Both are good, one is better
should i mention that under one of them many coups around the world were orchestrated? no, dems are no better than gops.
dems are no better than gops
Unless you’re gay, lesbian, trans, atheist, Muslim, Jewish, Satanist, black, brown, female, an immigrant, or really anything other than a straight white Christian man.
What an incredibly privileged take. Try having some empathy for other people sometime.
Well, except you are wrong. Biden reversed Trump’s decision to pull out of Somalia. You are just being fed right wing propaganda to make one of the groups seem better than the other.
of course. let’s have some respect for the american minorities while minorities abroad can be tortured in some basement in a third world shithole while being watched over by a cia agent.
and i get to be called privileged by some oversized gringo. oh the imperialist exceptionalism.
No way you’re unironically pulling out the identity politics when just about every single revolutionary party in the US’ history was led by minorities. We are the first to feel the brunt of capitalism and for that reason we are the ones to lead the charge against it while the privileged sit in their condos waiting for everything to blow over so they can say “Oh I actually supported civil rights this whole time :)”
Just because US democrats stopped calling them “detention camps”, and prefer “influx” facilities, doesn’t mean they did anything to dismantle the immigrant prison system that’s currently holding 30,000+ people in camps.
And also, the US bombs all the groups above you just mentioned without distinction. The Obama administration for example dropped an average of 80 bombs every day of his presidency on the middle east and north africa.
For trans people in the U.S., the difference between a GOP win and a Dem win in the house, senate, and presidential elections is the difference between having or not having certain rights.
Federal prisons now will force trans women to be transferred to male prisons and they will be denied gender-affirming care like access to estrogen.
If you are a trans person in the U.S. there is a clear difference between the Dems and the GOP - one is clearly better than the other.
Nothing in response has responded to this, shown it to be false, etc.
It does not require that we overlook that the Dems have far-right policies, especially on immigration and international affairs. It does not require we defend U.S. imperialism to say the Dems are better than the GOP for trans people in the U.S. Both are true.
I understand the moral disgust and the impulse to see how villainous the Dems are, I feel the same way, but if you care about the political outcomes, you can’t ignore that there remain significant and tangible differences between the parties and their policies.
Rights are proclaimed and fought for by the marginalized, not gracefully given by our rulers. If you put so much emphasis on which group of tyrants to vote for, you’ll never think “maybe I should become a Stormé DeLarverie and actually make a difference”
Ah, I think you may have missed my point - I am responding to the claim that both parties are equally bad. While I can understand if you are primed to expect my points to be accompanied by a liberal attitude that voting is the main form of political action, let me clarify for you that this is not what I’m saying.
Obviously middle-class Americans have a tendency to think voting is the most significant political action that can be taken, maybe if they are really into politics they might make different consumer choices (avoiding Chick-fil-a, refusing plastic straws, etc.), and even more extreme people might participate in a peaceful protest.
Brick throwing on the other hand is something people who have nothing left to lose do, desperate acts from those who are barely surviving poverty, who are being harassed, jailed, raped, and killed by the police, and so on. Brick throwing isn’t done to carve out civil rights, it is survival.
To that end, Democrats who might advocate for and uphold civil rights have a pacifying and stabilizing effect in so far as some of those pressures that result in marginalized groups throwing bricks are alleviated. The GOP on the other hand seems to care little about stability, they are unskillful tyrants in that sense.
Ultimately all I am saying is that elections do have consequences, which is so obvious it should not have to be said. My statements do not imply elections are the only political events that matter.
Alright no hate on Bernie tho, that dude is a role model through and through.
Bernie has been pretty shitty on foreign policy. He supported the NATO bombing of Belgrade for 78 straight days, which is why he fell out of favor with his socialist friend, Michael Parenti. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLNQEHbusSA&t=39s
Before 2017 sure.
What did he do in 2017?
Continued to support Democrats after they fucked him in the 2016, I’m guessing?
I don’t know, I still like him
Same. He saw *gestures broadly* coming and tried to prevent it as best as he could. What’s that Greek legend about an oracle whose catastrophic prophecies always come true, but they’re never believed and always blamed for them?
Cassandra, cursed by Apollo to have the gift of prophecy but to never be believed.
Absol? (j)
Maybe for those who wish to support bombing foreigners while funnelling the military industry into their state.
