You must log in or register to comment.
“The kind with trigger discipline…”
I just want people to have food, shelter and healthcare at an affordable price.
Some call this “Leftist extremism”. =/
Ugh George Soros poisoned Progressivism!
By “affordable” I’m assuming you mean free. Always wanting a handout, of course.
I just want untaxed inheritance, corporate welfare on top of more tax breaks for me and all my friends, unregulated surveillance and data collection of the plebs so I can continue to make even more money (untaxed obvs), exclusive and elite private universities, and a justice system where I can live free of consequence and purchase a judge at a reasonable price because I believe in being fiscally conservative.
Food, shelter, and healthcare are things I’ve just never had to think about really. Although, I would also prefer that if too many people are worrying about those things in my immediate vicinity, they be shuffled around or forcibly moved to a different vicinity.
That way I don’t have to start thinking too much. It’s really unfair when that happens, because it starts to make me feel all kinds of uncomfortable. Uncomfortable is not something I’m used to feeling, and since I don’t like to think about things, I never stop and think about why somebody else being uncomfortable would also make me feel so uncomfortable.
Logically, the solution is to just put those people somewhere not visible to me, and then complain about what society is “turning into these days” when they slip through the privilege perimeter.
Due to Poe’s Law, I think you really need one of these: /s
Yeah, I thought it was pretty clear, but I guess not. I definitely would have on Reddit but figured it wouldn’t be necessary here
deleted by creator
Basically healthcare is free at point of service in the majority of the most functional and healthy societies. It’s not infinite and its rationed by need as opposed to being rationed according to who has the most money. This is ultimately a more valid solution to finite resources than our over complicated system which hands half the money to middle men in the name of managing it.
I agree, and just to be clear I was being sarcastic. I would also guess it’s way more than half the money.
Between health insurance companies, hospital administrator salaries, liability insurance for doctors, and drug patents making most medications unaffordable, I would say it’s pretty easily about 3/4 or more.
I volunteer in a free clinic in a red state that has had the Medicaid expansion for less than 10 years. It provided the absolute bare minimum healthcare to essentially everyone in need, but it still made such a huge difference in terms of patient health outcomes to just offer that bare minimum.
Now the U.S. is targeting that entire program through budget cuts, and in addition, at least in my state, private hospital oligopolies have been ramping down acceptance for months now because they seemed to know what was coming before anyone else.
The argument is that the cost of providing that bare minimum is unsustainable. Even if that were true, and the cuts weren’t actually only necessary to provide another tax break for the wealthy, there are clearly so many other places we could be making cuts to reduce the cost of healthcare, rather than to the tiny amount that goes towards actually providing the barely minimum healthcare coverage to some of the most vulnerable patient populations.
TERRORIST.
So you want billionaires hoisted up by their figgins as a warning to the rest of the bourgeoisie?? That’s what I’m hearing here.
I think we should have a maximum wealth cap. Set it as an even 1000x the median annual household income. That is the type of money that even the most highly paid wage earners - like anesthesiologists, would struggle to amass if they worked overtime their whole careers, lived like paupers, and invested every penny they made. That would be about $80 million today. Anything above that would be taxed at 100%. And no, I don’t give a shit about your $80 million “family farm.”
But truly obscene levels of wealth? Like 10,000x median household income and above? If we had a wealth cap, and you evaded it, and secretly collected a fortune 10x the cap? A felony whose penalty is 20 to life.
We don’t let people own atomic bombs. We don’t require you to have an atomic bomb license, or only let really nice moral people own nuclear weapons. We simply don’t let individuals own nuclear weapons, as the risk of such power in a single hand is simply too great.
And yet, we let people amass fortunes that they can use to do far more damage than any nuclear weapon. Someone like Musk or Bezos, completely on their own, can absolutely cause suffering and destruction on the level of a nuclear bomb.
No one should have that type of power. Period. That power should only be obtainable through free and fair elections. We need a maximum wealth cap. 1000x median household income. Having a billion dollars should be absurd as owning your own nuclear bomb.
I wish I could upvote this about a dozen times well said.
We don’t let people own atomic bombs […] and yet, we let people amass fortunes that they can use to do far more damage than any nuclear weapon.
Damn that is very well put. I thought I knew where you were going with that analogy – like that there are just some things we don’t allow people to have. But the comparison of the power of a nuclear bomb and 11 digit wealth is really really good.
No matter what you do with that kind of wealth, it is a level of force that should not be wielded without the consent of the people it will affect.
Like … all people?
Every single one
What about people we don’t like?
Why don’t we like them? Is it because they are anti-social? That’s why we have laws. Is it because they are different? Then don’t be anti-social and learn to understand them.
