I’ve been seeing a worrying number of these people on Lemmy lately, sharing enlightened takes including but not limited to “voting for Biden is tantamount to fascism” and “the concept of an assigned gender, or even an assigned name, at birth is transphobic” and none of them seem to be interested in reading more than the first sentence of any of my comments before writing a reply.
More often than not they reply with a concern I addressed in the comment they’re replying to, without any explanation of why my argument was invalid. Some of them cannot even state their own position, instead simply repeatedly calling mine oppressive in some way.
It occurred to me just now that these interactions reminded me of nothing so much as an evangelical Christian I got into an argument with on Matrix a while ago, in which I met him 95% of the way, conceded that God might well be real and that being trans was sinful and tried to convince him not to tell that to every trans person he passed, and failed. I am 100% convinced he was trolling – in retrospect I’m pretty sure I could’ve built a municipal transport system by letting people ride on top of his goalposts (that’s what I get for picking a fight with a Christian at 2AM) – and the only reason I’m not convinced these leftists on Lemmy are trolls is the sheer fucking number of them.
I made this post and what felt like half the responses fell into this category. Am I going insane?
You must log in or register to comment.
This rings extra true for me because many of the redfash that I used to follow (before russia invaded Ukraine and they went mask off) were actually ex-Evangelicals. Later it struck me how they’d just exchanged one fascist ideology with another.
Outside of the word “capitalist,” literally nothing presented in the top half of the image is even political, let alone authoritarian 🙄 it kinda seems like you’re just using popular negative words against things you dislike.
“Any attempt at actual progress makes you a liberal” isn’t political? “I have a right to tell you what media you should watch” isn’t political?
What are you talking about?
You know, “Any attempt to make actual progress makes you a lukewarm Christian” is kind of a weird and ambiguous statement and seems like someone was working backwards from the starting point of being anti-leftist.
Related: one glaring thing of note is anti-leftist sentiment routinely conflates liberal and leftist together.
I’m still confused. The Tumblr OP explicitly did not do that, and neither did I. I acknowledge the difference so that I can be left of center without having to associate myself with people who think that voting for Joe Biden instead of <insert third party candidate here> makes me a fascist.
What do you mean? It specifically says leftist, and even you quoted in reference the part that used liberal.
The second comment has been removed, but the first one seems fair to me (I hope you won’t dismiss this out of hand as an authoritarian leftist, I’m not authoritarian at all). Trans people don’t choose to be trans, so calling them sinful just to endear yourself to a church member doesn’t seem materially different from saying to a regressive Mormon that, sure, black people bear the mark of Cain.
It just labels a vulnerable group as inherently problematic. It’s not authoritarian to be surprised or upset by that.
I elaborated more on why I conceded that point further down that thread. I would like to emphasize that I sincerely do not believe that being trans is sinful or in any way unnatural or problematic. Trans people have existed for millenia and history is rife with records of them. I realized that, since the person I was arguing with was not thinking rationally, I could not convince him with reason (plus, as stated in the post, it was really late at night for me (we lived nine timezones apart) and I really wanted the argument to be over so that I could go to bed – at least half of it was “fine, you can have this point, since I don’t have the energy to argue with you”) so, since I could not get rid of his transphobia, I tried to convince him, if he must be transphobic, to at least do so in the privacy of his own head.
I apologize for the insult to the trans community, and I will stress again that that concession in no way reflects my actual beliefs, but I believe it was a necessary evil.
In cases where convincing people not to be transphobic is not an option, convincing them to keep it to themselves reduces harm more than getting into a big fight over whether it’s sinful (which, since no two interpretations of the bible are the same, one cannot possibly win) and giving the transphobe ammunition with which to hate in the form of “lmao look at this snowflake”.
That’s not the argument. Leftists are fine with incremental change and improvements, they just do not believe continuing Capitalism counts as an incremental improvement. If a country isn’t moving towards Socialism, concessions are nice, but insufficient to count as meaningful change.
I think a lot of this whole “liberal vs leftist” stuff here roots in defederation, creating 2 large echo chambers with some bleedover but no actual crossing over. This results in a lot of (usually incorrect) assumptions and good-faith misreadings of original points and takes.
