Yeah, meanwhile the only actual tankies are the ones who cheerlead the USSR and PRC.
As an anti authoritarian, while I can see some redeeming qualities in those countries, overall I’m not a fan. Though I do love me some propaganda art from the time.
To be clear, the vast majority of Marxists support the PRC and USSR. The only major exceptions are Trots, who are mostly found in the Western Left due to their anti-AES slant aligning with the overall liberal Western hegemony, and small pockets in South America. Trots have produced no successful revolutions, so they pose little threat. Though I do think it’s funny that Trots love newspapers.
As for “anti-authoritarian,” I’m not really sure what that means unless you are either an Anarchist or have an arbitrary level of government you deem unacceptable.
Anarchist. I lean somewhere between anarcho communist and libertarian socialist. In the most basic sense, I’m suspicious of power because I believe power corrupts and no system of economics or government is immune to this.
Can you elaborate? Moreover, can you explain why you believe Anarchism to be better at solving this percieved problem?
Corruption exists in all systems, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be fought against. Letting perfect utopia be the enemy of massive progress is fatal. Even in an Anarchist system, there can and would be differences in power and access to resources, only without a spread of power across the system.
I don’t really wish to debate this. Marxism so far has involved centralized power. Centralized power is easy to manipulate and corrupt. Anarchism at its core is decentralized power. Not impossible to manipulate and corrupt but more difficult.
Most people want to be left alone with the fruits of their labor. Anarchism is more likely to accomplish this.
Leading up to the election? Very reasonable. The Democrats are frauds, but they’re not as bad for the left as Republicans. It’s in our best interest to big tent with them for damage mitigation, to prevent the fascists from gaining power. Criticism, however deserved, helps the fascists.
After the election? Have at 'em. They’re not as terrible as the Republicans, but they’re awful nonetheless.
“Big tent” with people who will give you nothing for your vote. There is a slight chance that they will not take as much away or maybe just not as fast, but they won’t make any meaningful changes.
What you really got there is a big old tent of fucking fascists collaborators, which means from a practical standpoint, you’ve got a big tent full of fucking fascists. Those criticisms are the calls warning you that they will do nothing to stop the rise of fascism and, worse yet, are actively aiding its rise by stamping out any competition to their rule that will show strong opposition to fascism. These are warning calls that echo the realities of our history and you should heed them! Germany is not the only example mirroring this path.
If you really want to dig a bit deeper into motivations, the Democrats will and have always supported right wingers over the left because they have more in common with the fascists than actual leftist movements. They are far more threatening than the Republicans simply in that they pretend they aren’t also right-wing and swindle people into acting against their own class interests.
People see the fascist without the mask, but it’s much harder for them to recognize the monster when it instead smiles at them and removes the mask slowly.
Big tents absolutely win elections, that’s really the only thing that does. Seats at the table are incentives to get people in the tent. But if they don’t get the votes , they don’t get the table, and any seats they offer are worthless.
You put me in a room with Democratic party leadership, and I’ll tear into them with all the rightful criticism they deserve. You put me in a room with voters, before the election, I will sing their praises. I’ll advocate their victories and downplay their flaws.
Not because the victories are substantial, and certainly not because their flaws aren’t terrible. But there are two tents big enough to win the office, and the other one is worse and backed by lockstep support.
A little, but they lost many many votes by shutting out any pro-Palestinian voices from the DNC. They wouldn’t even let Palestinian-Americans endorse Harris at the convention, let alone talk about Palestinians suffering (but they stacked the convention with Israeli-Americans and families of hostages).
Maybe the convention lost them more voters than gained ? Widely circulated videos of democrat delegates making fun of the protest that was naming the dead kids might have lost Michigan all by itself .
Absolutely. This should not have been difficult; “we grieve the loss of these children and something needs to be done to force both sides into a ceasefire” was too controversial for the mega donors of Biden/Harris. Any talk at all of nudging the rightwing Israeli government was too unpalatable even though Chuck Schumer himself was publicly criticizing Netanyahu.
Liz Cheney represents conservatives who don’t want to vote for Trump. That demographic represents more votes than leftists. That’s what happens when you play hard to get too hard, the person you’re after gives up and goes after someone else.
Just because it wasn’t successful doesn’t mean it wasn’t the rational choice. It’s very possible that she would have done worse if she hadn’t courted conservatives, and possible she would have done even worse than that if she’d gone full tilt toward progressives. Hindsight is easy.
Worst performance since the Republicans took California but hey who knows, could’ve been even worse somehow if they did anything differently. Clearly the right play is to learn absolutely nothing from this. Even the really obvious stuff like the fact that virtually everyone in the country hates Dick Cheney’s guts with extremely good reason.