Never ask a Lemming what kind of leftist they are, or what is the best Linux distro.
Well, um, whatever kind you use and whatever kind you are, of course.
That’s your favorite distro of linux now, but what previous operating system do you come from?
What if he’s a Gentoo user? He’ll mock me for using Archlinux, I’ve got to play this hand carefully so as to not blow my cover. There’s always the chance he’s a Mint user and I have nothing to worry about, but then, he could be one of those users that says ricing is a waste of time, who uses his OS professionally, but then, he might be a Fedora user… how do I approach this issue without seeming like a pleb?! Based Stallman, help me!
NixOS
LFS
How about that vaporwave aesthetic of Garuda Dr460nized edition?
Windows 2000. I feel like that’s reasonable. It was honestly pretty solid kit.
That was not my experience with 2000. Either 98 or XP (post-SP2) were more solider, from memory.
I think you might be confusing Windows ME with 2000.
Windows 2000 was built on the Windows NT kernel which was business focused so absolutely rock solid.
Windows 98 was a good jump in stability from the 95 kernel bit still very prone to crashing.
I agree XP was good but it was the successor to 2K so built on it and I moved to Linux as soon as the 2K directx support would have forced me to move to XP which wasn’t as lightweight.
For clarity there were two development branches within Microsoft at the turn of the millennium: one that was based off windows 3.1 (and became 95, 98 and ME) and one that was based off windows NT 3.1 which was solid as fuck and eventually became 2000 then XP.
Edit: Here’s a decent graphic: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Microsoft_Windows_versions#/media/File:Windows_Version_History.svg
Oh shit, I think you’re right!
Now that a stretch my memory back decades, I seem to recall I never extensively used 2000, it was ME.
I agree XP was good
I seem to recall something about XP not being good at the start, and it wasn’t until about SP2 that it reached it’s famed quality. But now I can’t seem to find anything about it.
Ah the naming was terrible in fairness… Windows millennium edition and windows 2000. I mean c’mon like. Haha.
And yeah I was gone by SP2 but I remember my gaming friends holding tight to that for as long as they could. There were even various really lightweight editions of SP2 that you could download if you had the balls to install a hacked together operating system from some randomer on the internet. And they all did.
Different times!!
Edit: also what’s up Dave on the far side of the world!
Me: a disillusioned Liberal who runs Fedora, because I’m a basic bıtch and I ain’t got time for this shit anymore.
Same brother. I was once a Gentoo using anarchist but now I spend more time getting stuff done and less time tweaking my setup.
Fedora is the Todd Howard meme of Linux: it just works
What kind of leftist are you and what is the best Linux distro?
anarcho-communist, arch
Dishonor upon you and your family!
Post-left anarchist, Arch obv
I don’t use Arch but that wasn’t the question
Socialist, Guix
Left libertarian, NixOS naturally.
Slackware is the the only answer
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”)
It took me too long to figure out that you’re the ubi-style left, and not the pew-pew style and I didn’t know what type of gun an 80M2 was. 80M^2 or 80 square meters is super different from what I was picturing.
We can mix it, every family gets a rifle and plot of land.
They can keep all the other stuff if they are giving me 6,400 million dollars
Yeah and what else? Everyone wants free stuff and no one wants to pay…
This is why I hate permanently online leftism. It’s basically “give me free stuffs”
I already pay the top rate of tax in Denmark. I am completely fine with it. My personal belief is cheap accessibility to work and living space is what generates prosperity.
To say “no one wants to pay for it” to me when my marginal rate is over 52% is ridiculous.
If it was enough to cover 80 square meters housing for everyone then it wouldn’t be so ridiculous. Thing is it isn’t even remotely enough
Taxes barely allow for healthcare to work, only because USA pharma companies charge Americans much more to recuperate EU losses.
Not to mention roads, education, national parks, retirement funds, subsidies from energy sector to agriculture. It’s all underfunded
And you wanna pile on top also 80 sq for everyone? Good luck lol
That’s like 40 millions citizens * 500k euro = gargantuan money fed into developers
Hell I would become a developer company myself
(It’s 2E13 10^13 of euros. Trillion? I think 20 trillions) so it is 4x more than whole federal USA budget for 40 million people
It’s unimaginably huge amount of cash and you said “I pay taxes duh” 💀
————
They build like 50 of 40m2 apartments a year over here from taxes and that’s probably best it can realistically get. Maybe you could get it to 200 with some progressive taxes assuming companies wouldn’t just move elsewhere and avoid them altogether
I don’t live in America, I don’t care about America. It would cost about 800b EUR to fund it in Denmark without considering economies of scale, industrialisation or existing stock. In my opinion, it is completely achievable.
