It wouldnt be a leftist community without some good ol fashion infighting and purity spirals đđI've been called a liberal by some and a commie by others
The term tankie specifically originates from the split in the UK communist party between those that supported communist Hungaryâs brutal crackdown on protesters (namely running them over with tanks) and those who did not. For many (myself included) the concept of crushing peaceful protestors demanding broader political freedoms with tanks is incompatible with leftism. However, there will always be an aggressive faction that believes any decent should be met with execution. The term tankie gets thrown around a lot, and Iâve seen people who actually are tankies get called it on this sub, as well as people who arenât anywhere close to being a tankie get called it.
Itâs difficult to determine sometimes because there are certainly times where violence is justified. General rule of thumb: if someone is advocating horrible violence to a group of people merely for not having the same views, they are a tankie. If someone is advocating violence to prevent others from being harmed (ie killing Nazis to prevent genocide) they are not tankies.
Anarchism isn't opposed to organisation, just having power over others. Roads can still be built.
As for age of consent, that falls under the same category of "but what about this heinous crime". Capitalist and socialist states as they exist do not prevent them. They simply punish afterwards. For age of consent in particular, anarchists have a strong focus on youth liberation - which includes liberation from being sexually assaulted.
[Here's more on crime.](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-full#text-amuse-label-seci58)
Yes, however would we keep roads in a state of disrepair without the government? /s
As for age of consent laws, those don't exactly stop children from being raped. Especially when the ones doing it are the ones making/enforcing the laws.
Ok đ
Like this is laughably stupid. What happens when a road fucking collapses in on itself cuz nobody in your âorganizationâ is an actual expert on excavation/resurfacing. Ya know, all those pesky skills needed to safely construct a road.
There are many many many things society relies on experts to handle. Governments are very effective at getting these experts working together with proper funding.
Just because our government doesnât do that doesnât mean governments as a whole donât do these things well.
I once got called a fascist by someone on this sub for being pro-lgbtq. Also got called a corporate plant trying to spread decadence among workers to distract them from uniting against the bourgeoisie for being pro-lgbtq. Thankfully both people were swiftly banned, but a look at their post history indicated they truly believed in the cause of leftism. I think itâs important to remember that people will be idiots, even if they have stumbled across a good ideology.
The left's biggest problem is that while the right are fairly united and organized, while they're trampling freedoms and setting us up for a christofascist dictatorship we're purity testing one another.
It's because of centralized leadership. Every lefty here has individual ideas about democracy, Communism, socialism, and revolution. Â
The right has thought leaders they point to. Ben Shapiro will not fight much with other major right wing figures and dissuade infighting on a majority of issues. If the right has a chance of increasing it's power, they will gather together and figure out the dominant ideology aftward.
The left immediately refuses to gather together for power unless they can be sure they are the dominant ideology. The DSA is strong in the US and could be a viable 3rd party if enough people joined. But many won't because it's not the right kind of leftism or they don't do things preferred by some leftist or they don't seek power in ways many would prefer.
However, it's undeniable that if they gained power it would be a massive power shift to the left. It would make organizing by all leftists easier. We would have support the DSA in their goals or at least keep from hindering their work even if we disagree. That's what unity is. The DSA is preferable to liberalism even if it's not my form of leftism and I have joined to help them while advocating for my own form of leftism elsewhere until we can be as powerful.
The only issue on the right is between Zionists and Nazis. Thatâs why Ben Shapiro and Tucker Carlson have been in a feud since October and why he fired Candace Owens.
if every leftist in america put aside their preferences and joined DSA, the total would still be a rounding error compared to the general populace.
This is the real problem, people on the left are focused on recruiting other leftists and activists to the cause. The amount of times I head "stance X or messaging Y turns off the self appointed activists of \[other group\]" Fuck that the activists are self declared leaders who curiously have no followers. We don't need them, we need the normal people.
I'd say you're right on point until you get to "viable 3rd party." Which comes down to the exact same inability to form coalitions in this context. The right is homogeneous enough in their reach for power. The left is everyone else and represents a broader range of views with less ideological reason to compromise for power.
How seats are decided is a *hard* problem in the U.S. Within that context, the current spread of the electorate makes the DSA not just nonviable as a 3rd (which is the default) but also unable to supplant the Democratic party for the foreseeable future. The best bet is pressuring primaries. It won't work as well for the left as for the right, but that goes for every strategy. Our standards are high enough that we'll collectively spite our own ugly faces given half a chance. In the end, unity requires a winning coalition. It's literally a numbers game, and the break point is always at the full median, not at the group mean. So a united left is worse than useless unless it can work with the center-left of the voter median (i.e., neoliberals and liberals). Which is a tall order.
Conservatives don't normally talk about how they are going to kill all dissenting folks in the Right during a "revolution", which we see with chauvinists for the Russian & Chinese governments do towards Leftists.
Except when they say they wish they could shoot trans folk, or when they say it's ok for the police to beat black folk, or say that we should start rounding up unhoused folk, or saying we need to start shooting immigrants at the border, or when they turn up armed to leftist protests, or firebomb businesses that have said they're pro-palestine (that happened on my street).... Except for those and all the other times they're really anti killing.
The comment was that they don't talk about killing dissenting right-wingers. They talk all the time about wanting to kill people who \*aren't\* right-wingers.
Yeah, thereâs (ironically still) a lot of gay rebublicans in the U.S.. Right wingers are pretty open about how even they will be persecuted (just a little later after they deal with the Trans Folk ofc)
This feels like a product of America's center being so far skewed right. To be called right wing, you need to be very far right while to be called left wing you don't even need to support healthcare reform. The idea of left wing relative to all political ideologies just doesn't match the fact that half the country is so far right the effective center is "companies can screw you over, but the state tolerates gay marriage."
To unite the right, you have half the country who only disagrees on whether weed should be legal. To unite the left, you have everyone to the left of Biden.
Someone who is militantly pro-"Communism" and who's entire understanding of the world boils down to the idea that "the west" are moustache twirling cartoon bad guys and everyone else is either a hero or a victim.
I do agree that that is a myopic view of the world. I've just heard the term thrown at any leftist who isn't an anarchist or social democrat and at anyone who sees the necessity for the working class to dismantle the current state and construct one that serves its own class interests.
If you don't desire the end of the capitalist system and the rise of socialism, you are not a leftist, just a confused centrist. A leftist shall never want a system where workers are exploited less, but one where they steer society. This is the minimum basic principle we should abide for.
>A leftist shall never want a system where workers are exploited less, but one where they steer society.
As an end goal, sure. But we can't just immediately jump to that no questions asked. Unfortunately, lasting change happens incrementally.
Yes, because the US got independent of Britain incrementally. France got rid of the Monarchy incrementally. All Latin American states got independent incrementally.
The discourse of the moderate is often one from a higher position in society, where he is not the one who is suffering most. This is why there are so many poor workers who turn to the far right. While the moderate is ok to wait for 200 years (with no chance of that claim to actually hold true), the person in agony wants to have their problem solved now. So they turn to the false radical solution, which is supporting a white supremacist who is promising greatness from a time that never existed.
In the end, the moderate is as much a supporter of the far-right as the MAGA redneck.