Additionally, Leftists are usually very confident in their views and takes, because usually they have at least read some theory, whether that be Marx, Goldman, Lenin, Kropotkin, or so forth, while Liberals usually form their world views based on their personal experiences and view of the world. Some leftists are very aggressive in confronting liberal views, which in turn can push liberals away, instead of learning more.
I think it is the juxtaposition with “lukewarm christian” that belied a sense of reverse engineering to me. It indicates a view of liberals as a degree of leftist, which is usually an oppositional perspective.
Yeah there are some funny people out there and I would never have moved over to the left if not for more reasonable people that talk normal and actually engage with ideas.
When people criticize centrists, they frame it as the middle ground between universal health care, diversity and taxing the rich vs outright fascism.
What centrism actually is, is the middle ground between fascism and “if you try to lose weight you’re fat-phobic and if you don’t offer up your home to the crack-addicted homeless guy who keeps harassing your 12-year-old daughter you’re a nazi.”
The alt-right doesn’t have a monopoly on idiots. Definitely a plurality, though.
Great example of neoliberalism…
Try to act like the only thing that matters is extreme social views on either side to distract from what happens when the only two major parties are “fiscally conservative”.
That’s the whole point, the rich buying both parties and starting culture wars so no one pays attention to what the rich want.
Sorry, but isn’t that exactly what centrism as I described is against? The extreme viewpoints of either side. And what’s in the middle? Typically moderate politicians like Biden who are ostensibly on “the left” but only insofar as the politicians on “the right” are batshit fascists.
But the “enlightened centrists” crowd act like centrism is the point between Biden and Trump. Biden is the goddamn centre point.
Biden is the goddamn centre point.
Biden is only “the centre point” if one end is trump and the other is the bare minimum you want from a president.
He’s not even the middle between what people actually want and trump.
The only people who say online that Biden has been a bad president are right-wing trolls and Russian propagandists, or those who have believed the crap they spew.
Remember when the left was screaming at Biden to forgive student debt and then he… started doing exactly that? How far back have you had to move those goal posts in the last four years?
Why would Socialists, Communists, and Anarchists be “happy” with Biden and believe him to be a good president when Biden is a firm Liberal Capitalist, which stands against what Leftists stand for?
And here, children, is one of those Russian propagandists, or “tankies.” Easily identifiable by their .ml instance.
In what way? If we had a socialist president, I wouldn’t expect right wingers to be happy either.
I genuinely don’t get where you think I am doing Russian propaganda, considering Russia is a bourgeois dictatorship and not a beacon of leftism. I don’t know where you get the idea that I am a tankie either for saying it makes sense that leftists don’t agree with right wingers, just like right-wingers don’t agree with leftists.
This is just slander.
Going to need to see some honest arguments for forcing people to house sexual predators… In fact I’m quite sure there’s an amendment saying you can’t be forced by the government to house anyone on your personal property (which I do think should be lessened, or we should have more Rights to passing by laws). Sounds like you’re believing the progressive side is a very slippery slope.
See: any comment section regarding homeless encampments when the reality people in places like Vancouver are facing is used heroin needles left on their doorstep and in playgrounds and women being harassed on their way home.
I have a friend in Calgary who regularly has to deal with junkies shooting up right in front of his door and trying to get him to let them in.
It’s for people who can’t even imagine that unhoused people struggling with addiction could ever actually get help…
In their vision of the future those people stay on the street instead of getting help so they can stand in their own again. Even if they never can, them having their basic needs met makes it safer for everyone.
It’s not that they intentionally are arguing in bad faith, it’s just a total.lack.of empathy. They don’t see those people as humans that need help. Homeless desperate people are a “thing” to them, not a bunch of individuals.
I understand that addiction doesn’t happen in a vacuum and every addict is a victim of their circumstances. I also understand you should be able to walk down a dark alley while waving a wad of cash without being mugged.
At a certain point you have to acknowledge reality and say “even if we want to work toward a perfect world where people get the help they need and we don’t hurt each other, we don’t exist in that world so we need to protect ourselves and those we care about through common sense.”