It’s not. If any candidate promises you this they are just lying for votes. They did the math and aren’t stupid
No candidate has ever offered this. I am a structural engineer and have decided on this as a view of my own.
Well it’s a wrong view but you do you
there are a lot of affordable houses, just nowhere where people want to live (big cities with limited space).
The very nature of limited space in cities makes it impossible for the whole population to have houses there. Let alone build millions of city houses using some vague miraculous funding
However housing “crisis” will solve itself at the latest around the end of 21 century. Rather like 25 years more or less. That’s when the cities will lose its employment providing role.
Real estate in the cities will still be more expensive and rare but it will no longer be a necessity, merely a luxury.
All the landlords will suddenly wake up with 50% value losses and no takers for their rentable shacks.
Where are you getting that no one wants to pay? I always see people saying the world would be better if their taxes were used to give others something.
I would love it if my taxes went to giving everyone healthcare, education and housing.
When you get down to it, I get more value out of my neighbors being healthy, educated and safe than I would out of the money. And that’s setting aside that I’m already paying for those things inefficiently.
What kind am I?
Not a neo liberal or a Tankie.
I’m in-between. I’m caring enough to not agree with Conservatives and want a change to the status quo. I’m educated enough to know how the world actually works and that things can’t be free and other people won’t do stuff for free. Capitalism has its place, but needs to be highly regulated.
You can be anti-capitalist without being a “tankie.” It seems like your position is driven by your aversion to those you perceive as being to your right and to your left rather than on a consistent ideological framework.
I’m educated enough to know how the world actually works and that things can’t be free and other people won’t do stuff for free.
This is capitalist realism. Your education has not made you smart enough to see that capitalism is reality, it has made you so set in your constrained worldview that you’ve become incapable of imagining anything outside of the framework of capitalism. For the majority of time that humans have existed on earth they have organized themselves in a myriad of different ways without the need for private property and exploitation of others. I recommend reading some anthropology, I personally prefer David Graeber.
Hey tankie, I’ve had conversations with other tankies that believe no business should be making a profit and there is no such thing as a good company. They think a business should provide services for free, while they sit on their ass and collect UBI. UBI is something I support, but if I create a business that aims to help people one way or another with a product or service, I’m not doing it for free.
There are other forms of societal framework and I’m sorry, but Marxist Lenonist communism isn’t it. There’s a reason communism always devolves into authoritarianism. And we don’t need to go back to feudalism, which is primarily what has been throughout history, which you ignore.
Don’t you find it interesting that I only said I was anti-capitalist and you immediately assumed a ton of things about what I believe without bothering to ask? I find it interesting, it reveals a lot about your mindset. Even though you’ve decided to be overtly hostile towards me for no reason I’ll take the time to respond, because I believe you think you’re being reasonable.
Hey tankie, I’ve had conversations with other tankies that believe no business should be making a profit and there is no such thing as a good company.
Profit is just the excess labor value that your employer withholds from you. The problem is not that businesses make money, the problem is that the people who produce the value do not get to decide what to do with it. Instead, the capital owner has the ultimate authority and is able to use it to enrich themselves at the expense of those who did the actual work, with no way to hold them accountable. It doesn’t matter if the boss is a “good person” or not because the employer-employee relationship is inherently unequal.
They think a business should provide services for free, while they sit on their ass and collect UBI. UBI is something I support, but if I create a business that aims to help people one way or another with a product or service, I’m not doing it for free.
This is a gross misrepresentation of what socialists believe. Socialists believe that workers should have control over their company. I don’t think workers should provide services for free, I think they should be paid their worth and have the freedom to decide what to do with the excess rather than having it taken from them by capital owners. In the current system it is actually the capital owners who sit on their ass and collect welfare in the form of profits.
The reason socialists also advocate for welfare such as UBI is because we believe that the excess labor value should be reinvested into the community to improve everyone’s standard of living rather than paying for the boss’ 3rd yacht and 5th vacation home.
There are other forms of societal framework and I’m sorry, but Marxist Lenonist communism isn’t it. There’s a reason communism always devolves into authoritarianism.
I’m not a marxist-leninist, I lean more towards libertarian socialism / anarchism. I do wish you would have made an attempt to find out where I stand on things before starting with the name-calling. I agree that marxist-leninists have authoritarian tendencies, but I believe that results from their belief that power should be centralized under the state to establish a “dictatorship of the proletariat,” not from their socialist economics. It is possible (I would actually argue that it’s necessary) for power to be decentralized under federated collectives that practice socialist economics. This is sometimes called anarcho-syndicalism, but I believe there’s more to it than that.
