political leanings.
Communists, Anarchists, Libertarians are all examples of liberals.
Trump is an authoritarian which aligns with your stated view of leftists not being liberal (being authoritarians)