Motherfucker parades around like he’s antiwar because he voted “nay” on a single ballot initiative that was already a shoo-in and inconsequential for him to vote against. Literally a couple months later, he voted to further the funding for those military actions.
Bernie has had blood on his hands for 30-40 years now and continues to try to wash it off with more blood.
Someone who pretends to support the poor at home while simultaneously supporting bombing and invading the poor elsewhere sure is a role model, just not a good one.
Bernie is basically a modern day version of Bernstein. Though a century apart, both peddle reformism as a political pacifier, diverting energy from the radical systemic change required to dismantle capitalism. Their approaches, while superficially progressive, function as ideological traps, diverting energy from serious movements necessary to upend capitalism.
Bernstein was a leading figure in Germany’s SPD, and he famously rejected Marxist revolutionary praxis in favor of evolutionary socialism. He argued capitalism could be gradually reformed into socialism through parliamentary means, dismissing the inevitability of class conflict. He neutralized the SPD’s revolutionary potential, channeling working-class demands into compromises like wage increases or limited welfare programs that left capitalist hierarchies intact. As Rosa Luxemburg warned in Reform or Revolution, Bernstein’s strategy reduced socialism to a “mild appendage” of liberalism, sapping the working class of its transformative agency.
Likewise, the political project that Bernie pursued mirrors Bernstein’s trajectory. While Sanders critiques inequality and corporate power, his platform centers on social democratic reforms, such as Medicare for All, tuition-free college, a $15 minimum wage, that treat symptoms instead of root causes. By framing electoral victory as the primary objective, Sanders diverted a what could have been a millions strong grassroots movement into the Democratic Party, an institution structurally committed to maintaining capitalism. His campaigns absorbed activist energy into phone banking and voter outreach, rather than building durable, extra-parliamentary power such as workplace organizations, tenant unions, and so on.
When Sanders conceded to Hillary Clinton and later Joe Biden, his base dissolved into disillusionment or shifted focus to lesser-evilism. Without autonomous structures to sustain pressure, the movement’s momentum evaporated much like the SPD’s integration into Weimar Germany’s capitalist state. However, if his agenda were enacted, it would exist within a neoliberal framework. Much like FDR’s New Deal coexisted with Jim Crow, imperial plunder, and union busting. Reforms within the system are always contingent on their utility to capital, and their purpose is demobilize the workers.
A meaningful challenge to capitalism requires a long-term strategy that combines direct action, mass education, and dual power structures. Imagine if Sanders had urged supporters to unionize workplaces, organize rent strikes, and create community mutual aid networks alongside electoral engagement. Movements like MAS in Bolivia, show how grassroots power can pressure institutions while cultivating revolutionary consciousness. Instead, Sanders’ campaign became a referendum on his candidacy, leaving his followers adrift after his defeat.
Bernstein and Sanders, despite their intentions, exemplify the dead end of reformism. Their projects mistake tactical concessions for strategic victory, ignoring capitalism’s relentless drive to commodify and co-opt. In the end, the reformist approach ends up midwifing full blown fascism. By channeling energy into parliamentary politics, the SPD deprioritized mass mobilization. Unions and workers were encouraged to seek concessions rather than challenge capitalist power structures. This eroded class consciousness and left the working class unprepared to confront the nazi threat.
When the Nazis gained momentum, the SPD clung to legalistic strategies, refusing to support strikes or armed resistance against Hitler. Their faith in bourgeois democracy blinded them to the existential threat of fascism, which exploited economic despair and nationalist resentment. In the end, SPD famously allied with the nazis against the communists.
The “progressive” wing of the Democratic Party is following in the footsteps of the SPD’s reformist trajectory. While advocating for policies like Medicare for All or climate action, it operates within capitalist constraints, undermining radical change and inadvertently fueling right-wing extremism. The Democrats absorb grassroots energy into electoral campaigns. Their reliance on corporate donors ensures watered-down policies that fuel disillusionment.
The SPD’s reformism actively enabled fascism by disorganizing the working class and legitimizing capitalist violence. Similarly, the Democratic Party’s commitment to pragmatic incrementalism sustains a system that breeds reactionary backlash. Trump is a direct product of these policies. We’re just watching history on repeat here.
thanks for the breakdown and for your continued work here.
o7
Well said
So just right of centre?