And we don’t need to go back to feudalism, which is primarily what has been throughout history, which you ignore.
The political and economic systems that existed prior to capitalism were far more complex than you’re giving them credit for. Feudalism was actually the precursor to capitalism, and was not the dominant political system for most of human history. Before land was stolen by feudal lords, most of it was managed and held in common by small communities. The process by which landlords stole land and began rent-seeking is called the enclosure of the commons.
Again, I cannot recommend enough that you do some reading on anthropology. I’m not asking you to read political theory, but if you don’t have an understanding of the many different ways that humans organized themselves in the past it limits your ability to imagine ways that we could organize ourselves in the future.
I’m not being hostile. You are reading that, based on nothing more than your interpretation.
This is a gross misrepresentation of what socialists believe.
I never said this is what socialist believe. Now you are reading into something I never said. I simply said I’ve actually had a conversation with more than one tankie that has used those EXACT words. I also never name called, unless you find Tankie offensive. Which I only called you that, because you are using the exact same arguments that tankies do. I also don’t need a history lesson on hopes, dreams, and ideal situations that never happened. You should really count the amount of times you said “belief”, “believe”, or “possible.”
I agree that marxist-leninists have authoritarian tendencies, but I believe that results from their belief that power should be centralized under the state to establish a “dictatorship of the proletariat,” not from their socialist economics.
This is nothing more than a belief that never happens and history has shown that.
You’re recommending things that you don’t even understand and likely never read yourself.
Nobody is interested in your fake conversations with possibly imaginary people that represent a conveniently perfect caricature of the opposing positions when you have actual people with nuanced positions here.
It’s a 100% real conversation that I had and two people were saying the same thing. I happened a few weeks ago, I’ll try to find it in my comment history.
I’m also not saying it represents the Socialist left, I’m saying these two represent the uneducated/ too young to know better/ “Russia” is great tankie.
Even Adam Smith was pretty clear what happens when capitalism is unregulated:
We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate. To violate this combination is everywhere a most unpopular action, and a sort of reproach to a master among his neighbours and equals. We seldom, indeed, hear of this combination, because it is the usual, and one may say, the natural state of things, which nobody ever hears of…
The liberal reward of labour, therefore, as it is the necessary effect, so it is the natural symptom of increasing national wealth. The scanty maintenance of the labouring poor, on the other hand, is the natural symptom that things are at a stand, and their starving condition that they are going fast backwards.
The “socialists expect people to do stuff for free” trope only exists in capitalist strawman rhetoric.
Cool. Never said that. I consider myself a socialist democrat. I was referring to a conversation I had with a Tankie claiming both sides and said, “Businesses should not earn a profit.” And in a later sentence said, “Everyone should be on universal basic income.” In those exact words.
You literally, almost word for word said exactly the argument laid out in his comment. No slinking away. You were not referring to a conversation and even your rendition of the conversation is nonsensical as if the other’s arguments should lead to some conclusion about the very same argument, the one you ran away from…?
I never even mentioned socialism. Weird how you and the other jump to that conclusion when I reference two tankies I had a conversation with a few weeks ago.
I also have no idea what the hell you are talking about in the later part of your comment. Running away from what? Stop trying to strawman this.
Ye, if you don’t manage capitalism, the demon capital manages you.
I would like us to seriously try alternatives, but failing that, at least put the mad dog on a leash.
I am not going to prod you the minutia with questions and then try to guess precisely what ideological camp you might fall into, but from what I can gather from your comment, you could either be a social liberal or social democrat. But practically speaking, there is hardly any difference between the two.
I wish there was a test.
Not a bullshit CosmoBuzzfeed quiz, but an actual “if you answered A on these three questions, you tend towards MarxoCapitalist. Here’s a community full of people who mostly agree with you about political stuff.”
We’d still have Home and Local and All, but it’d be nice to know who my people are instead of needing a college degree to navigate the bullshit everyone says about everyone else.
I don’t think anyone knows what socialism is.
I’m glad there isn’t, sounds divisive
- Hot Dog or Hamburger?
- Pepsi or Coca-Cola?
- 2 wipes or 3 wipes?
- Hamburgers
- Coca-Cola
- Three shells
https://leftvalues.github.io/ Is kinda like that but not exactly. Fun test to take either way.
I’m a Democratic Socialist, apparently.
Marxism-Leninism: 0%
Good.
Im apparently an eco-anarchist.
We must grill the means of production.
https://leftvalues.github.io/results.html?a=52.9&b=73.4&c=36.7&d=71.4&e=51.9&f=31.9&g=16.2
socialism is whatever country owns the most state owned companies and gives you the cheapest housing I think /j
You know those means of production?