Letting addicts set up a tent near a residential neighbourhood or handing over our wallets to the less fortunate guy threatening to stab us doesn’t help anyone.
Imagine, we could have a better world if the capitalists would pay their fair share. If that happened, you wouldn’t need to argue!
I didn’t think I’d have to quote myself today, but in the original comment I made which you’re replying to, I explicitly said:
When people criticize centrists, they frame it as the middle ground between universal health care, diversity and taxing the rich vs outright fascism.
I am completely in favour of taxing the rich. Billionaires should not exist, and in fact it is unethical to be a billionaire because to hold that much wealth which you will never be able to use while others are suffering is outright evil.
But this is exactly what I was saying. You aren’t centrist if you look at the Republicans and Democrats and say “they both make good points.” You’re a centrist if you look at the Republicans and Democrats and say “the Democrats are the only sane option, and even though they aren’t ideal they’re way better than the alternative and voting for them is the only thing preventing the United States from becoming a fascist dictatorship under an absolute idiot.”
Somthing somthing horseshoe theory.
Tankies, and those they convince of their selfish narcissistic political insanity (and antisemtism) are the bane of the Fediverse. You’re not going insane.
The difference is that revolutions HAVE happened throughout history, and have been successful.
Comparing a political act that has historical precedent to a bible story with no basis in fact is probably the most flaccid “both sides” centrist argument I’ve ever heard.
Most revolutions don’t result in a better world for the common person. They result in warlords taking power.
So how long does it take to go from “overthrowing the new warlords” and “we have to stay this way because this is the way it is”?
Like I know you didn’t mean to, but you just made a pretty good argument why a revolution isn’t inherently a bad thing: it’s replacing warlords.
Be a use even if you’re right, and every single prior revolution has resulted in warlords gaining power…
That doesn’t mean the next one will too. And the alternative is living under a system that’s inherently corrupt and was created by warlords whose main desire would be maintaining power and preventing change at all costs.
Like, you can say you don’t want to try, but why try to talk others out of the chance to make things better for everyone including yourself?
Why shit on people who want to make the world better just because they care to even talk about trying?
Why shit on people who want to make the world better just because they care to even talk about trying?
I almost think that’s the intent of the original post. Lots of people are doing important justice work, but in some circles they are treated like traitors to the cause if they aren’t threatening class warfare.
and none of them seem to be interested in reading more than the first sentence of any of my comments before writing a reply.
I feel like that’s the important bit of what OP typed.
OP wants to make 20 claims in one comment, and expects anyone that replies to address all 20 in depth.
That’s known as a Gish Gallop. The point of it is to overrwhelm someone with so many false claims that they can’t respond to them all.
OP is claiming that instead of people doing that, they stop and address the first untrue thing OP has claimed…
Which is apparently their first sentence the majority of the time.
But the fundamental overall point of complaints like OP, is they feel there shouldn’t be standards if you’re on the same “team”. Which ironically is what it’s like for devout religious followers.
No matter the small disagreements, at the end of the day you’re on the same team.
The left tends to have more varied standards of what’s ok, and an unwillingness to compromise personal morals to fit in with the “team”.
Most people think that’s a good thing. The opposite is how we keep ending up with fucking nazis all the time.
That’s known as a Gish Gallop. The point of it is to overrwhelm someone with so many false claims that they can’t respond to them all.
I’m not really sure that a gish gallop can happen in a written medium. In this case, someone could very well just make an extremely long drawn out post that addresses all 20 points. It’s not like a live chat or a conversation where someone can talk over you, or actually just raise a bunch of new points that don’t make a lot of sense when bunched together.
In this case, someone could very well just make an extremely long drawn out post that addresses all 20 points.
And that would take a lot of time and effort…
For no chance of it working, your time is just being wasted
Why comment in the first place with only a single point that has absolutely no chance of working, then?
OP wants to make 20 claims in one comment, and expects anyone that replies to address all 20 in depth.
No, I mean that I wrote a comment with five sentences and you literally only read the first one.
For the record, I wrote that sentence in reference to the post I linked to in the body. Take this chain, for example. Or this one where someone admitted point blank to not reading a single word I wrote.