The right side is just liberalism. This is what happens when the left and liberal are melded together in everyday western society/language and the water is muddied. It’s intended. It confuses people, overwhelms them, and leads them to use the apparatus that the ruling class has placed in front of us to circumvent true working class interests and movements. It’s why liberals scoff at potential allies (leftists), instead of seeing the truth: a unified working class.
Nice instance name.
Thanks! Never thought I’d own a domain with “yachts” in the name 😂
For real lol
True. Always good to unpack it. It’s therapeutic lol.
Is equating the defense of Ukraine with that hat the entire point of the meme?
Yeah this is some not-so-subtle propaganda from our komrades.
literally just poking fun at this brand of american liberals be so serious
Da, all in good fun.
.ml people will stand by people resisting the imperialism of one country, and then condemn people resisting the imperialism of another, and still won’t realize they are effectively nationalists.
Liberals will invent fanfiction about Marxists before genuinely trying to engage with Lenin’s analysis of Imperialism or attempt to have a genuine conversation about it.
Marxists are great people. Leninists have fantastic ideas. And Marxist-Leninists betray everything Marx and Lenin stood for.
“Socialism in one country” is the invention of a bourgeois dictator who sought to destroy communism because it was a threat to his power.
No, lol. Marx wanted a fully publicly owned and planned economy free of class antagonisms, Anarchists want decentralized networks of communes. These are very different systems with very different analysis.
Socialism in One Country is correct, Trotsky wanted to abandon building Socialism essentially and just keep trying to do revolutions elsewhere. The correct path is to not abandon building Socialism, while still supporting Socialist movements elsewhere.
“Socialism in one country” is the invention of a bourgeois dictator who sought to destroy communism because it was a threat to his power.
Even in Stalin’s time there was collective leadership. The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the Communist power structure. Stalin, although holding wide powers, was merely the captain of a team and it seems obvious that Khrushchev will be the new captain.
A lot of the cold war propaganda about the USSR turned out to be bullshit, as contemporary Western academic historians will tell you, including Domenico Losurdo.
Karl Marx died an anarchist.
This is laughably false by simply reading what Marx actually wrote.Even in Stalin’s time there was collective leadership. The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the Communist power structure. Stalin, although holding wide powers, was merely the captain of a team and it seems obvious that Khrushchev will be the new captain.
Davel, you do know that this is not a statement by the CIA, but a comment collected from an undisclosed USSR informant?
If we take these unevaluated comment reports as what the CIA thought, they would have changed their mind some time later.Comments on the Current Soviet Situation:
Stalin was a fanatic, an all-powerful dictator with a persecution complex and a mania for greatness. He wanted to see his goals accomplished during his life- time. If he were still alive, the Soviet Union would be either on the brink of or in the midst of a catastrophe. It is hoped that the present authorities will permit their pursuit of their aims to be tempered by reason, and a recognition of the realities of life. They are normal people, not sick, and see that resistance to change must be considered. As Bukharin and Rykov proposed, many of the changes made by the Soviets can be retained; the others can be abandoned gradually, It is important to make concessions to the peasantry, and the authorities appear to have chosen that road. Malenkov’s speech of 8 August 1953 is regarded as a change from an unreasonable to a reasonable policy, Freedom, of course, is the most important thing and the regime can scarcely grant that and retain power. The disappointment to those who regard Malenkov’s speech as the beginning of a new era will be terrifying and may have consequences.
I think that report wasn’t an honest assessment but rather the cold war talking points to be used for cold war propaganda. The CIA is as much in the job of disinformation as it is in information. Contemporary Western academic historians, having access to declassified US & USSR documents from the time, have published accounts that put these cold war cartoon villain narratives to bed.
My country has been Gladioded, no need to convince me that they’re manipulative fucks 😜
My issue isn’t about which is closer to the truth, but about using these documents as a proof, as the CIA admitting this or that. I’ve seen many otherwise well informed MLs frame it that way, and it’s a bad look since it make them appear as willingly obtuse or disingenuous. Both the quoted documents are just collected intelligence, and certainly not from an internal source from the politburo which, by the CIA’s own admission, they weren’t able to infiltrate. And you said it yourself, there’s many historians that did their job well; quoting them instead of some unverified crap would be more convincing.Edit:
By the way, while looking at my notes on the topic, I found something I saved from “Titoism and Soviet Communism”. Given the nature of this document, an analysis for “those who need to know”, it’s actually closer to a statement about what they thought of the USSR under Stalin at the time.