Well I have an idea…
flexible on range of solutions for dealing with the billionaire problem
“You leftists sure are a contentious people”
Ay, you made an energy for life!
marxist-linuxist
Arch Communist
Gentoo-manist
Debian-syndicalist
Fedoralism-Maoism
Manjaro-syndicalist
Nixos-georgist (?)
Social-Debianist
“Ally? That’s a funny way to spell FASCIST!”
-the American left during the 24’ election
Your parties are seriously a mess, though. Sorry to say. Yes, come the vote under a FPTP duopoly I agree maximum impact is to vote for the lesser of the two, but I honestly don’t think much is going to change for you guys if all you do is vote.
I honestly don’t think much is going to change for you guys if all you do is vote.
As an American, I agree. That said, I find it hard to do more due to my situation.
But, voting is the beginning of political engagement, not the end. It’s probably time for a general strike, but even failing that, finding primary challengers (or being one), drafting voter initiatives and gathering signatures for all of the above, communicating with your representatives, legal protest. It’s also possible to work outside or even against the system, founding or being active in non-governmental community organizations, illegal protest, sabotage.
Even if we had a “perfect” voting system (Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem aside), there are going to be times when the majority compromise is just wrong, and “getting political” is how you change/survive that.
(I’m all for voting system improvements. I’m a big fan of Condorcet methods, and I’d like to see more direct democracy. We could even adapt a system like Debian’s “default option” of “more discussion” so that issues could remain open while a quorum was gathered / the voters suitably engaged to decide one way or another.)
That was a great breakdown of a continuum of ways to be politically active all the way from voting to increasingly pointed forms of direct action.
It would make a great post. Maybe even an infographic.
Yeaahh, american left needs to learn how to accept an imperfect ally.
*Doesn’t vote to enable fascism.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Exhibit A
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.
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.
Where is the bubble that says “imperialism by Russia is fine”?
One of them can actually pass policy unfortunately
Edit: I’m not saying I agree with their policies dumbasses. I want the left to pass policy. But until the left understands how to become politically effective and build coalitions we’re stuck in this quagmire forever
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 its 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.
Ahh yes, the “left party”
I agree we need a third party where leftist policies are allowed to exist
deleted by creator
what if im pro imperialist but anti capitalist?
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.
Nah i voted for harris. the democrats are imperialist and capitalist
Like the CCP? At least rhetorically.
nah the ccp sucks, at least if youre not chinese.
i think the ccp is necessarily tied to the chinese racial identity - they try very hard to promote unity between chinese people, its not in their interest to expand their borders and include outsiders in their democracy.
what makes the usa special is that they dont have to be unified by the illusion of race. exploiting racial divides from within tarnishes that for short lived political gain.
the current flavor of imperialism practiced by all of these is to keep other countries ‘conquered’ in their own borders and use capitalism and corruption to exploit them in perpetuity. the usa and europe and the saudis too.
its naieve to think that if we were to stop , someone else wouldnt just swoop in and quietly take the reigns. as things are most of humanity will remain wage slaves or literal slaves forever, having any societal progress they make be wiped out through clandestine interference.
and if we stop doing THAT, we risk some shitty dictatorship developing advanced weapons like nukes or bioweapons, or conquering their neighbors themselves.
whatever global sphere can somehow create a better social order thats capable of scaling to include all of humanity without having any of them be forced into some form of slavery, SHOULD conquer the world.
Right now, nobodys really close to that. but it should be the goal. and if anyone can “win” even by the current shitty practice of imperialism, at least it means war can be avoided down the road.
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.
Welcome to being a leftist. The first thing you’ll want to do is find a slightly similar but different left ideology and hate them with a passion.
Jokes aside, there are people I respect who call themselves anarchists, communists, socialists, and other labels. Most of the real vitriol I see is from Democrats at all of us and from Leftists right back.
“Leftist infighting” is a meme for a reason, but I think too often honest disagreements about principles get written off as such.
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.
But I don’t really read much theory (because of a memory retention disorder)
I’m in a similar boat for the most part. I can handle news stories and short articles. But if I’m reading a book, it’s gotta be science fiction or else I get bored as fuck with it.
And the overlap between theory and science fiction isn’t as big as I’d like it.
Kropotkin’s the Conquest of Bread is a good read, and surprisingly readable, if you do want to try some theory.
I might give it a try. Reading through the wiki article it looks pretty solid, and pretty much exactly like what I’d want out of a replacement economic system.
And TIL the origins of the name breadtube, which is neat.
