Are the DNC members that said yes to AIPAC and dark corporate money these leftists you speak of?
Comment on silly costume dance
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 12 hours ago
Readers may need context to understand this meme.
You see, OP believes that Leftism is when people become more like the CCP or USSR, an elite classist autocracy in which all are equal below an iron fist. That’s why he thinks Leftism is opposed to Liberalism; the advocacy of Human Rights and Freedoms so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others.
Basically, OP is a Red Fascist.
tidderuuf@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 11 hours ago
If the DNC had their way, money from AIPAC would have been outlawed 29 years ago. They literally wrote and introduced policy to do that, and passed it later in 2002 only for it to get struck down by the conservative SCOTUS.
tidderuuf@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
Apologies for my being vague. I wasn’t talking about the DNC 29 years ago but literally the DNC that just voted yes to AIPAC money a few days ago. That DNC.
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 10 hours ago
Yes, you’re not going to vote to have less money for an election cycle while your opponents have full access to all the dark money they desire, that’s why they need to reverse Citizens United and in order to do that we need to give them enough senators for constitutional amendments.
bearboiblake@pawb.social 12 hours ago
Actually, no, I’m an anarchist - if you haven’t heard much about anarchism before, you probably have some misconceptions about it, so I encourage you to watch the Q&Anarchy video series by Thought Slime or have a look through an Anarchist FAQ, because it’s almost definitely nothing like what you think.
Anarchists are vehemently opposed to states such as the USSR and China.
I personally believe that it’s the most coherent philosophy which adequately explains and addresses all of the problems which plague our society, and which holds the most promise for a path out of the inevitable cycle of the continuous rise and fall of fascism that capitalism makes inevitable.
Liberalism is an ideology which prioritizes the freedom of movement of wealth, e.g. free markets, over the freedom of individuals. I believe fully in the freedom of individuals.
How does capitalism inevitably lead to fascism?
>Basically, the issue with capitalism is that the more wealth you have, the easier it is for you to make more money. And since money can be used to buy goods, services and influence, there is always a way to use money to gain more political and social power. With that political and social power, you can push society and the legal system in the direction you want to go. So you can use your wealth to gain power, and then you can use your power to change laws and society so that you can make even more wealth and power. It’s a positive feedback loop. > >Obviously, though, if the billionaires and ruling class are accumulating more and more of our society’s wealth, that inevitably means that there’s less for everyone else to go around - therefore, working class people feel poorer and poorer. Meanwhile, the economy is going absolutely great for rich people, so inflation continues to go up - everything gets more expensive, but wages don’t increase. The wealthy just keep more and more of the wealth for themselves. To accumulate more and more wealth, they change the laws so that they can avoid paying taxes, so public services collapse. Politicians are lobbied to ensure that public funds are diverted away from where it is most needed - housing, healthcare, transportation, infrastructure - and instead into industries where their class interests most benefit from it, such as weapons manufacturing and extractive industries such as fossil fuels and mining. > >The working class are bound to notice that their lives are getting shittier and shittier, and if that situation is left unchecked, the working class would realize that the ruling class are fucking them over, rise up, and overthrow their rulers. Obviously, the ruling class need to do something about this, but there’s no solution that the ruling class can offer. They’re causing all of the problems, to fix them they’d have to give up some of their wealth and power - and that’s not something they’re going to do. So they need to find someone else to blame the problems we have in society on. Unfortunately, though, no matter who they blame the problems on, and no matter what they do to “fix” it, the issue will continue to persist, because the material conditions underlying the issues are, very intentionally, never addressed. > >So, the conundrum returns: The ruling class said that minority A caused all of the problems, minority A is persecuted and oppressed, but society doesn’t actually get any better. Either the problem wasn’t minority A, or minority A just hasn’t been oppressed enough yet. So the ruling class can either escalate the oppression, or they can shift the focus to another minority group. The division continues to escalate in terms of how vitriolic and extreme it is, and it also continues to divide the working class into smaller and smaller groups. > >To get the working class to buy into this hateful message, they need to take advantage of our worst instincts, and one of those instincts is the in-group bias. The majority are manipulated into being suspicious, then intolerant, then hateful, then violent, then genocidal, towards whatever the targeted minority of the day is. Anything that can be used to divide the working class - sexuality, nationality, immigration status, ethnicity, religion, sex, gender identity, age, all of these will be used as wedges to keep the working class split apart and not working together, because they know that if the working class actually unite against them, they are completely and truly fucked. > >That’s exactly how fascism manifests. It’s because it’s possible for people to accumulate power through wealth. This is why capitalism must be abolished. If we do not abolish capitalism, fascism will always return. It’s just a matter of time.