Now. It would be incredibly hypocritical of me to not respond to the rest of your comment after chewing you out for not responding to the rest of mine, so I will. I do not think it is unreasonable, if I agree with 90% of your positions but disagree with the remaining 10%, to expect not to be treated like a fully fledged enemy. I absolutely do not think that saying I’m on the same team should be sufficient to demand respect, but I do expect to be given the benefit of the doubt, and to be able have a civil discussion about why the less-drastic methods I prefer to achieve the same aims you seek are insufficient. I was not in the thread I think you are referencing.
Can I offer a little advice…? I recently started doing this myself.
If the language starts to become emotional, nope out asap. These people just want a fight, and you won’t get anything else out of them.
At best they are emotionally immature and might grow out of it some day, at worst they are trolls trying to drain your energy so it can’t be used elsewhere.
Meaningful change happens through incremental progress, which is what I believe OP is advocating for. Revolutionary change usually involves a charismatic idealogue who is capable of stirring up revolt in the common populace towards their own ends.
See: Lenin refusing to concede power after losing the election following the Bolshevik revolution.
This simply isn’t true. Throughout history you will observe longs periods of stagnation followed by a period of rapid change. This pattern is noticable in many things but especially in human political arrangement. Feudalism didn’t decay capitalism and capitalism won’t decay into socialism
Incrementalists reject the idea of punctuated equilibrium.
Meaningful change happens through incremental progress
Name one large change that happened slowly over decades that wasn’t a slow build till the dam burst.
It’s be nice if you used America, but you’re not gonna find an example.
Minimum wage increase? LGBTQ rights? Hell, even segregation took a few decades to fully go away, and depending on who you ask, it still hasn’t.
Of course we should be disruptive and protest and riot. But let’s also focus on one issue at a time instead of saying “anything short of perfection in a single step is not worth fighting for at all”
Minimum wage increase?
…
Uh…
The federal minimum wage was last updated in 2009…
What was the campaign slogan of the president who won the 2008 election? I can’t remember, but I’m pretty sure his campaign wasn’t about sudden change was bad and we should move things slowly.
Besides, we’re talking about incremental change. And I guess “every 15 years” would be an increment, but Biden hasn’t talked about raising it, and trump won’t, so the best we can hope for is “every 20 years”?
Like, you didn’t get three words in before you started arguing my point homie.
You’re too hung up on labels and not on how most voters want the same stuff.
If you want incremental change with the federal minimum wage, neither party is giving you what you want.
The federal minimum wage in the United States when it was introduced was $0.25. Any increase since then is exactly the kind of incremental change that OP was talking about.
And, yes, we have to fight for even those incremental changes. But they are always more longstanding than the kinds of changes that result from an idealogue riling up his followers to revolt, which will be overturned as soon as the next idealogue amasses a big and angry enough following.
You know, when I wrote in the original post that leftists didn’t read more than the first sentence of a comment before writing a reply, I thought I was exaggerating.
What about LGBTQ rights and segregation?
How about any country with universal healthcare? Or do you think that the UK and Canada got our healthcare systems through violent rebellion instead of parliamentary action?
Now, go ahead and name any country that was better off after a revolution. Cuz all I can think of is China, Russia, and [ waves vaguely in the direction of America ].
Cuba. Haiti. The Chiapas. Uhh, probably brazil. I dunno, I guess my point would just be to kinda of gesture at anticolonial action more broadly, but yeah.
Or do you think that the UK and Canada got our healthcare systems through violent rebellion instead of parliamentary action?
What?
Do you think the only sudden change is violent rebellion?
Do you think that an unconventional candidate like Bernie Sanders or even Trump winning a democratic election is a revolutionary change? Sweetie, that is change within an existing power structure, which is the antithesis to “revolutionary.”
Revolutionary change is what the MAGAts attempted on January 6th.
To be fair, the Socialist Revolutionary Party split up right before the election, and the right-wing retained the name. The Internet didn’t exist, so the public largely wasn’t aware. The left wing program won the majority of votes, even though the right wing SRP, who did not support the left wing program, won the vote.