About “Stalinism” (their word, not mine):
This term is used to denote the teachings of Marx, Engels and Lenin as dogmatically interpreted by Stalin, and as imposed by him on the International Communist Movement.
The term denotes in particular the theory and practice connected with Stalin’s personal dictatorship – “one man rule” – over the CPSU, the Soviet State, and – under the guise of “the leading role” of the CPSU – over the International Communist Movement as a whole.Edit 2: said document https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80T00246A073800530001-4.pdf
Please judge this source by the content of the writing and the sourcing of its own arguments rather than by the hosting medium.
Even if it were true that Marx threw out his entire life’s work and became an anarchist on his deathbed, how did the Paris Commune turn out? Why has no anarchist society lasted more than a few months before collapsing from within, or from without by capitalist/imperialist forces? Anarchism has not and can not succeed in the world we presently live in, if for no other reason than they cannot defend themselves against the imperialist forces of the monopoly capitalists who want to profit from everything everywhere.
From Michael Parenti’s 1997 book Blackshirts and Reds:
But a real socialism, it is argued, would be controlled by the workers themselves through direct participation instead of being run by Leninists, Stalinists, Castroites, or other ill-willed, power-hungry, bureaucratic cabals of evil men who betray revolutions. Unfortunately, this “pure socialism” view is ahistorical and nonfalsifiable; it cannot be tested against the actualities of history. It compares an ideal against an imperfect reality, and the reality comes off a poor second. It imagines what socialism would be like in a world far better than this one, where no strong state structure or security force is required, where none of the value produced by workers needs to be expropriated to rebuild society and defend it from invasion and internal sabotage.
The pure socialists’ ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.
The pure socialists had a vision of a new society that would create and be created by new people, a society so transformed in its fundaments as to leave little opportunity for wrongful acts, corruption, and criminal abuses of state power. There would be no bureaucracy or self-interested coteries, no ruthless conflicts or hurtful decisions. When the reality proves different and more difficult, some on the Left proceed to condemn the real thing and announce that they “feel betrayed” by this or that revolution.
the fucking hat lmao
Cool! More division! Exactly what we need!!!
I think unity can only be achieved through a genuine alliance in values and methods. Liberals, fundamentally, disagree on what the prime issue is and how to fix it. Marxists and Anarchists, despite having different goals and methods, are at least aligned in opposition to Capitalism and Imperialism and can work together. Liberals support Capitalism and therefore, intentionally or not, support its Imperialism, so any feigned resistance towards the atrocities of the US Empire rings hollow coming from Liberals.
Yes divided because you are pure and most others aren’t
lemmy.world users and completely missing the point of every single argument
name a more iconic duo
Easy: .ml users and self righteous arrogance
cowbee is being neither self-righteous nor arrogant, you got in over your head with this conversation and don’t know what to do with yourself lmao
I never once tried to engage them in the way they wanted. I’ve been really close to blocking them (finally did) several times because fuck tankies. Yes there I said it, I used a label. Because that’s all I was afforded. Y’all don’t need to get so butthurt about being self righteous. The fact that you are is telling.
are you 12?
I got blocked for asking what you mean? I just wanted to hear what you were genuinely trying to ask about, but guess that doesn’t matter anymore because you can’t read this.
I don’t know what you mean by “pure,” nor what value that would have. If Leftists seek to establish some form of Socialism, and Liberals wish to perpetuate and maybe tweak the current system just a bit, then these people are never going to be able to meaningfully work together. “Purity” has nothing to do with it, and never has.
It’s whatever your definition is. Your labels matter, other views are trash
My definition of what? What are you actually talking about? Genuinely.
All one has to do is read your comments. Every word is dripping with self righteousness
My dear fellow user, there is no need to be so defensive. No one is going to kill you or shame you because you express your views. I and many others here may even be convinced by you. Your opinion does matter, and so does you, so, there is no need to disregard someone open to discussion just because you diverge in something. If you don’t want to discuss on something, there is always the option to not give these quick-witted responses, saying few words and assuming positions from “the enemy” that the person has never said. No one here is your “enemy”.