You made laughable examples. The US still is subject to the oligarchical forces that lied during the revolution. It took almost a century for France to become a democracy after the revolution. Latin America never became less stratified two centuries after revolution. The highest world index for freedom countries in the world with the least social stratification today arrived there through incrementalism.
You have a very poor comprehension of history. Of course US, French and Latin american oligarchies took power. It was the time for the bourgeoisie revolutions. And in case of France, there were multiple revolutions until the formation of the third republic. It wasn't a process of iterative and conservative improvements.
Before you downvote let me explain why I agree with this unironically.
Liberals tend to be more well read on their position and more rhetorically skilled. Compared to most conservatives who are just, uneducated and need someone to sit down and chat with them. As long as you arenât condescending when talking to a conservative and the topic is not to close to home to them, they are surprisingly easy to budge. They will vote third party, vote for an anti-war candidate, and actually change their mind when presented with facts.
Now the liberal on the other hand will constantly shift the goal post, gish gallop and make you jump through 100âs of hoops to answer one question. While a leftist tends to have more in common with them, a lot of liberals have this âblue no matter whoâ mentality which is a lot more harmful than they recognize. The logical fallacies are just the tip of the iceberg, thereâs a deeply engrained sense of superiority over leftists and conservatives alike.
Hence the âenlightened centrist/neoliberalâ, which is just an excuse to have super lukewarm takes that doesnât do much good but still allows them to have a god complex.
Edit:Typos
Hello đ
Although it was less facts and more âI saw how the people I support starting hurting my closest friendsâ
Yea no when you have people in your childhood group come out as trans you either fight them or you switch parties and I good person am a pacifist
The ones who arenât basing their entire personality around transphobia, fragile masculinity, and online personalities. (AKA the non-chronically online adult kind of conservative. This includes Facebook Boomers)
You would be surprised how far you can get with coworkers and acquaintances from rural areas.
Thatâs why you open up specifically with how much you ALSO hate democrats. You really have to emphasize that class struggle to these people. Just donât say say socialist stuff like âuniversal healthcareâ off the bat. Get to know them, every case is different. Some are all about super low taxes, some are full libertarian, no one case is the same.
The political system we live in really prevents certain people from becoming close friends. In my experience(really want to emphasize that.) I have been able to make friends with people that are considered radical left, libertarians, to a wacky right wing Qanon red hat. You have to realize I live in a **RURAL** area, so the county is going to be red no matter what. So I would rather hold my morals high, than compromise and link arms with a neoliberal that thinks we should buy shares of Lockheed Martin because itâs based.
In regards to the conservatives I do talk to, I respect them and they respect me back. Those who I hear anything bad from are cut off, but I get alot more disrespect from liberals who think iâm just some commie. (Iâm not even a communist, not sure if I would even be considered a socialist I havenât read Marx, Wolff or Chomsky)
I just understand the United States role in the destruction of Earth, Conservatives tend to fish more, hunt. They are a lot more in tune with nature, seriously if you have the right sales pitch, donât push too fast. They are a natural ally of the working class and to mother earth, they just consume a lot of propaganda. Liberals/neocons are a different plague though, jingoistic bastardsâŚ
Lol one of the funniest liberal comments I see on reddit is something like,"well, well, well, I've pissed off leftist AND conservatives so I must be right!" Like no man it means your wishy washy and have no real convictions. If conservatives said they wanted to nuke Iran the liberal would argue that we should use smaller nukes as a compromise.
This is highly variable. But generally Liberals will have actually thought their positions through while many conservatives never have. There are many, many conservatives who are just convinced they're right and that any other political position is childish and immature.
Also beware, they will often shift an element of their belief while still retaining other aspects - this is how you end up with people who sound leftist but still believe that homeless people need to be bulldozed or other things like that.
Of if you're actually talking fascists and not soft conservatives, then you end up with people like Jackson Hinkle who learn how to disguise their fashy beliefs behind leftist rhetoric, but never stop being fascists
In fairness, until recently neo-liberals held all the power so it made sense to focus attention there. Nowadays fascism is on the rise and we kinda need the neo-liberals to win that fight since they're a better opponent in that they're less liable to put us in death camps.
Ultimately we want leftism to win of course, and within that many of us have our own specific systems within that we prefer too, I'm just saying that in a fight between liberals and fascists we want liberals to win, in a fight between liberals and leftists we want leftists to win, people are so stuck on the latter that the former gets forgotten sometimes.
Yeah it was actually the KPD that refused to ally against the NSDAP, believe it or not, because Stalin's orders were that the SPD was the greater evil. So... take that as you will. There are several instances of the KPD working with the NSDAP against the SPD.
>who was it that refused to ally with the KPD against the NSDAP?
Reread your question again. Apparently not allying against the NSDAP makes you worse than the NSDAP
I get the impression that for some leftists it's more about being part of a special, semi-edgy club than actually about being a leftist. So fighting with and being degrading towards liberals is better than trying to get them on your side, because that would mean you're less radical and exclusive.
Thankfully it's not a significant enough portion of leftists for it to have any impact whatsoever.
It's seriously *not* wild. When Macron invoked 'Unity' to fight Le Pen in France, we just got a rich dude who tried to dismantle France's social welfare, creating a disaffected voterbase that was easy prey for the far right. Ppl like Macron & Keir Starmer have no principles beyond 'We're not fascists', depriving the left of the leverage to shift the overton window, well, leftwards.
I dislike purity-testing etc. But grass-level leftist infighting won't hand Trump the election. Biden already did. Being starstruck by how *wild* it is will not cultivate the literacy to understand the phenomenon.
Capitalism is right wing, in fact it is *the* definition of right wing economically speaking
Liberalism means democratic, capitalist, and usually culturally progressive
Liberalism is considered right wing by political theorists as a whole, not just by leftists
Also there's a lot of irony in that this meme is about generalizing when it's calling all anti-liberals stalinist lmao.
But the OP specifically said Leninist. There are plenty of other types of anti-capitalism. If they'd said anyone to the left of soc-dem I'd have agreed with, you if only partially, because they also said they're by default a fascist. Which isn't true or helpful.
What you're thinking of is social democracy, a free market system in which taxation is higher the wealthier you are, enough so that that money can be redistributed via welfare to greatly diminish poverty. I'd look into it if I were you! I'm more radical than that but I think it's a pretty respectable system. I just think full blown socialism is better is all.
Sure, we just fairly don't exploit the global south, and fairly don't extract surplus value from the workers at capitalist enterprise, and fairly make sure that labor receives all the wealth it creates.
Surely there's room in here for fair private enterprise that doesn't solely exists to leech off other peoples labor.
/s if not obvious, no, capitalism is inherently inequitable. The social democracies of Scandinavia are still benefiting from exploiting at home and abroad to pay for the more generous social safety nets they offer.
The way your question is phrased makes it sound like you think there is some benefit to capitalist modes of production, but besides being slightly (debatable) better than the feudal systems they replaced, you can have all the benefits you think capitalism provides you today without the inherently hierarchical and exploitative system of capitalism
I think you are confusing two concepts in general.
Capitalism does not mean money. Money came before Capitalism and exists within many Socialist ideas.
Capitalism cant be made equitable. The problem is and which is a very very big simplification of what Marx and Lenins analysis says. Is that if you have any equitable system within Capitalism then it will be unable to compete and will eventually be destroyed by the Capitalist system.
