• Chainweasel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Unpopular opinion:

    Alienating liberals doesn’t create more leftists, it only causes people to be dismissive of the term and dig in their heels.
    Insulting them rather than educating them does nothing but divide anyone left of center and after the last election I think it’s abundantly clear that we need to be unified rather than divided.
    No one is going to argue that left leaning candidates aren’t far from perfect, but they’re a hell of a lot better than the far-right fascists were about to have in power in less than 2 weeks.
    Yes, I agree modern liberals are too centrist and ineffective but at the end of the day they’re light-years ahead of the far right, and I’d rather be agitated about having another centrist administration than alarmed and outraged at the onset of fascism.

        • gravityowl@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          You’re talking as if for over a year (cough decades cough) Palestinian activists hadn’t tried talking to the liberals about their party’s unshakable support for the ongoing genocide.

          What’s left to say to people who are “going to pick the lesser of 2 evils” even when you showed them that their pick is still funding the ethnic cleansing of all Palestinian people?

          We should talk to general leftist people. Not the liberals. They still value money and profit over people

          • umbrella@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            i probably would have taken that liberal stance long ago, but i had people explain their views to me in a good way that eventually made me rethink some of the things i held as truth. its just that it doesnt happen overnight. im not saying anyone will be convinced but the socialist strategy of getting people talking about political topics in a consistent organized way actually helps a lot here.

            • gravityowl@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              I might sound like an asshole and I apologize in advance if I do because it’s not about you specifically in this case but, while I’m glad that you had people in your life who were willing to consistently talk to you and help you rethink some things, the problem to me is exactly that like you said, it does not happen overnight. At all. It actually takes a long time and a lot of trust between people to achieve what was achieved with you in this particular case. And while I am certainly glad to have another ally, time is a luxury in some cases.

              Using the case of Palestine, a Palestinian village getting bombed because so many liberals simply don’t value their lives enough and don’t pressure their officials to do something about it, doesn’t have the luxury of time.

              As another example, the collapse of our ecosystem is happening every single day. And while we let companies continue business as usual, those liberals think that it’s a topic that can always be postponed. But it can’t. And now we’re past the point of no return and yet we waste time in pointless conversations trying to explain to people that what is happening, is happening.

              If some people on the left are willing to and have the time to take liberals by the hand and explain to them things they could look up for themselves if only they weren’t so dismissive and disinterested in the suffering of others, great. They surely have my thank. But I don’t think as a general strategy makes sense to wait for such liberal people to suddenly decide that importent issues are finally important enough to them to be acted upon.

              Those issues have always been important and worthwhile. Their previous lack of interest about such topics is their own failure.

              • umbrella@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                thats why we must conquer the empathy of people now. we must be those people to liberals, like the previous revolutionaries were to us. before they turn into the kind of people that enables it.

                if we had people as dedicated as my friends for more people we wouldnt (as a population) be that open to fascism as they are right now. fascism comes because things are bad and people are open to any solution that comes by, and we werent there to offer them hope. big burgeois media was the patient one to talk to them every day about it.

                i also get frustrated by the people in my life but if we want to stop this madness we have no choice. we have to offer a real alternative to our fellow workers. there will be no mass media corporation to do it for us like they do for fascists. we have to do it if we want to break free from these chains. and we have to deal with people who are convinced capitalism is the answer because thats the only thing they were exposed to throughout their lives.

  • Omnipitaph@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Okedoke, well I just learned that I have no concrete grasp of political labels and need to do a LOT of research.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Extreme simplification:

      Liberalism: supports capitalism. Current system + tweaks

      Leftism: supports anticapitalism of some form, the two biggest umbrellas being Marxism/Communism and Anarchism

      Marxism/Communism: supports collectivization, public ownership, and central planning (I have an introductory reading list if you want to learn more, or just read Principles of Communism)

      Anarchism: supports full horizontalism and networks of communes

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          They’re conveniently leaving out the entire concept of Socialism for some reason, while making sure to mention Marxism by name.

          So I would make sure to add that to the list. Communism is a specific form of socialism, but the two are non synonymous.

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            I leave out “socialism” because for the vast majority of actual implementations, they have been Marxist in character, and additionally any Socialist system in my opinion would either progress to Communism or regress to Capitalism, making it kind of redundant to split from Communism.

            Communism isn’t a type of Socialism if we are being nitpicky, but the Mode of Production after Socialism.

            Additionally, I did say it was an extreme simplification, and I meant that. I’m not diving into syndicalism, utopianism, Posadism, Maoism, Gonzaloism, Trotskyism, Hoxaism, etc because ultimately they don’t need to be delved into for someone with no knowledge.

            • within_epsilon@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              I know we are engaged in other conversation. I will read the other comment when I have time to kill.

              I need to respond to the continuum idea of politics namely: capitalism -> socialism -> communism. The continuum is a creation of Lenin in State and Revolution. A similar anachronism is suggesting there is a continuum to evolution. Continuum’s are silly for evolution and politics.

              • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                That’s actually wrong. Marx came up with it, he just called what Lenin called “Socialism” as “lower-stage Communism.” The origin is in Historical Materialism, and the concept of Scientific Socialism (as opposed to the Utopian form that thought you could just think up a good society and create it outright).

                Calling it a “continuum” is misleading. Capitalism, as an example, starts with many smaller Capitalists but eventually concentrates and monopolizes. This is a trackable and historical motion, not a “continuum” but nonetheless an observed trend. Socialism, on the other hand, continues that movement but does so in the direction of collectivization, as public ownership and planning not only becomes feasible but far more efficient at higher levels of development, which is also observable and trackable.

                Communism is when this process has been done and all private property has been folded into the public sector. This isn’t a straight and narrow line, but a process that will happen in many different manners across many different countries, but by tracking trajectories and behaviors this prediction becomes clearer and clearer, and Marx becomes vindicated by the passage of time as we observe them coming to fruition.

                • within_epsilon@beehaw.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  I hope Marx’s prophecy is true. It would be nice to have stages toward communism like some sort of continuum. For the Yankees, they get fascism. Spain, Germany and Italy didn’t do a socialism after their fascism. The USSR went “socialism” to fascism. China is a successful capitalist state under Deng Xiaoping. Let’s keep betting that we’ll progress to communism by proping up the right heirarchies.

                  The current reality for the USA is the concentration and merger of economic and political power. More public lands are becoming private. Labor has been told it will be made competitive again which can be assumed to mean a reduction in wages. Capital might be on-shored again? The current major lie is other countries will pay a tarrif. Workers will suffer for gains of the state. We can likely agree the state serves the capitalist under capitalism.

                  Won’t someone think of the poor Yankees? Luigi does some propaganda of the deed and terrorises those in power. Propaganda of the deed is ineffective long term, but shakes the heirarchies tree short term. I would argue it is too loud. Instead, we should focus on building horizontal power.

                  Collectivism requires people coming together to create horizontal power. Building horizontal power is in spite of any existing vertical power. Normal economic requirements like land, labor and capital need to be acquired for the benefit of the collective.

                  The point is there are no stages to communism. The prophecy will not save us from heirarchical power. Extraordinary claims, like those of Smith, Marx or Lenin, require extraordinary evidence. Instead of relying on a heirarchy, which continues to fail due to centralized power, we must build communism collectively with shared hands.