Adding onto this, there were 2 governments, the constituent assembly, and the Soviets. The constituent assembly additionally did not recognize the october revolution or the legitimacy of the Soviets.
Lenin then took the Bolsheviks, disbanded the Constituent Assembly, and took power through the Soviets, where they had the majority support.
All that to say, the constituent assembly election was largely a mess, and it can be reasonably argued that if the decision to retain the constitient assembly and retain the right wing SRP had witheld, the popular will of the people would not have been upheld and the White Army likely would have returned Russia to Monarchism under the Romanovs.
It really wasn’t a situation with a clear democratic process at any time, neither before or after, which is the reality of a revolution during war time, so we can only speculate from hindsite what might have happened.
I don’t completely agree with your point but I feel it somehow. The question would be : what would be the opposite of this ? As you surely know, compromise, while crucial, also has its dangers.
The Nolan Chart used to be taught in intro to Poli-Sci. I’m not sure if it is anymore, but it should really be taught in high school.
Here’s the quiz (oversimplified by today’s standards), that will give you an idea of your political ideology position on the Nolan Chart.
This is basically how you get horseshoe theory, but if you come at an authoritarian leftist with horseshoe theory they’ll mention the nonsense fishhook theory.
We’ve seen Horseshoe theory in the development of several dictatorships. However, I don’t really follow how fish hook theory is anything more than a defensive suggestion to mask authoritarian progress.
Finally an explanation for a dumbass like me. The quiz might be oversimplified, but it seems like a decent starting point for what I should do my research on
It’s helpful for learning the difference between economic and social legislation. They’re displayed as two separate axes, demonstrating that political ideology is more of a spectrum that is defined by two independent variables.
Economic: More tax socialization - liberal, Less tax socialization - conservative
Social: More social liberty - libertarian, Less social liberty - authoritarian
Evangelicals come with serial numbers now?
I mean, how long do you expect people to participate in a game where there is no way to change the outcome for the better? People can act stupid, but that doesn’t mean they are stupid - more and more people are starting to see how this spectacle that the political racketeers and their media cronies insist on calling “Democracy!” really works. If you expect people to just bounce back from such realizations and simply “vote strategically” you’re in for disappointment.
I’m not USian… but if I was, would I go vote with you? Sure. But that’s only because I’ve had a long time to digest the fact that my vote means absolutely nothing (so-called “representative democracy” is a racket everywhere - not just the US), and would only do it out of solidarity with all the people who are terrified of what is coming next.
I’ve seen the ways that people have tried to get out the vote for this year’s election in the US… and I’m afraid to report that, so far, it’s not working - and that’s not your fault…
Don’t worry about getting banned. You didn’t post on the .ml instances after all! ;)
Seriously though, you’re not crazy. My advice is to not get emotionally invested in any of those types of interactions. If they’re being too stupid for you, just block them. You’re mental wellbeing will thank you for it.
In the long run, blocking them just cedes the floor to them.
Dude, everything on the internet is fake.
Wild to me that people actually think liberal democracy isn’t authoritarian, it is literally the dictatorship of the bourgiosie
.ml domains always have the goofiest takes.
The owning class gets what they want while the working class seldom does.
You see how flat that line is? The percentage of the public that wants something has very very little effect on policy
The owning class (bourgiosie) has the authority to hand down dictates that the working class (proletariat) must abide by despite have essentially no influence on the nature of those dictates.
deleted by creator
They have a point for the USAs flavor of democracy specifically. I don’t have a choice on the ballot to vote for a working class person who shares my struggles. My options are those who came from very wealthy families and have tremendous influence.
You need a lot of money and power to get on ballots and to actually win anything. So yeah we have a democracy, but we only get to vote for the wealthy who are largely influenced (or bought and paid for entirely) by corporations and other ultra-wealthy people who want policy written for themselves.
deleted by creator
You know, that’s fair too. We are pretty right-wing compared to most of Europe.
I explain my comment to ilovethebomb
deleted by creator
The graphs and studies and comment elaborate on why liberal democracy is authoritarian.