You can make a country without exploitation for example but if you allow Capitalism then these capitalist structures that grow with exploitation will be more profitable and be able to dominate the system again.
So Capitalism will always lead to explitation. Even if you have laws or limitations placed upon it then it will eventually grow back into exploitation.
On the other hand relating to money and markets. Most Socialist systems including places like the USSR used money and markets.
The idea with Communism is not that money should be removed completely one day. But rather that everyone should be given what value they produce.
And then with time as the needs of the population is met then money will become useless anyway. Because what is the point of money if you can get whatever you need anyway. It is a theoretical endpoint of communism to not need money but nobody says you cant use money until then.
Nope. Capitalism relies on private ownership, usually inherited, of business, commerce, and the means of production. These things preclude the worker from having a fair shake.
The closest you could conceivably get to something fair is market socialism/a kind of co-op capitalism where workers owned their own workplaces. In fact you could do that and change very little about the way things are done in the world. But it would really only be a half measure.
Money and capitalism arenât the same thing. Capitalism specifically refers to capital investment. Loans with interest, stocks, VCs, that sort of thing. Money as a medium of exchange predates capitalism and exists in plenty of post-capitalist visions as well. Ricardoâs utopian market socialism, Titoâs scientific market socialism, and Proudhonâs mutualism are all viable left-wing economic models that like money but not exploitation
There is also social democracy, which is center-left, and basically does capitalism but shuffles some money around to make it less harsh. It offers a good standard of living for the people under it, but because it relies on capitalism as its base, people in more laisez-faire countries get exploited by it and most would agree itâs not sustainable as a model for the entire world. Long ago there used to be radical social democrats (the three arrows anti-fascist logo people) who wanted global social democracy.
The fallacy you're committing here is to imagine an economic model that can sustain itself in perpetuity. Capitalism, even social democracy, sustains itself through inequal exchange with developing nations. A Danish iPhone user still benefits from the cobalt mined from the congo to make the phone. Those things aren't isolated.
We can't just aspire to a *nice* system to live under. We crave a society where we are more personally involved with its prosperity and equitability.
Is it? Or is it just saying "If you're not on my very specific team then you're my enemy?" You know, using the context of the movie to help frame the words. And isn't that the oldest problem in the history of the left?
>Is it?
Labels are fluid and how you label ideologies is always influenced by opinion, I'll give you that much. But capitalism is the definition of right wing economically, to reject that would be to reject the left right and political compass model of politics entirely. You *could* argue the progressiveness outweighs the capitalism and edges it into leftism, but it would be hard to argue it gets it any more left than center.
>Or is it just saying "If you're not on my very specific team then you're my enemy?"
I don't think left wing economics is "very specific," there is a huge range of beliefs within socialism. For example I'm a Zapatist, which is a type of libertarian socialism. Marxism-Leninists would agree with me we are radically different, while still agreeing we're both very leftist.
>And isn't that the oldest problem in the history of the left?
Oh sure, leftists love to infight as much as we live to outfight, but *everyone* except for liberals who don't get into political theory agree liberalism is centrist at best.
Oh, no, I'm not arguing about the left-right positioning of capitalism, liberalism, or any of that. I'm just saying the meme has a more specific social context rather than the academic one you seem to have gotten. I got there by thinking about it in terms of the movie and Anakin's line "If you're not with me, you're against me." It's that kind of reductive thinking and balkanization of thought that I really think is what's at the heart of the meaning. But maybe I'm wrong.
I'm not sure. In some contexts sure, but when it comes to an explicitly leftist space it's just frustrating whenever it comes down to things far leftists and liberals tend to clash about, a big one at the moment being whether or not to vote for Joe Biden. I'm sure liberals feel the same way, probably frustrating for them too. But know, disagreements be disagreeing.
I think I have questions about how you define "left" and "right" considering that these terms predate communism and have fairly broad definitions usually
As a leftist who wholeheartedly believes in labor rights and democratic government controlling critical industries, it's really hard to enjoy this subreddit when every discussion seems to devolve into accusing everyone to the right of the far left of being fascists. It makes the whole subreddit look dumb instead of witty.
Woodrow Wilson was the only Democrat elected between 1896 and FDR because Teddy Roosevelt decided that it was more important to run against the "insufficiently progressive" President Taft than the literal fucking Klan member.
100 plus years later, progressives have still not learned their lesson.
This is literally why third parties do not work in a winner-takes-all first-past-the-post electoral system.
People still would rather protest vote and stamp their feet.
To be fair to Teddy, the Republican party bosses denied him the nomination he rightfully deserved based on the popular mandate he had. He should've run again in '08 instead, but he didn't expect Taft to abandon all of his ideals. Taft wasn't just "insufficiently progressive" - he allowed timber companies to rampage the West (whereas Teddy protected it), backed down on labor rights, and generally allowed special interests to roll all over the federal government.
I agree 100% with your takeaway from that and progressives not learning their lesson from it, but I don't think it was Teddy's fault so much as the party bosses' fault for trying to force Taft on the public when Teddy had far more support.
Election of 1912. I highly recommend this [Crash Course US History video](https://youtu.be/i0Q4zPR4G7M) for a good summary of the topic, and the Progressive Era in general.
âLeftists And Fascists Are Natural Enemies. Like Social Democrats And Leftists. Or Anarchists And Leftists. Or Progressives And Leftists. Or Leftists And Other Leftists. Damn Leftists They Ruined Leftism!â
Me getting dragged out of my apartment after the revolution because I am not revolutionary enough (I did not upvote enough posts on r/starwarsleftymemes)
If you question any country with a red flag, you're obviously a fascist. Everyone knows that changing your flag to red and renaming everything "the people's X" makes a state perfect and opposing any bit of that state is the very definition of fascism.
Also if you question any country with a red flag and call yourself a communist, it's because you need to read more theory (which specific theory is never stated) and stop believing the State Department
Thats not what was being said. Like at all?
Unless you think anyone who isnt an accelerationist leninist, is somehow "just a liberal", even if they are dem-socs, market socs, anarchists, syndicalists, or just non vanguardist communists.
Sorry I donât know where you got that quote from.
It sounded to me like you were saying that leftists accuse people of being liberals for simply disagreeing with with leftists.
>It sounded to me like you were saying that leftists accuse people of being liberals for simply disagreeing with with leftists.
MLs say that if you disagree with them. If you disagree on anything you're a counter revolutionary
It happens a lot. And sometimes, fellow leftists are in denial about that, because they think everything they dont like is liberal. Ergo, "I didnt call any leftists liberals", not because they never did, but because they drank the cool-aid
There's nothing wrong with gatekeeping, if you let literally anyone with any belief walk around with your mantle then your movement has no coherence and means absolutely nothing.Â
There's a bunch of liberals in the sub who desperately want to claim the title of leftist without supporting positive alternatives to capitalism or imperialism. Like what do you want us to do just be like yeah left unity let's go
**Example:** Excessive use of perma bans to shut out veins of leftist thought that the moderator doesn't agree with.
**Motivation:** Avoid the discomfort and anxiety associated with cognitive disconnece when they are confronted by the fact that they might be wrong about something.
Only a tankie deals in absolutes!