Also is it still hindsight if a bunch of people were screaming that it was a terrible move before it blew up in her face? Because that kinda seems more like foresight.
Its not rational to hold to a position that was empirically shown to be false. remember the askes were mostly: stop being a cunt to palestintians, stop shipping weapons to genocidal regimes, and have policies that actually help american workers. like committing to ms khan, maybe a fucking min wage increase, maybe a single payer option, restoration of various corporate tax policies we’ve gutted regan.
but sure keep blindly carrying water for a dead party. thats definitely rational.
imagine thinking ‘don’t genocide’ is playing hard to get. also:
talk about delusions. remind me what disaffected republican voters. reminder: you’re party lost and hard because they’re trash at least the republicans give their voters what they want someone to blame.
If you think one genocide is just as bad as 3, when the difference is millions of lives, then you have no heart.
Drag gets it, okay? “Just as bad” is a great soundbite. It gets people riled up and ready to take action. But it’s also false, because it erases millions of genocide victims. And drag wants to know whether you’ve thought about the millions of genocide victims you’re erasing to accomplish your goals. Has it not crossed your mind yet, or did you make a conscious choice to use genocide-denying rhetoric?
Very false. They both represent capital yes, but one is objectively more opposed to leftist policy than the other. Republicans are more anti-Union, more against single payer healthcare, etc.
Voting isn’t about choosing who best represents you, that person isn’t going to win. Voting is about choosing who you’re going to be fighting for the next 4 years. I’d rather push left against the Democrats than the Republicans.
You’re confusing social reforms with genuine Leftist movement. Both the Dems and the Reps are thoroughly anti-Leftist, and neither can be worked with along Leftist lines.
You specifically mentioned policies like “single payer healthcare,” not the establishment of Socialism. How do you get these policies without establishing Socialism? By trying to use the existing system and parties in it, however futile that may be. Hence why Leftists focus on establishing Socialism, and why the Dems and Reps are equally hostile to Leftists.
If you can’t tell the difference between bad and worse, I can’t help you. They’re both hostile to the left, but only one is also hostile to the center.
I believe if leftists actually started showing up, and petitioned the Democrats for charge, they might get some meager nominal concessions. The Republicans not only won’t do that, they’ll double down on authoritarianism.
The very same tepid institutionalism that prevents them from boldly accomplishing anything is exactly what makes them a more favorable enemy. Republicans don’t care about the institutions at all, they’ll install a Christo-fascist ethnostate the exact moment they have the opportunity. I’d rather fight neoliberals than Christo-fascists, and I’m not sure why you wouldn’t.
But go ahead, don’t vote strategically to support an easier-to-defeat enemy. I’m sure playing on hard mode will establish socialism faster.
If you can’t tell the difference between bad and worse, I can’t help you. They’re both hostile to the left, but only one is also hostile to the center.
So you agree that both are hostile to the left, glad to see you come around.
I believe if leftists actually started showing up, and petitioned the Democrats for charge, they might get some meager nominal concessions
Are meager, nominal concessions enough?
But go ahead, don’t vote strategically to support an easier-to-defeat enemy. I’m sure playing on hard mode will establish socialism faster.
You haven’t explained how they are easier to defeat. The idea that Dems put the kid gloves on when dealing with genuine threats to the status quo is woefully naiive.
I didn’t do shit. The unwavering support of Israel is the natural extension of the exact same foreign policy we’ve adopted since Israel was founded. And don’t pretend it’s magically gonna get better now that Dems lost. Talk to Palestinians, they’re terrified of Trump’s bromance with Bibi.
Both parties are the enemy. Democrats are an easier to defeat enemy. Why would you want to fight the harder enemy? The odds are already stacked against the left, why make them worse?
The odds are already stacked against the left, why make them worse?
Because to performative “leftists”, the point isn’t to help people, the point is to suffer in conflict against a great foe. They want the greatest foe so they can suffer the most. In their ethical system, that’s virtue. And if that results in a few million Palestinians dying, that’s an acceptable cost of doing business.
I didn’t do shit. The Palestinian genocide is a built in feature of both parties. I support one of them.
Talk to Palestinians, they’re terrified of Trump’s bromance with Bibi.
Fuck you just making shit up to win an internet argument. Bloodless fucking ghoul.
Democrats are an easier to defeat enemy.
Based on what? How for 3 out of every 4 years it’s fucking forbidden to say a bad word about them and how they siphon off everyone who would otherwise have human morals from actual good work? How the fucking shit are you having the goddamned fucking gall to say this shit when the only fighting you want to do against them is telling people to vote for them?