Specifically the point I was making was that liberal democracy under capitalism is only democratic for the ruling class. It is an authoritarian dictatorship because it gives one class full authority to dictate the actions of another.
I understand how this can be difficult to grasp immediately if you don’t have an understanding of class dynamics and the history of labor. I don’t expect you to get it because of some comment on lemmy but do think about who really has power in capitalist neoliberal society.
This video is a decent entry point to my line of thinking here
deleted by creator
Most people do not think ‘protect the rights of individuals and don’t tell them what to do’ and ‘let business and the ultra-rich do whatever they want’ are the same philosophy!
They work out to be pretty similar in practice, though. Like, you can see how private property (not personal property important distinction) as a right encourages the buying up and scalping of pretty much anything that can be qualified as private property by, basically, random chance as according to the free market, right? So, the first one creates the second one. I.E. 9 times outta 10 they boil down to effectively being the same philosophy in practice.
Nah, I agree with the original point. Liberal Democracy is only one form of Democracy, and is particularly good at resisting popular change and supporting whoever has the money to lobby. You can see in the US, for example, even presidents who win the popular vote, lose!
More direct democratic forms, whether that be direct democracy, participatory economics, parlimentary democracy, industrial democracy, and so forth are all more accountable to the people and capable of positive change that the public desires.
Despite being overwhelmingly popular, the US does not have: Legalized Marijuana, Medicare for All, Student Loan Forgiveness (outside loophole forgiveness), Enshrined Abortion Protection, and more.
Read up on the types of democracy here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_democracy
deleted by creator
What is “authoritarian” if not a method to suppress popular opinion and exert the will of the minority? Those are the stated goals of liberal democracy, but not the function.
deleted by creator
The stated goal of liberal democracy is to “enshrine personal liberties, the rule of law, Private Property, and political freedom” via a representative government in a Capitalist state. In another phrase, it is a Capitalist state with representatives.
In practice, the purpose of a representative, rather than more direct forms of democracy, is to provide the wider public with a set of predetermined choices, not to represent the views of the public. This results in political parties that are good at fundraising being the only viable parties.
Furthering this logical chain, those who appeal to those with the most ability and interest in shaping the state will be the representatives the public can vote on. Ie, those who can convince large corporations and the ultra-wealthy to make significant donations, are the ones who retain power.
The reality is that in Capitalism, a minority controls the majority of the wealth, and this minority is the Capitalist, owner class. Capitalists lobby and advertise for candidates that do not fundamentally challenge their profits or positions, which leads us to presidential elections that appear to be a constant “lesser evil” voting process. The evil is the point! We just choose which flavor is easier to suck down, which is normally the side willing to make more concessions.
More direct forms of democracy remove this barrier.
deleted by creator
.
deleted by creator
The biggest two lemmy servers are militant authoritarian fascists, so I’m surprised you’re only seeing it now
Hexbears, already filtered, don’t bother
.
It’s of course possible to just be opposed to the meat grinder that is modern society without requiring me to be some kind of revolutionary?
And I would raise the argument that the vast majority of “leftists” are like that and are not actually revolutionary because most people can’t be bothered to be revolutionary. It’s hard work and even if you succeed, then you have to do more work.
I’m quite happy for a government to exist, I just want it to be a good one. I’m not even asking for a Star Trek utopia, just not actively evil. That’ll do for now.
I’m quite happy for a government to exist, I just want it to be a good one. I’m not even asking for a Star Trek utopia, just not actively evil. That’ll do for now.
See, that’s usually where the core political differences start to rear their head. The sort of like, revolutionary leftist, being so swamped in the failures of modern government, begins to see everything through this lens. Ahh, we need to replace the whole system, because any attempt to make it better is inevitably met with failure. It’s relatively easy to feel totally hopeless if you start to grasp, say, the history of civil rights, right. Fight for equal voting, fight to eliminate lynchings, fight for equal economic access. But then we see white flight take place, we see redlining take place, we see the public pools get closed down and we still see huge enclaves and ghettos exist with lack of economic access, a school to prison pipeline, an inability for prisoners to vote, an a specific carve out in the constitution for slavery to basically be legal as long as it’s only done with prisoners. Because you’re so focused on how everything could be improved, it begins to feel as though everything is still a total failure.