(God I hate the purity testing, small tent, gatekeeping leftists. When we've whittled down leftists to the 5 true Scotsmen they'll be unable to do fuck all against fascism. That is unless they kill eachother over where the comma should be in an obscure Marxist archive post about a letter in 1873)
I love the lasting effects of COINTELPRO! I love the groups trying to stop dictatorships and oligarchies forming instead just arguing over dumb semantics bullshit!
There's definitely a pretty sharp divide between the people who vote but don't comment, and the commenters. I've posted memes here that have gotten thousands of upvotes and been ridiculously overwhelmingly positive in the upvote/downvote percentage, but where most comments were hating on me or attacking me over it.
The ones with the biggest chips on their shoulders and who feel the most need to prove their cred are always the ones who comment most, whether that reflects the general opinion or not. Plus, on any internet site, there will always be bots, contrarian trolls, and people who only pretend to have the ideological viewpoint that they argue in favor of.
I don't necessarily think that is a strictly liberal position.
A person can be leftist in philosophy and tendency but still participate in the liberal democratic system that they, through no fault of their own, were born in.
participating in liberal democracy would mean independent workers' parties and organizations using it to further working class interests opposed to the status quo.
Voting for a senile billionaire backed candidate is not that.
Ya know that old brain getting more enlightened meme, that flips back and forth from âHegel was wrongâ to âHegel was rightâ? Lenin is kinda in the same boat.
Love his books and really relate to him as a person, but man is it a dialectical relationship to say the least lol
im pretty sure he is more opposed to the homophobia, antisemitism, genocides, border shootings, support of genocidal regimes, gulags, human rights violations and and and. But what is there to expect from a canadian deprogram user. You never lived under soviet rule or its long lasting consequences. And luckily enough you never will.
And yet everything i said is true look at his posting history. He literally asked on deprogram about material on anarchist terror attack in the soviet union.
>You never lived under soviet rule or its long lasting consequences. And luckily enough you never will.
The USSR falling led to most of the consequences. there is a reason a large portion of the population which lived in the USSR have nostalgia. and why its only westerners that repeat lies like yours (might as well quote robert conquest)
The vanguard replaces the bourgeoisie with a political ruling class that engages in new antagonisms with the proletariat.
Libwration cannot be drip fed by an enlightened minoritynand thenidea that a select few can sheperd that responsibility is arrogant perpetuation ofneuropean colonial mindset seeping into anticapitalist philosophy.
The historic prevalence to accuse those that go against the vanguard of being revisionists, counter revolutionaries, fascists, etc is evidence of this new class divide.
The jedi councilnwere dumb assholes and so is "the party".
There I tied in starwars :p
Liberals are jar jar binks though, handing power over to fascista and blowing raspberries while trying to be polite and follow decorum and meaaured reforms.
Should definitely vote for the less vile old man though. Not trying to reduce harm to your at risk fellows based on principle is a privileged position and does notnfurther any praxis.
You can take 30 minutes off from plotting the overthrow of private capital to cast a vote for the guy that will not pass national abortian and trans healthcare bans that hit his desk.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/jewishleft using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/jewishleft/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [Jews & Palestinians together in Amsterdam](https://www.reddit.com/gallery/1adva1d) | [6 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/jewishleft/comments/1adva1d/jews_palestinians_together_in_amsterdam/)
\#2: [I wish it wasn't so hard to find pro-Palestine spaces online that aren't antisemitic/don't deny Jewish history and trauma.](https://np.reddit.com/r/jewishleft/comments/19f1yqx/i_wish_it_wasnt_so_hard_to_find_propalestine/)
\#3: [Made this for anyone who may need it](https://i.redd.it/ia4rxkfkgo4c1.jpg) | [9 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/jewishleft/comments/18c444g/made_this_for_anyone_who_may_need_it/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
It wouldnt be a leftist community without some good ol fashion infighting and purity spirals đđI've been called a liberal by some and a commie by others
Youâre not a real leftist unless youâve been called both a liberal and a tankie by other leftists.
Extra points if you're called both in the same post
Tankies are the real liberals didn't you know? /s
Imagine my confusion at being called a tankie by a liberal. I'm an anarchist lmfao
Exactly I'm just a socialist and I'm just like WTF is a tankie anyways
The term tankie specifically originates from the split in the UK communist party between those that supported communist Hungaryâs brutal crackdown on protesters (namely running them over with tanks) and those who did not. For many (myself included) the concept of crushing peaceful protestors demanding broader political freedoms with tanks is incompatible with leftism. However, there will always be an aggressive faction that believes any decent should be met with execution. The term tankie gets thrown around a lot, and Iâve seen people who actually are tankies get called it on this sub, as well as people who arenât anywhere close to being a tankie get called it. Itâs difficult to determine sometimes because there are certainly times where violence is justified. General rule of thumb: if someone is advocating horrible violence to a group of people merely for not having the same views, they are a tankie. If someone is advocating violence to prevent others from being harmed (ie killing Nazis to prevent genocide) they are not tankies.
Eh... That's not how I'd describe it. Tankies are typically just highly authoritarian campists.
Roads. Age of consent laws. Case closed.
Anarchism isn't opposed to organisation, just having power over others. Roads can still be built. As for age of consent, that falls under the same category of "but what about this heinous crime". Capitalist and socialist states as they exist do not prevent them. They simply punish afterwards. For age of consent in particular, anarchists have a strong focus on youth liberation - which includes liberation from being sexually assaulted. [Here's more on crime.](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-full#text-amuse-label-seci58)
Yes, however would we keep roads in a state of disrepair without the government? /s As for age of consent laws, those don't exactly stop children from being raped. Especially when the ones doing it are the ones making/enforcing the laws.
Lmao he kinda got you, i like roads
You can have roads if you really want, you just might have to build them yourself.
But I want the government to do that, I don't know how to build a road
You realize the government isn't actually the ones building the roads, right? They hire people for that.
They don't do it for free, hence why we pay them with our taxes through the government
Ok đ Like this is laughably stupid. What happens when a road fucking collapses in on itself cuz nobody in your âorganizationâ is an actual expert on excavation/resurfacing. Ya know, all those pesky skills needed to safely construct a road. There are many many many things society relies on experts to handle. Governments are very effective at getting these experts working together with proper funding. Just because our government doesnât do that doesnât mean governments as a whole donât do these things well.
Yeah liberals love this tankie slur here lately I honestly wouldn't even know what a tankie is if it weren't for liberals đ
Very very true
You ain't done nothing if you ain't been called a red
So you might as well ignore it or love the word instead!
If you've striked or agitated you're bound to hear it said
I'd rather someone call me a commie than a liberal any day though
Same
I once got called a fascist by someone on this sub for being pro-lgbtq. Also got called a corporate plant trying to spread decadence among workers to distract them from uniting against the bourgeoisie for being pro-lgbtq. Thankfully both people were swiftly banned, but a look at their post history indicated they truly believed in the cause of leftism. I think itâs important to remember that people will be idiots, even if they have stumbled across a good ideology.
Sounds pretty fascist to me dawg /s
My Marxist friend has a crush on a Leninist girl and he doesnât know what to do.
More dialectical materialism. Always.