If you really think u/Cowbee is wrong, and wish for other people to understand you, articulate your answers. Say in a comprehensible way WHY he is wrong, instead of making arguments like “oh yes because my opinion is shit and you are the only pure socialist” or some ironic weak shit like that. We are (mostly) all adults, there is no need to engage in childish behavior, and you should not expect that we will understand what you mean by saying “his definition is wrong” without saying what “definition”.
If you really think that there is no convincing anyone here, because we are all hopeless mfs or smth, just stop arguing and save yourself the time and sanity.
Can you elaborate in any way? I thought I gave a fairly well-thought out response to why division exists between Leftists and Liberals in the first place, and you responded with vague character assassinations. I don’t know what to make of this, really, it just seems silly.
Exactly! Marxists, anarchists, and leninists are alllies. Statist liberals on the other hand, whether they be social democratic corporate capitalists or stalinistic state capitalists, will always try to infiltrate and divide the communist movement.
It’s just like this motte-and-bailey meme. The implied position is that the communists were wrong to tell the Americans to vote against fascism. The strong position, which is claimed to be the only position when it meets resistance, is that it’s only against capitalist liberals.
You have to be together to be divided. I don’t consider the people that have caused or enabled all of the suffering in the US to be united with the working class, personally.
It’s always the people who say ‘I’m a hardcore leftist’ or ‘I’m as left as they come’
New bit idea: tell people you’re “as left as they cum,” and always cum facing your left.
I’m like Zoolander, I can’t cum left
i’m as left as they come but I think Israel should “clear out” Gaza and that Trump makes some good points about woke going too far
leftist : anti-capitalism :: liberal : pro-capitalism
Why is this so hard for some radlibs to understand? I think it is all the propaganda they passively consume.
Capitalism is so all-consuming it’s like water to fish. “Capitalism” becomes synonymous with words like economy, markets, trade, laws, and government. It no longer is an ideology, but an immutable force in the universe.
Is that a Mark Fischer quote?
Maybe idk
Leftist ≠ Leftwing
Liberalism is Leftwing leaning but isn’t leftist
Just realized were in .ml my guy. These guys have thrown the brick on trapos crazy koolaid jammer and only want to circlejerk about liberals and their infallible god kings stalin and marx
Liberalism ≠ Leftwing
FTFY
🧠🪱
Nope, Liberalism is the “center” of the modern world in that it’s the default status quo position and ideology of the ruling class.
Social liberal is the center. Liberal is centre-right to right-wing.
no no no. Left is when you love democracy and freedom and liberty and rightwing is when you love authority and disciplined organizations.
Liberal means PRO LIBERTY. Its right there in the fucking name leftoids
Of course. Its the “liberty” of capitalists do to whatever they can get away with. Unlimited power for the capitalist class.
The freedom to buy an old growth forest and bulldoze it
Liberal means pro capitalist liberty. Nothing about personal freedom, equity and social safety nets in that.
based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed
Okay buddy. You guys just want to twist a good ideology into a wedge issue. The only thing vaguely “capitalist” about a liberal is the belief that the government isnt allowed to seize your shit unlawfully. The right to own property comes way after personal liberty in my book. That means billionaires dont get a pass for abusing the populace.
Liberalism means PRO CAPITALISM.
The first sentence from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism:
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, the right to private property and equality before the law.
From the first paragraph of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property†:
Private property is foundational to capitalism, an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.
Liberalism: A Counter-History (online copy)
†Not to be confused with personal property.
That line says nothing about capitalism. Pro ownership? That is a tenet of some branches of leftism. I dont agree with corporations or the state having a monopoly on land ownership. Though the government cant come and take an individuals shit for no reason. Being an abusive billionaire though has an asterisk in the foot notes.
Though I’d argue that anyone owning shit comes a large and wide second or 3rd to human rights.
philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed
It says it right there.
Sound like you got some reading to do
Yes, it’s hard for them to understand because of a lifetime of anti-socialist & pro-capitalist propaganda, propaganda which most of them aren’t even aware of, because for them it’s just common sense.
I’ll say it again, in the United States the term “liberal” is used to refer to liberal social ideas NOT liberal economic ideas. To the average US citizen left and liberal are synonyms. This doesn’t mean your definition isn’t correct for academics and the entire rest of the world. But this meme, and this left vs liberal argument for this post, are US based.
You can tell us what we already know ’till you’re blue in the face, but that won’t dissuade us from trying to deprogram Americans from the Orwellian newspeak they’ve been mistaught so they can develop class consciousness.
