You're viewing a single thread.
I'm childish enough that I'm irritated at my comment here being removed. Here's the comment, which also applies to this meme:
You know that weak support for Hindenburg's party was what let Hitler come to power, right?
Not that I agree that Biden is a lesser evil, but even within those parameters, there's an absolutely glaring flaw in bringing up Nazi Germany while making the case that voting for the lesser evil is a bad idea
And when he asked for clarification:
My point is that the holocaust that gave rise to Niemöller's quote in the first place happened because of weakened resistance from the SPD (the establishment left), which wasn't getting support from the far-left of its day because it wasn't left enough. When as a result the fascist party gained control, it put all the far-left people in camps, outlawed the SPD, and began killing people by the millions. Which in retrospect made the complaint that the establishment left wasn't left enough to support, even against literal Hitler, seem short sighted.
Mod banned me. 🙂
I got banned from World News (apparently the .ml instance) for calling out russian talking points being used for this end.
Its not just calls for not voting, either. The other they love to stan is voting third party and pretending the spoiler effect doesnt exist.
A lot of the lemmy.ml subs are very explicitly one-viewpoint subs; the mods will take out comments which advance arguments they don't like. It is a reason I don't bother with them much.
I mean, it makes sense; the administrators argue for explicitly totalitarian states like Russia or China, so it makes sense they'd use the same sort of approach to discourse under their own purview. I am curious what their viewpoint would be if their local government showed up at their door and started treating them like Russia or China treat their social media; I think there's a certain pick-me viewpoint like "obviously I would be one of the good and loyal ones and they'd leave me alone," but I don't think that is how it would work out.
Preach, comrade, preach.
All this gives actual leftist thought a bad name.
I want a fucking classless, cashless, stateless society. You cant get further away from that than china and russia, and u will certainly get further away if the man in the oval office works for one of the two.
Like it or not, neoliberal politics arent just going to go away worldwide, and being ignorant of the geopolitical consequences of our elections doesnt mean that ur somehow a magical snowflake that enilightened everyone by "not endorsing" a candidate by refusing to fill in a box next the name thats not trying to sell the country youre a part of, whether u like it or not, away.
It's all related to storytelling, I think.
We love the underdog who was beaten so badly that they finally bit back, and won.
But generally that's not how reality works. Most revolutions are preceded by a weakening of the authoritarian systems which were then overthrown, not an intensification of their repressive efficiency.
It's tempting for many, thus, to look at a worsening situation and feel optimistic about it - "If things just get a little worse, then EVERYONE will finally have enough!" But as North Korea shows, there's not much of a bottom to the level of suffering humans are willing to endure. The correct move is to support the candidates which inflict the least harm and most enable independent organization for more radical change.
Regardless of whether you believe in reform or revolution, making things worse is not the path there.
Exactly. i remember trying to make this point to tankies on lemmy sometime ago. Does the DPRK, china, russia, saudi arabia seem closer to revolution than us? Really? Bc our comrades in revolution or otherwise are going to be the most oppressed in society who stand to lose the most from a falling apart of the existing sociopolitical order.
All leftists should be united in furthering the aims of solidarity, weakening of hierarchy, and redistribution of wealth. Why should I, as someone who wants a cashless society, stand opposed to a decrease in wealth inequality? Why should I stand opposed to any amount of upward mobility from the downtrodden (read: the 99.99% of us)? I want justice and equity. Im not going to be upset when a coworker gets a raise, I will argue that not only do the rest of us deserve one to, but we all, including the first coworker, deserve more! Anything to even the playing field, doubly so if it recruits my peers to our side.
Enjoying reading ur takes, btw, on the whole.
Thanks. Sometimes I don't feel 'left' enough, but ultimately, my sympathies are with those who want something better than this fucking hellworld. I just don't want to splatter our metaphorical brains all over the walls in the process and hand power back to even shittier oppressors.
Lifes weird. I was having a great convo on this topic the other day with an anarchist (an actual one, that is). Im not an anarchist, i dont think, but i cant help it if i think much of their means are worth pursuing and working with. Their willingness to envision a utopia is radical an necessary, and the utopia they envision is close to what i imagine.
So in short, im "somehwhere" (gestures vaguely) off on the far left deep end, but i dont really care to narrow it down as much as pursue more of those means which i think benefit us all.
At the same time, this is fucking murica. We diverse. I work with all sorts of ppl that i get on with, and my overall goal in this world is to push everyone i can leftward somehow. Will they end up as far left as me? Lol, not answering that. But ive gotten righties to admit that insurance companies should he done away with, that single payer healthcare is the way, and even that trans folk just want to be left alone and, under single payer, deserve their healthcare needs (hormones, surgery, etc.) taken care of just as much as "we" (sorry, work is cisnormative) need ours. Its about reframing the issues so ppl see that we (all us poors) have a single common enemy that is never any of the ppl walking among us.
Youre not left enough? Cool, so u acknowledge it (/s :p). Honestly, it seems we agree on plenty, and ur on the same side when it comes to the election bs we're putting up with. Cool, clearly, to me, that means we have mutual goals we can work together on and not impede each others progress on. If in the future we disagree, we will have already fostered the ability to talk to each other in friendly non combative terms and can bridge those gaps then.
If u dont believe in a classless, cashless, stateless society the way I do and I put u down as not left enough or as a lib, how can i hope to achieve that end? i propose instead mutual aid. Ill work with u so Status Quo Joe wins his stupid election that threatens us all, and after thats done, we can discuss what next movements need be done. Will it be convincing u of my ends then? Prolly not. But i can bet that youd likely be down for supporting candidates that want election reform and introduce (i.e.) ranked choice voting, and i think youd agree that that would take both of us closer to the ends we each seek- just like the actual anarchists and myself.
Solidarity, comrade. Solidarity.
Lmao. LinkOpensChest.wav is constantly going on about how mods are persecuting him. How ironic.
The rule that I was banned under was:
- No defending oppressive systems such as capitalism or the US "democracy."
I can't even tell whether to complain that it's weird to tell me I can't defend democracy, or that it's weird to call "it's bad to let the Nazis come to power" a pro-system-of-oppression viewpoint.
(I mean, I get it. I think it's safe to say that the real reason for the ban is neither of those things. I'm gonna let it go and move on with my day.)
"Not supporting the rise of Hitler is literally fascism. After Hitler, our turn!"
Support for the SPD waned because they were pushing to the right to court right wing voters. Sort of like how the sitting US president has been on TV using right wing terminology and how the sitting Democratic mayor in NYC brought back stop and frisk.