Gotta study her material conditions
He just needs to put a hyphen in there and Marxist-Leninist her all night long (sorry I couldn't resist)
Cease her means of production.
Seize
I'm good with them not reproducing.
Don't worry, I never planned to anyway, I hate kids.
Well when two tendencies love each other very much, theyâll do a special hug called âsynthesisâ
It's like Romeo and Juliet.... If Shakespeare weren't a bourgeois pig! /j
He should do *her*
He should send her a one thousand words essay in the form of a meme. That should work.
would their kid automatically become a marxist-leninist?
The left's biggest problem is that while the right are fairly united and organized, while they're trampling freedoms and setting us up for a christofascist dictatorship we're purity testing one another.
Partly because being reactionary and maintaining status quo is easy compared to building some new and better.
It's because of centralized leadership. Every lefty here has individual ideas about democracy, Communism, socialism, and revolution.  The right has thought leaders they point to. Ben Shapiro will not fight much with other major right wing figures and dissuade infighting on a majority of issues. If the right has a chance of increasing it's power, they will gather together and figure out the dominant ideology aftward. The left immediately refuses to gather together for power unless they can be sure they are the dominant ideology. The DSA is strong in the US and could be a viable 3rd party if enough people joined. But many won't because it's not the right kind of leftism or they don't do things preferred by some leftist or they don't seek power in ways many would prefer. However, it's undeniable that if they gained power it would be a massive power shift to the left. It would make organizing by all leftists easier. We would have support the DSA in their goals or at least keep from hindering their work even if we disagree. That's what unity is. The DSA is preferable to liberalism even if it's not my form of leftism and I have joined to help them while advocating for my own form of leftism elsewhere until we can be as powerful.
The only issue on the right is between Zionists and Nazis. Thatâs why Ben Shapiro and Tucker Carlson have been in a feud since October and why he fired Candace Owens.
if every leftist in america put aside their preferences and joined DSA, the total would still be a rounding error compared to the general populace. This is the real problem, people on the left are focused on recruiting other leftists and activists to the cause. The amount of times I head "stance X or messaging Y turns off the self appointed activists of \[other group\]" Fuck that the activists are self declared leaders who curiously have no followers. We don't need them, we need the normal people.
I'd say you're right on point until you get to "viable 3rd party." Which comes down to the exact same inability to form coalitions in this context. The right is homogeneous enough in their reach for power. The left is everyone else and represents a broader range of views with less ideological reason to compromise for power. How seats are decided is a *hard* problem in the U.S. Within that context, the current spread of the electorate makes the DSA not just nonviable as a 3rd (which is the default) but also unable to supplant the Democratic party for the foreseeable future. The best bet is pressuring primaries. It won't work as well for the left as for the right, but that goes for every strategy. Our standards are high enough that we'll collectively spite our own ugly faces given half a chance. In the end, unity requires a winning coalition. It's literally a numbers game, and the break point is always at the full median, not at the group mean. So a united left is worse than useless unless it can work with the center-left of the voter median (i.e., neoliberals and liberals). Which is a tall order.
Perfect is the enemy of good
Utopianism is preventing us from moving forward
Conservatives don't normally talk about how they are going to kill all dissenting folks in the Right during a "revolution", which we see with chauvinists for the Russian & Chinese governments do towards Leftists.
They still absolutely plan to, they just don't say it to your face lol
Except when they say they wish they could shoot trans folk, or when they say it's ok for the police to beat black folk, or say that we should start rounding up unhoused folk, or saying we need to start shooting immigrants at the border, or when they turn up armed to leftist protests, or firebomb businesses that have said they're pro-palestine (that happened on my street).... Except for those and all the other times they're really anti killing.
The comment was that they don't talk about killing dissenting right-wingers. They talk all the time about wanting to kill people who \*aren't\* right-wingers.
They do talk about wanting to kill dissenting right wingers, they just don't realize it.
Yeah, thereâs (ironically still) a lot of gay rebublicans in the U.S.. Right wingers are pretty open about how even they will be persecuted (just a little later after they deal with the Trans Folk ofc)
I think they were referring to liberals.
The right wing revolution would absolutely end with Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens, Kanye West, and Nick Fuentes in a grave.
This feels like a product of America's center being so far skewed right. To be called right wing, you need to be very far right while to be called left wing you don't even need to support healthcare reform. The idea of left wing relative to all political ideologies just doesn't match the fact that half the country is so far right the effective center is "companies can screw you over, but the state tolerates gay marriage." To unite the right, you have half the country who only disagrees on whether weed should be legal. To unite the left, you have everyone to the left of Biden.
The left wants to fall in love with a candidate, the right just falls in line.
Yeah but Tankies also want to trample freedoms and create a fascist dictatorship. It's kind of a catch 22.
You're literally proving their point
What is a tankie?
Someone who is militantly pro-"Communism" and who's entire understanding of the world boils down to the idea that "the west" are moustache twirling cartoon bad guys and everyone else is either a hero or a victim.
I do agree that that is a myopic view of the world. I've just heard the term thrown at any leftist who isn't an anarchist or social democrat and at anyone who sees the necessity for the working class to dismantle the current state and construct one that serves its own class interests.
If you don't desire the end of the capitalist system and the rise of socialism, you are not a leftist, just a confused centrist. A leftist shall never want a system where workers are exploited less, but one where they steer society. This is the minimum basic principle we should abide for.
>A leftist shall never want a system where workers are exploited less, but one where they steer society. As an end goal, sure. But we can't just immediately jump to that no questions asked. Unfortunately, lasting change happens incrementally.
Yes, because the US got independent of Britain incrementally. France got rid of the Monarchy incrementally. All Latin American states got independent incrementally. The discourse of the moderate is often one from a higher position in society, where he is not the one who is suffering most. This is why there are so many poor workers who turn to the far right. While the moderate is ok to wait for 200 years (with no chance of that claim to actually hold true), the person in agony wants to have their problem solved now. So they turn to the false radical solution, which is supporting a white supremacist who is promising greatness from a time that never existed. In the end, the moderate is as much a supporter of the far-right as the MAGA redneck.
You made laughable examples. The US still is subject to the oligarchical forces that lied during the revolution. It took almost a century for France to become a democracy after the revolution. Latin America never became less stratified two centuries after revolution. The highest world index for freedom countries in the world with the least social stratification today arrived there through incrementalism.
You have a very poor comprehension of history. Of course US, French and Latin american oligarchies took power. It was the time for the bourgeoisie revolutions. And in case of France, there were multiple revolutions until the formation of the third republic. It wasn't a process of iterative and conservative improvements.
Liberalsayswhat?
Time to sort controversial
Or even worse(To terminally online folk). A Liberal
Lmao exactly.
Before you downvote let me explain why I agree with this unironically. Liberals tend to be more well read on their position and more rhetorically skilled. Compared to most conservatives who are just, uneducated and need someone to sit down and chat with them. As long as you arenât condescending when talking to a conservative and the topic is not to close to home to them, they are surprisingly easy to budge. They will vote third party, vote for an anti-war candidate, and actually change their mind when presented with facts. Now the liberal on the other hand will constantly shift the goal post, gish gallop and make you jump through 100âs of hoops to answer one question. While a leftist tends to have more in common with them, a lot of liberals have this âblue no matter whoâ mentality which is a lot more harmful than they recognize. The logical fallacies are just the tip of the iceberg, thereâs a deeply engrained sense of superiority over leftists and conservatives alike. Hence the âenlightened centrist/neoliberalâ, which is just an excuse to have super lukewarm takes that doesnât do much good but still allows them to have a god complex. Edit:Typos
Who are these conservatives who change their mind when presented with facts?