I’m not sure how colloquial vocabulary usage prevents developing class consciousness. I’d potentially argue refusing to accept the evolution of language and refusing to communicate to people in the terms they use and understand inhibits said deprogramming.
Again very US centric in this definition but it’s who needs deprogramming.You don’t think words can mean things?
You just live in some kind of word salad blob?
What? That’s literally the opposite of what I’m saying… I’m saying words can have multiple meanings depending on context.
But the point of this was how does “liberal” having a different colloquial definition from how op was using it have anything do with “developing class consciousness” which can be done regardless of this single word?Yes
Sometimes the evolution of language isn’t so much organic as it is a political project, such as a century of red scares and socialist purges.
Americans believe Sanders when he calls himself a socialist because they’ve lost a vocabulary for socialism itself. And they think Sanders’ centrism is “the left,” because the Overton window has shifted so far right that there is no left left.
We can’t simply use their terms, because their terminology is both muddled and lacking.
Sometimes the evolution of language isn’t so much organic as it is a political project, such as a century of red scares and socialist purges.
Ok. But regardless of the cause, organic or political project, it doesn’t change the fact that the language has moved on correct?
We can’t simply use their terms, because their terminology is both muddled and lacking.
But there’s the rub. You/we ARE using their terms and the message is muddled and lacking BECAUSE OF the difference in perceived definitions. And as the past couple decades have shown there is zero chance of getting the American people to learn things, or unlearn as the case may be.
I assume very few people this far down a thread into a political discussion, on Lemmy, don’t know what the Overton windowS are and how fucked the US is because of the current far right position on the left/right scales. I find it lacking and dislike it’s libertarian origins. We are even now discussing the difference of a word being used for social vs economic ideas and these two scales do not necessarily overlap.
Isn’t it progressism?
But anyway liberalism is the ideology of capitalism. The artificial differences created between conservatives and progressists is just a smoke screen to create a false debate and prevent from challenging capitalism, switching the enemy from the rulling capitalist class to the person next door with different views
This is American Exceptionalism, and I won’t stand for it. This is like that “they trained them wrong on purpose … as a joke” meme. The ruling class has subdued many people with a maelstrom of bullshit politics, and the only sound strategy is to shatter these exceptionalist brain worms and actually do real analysis of the political economy.
Americans can have a little education, as a treat.
This is also wrong. US liberals are just as anticommunist as their further right counterparts, and their “social liberalism” goes only so far as not to infringe on capitalist “freedom” to do whatever they can get away with. Hence their hatred of homeless / the poor, communists, and colonized peoples.
As the saying goes, US liberals are against every genocide except the current one. Hence their staunch support for Israel’s genocide of Palestinians.
I’m confused what the pink hat is supposed to have to do with the rest of the images
Officially named Pussyhats, they were first worn symbolically at the 2017 US Women’s March in Washington DC. Created by Krista Suh and Jayna Zweiman (who met at an LA knitting club), the hat was made in direct response to grab em by the pussy remark from tdump. The original idea was for marchers to knit, sew, or crochet hats to create a visual statement —a sea of pink. “If everyone at the march wears a pink hat, the crowd will be a sea of pink, showing that we stand together, united,” reads the introduction to the knitting pattern on the Pussyhat Project website. The actual hats were created by people who could not attend physically, but wanted to show their support.
Since then, some have come out against it as any one symbol isn’t as all encompassing as they would like, but none have yet given or inspired a good replacement for such a strong show of women’s solidarity.
Well you see, catgirls are bourgeois decadence /s
nothing, it’s just anti-trans, anti-queer bullshitting.
No, it’s anti-pinkwashing. It’s anti-liberals failing to protect the vulnerable yet again. What have we gained since the pussyhat movement but the loss of reproductive rights under Biden’s watch?
the loss of reproductive rights under Biden’s watch?
What did Biden have the authority to do that wasn’t done (to avoid this loss)?
The Supreme Court ruled that any Official Act done by the President is Constitutional.
Surely you can think of some pretty cool stuff this enables?
Failed to make an executive action codifying abortion rights.
That would have just been superseded by the next admin
Yeah there is no point in eating, you will just shit it out later so best to not bother at all.
Now this would be like eating things but you’ve had your stomach and intestines removed. Then your analogy works. But it’s a pretty stupid analogy.