But can't capitalism can be reformed?
> While, of course, some laws to reform capitalism can be passed, and would definitely alleviate the worst harm caused, over the long term, capitalism cannot be reformed. > > Any attempts to reform, democratize or socialize capitalism may yield short term improvements to quality of life of the working class, but if capitalism is not abolished, it will always reassert itself, and capitalism inevitably leads towards fascism. > >The New Deal prevented the US from sliding into fascism in the 20th century, so that’s ultimately a good thing, but it did not go far enough, and that’s why we have the resurgence of fascism in the 21st century America.
But the Soviet Union was really oppressive!
> Yeah, the soviet union had a lot of problems, Stalin was a psycho. Let’s not do that, but we can do socialism using a bottom-up, direct democratic, consensus based decision making approach, rather than a top-down, centralized state. We can learn from the mistakes of the past. > >I’d encourage you to check out an anarchist FAQ to learn more - If you haven’t heard much about anarchism before, you probably have some misconceptions about it, so I encourage you to watch the Q&Anarchy video series by Thought Slime or have a look through an Anarchist FAQ, because it’s almost definitely nothing like what you think. > > I personally believe that it’s the most coherent philosophy which adequately explains and addresses all of the problems which plague our society, and which holds the most promise for a path out of the inevitable cycle of the continuous rise and fall of fascism that capitalism makes inevitable.
TrickDacy@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
Why the hell do you have such a deep need for clinging to these labels and definitions of them?
There is only one reason that would ever make sense: to degrade those who don’t fully align with your tankie views.
bearboiblake@pawb.social 10 hours ago
I believe that words are the means to meaning, the building blocks of our ability to communicate ideas. It is important to understand them, and to have shared reality of what words mean.
Again, I am very clearly not a tankie. I am an anarchist. Anarchists have historically been viciously oppressed by tankies. We are enemies.
TrickDacy@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
Sure. You’re an anarchist spreading the word that we have to form a government.
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 12 hours ago
Your definition of Liberalism is directly opposed to modern and classical definitions of the word. Your whole argument now hangs on the ability to change the meanings of words to be whatever you want them to be. Perhaps you’re not a Tankie, although you could be a Tankie trying to mask your disgusting scent, instead you might have simply been mislead by the countless Tankies who came here before you to preach the exact same messages.
bearboiblake@pawb.social 12 hours ago
The problem with arguing about liberalism is that they talk a good game about freedom and liberty, and it all sounds very wonderful, but we live under a neoliberal system, and everyone can see that the needs of the wealthy are prioritized over the needs of the majority of the working class. Like I said, the freedom of the markets are more important under liberalism than the freedom of people.
I am absolutely opposed to any kind of state, including a “communist” state. I am completely against any and all atrocities committed by any communist regime, including but not limited to the Holodomor and the Great Leap Forward. Hope this helps clear it up for you.
Of course, you’re free to disagree, but I hope you can accept that at the very least I am not any kind of fascist or tankie.
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 12 hours ago
We’re not arguing about Liberalism. There is no debate about this. Anybody with a keyboard could type into a search engine and find out you’re just wrong.
ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
Your political takes are always wrong, Mr. Banjo.
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 12 hours ago
Elaborate
ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
I can’t remember the previous ones, just remember that I’ve disagreed with them and just rolled my eyes at them… but this one is obvious: “liberals” are just diet Western imperialists, who stand for nothing but the status quo and care for nothing but the bag (at least being a racist white supremacist POS has a veneer of ideology behind it, the dumbest of their group truly believe they’re “standing for something”). Idk what was confusing about it or how that ended up in you calling OP a “red fascist”, lol.
TrickDacy@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
You subscribe to a couple of toxic ideas which need to burn in hell:
- Political labels are super useful as long as you get to define them and no one else has any say in what they mean to them personally. Even though clearly people are more complicated than that.
- You get to freely apply these labels as you see fit. If someone disagrees with you, boom, they’re a liberal. Which really just means bad.
DeckPacker@piefed.social 7 hours ago
Yes, apparently reading is hard