Hello đ Although it was less facts and more âI saw how the people I support starting hurting my closest friendsâ Yea no when you have people in your childhood group come out as trans you either fight them or you switch parties and I good person am a pacifist
I mean I was one. Then I became a Leftist after being presented with the facts.
The ones who arenât basing their entire personality around transphobia, fragile masculinity, and online personalities. (AKA the non-chronically online adult kind of conservative. This includes Facebook Boomers) You would be surprised how far you can get with coworkers and acquaintances from rural areas.
You'd be surprised how often they'll talk about you being a "dirty Democrat" behind your back
Thatâs why you open up specifically with how much you ALSO hate democrats. You really have to emphasize that class struggle to these people. Just donât say say socialist stuff like âuniversal healthcareâ off the bat. Get to know them, every case is different. Some are all about super low taxes, some are full libertarian, no one case is the same. The political system we live in really prevents certain people from becoming close friends. In my experience(really want to emphasize that.) I have been able to make friends with people that are considered radical left, libertarians, to a wacky right wing Qanon red hat. You have to realize I live in a **RURAL** area, so the county is going to be red no matter what. So I would rather hold my morals high, than compromise and link arms with a neoliberal that thinks we should buy shares of Lockheed Martin because itâs based. In regards to the conservatives I do talk to, I respect them and they respect me back. Those who I hear anything bad from are cut off, but I get alot more disrespect from liberals who think iâm just some commie. (Iâm not even a communist, not sure if I would even be considered a socialist I havenât read Marx, Wolff or Chomsky) I just understand the United States role in the destruction of Earth, Conservatives tend to fish more, hunt. They are a lot more in tune with nature, seriously if you have the right sales pitch, donât push too fast. They are a natural ally of the working class and to mother earth, they just consume a lot of propaganda. Liberals/neocons are a different plague though, jingoistic bastardsâŚ
Lol one of the funniest liberal comments I see on reddit is something like,"well, well, well, I've pissed off leftist AND conservatives so I must be right!" Like no man it means your wishy washy and have no real convictions. If conservatives said they wanted to nuke Iran the liberal would argue that we should use smaller nukes as a compromise.
This is highly variable. But generally Liberals will have actually thought their positions through while many conservatives never have. There are many, many conservatives who are just convinced they're right and that any other political position is childish and immature. Also beware, they will often shift an element of their belief while still retaining other aspects - this is how you end up with people who sound leftist but still believe that homeless people need to be bulldozed or other things like that. Of if you're actually talking fascists and not soft conservatives, then you end up with people like Jackson Hinkle who learn how to disguise their fashy beliefs behind leftist rhetoric, but never stop being fascists
It's actually wild that "leftists" spend way more energy on fighting liberals than fascists.
In fairness, until recently neo-liberals held all the power so it made sense to focus attention there. Nowadays fascism is on the rise and we kinda need the neo-liberals to win that fight since they're a better opponent in that they're less liable to put us in death camps. Ultimately we want leftism to win of course, and within that many of us have our own specific systems within that we prefer too, I'm just saying that in a fight between liberals and fascists we want liberals to win, in a fight between liberals and leftists we want leftists to win, people are so stuck on the latter that the former gets forgotten sometimes.
Definitely agree with the 2nd paragraph, but I disagree with the first, I honestly don't think fascism ever really left. It's always been lurking.
who was it that ordered the hit on Rosa Luxemburg? who was it that refused to ally with the KPD against the NSDAP?
Yeah it was actually the KPD that refused to ally against the NSDAP, believe it or not, because Stalin's orders were that the SPD was the greater evil. So... take that as you will. There are several instances of the KPD working with the NSDAP against the SPD.
>who was it that refused to ally with the KPD against the NSDAP? Reread your question again. Apparently not allying against the NSDAP makes you worse than the NSDAP
I get the impression that for some leftists it's more about being part of a special, semi-edgy club than actually about being a leftist. So fighting with and being degrading towards liberals is better than trying to get them on your side, because that would mean you're less radical and exclusive. Thankfully it's not a significant enough portion of leftists for it to have any impact whatsoever.
implying that neo-liberal fascism isnât a thing.
It's seriously *not* wild. When Macron invoked 'Unity' to fight Le Pen in France, we just got a rich dude who tried to dismantle France's social welfare, creating a disaffected voterbase that was easy prey for the far right. Ppl like Macron & Keir Starmer have no principles beyond 'We're not fascists', depriving the left of the leverage to shift the overton window, well, leftwards. I dislike purity-testing etc. But grass-level leftist infighting won't hand Trump the election. Biden already did. Being starstruck by how *wild* it is will not cultivate the literacy to understand the phenomenon.
it's amazing that some self-proclaimed leftist think that neoliberals will aid their struggle against fascism because they're the lesser evil
Humans generally view duplicity worse than outright opposition.
Only an idiot deals in absolutes... I will do what I must (*Votes*)
Ehm you know that is an absolute, right?
We have reached a bit of a paradox.
*Watches Biden attempt to crawl away from the lava... I mean SCOTUS* Probably more merciful to just end it, mate.
Not for the rest of us
Nobody told you not to vote. Vote. Just don't vote for genociders, no matter the color of their tie
That's unfortunately not a choice.
> If you're not {insert leftist ideology} then you're {said ideology's insult for reactionaries} Every leftist space in nutshell
Iâm a marxist-leninist and some of my closest friends are anarcho-communists. We agree on the communism part, thatâs whatâs important
Social Democrat⌠you mean Social Fascist. Green Party⌠you mean Green Fascist. Anarcho-Communist⌠you mean Anarcho-Fascist.
Nah, they will just call u a liberal.
Capitalism is right wing, in fact it is *the* definition of right wing economically speaking Liberalism means democratic, capitalist, and usually culturally progressive Liberalism is considered right wing by political theorists as a whole, not just by leftists Also there's a lot of irony in that this meme is about generalizing when it's calling all anti-liberals stalinist lmao.
But the OP specifically said Leninist. There are plenty of other types of anti-capitalism. If they'd said anyone to the left of soc-dem I'd have agreed with, you if only partially, because they also said they're by default a fascist. Which isn't true or helpful.
Can I ask some dumbass questions? Genuinely.
absolutely yes
Canât capitalism be made equitable? Like, we have money but make sure itâs done fairly?
What you're thinking of is social democracy, a free market system in which taxation is higher the wealthier you are, enough so that that money can be redistributed via welfare to greatly diminish poverty. I'd look into it if I were you! I'm more radical than that but I think it's a pretty respectable system. I just think full blown socialism is better is all.