Well good news! They got beat, so now we can move on, right??
“Support” and “damage mitigation” are two very different things.
Fuck you just making shit up to win an internet argument.
I’ve been donating directly to Palestinians distributing aid for years. I talk to them, that’s what they say. But sure, you know better.
the only fighting you want to do against them is telling people to vote for them?
Who said anything about “only”? I’m talking about setting the floor and working from there. Look at the two options on election day, and vote for the better starting point.
Don’t listen to the Palestinians who correctly observe that they’re being exterminated with a democrat in charge. Listen to the Palestinians I claim exist who support the democrats that are committing a genocide against them. The people of Palestine want Juan Guiado as their president.
Who said anything about “only”? I’m talking about setting the floor and working from there. Look at the two options on election day, and vote for the better starting point.
No one said shit. I’m watching what you actually do and what happened the last 4 years when you got what you wanted. It puts the lie to all the hollow bullshit you’ve repeated to death here.
You distributed aid with one hand and you voted for their extermination with the other. I don’t give a fuck what you have to say or what percentage of it is not a lie. I’m sure you’re telling the truth about the last part. You’re a nazi.
Don’t listen to the Palestinians who correctly observe that they’re being exterminated with a democrat in charge.
I listen to both. Neither party will end this. One party will expand and accelerate it. Both things are true. That’s what they have been saying, that Biden’s policies, and by presumptive extension Kamala’s, were horrific, but Trump would be even worse. And you claim the voices saying that are a rhetorical fabrication. Erasing victims of genocide in an impossible situation pleading to mitigate the damage, because that conflicts with your Internet argument. Who is the bloodless ghoul?
I’m watching what you actually do and what happened the last 4 years when you got what you wanted.
You don’t know the first thing about what I actually do and what I want. I don’t want the Democrats. I just want MAGA even less, and no one else has 80 million votes.
You distributed aid with one hand and you voted for their extermination with the other.
I voted to keep out the greater evil, but sure. Pretend that if Biden lost and Trump was in office on Oct 8, Palestine would be better off. One thing is true, the genocide would have ended much sooner. Get out of your Internet bubble.
The person you’re replying to voted for less genocide. If you didn’t vote, then you voted no preference. You’re a genocidal fascist throwing stones from your glass house.
Don’t forget being called a tankie for daring to rightfully criticize the democrats for being the frauds they are.
Tankie basically means “any Leftist” at this point, though Marxists get the brunt of it.
Yeah, meanwhile the only actual tankies are the ones who cheerlead the USSR and PRC.
As an anti authoritarian, while I can see some redeeming qualities in those countries, overall I’m not a fan. Though I do love me some propaganda art from the time.
To be clear, the vast majority of Marxists support the PRC and USSR. The only major exceptions are Trots, who are mostly found in the Western Left due to their anti-AES slant aligning with the overall liberal Western hegemony, and small pockets in South America. Trots have produced no successful revolutions, so they pose little threat. Though I do think it’s funny that Trots love newspapers.
As for “anti-authoritarian,” I’m not really sure what that means unless you are either an Anarchist or have an arbitrary level of government you deem unacceptable.
Anarchist. I lean somewhere between anarcho communist and libertarian socialist. In the most basic sense, I’m suspicious of power because I believe power corrupts and no system of economics or government is immune to this.
Why do you believe Anarchism is better at solving this problem than Marxism?
Marxism already proved itself corruptable.
Can you elaborate? Moreover, can you explain why you believe Anarchism to be better at solving this percieved problem?
Corruption exists in all systems, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be fought against. Letting perfect utopia be the enemy of massive progress is fatal. Even in an Anarchist system, there can and would be differences in power and access to resources, only without a spread of power across the system.
I don’t really wish to debate this. Marxism so far has involved centralized power. Centralized power is easy to manipulate and corrupt. Anarchism at its core is decentralized power. Not impossible to manipulate and corrupt but more difficult.
Most people want to be left alone with the fruits of their labor. Anarchism is more likely to accomplish this.
Also dont forget being a tankie and being called a fascist for the same reason
Leading up to the election? Very reasonable. The Democrats are frauds, but they’re not as bad for the left as Republicans. It’s in our best interest to big tent with them for damage mitigation, to prevent the fascists from gaining power. Criticism, however deserved, helps the fascists.
After the election? Have at 'em. They’re not as terrible as the Republicans, but they’re awful nonetheless.
“Big tent” with people who will give you nothing for your vote. There is a slight chance that they will not take as much away or maybe just not as fast, but they won’t make any meaningful changes.