I dunno. I do just kind of buy into dual power, so it’s not a problem for me at all and this divide doesn’t really exist, but that’s where that kind of like, hopeless put upon revolutionary perspective comes from.
It’s of course possible to just be opposed to the meat grinder that is modern society without requiring me to be some kind of revolutionary?
Sure. But people who support the meat grinder will call you one anyway.
Yeah sure but this comment seems to be from the opinion of other "leftists. Although it is actually probably from the perspective of someone who is actually centralist and have just have convinced themselves that they have a political opinion. That way they can look down on everyone and feel smug.
The right are evil, and the left are apparently religious nut jobs. Yay balance.
Centrists will always have some rationale for dismissing anyone to their left. In this case, they have decided to use the idea that pining after instant and poorly considered revolution is common to all leftists, and have used that stereotype to construct this “authoritarian religious nut” narrative, via which they can dismiss anyone who is less than content with the Democratic Party’s open hostility to the left.
Hell, just read this thread. It’s a veritable bingo card of dismissal excuses.
What I’m after is some consistency. Every time I say “hey I’m a leftist, but I don’t think revolution or temporary autocracy would be an improvement over the current system” all I get is ideological gatekeeping, litmus tests and accusations of left punching.
You have to admit, that internet leftism, and Lemmy in particular is heavily biased towards ML philosophy, and they really do not like 20th century revisionism. I just think the world deserves a better class of communist, but apparently that’s regarded as wrong think.
Not all revolutionaries are MLs. Have you heard of anarchists or any of the branches of Marxism that aren’t Leninists?
All I’m seeing here is a concerted effort to designate .ml as the new “tankie instance” to get world to defederate from.
“I oppose the meat grinder but I still need to crank the handle for a living” is some pretty superficial opposition.
I believe that’s basically everyone’s position who isn’t multi-millionaire.
Also engaging with society is not the same thing as “turning the handle”. The only people who think like that are absolutists and they are as unreasonable as the most ravid of Trump supporters. Don’t listen to them at all, they have no idea what they’re talking about.
I believe that’s basically everyone’s position who isn’t multi-millionaire.
Its a bit more layered than that.
Also engaging with society is not the same thing as “turning the handle”.
Never suggested it was. But the folks who take the most offense inevitable come back with the “My uncle’s a police officer and he’s not so bad, really” or “Yeah sure I work for Lockhead Martin but we actually help protect a lot of people!”
The internet is rife with folks who simply refuse to see the forest for the trees and cannot imagine being on the receiving end of a system that radiates its worst aspects beyond the borders.
The only people who think like that are absolutists and they are as unreasonable as the most ravid of Trump supporters
You know, I’m old enough to remember the pandemic, when folks who were asked to wear masks and get vaccines would scream “Authoritarian!” and “Absolutist!” and “Religious Zealot!” at everyone from the head of the CDC on down to the guy delivering them french fries. I never got to hear it used against proponents of the Iraq War, back when “You’re either with us or you’re with the Terrorists!” though.
The term has a peculiar usage, in my experience.
But there are still police officers and defense workers under communism. The regimes that MLs so vehemently defend have plenty of these things.
Everyone agrees that we should work towards a world where we don’t need such things, but the popular idea that this kind of thing is bad in the US, but good in China/Russia is blatant hypocrisy.
But there are still police officers and defense workers under communism. The regimes that MLs so vehemently defend have plenty of these things.
I would say anarchists don’t support these things, and there are as many of them as there are MLs on here.
Although it’s MLs building things like Unions that try to improve current society.
But there are still police officers and defense workers under communism.
There is a fundamental difference between an agency that grew out of a local liberation effort and one that inherited the legacy of 19th century run away slave catchers.
the popular idea that this kind of thing is bad in the US, but good in China/Russia is blatant hypocrisy.
Consider the shocking rise in incarceration in the wake of the Civil Rights Movement, the habit of cops living a city away driving in to police minority neighborhoods devoid of democratic governance, and the huge profit margins police privatization enjoys.
The profit motive amplifies all the worst aspects of the police state