Sure, we just fairly don't exploit the global south, and fairly don't extract surplus value from the workers at capitalist enterprise, and fairly make sure that labor receives all the wealth it creates. Surely there's room in here for fair private enterprise that doesn't solely exists to leech off other peoples labor. /s if not obvious, no, capitalism is inherently inequitable. The social democracies of Scandinavia are still benefiting from exploiting at home and abroad to pay for the more generous social safety nets they offer. The way your question is phrased makes it sound like you think there is some benefit to capitalist modes of production, but besides being slightly (debatable) better than the feudal systems they replaced, you can have all the benefits you think capitalism provides you today without the inherently hierarchical and exploitative system of capitalism
I think you are confusing two concepts in general. Capitalism does not mean money. Money came before Capitalism and exists within many Socialist ideas. Capitalism cant be made equitable. The problem is and which is a very very big simplification of what Marx and Lenins analysis says. Is that if you have any equitable system within Capitalism then it will be unable to compete and will eventually be destroyed by the Capitalist system. You can make a country without exploitation for example but if you allow Capitalism then these capitalist structures that grow with exploitation will be more profitable and be able to dominate the system again. So Capitalism will always lead to explitation. Even if you have laws or limitations placed upon it then it will eventually grow back into exploitation. On the other hand relating to money and markets. Most Socialist systems including places like the USSR used money and markets. The idea with Communism is not that money should be removed completely one day. But rather that everyone should be given what value they produce. And then with time as the needs of the population is met then money will become useless anyway. Because what is the point of money if you can get whatever you need anyway. It is a theoretical endpoint of communism to not need money but nobody says you cant use money until then.
Nope. Capitalism relies on private ownership, usually inherited, of business, commerce, and the means of production. These things preclude the worker from having a fair shake. The closest you could conceivably get to something fair is market socialism/a kind of co-op capitalism where workers owned their own workplaces. In fact you could do that and change very little about the way things are done in the world. But it would really only be a half measure.
Money and capitalism arenât the same thing. Capitalism specifically refers to capital investment. Loans with interest, stocks, VCs, that sort of thing. Money as a medium of exchange predates capitalism and exists in plenty of post-capitalist visions as well. Ricardoâs utopian market socialism, Titoâs scientific market socialism, and Proudhonâs mutualism are all viable left-wing economic models that like money but not exploitation There is also social democracy, which is center-left, and basically does capitalism but shuffles some money around to make it less harsh. It offers a good standard of living for the people under it, but because it relies on capitalism as its base, people in more laisez-faire countries get exploited by it and most would agree itâs not sustainable as a model for the entire world. Long ago there used to be radical social democrats (the three arrows anti-fascist logo people) who wanted global social democracy.
The fallacy you're committing here is to imagine an economic model that can sustain itself in perpetuity. Capitalism, even social democracy, sustains itself through inequal exchange with developing nations. A Danish iPhone user still benefits from the cobalt mined from the congo to make the phone. Those things aren't isolated. We can't just aspire to a *nice* system to live under. We crave a society where we are more personally involved with its prosperity and equitability.
Is it? Or is it just saying "If you're not on my very specific team then you're my enemy?" You know, using the context of the movie to help frame the words. And isn't that the oldest problem in the history of the left?
>Is it? Labels are fluid and how you label ideologies is always influenced by opinion, I'll give you that much. But capitalism is the definition of right wing economically, to reject that would be to reject the left right and political compass model of politics entirely. You *could* argue the progressiveness outweighs the capitalism and edges it into leftism, but it would be hard to argue it gets it any more left than center. >Or is it just saying "If you're not on my very specific team then you're my enemy?" I don't think left wing economics is "very specific," there is a huge range of beliefs within socialism. For example I'm a Zapatist, which is a type of libertarian socialism. Marxism-Leninists would agree with me we are radically different, while still agreeing we're both very leftist. >And isn't that the oldest problem in the history of the left? Oh sure, leftists love to infight as much as we live to outfight, but *everyone* except for liberals who don't get into political theory agree liberalism is centrist at best.
Oh, no, I'm not arguing about the left-right positioning of capitalism, liberalism, or any of that. I'm just saying the meme has a more specific social context rather than the academic one you seem to have gotten. I got there by thinking about it in terms of the movie and Anakin's line "If you're not with me, you're against me." It's that kind of reductive thinking and balkanization of thought that I really think is what's at the heart of the meaning. But maybe I'm wrong.
I'm not sure. In some contexts sure, but when it comes to an explicitly leftist space it's just frustrating whenever it comes down to things far leftists and liberals tend to clash about, a big one at the moment being whether or not to vote for Joe Biden. I'm sure liberals feel the same way, probably frustrating for them too. But know, disagreements be disagreeing.
I think I have questions about how you define "left" and "right" considering that these terms predate communism and have fairly broad definitions usually
As a leftist who wholeheartedly believes in labor rights and democratic government controlling critical industries, it's really hard to enjoy this subreddit when every discussion seems to devolve into accusing everyone to the right of the far left of being fascists. It makes the whole subreddit look dumb instead of witty.
Cheer up, it wouldnât be the left without infighting. If you ask me, theyâre lost! All of them, lost!!
Woodrow Wilson was the only Democrat elected between 1896 and FDR because Teddy Roosevelt decided that it was more important to run against the "insufficiently progressive" President Taft than the literal fucking Klan member. 100 plus years later, progressives have still not learned their lesson.
This is literally why third parties do not work in a winner-takes-all first-past-the-post electoral system. People still would rather protest vote and stamp their feet.
To be fair to Teddy, the Republican party bosses denied him the nomination he rightfully deserved based on the popular mandate he had. He should've run again in '08 instead, but he didn't expect Taft to abandon all of his ideals. Taft wasn't just "insufficiently progressive" - he allowed timber companies to rampage the West (whereas Teddy protected it), backed down on labor rights, and generally allowed special interests to roll all over the federal government. I agree 100% with your takeaway from that and progressives not learning their lesson from it, but I don't think it was Teddy's fault so much as the party bosses' fault for trying to force Taft on the public when Teddy had far more support.
Please tell me more, whatâs this?
Election of 1912. I highly recommend this [Crash Course US History video](https://youtu.be/i0Q4zPR4G7M) for a good summary of the topic, and the Progressive Era in general.
I am the only one with clarity of purpose
âLeftists And Fascists Are Natural Enemies. Like Social Democrats And Leftists. Or Anarchists And Leftists. Or Progressives And Leftists. Or Leftists And Other Leftists. Damn Leftists They Ruined Leftism!â
Hasn't it been a historic strategy to intentionally foment infighting among leftists to prevent us from uniting?
Only Sith deal in absolutes?!
Yes
The two genders
I even saw an anarchist do this shift for some reason. that guy had insane cognitive dissonence.
Me getting dragged out of my apartment after the revolution because I am not revolutionary enough (I did not upvote enough posts on r/starwarsleftymemes)
Only a liberal deals in anti-dialectics!
If there's one thing the left loves, it's eating their own
And then they go and defend actual fascists because america bad.
If you question any country with a red flag, you're obviously a fascist. Everyone knows that changing your flag to red and renaming everything "the people's X" makes a state perfect and opposing any bit of that state is the very definition of fascism.
Also if you question any country with a red flag and call yourself a communist, it's because you need to read more theory (which specific theory is never stated) and stop believing the State Department
Anakin was right all along!
When politics get to where weâre at now, people tend to pull hard in either direction
Yep. Lots of Sith dealing in absolutes.
Literally no one does that or believes that. - a Lenin reader myself.