Since when did fascists need an election to gain power and whose support gave them that power?
What you really got there is a big old tent of fucking fascists collaborators, which means from a practical standpoint, you’ve got a big tent full of fucking fascists. Those criticisms are the calls warning you that they will do nothing to stop the rise of fascism and, worse yet, are actively aiding its rise by stamping out any competition to their rule that will show strong opposition to fascism. These are warning calls that echo the realities of our history and you should heed them! Germany is not the only example mirroring this path.
If you really want to dig a bit deeper into motivations, the Democrats will and have always supported right wingers over the left because they have more in common with the fascists than actual leftist movements. They are far more threatening than the Republicans simply in that they pretend they aren’t also right-wing and swindle people into acting against their own class interests.
People see the fascist without the mask, but it’s much harder for them to recognize the monster when it instead smiles at them and removes the mask slowly.
Having a big tent isn’t winning the election. They need to be offering seats at the table.
Big tents absolutely win elections, that’s really the only thing that does. Seats at the table are incentives to get people in the tent. But if they don’t get the votes , they don’t get the table, and any seats they offer are worthless.
You put me in a room with Democratic party leadership, and I’ll tear into them with all the rightful criticism they deserve. You put me in a room with voters, before the election, I will sing their praises. I’ll advocate their victories and downplay their flaws.
Not because the victories are substantial, and certainly not because their flaws aren’t terrible. But there are two tents big enough to win the office, and the other one is worse and backed by lockstep support.
Did the Dems gain significant votes by offering Liz Cheney a seat at the table?
A little, but they lost many many votes by shutting out any pro-Palestinian voices from the DNC. They wouldn’t even let Palestinian-Americans endorse Harris at the convention, let alone talk about Palestinians suffering (but they stacked the convention with Israeli-Americans and families of hostages).
Maybe the convention lost them more voters than gained ? Widely circulated videos of democrat delegates making fun of the protest that was naming the dead kids might have lost Michigan all by itself .
Absolutely. This should not have been difficult; “we grieve the loss of these children and something needs to be done to force both sides into a ceasefire” was too controversial for the mega donors of Biden/Harris. Any talk at all of nudging the rightwing Israeli government was too unpalatable even though Chuck Schumer himself was publicly criticizing Netanyahu.
Liz Cheney represents conservatives who don’t want to vote for Trump. That demographic represents more votes than leftists. That’s what happens when you play hard to get too hard, the person you’re after gives up and goes after someone else.
Exactly, which is why Kamala won!
Just because it wasn’t successful doesn’t mean it wasn’t the rational choice. It’s very possible that she would have done worse if she hadn’t courted conservatives, and possible she would have done even worse than that if she’d gone full tilt toward progressives. Hindsight is easy.
Yeah, you’re probably right. They should try it a few more times just to be sure.
Worst performance since the Republicans took California but hey who knows, could’ve been even worse somehow if they did anything differently. Clearly the right play is to learn absolutely nothing from this. Even the really obvious stuff like the fact that virtually everyone in the country hates Dick Cheney’s guts with extremely good reason.
Also is it still hindsight if a bunch of people were screaming that it was a terrible move before it blew up in her face? Because that kinda seems more like foresight.
Its not rational to hold to a position that was empirically shown to be false. remember the askes were mostly: stop being a cunt to palestintians, stop shipping weapons to genocidal regimes, and have policies that actually help american workers. like committing to ms khan, maybe a fucking min wage increase, maybe a single payer option, restoration of various corporate tax policies we’ve gutted regan.
but sure keep blindly carrying water for a dead party. thats definitely rational.
imagine thinking ‘don’t genocide’ is playing hard to get. also:
talk about delusions. remind me what disaffected republican voters. reminder: you’re party lost and hard because they’re trash at least the republicans give their voters what they want someone to blame.
The Dems are just as bad as the Reps for Leftists because both represent Capital above all else.
If you think one genocide is just as bad as 3, when the difference is millions of lives, then you have no heart.
Drag gets it, okay? “Just as bad” is a great soundbite. It gets people riled up and ready to take action. But it’s also false, because it erases millions of genocide victims. And drag wants to know whether you’ve thought about the millions of genocide victims you’re erasing to accomplish your goals. Has it not crossed your mind yet, or did you make a conscious choice to use genocide-denying rhetoric?
Very false. They both represent capital yes, but one is objectively more opposed to leftist policy than the other. Republicans are more anti-Union, more against single payer healthcare, etc.