I see it all the timeÂ
Well I see liberals get called that but not leftists lol
"Every leftist I dont like is a liberal, so theres no leftists I dont like. See? I solved leftist infighting!"
If you study history, leftist theory/theories and contemporary politics, itâs pretty easy to differentiate between leftists and liberals.
Thats not what was being said. Like at all? Unless you think anyone who isnt an accelerationist leninist, is somehow "just a liberal", even if they are dem-socs, market socs, anarchists, syndicalists, or just non vanguardist communists.
Sorry I donât know where you got that quote from. It sounded to me like you were saying that leftists accuse people of being liberals for simply disagreeing with with leftists.
>It sounded to me like you were saying that leftists accuse people of being liberals for simply disagreeing with with leftists. MLs say that if you disagree with them. If you disagree on anything you're a counter revolutionary
Yes... a whole lot of lefties do that. A lot. Have you somehow missed how frequent that behavior is?
If you study history, leftist theory/theories and contemporary politics, itâs pretty easy to differentiate between leftists and liberals.
What you said wasnât it eitherÂ
It happens a lot. And sometimes, fellow leftists are in denial about that, because they think everything they dont like is liberal. Ergo, "I didnt call any leftists liberals", not because they never did, but because they drank the cool-aid
Then you're in the meme
If you see it *all the time* I'm sure it would be easy to link to a few examplesÂ
Oh if you want to see leftist infighting and gatekeeping on full display you should go check out /r/starwarsleftymemes, that sub is a mess
There's nothing wrong with gatekeeping, if you let literally anyone with any belief walk around with your mantle then your movement has no coherence and means absolutely nothing. There's a bunch of liberals in the sub who desperately want to claim the title of leftist without supporting positive alternatives to capitalism or imperialism. Like what do you want us to do just be like yeah left unity let's go
There are definitely some forms of gatekeeping that are defendable. But, bad-faith gatekeeping is rampant on reddit.
What the fuck is bad faith gatekeepingÂ
. . . It's gatekeeping done in bad faith. I am not sure how to make that any more clear.
What would be an example? What would motivate somebody gatekeep in bad faith?
**Example:** Excessive use of perma bans to shut out veins of leftist thought that the moderator doesn't agree with. **Motivation:** Avoid the discomfort and anxiety associated with cognitive disconnece when they are confronted by the fact that they might be wrong about something.
... With respect... come on man, you know thats not true
[ŃдаНонО]
Surely we can still agree on this!?!?
Only a tankie deals in absolutes! (God I hate the purity testing, small tent, gatekeeping leftists. When we've whittled down leftists to the 5 true Scotsmen they'll be unable to do fuck all against fascism. That is unless they kill eachother over where the comma should be in an obscure Marxist archive post about a letter in 1873)
I love the lasting effects of COINTELPRO! I love the groups trying to stop dictatorships and oligarchies forming instead just arguing over dumb semantics bullshit!
There's definitely a pretty sharp divide between the people who vote but don't comment, and the commenters. I've posted memes here that have gotten thousands of upvotes and been ridiculously overwhelmingly positive in the upvote/downvote percentage, but where most comments were hating on me or attacking me over it. The ones with the biggest chips on their shoulders and who feel the most need to prove their cred are always the ones who comment most, whether that reflects the general opinion or not. Plus, on any internet site, there will always be bots, contrarian trolls, and people who only pretend to have the ideological viewpoint that they argue in favor of.
I'm pretty unflinching on opposing authoritarianism in all its forms.
authoritarianism always seems like a meaningless word.
only to authoritarians
Yeah, Authoritarianism always seems like some weird moral grey area to people who want to control others.
[ŃдаНонО]
I don't necessarily think that is a strictly liberal position. A person can be leftist in philosophy and tendency but still participate in the liberal democratic system that they, through no fault of their own, were born in.
participating in liberal democracy would mean independent workers' parties and organizations using it to further working class interests opposed to the status quo. Voting for a senile billionaire backed candidate is not that.
Ya know that old brain getting more enlightened meme, that flips back and forth from âHegel was wrongâ to âHegel was rightâ? Lenin is kinda in the same boat. Love his books and really relate to him as a person, but man is it a dialectical relationship to say the least lol
Only a Leninist deals in absolutes.
If you are Leninist, consider yourself an opp. (I hate everything about soviet union, like litteraly everything)
lmao this guy hates guaranteed vacations
im pretty sure he is more opposed to the homophobia, antisemitism, genocides, border shootings, support of genocidal regimes, gulags, human rights violations and and and. But what is there to expect from a canadian deprogram user. You never lived under soviet rule or its long lasting consequences. And luckily enough you never will.
Pretty sure theyâre making a joke about that guy saying he hated âliterally everything about the Soviet Unionâ
And yet everything i said is true look at his posting history. He literally asked on deprogram about material on anarchist terror attack in the soviet union.
>You never lived under soviet rule or its long lasting consequences. And luckily enough you never will. The USSR falling led to most of the consequences. there is a reason a large portion of the population which lived in the USSR have nostalgia. and why its only westerners that repeat lies like yours (might as well quote robert conquest)
Unironically yes. Vacation on black or caspian see shores are torture even nowadays. Those two were main vacation places in ussr. Also artek sucks ass
socdem Obi vs tankie Ani
What the Strawman, Batman
Leninists are fascists. -base Marxists
>Has never read marx
So is this about ppl pushing back on saying to vote for Biden? Bc voting for Biden does make you a Liberal. Like straight up.
The vanguard replaces the bourgeoisie with a political ruling class that engages in new antagonisms with the proletariat. Libwration cannot be drip fed by an enlightened minoritynand thenidea that a select few can sheperd that responsibility is arrogant perpetuation ofneuropean colonial mindset seeping into anticapitalist philosophy. The historic prevalence to accuse those that go against the vanguard of being revisionists, counter revolutionaries, fascists, etc is evidence of this new class divide. The jedi councilnwere dumb assholes and so is "the party". There I tied in starwars :p
Liberals are jar jar binks though, handing power over to fascista and blowing raspberries while trying to be polite and follow decorum and meaaured reforms. Should definitely vote for the less vile old man though. Not trying to reduce harm to your at risk fellows based on principle is a privileged position and does notnfurther any praxis. You can take 30 minutes off from plotting the overthrow of private capital to cast a vote for the guy that will not pass national abortian and trans healthcare bans that hit his desk.
i have no idea why you were downvoted. also i think i recognize you.
Because tankies be mad. I admin r/jewishleft
Here's a sneak peek of /r/jewishleft using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/jewishleft/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Jews & Palestinians together in Amsterdam](https://www.reddit.com/gallery/1adva1d) | [6 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/jewishleft/comments/1adva1d/jews_palestinians_together_in_amsterdam/) \#2: [I wish it wasn't so hard to find pro-Palestine spaces online that aren't antisemitic/don't deny Jewish history and trauma.](https://np.reddit.com/r/jewishleft/comments/19f1yqx/i_wish_it_wasnt_so_hard_to_find_propalestine/) \#3: [Made this for anyone who may need it](https://i.redd.it/ia4rxkfkgo4c1.jpg) | [9 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/jewishleft/comments/18c444g/made_this_for_anyone_who_may_need_it/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)