Voting isn’t about choosing who best represents you, that person isn’t going to win. Voting is about choosing who you’re going to be fighting for the next 4 years. I’d rather push left against the Democrats than the Republicans.
You’re confusing social reforms with genuine Leftist movement. Both the Dems and the Reps are thoroughly anti-Leftist, and neither can be worked with along Leftist lines.
I didn’t say work with, I said fight.
You specifically mentioned policies like “single payer healthcare,” not the establishment of Socialism. How do you get these policies without establishing Socialism? By trying to use the existing system and parties in it, however futile that may be. Hence why Leftists focus on establishing Socialism, and why the Dems and Reps are equally hostile to Leftists.
If you can’t tell the difference between bad and worse, I can’t help you. They’re both hostile to the left, but only one is also hostile to the center.
I believe if leftists actually started showing up, and petitioned the Democrats for charge, they might get some meager nominal concessions. The Republicans not only won’t do that, they’ll double down on authoritarianism.
The very same tepid institutionalism that prevents them from boldly accomplishing anything is exactly what makes them a more favorable enemy. Republicans don’t care about the institutions at all, they’ll install a Christo-fascist ethnostate the exact moment they have the opportunity. I’d rather fight neoliberals than Christo-fascists, and I’m not sure why you wouldn’t.
But go ahead, don’t vote strategically to support an easier-to-defeat enemy. I’m sure playing on hard mode will establish socialism faster.
So you agree that both are hostile to the left, glad to see you come around.
Are meager, nominal concessions enough?
You haven’t explained how they are easier to defeat. The idea that Dems put the kid gloves on when dealing with genuine threats to the status quo is woefully naiive.
you committed a genocide; you are a fascist. shut the fuck up ‘those guys are fascists’ you are literally the same
I didn’t do shit. The unwavering support of Israel is the natural extension of the exact same foreign policy we’ve adopted since Israel was founded. And don’t pretend it’s magically gonna get better now that Dems lost. Talk to Palestinians, they’re terrified of Trump’s bromance with Bibi.
Both parties are the enemy. Democrats are an easier to defeat enemy. Why would you want to fight the harder enemy? The odds are already stacked against the left, why make them worse?
Because to performative “leftists”, the point isn’t to help people, the point is to suffer in conflict against a great foe. They want the greatest foe so they can suffer the most. In their ethical system, that’s virtue. And if that results in a few million Palestinians dying, that’s an acceptable cost of doing business.
I didn’t do shit. The Palestinian genocide is a built in feature of both parties. I support one of them.
Fuck you just making shit up to win an internet argument. Bloodless fucking ghoul.
Based on what? How for 3 out of every 4 years it’s fucking forbidden to say a bad word about them and how they siphon off everyone who would otherwise have human morals from actual good work? How the fucking shit are you having the goddamned fucking gall to say this shit when the only fighting you want to do against them is telling people to vote for them?
Well good news! They got beat, so now we can move on, right??
“Support” and “damage mitigation” are two very different things.
I’ve been donating directly to Palestinians distributing aid for years. I talk to them, that’s what they say. But sure, you know better.
Who said anything about “only”? I’m talking about setting the floor and working from there. Look at the two options on election day, and vote for the better starting point.
Don’t listen to the Palestinians who correctly observe that they’re being exterminated with a democrat in charge. Listen to the Palestinians I claim exist who support the democrats that are committing a genocide against them. The people of Palestine want Juan Guiado as their president.
No one said shit. I’m watching what you actually do and what happened the last 4 years when you got what you wanted. It puts the lie to all the hollow bullshit you’ve repeated to death here.
You distributed aid with one hand and you voted for their extermination with the other. I don’t give a fuck what you have to say or what percentage of it is not a lie. I’m sure you’re telling the truth about the last part. You’re a nazi.
I listen to both. Neither party will end this. One party will expand and accelerate it. Both things are true. That’s what they have been saying, that Biden’s policies, and by presumptive extension Kamala’s, were horrific, but Trump would be even worse. And you claim the voices saying that are a rhetorical fabrication. Erasing victims of genocide in an impossible situation pleading to mitigate the damage, because that conflicts with your Internet argument. Who is the bloodless ghoul?
You don’t know the first thing about what I actually do and what I want. I don’t want the Democrats. I just want MAGA even less, and no one else has 80 million votes.
I voted to keep out the greater evil, but sure. Pretend that if Biden lost and Trump was in office on Oct 8, Palestine would be better off. One thing is true, the genocide would have ended much sooner. Get out of your Internet bubble.
The person you’re replying to voted for less genocide. If you didn’t vote, then you voted no preference. You’re a genocidal fascist throwing stones from your glass house.