So do nothing, got it. Shoo lib begone
If you just want to do things for the sake of doing things so you can say you’ve done things, even though absolutely nothing materially changed. Typical you.
By removing, with official acts, justices who violated their oath of office.
Ooh, the fascists aren’t gonna like this one
I’m okay with it.
I hate those stupid transphobic hats.
I’m really struggling to find a party that i fully agree with.
For one, i like true leftist ideals, but i don’t like guns, so i guess the left parts of the image doesn’t apply to me.
On the other side, i think the long-standing support for Ukraine is an atrocious mistake, because it prolongs the suffering unnecessarily (after all, the uproar in Ukraine is mostly an CIA-inspired action after all i believe, and diplomatic solutions were not sought). But shitting on that pink hat (which is clearly a symbol for queer/trans people) is just unacceptable. just leave the people live their own private life as they want. What’s so difficult about that?
But shitting on that pink hat (which is clearly a symbol for queer/trans people) is just unacceptable
Actually queer and trans people found the hats exclusionary. So did non white people whose genitalia aren’t that color. The entire pussy-hat movement was feel-good liberal activity that accomplished nothing and made no difference. Much like the liberal “support” for Ukraine.
but i don’t like guns
This is extreme privilege. None of us like guns just to like guns. Brother Malcolm was being threatened with his life daily and his home was firebombed then he was assassinated, he was trying to protect himself. Fred Hampton was literally murdered by the police. The Zapatistas and Palestinians don’t resort to violence because they “like it” either, they are targets of the state that act with violence on them and both have learned that civil disobedience has its limits. Sacco and Vanzetti were anarchists that were executed by the state after being framed and falsely accused of a bombing, armed robbery and murder which the state of Massachusetts apologized for in 1977.
None of us like guns just to like guns
LOL yeah… I don’t really fetishize them in the NRA sense but I shouldn’t speak for everyone I guess.
I do! More dakka is always better!
its time to read theory. you are currently at the utopian anarchist stage. which is a step in a better direction, but ultimately irrational.
you need to better understand that the people in the image [conveniently] on the left incorporated violence because they lived under the constant threat of deadly violence. 99% of the violence was directed at them. Fred Hampton was executed by the police not long after that picture of him was taken.
Yeah, i’m reading theory alright, i’m studying physics, if that’s what you mean, or what?
0·3 months agoPolitical theory. Like this intro reading list
Thanks, i’ll get to it as soon as i have the time.
🫡
Do you really need to read volumes of theory to grasp what is fundamentally a rather straightforward concept?
Leftism shouldn’t be locked behind intellectual elitism.
TL;DR the capitalist state will use threats of violence/actual violence against threats to capitalism which includes those who stand for progressive ideals. Leftists believe this is a justification to use violence against the state.
intellectual elitism like “people should defend themselves”
Do you really need to read volumes of theory to grasp what is fundamentally a rather straightforward concept?
Yes! The three volumes on shitting are essential reads. (/s)
Not volumes. As you say, a little can go a long way. But rather than relearn the lessons of history from first principles, engaging with writings from people who have already seriously grappled with these things is the only efficient way to wrap one’s mind around many different major factors working simultaneously in the material world.
There’s merit to your question. Ultimately, as someone who largely hadn’t taken theory seriously until the last couple of years, I think theory is not only useful, but necessary. There are good comrades who do good work without theory, I don’t want to discredit that. However, theory has had a profound impact on my understanding of history, tactics, and life itself. Theory is important because our predecessors have given their lives discovering and handing down the lessons they’ve learned.
From Marx, who dedicated his entire life to discovering the mechanisms of Capitalism to give the Proletariat the tools to surpass it, to Lenin, who analyzed Capitalism’s monstrous evolution to Imperialism, to Gramsci who spent the later years of his life rotting in prison and reflecting on Marxian teachings, to Politzer who stood against the Nazis and taught Parisan workers Dialectical and Historical Materialism before being captured and executed for his Jewish heritage and Communist alliance, to modern theoreticians such as Losurdo, Parenti, and the many Communists who dedicated their lives to the working class. Revolutionaries like Mao, Fidel, Guevara, Ho Chi Minh, Lenin, and more all have unique lessons to tell from their experiences in their existence. People like Mao, Deng, Xi, Zhou Enlai, Liu Shaoqi, and more have helped build and design the largest economy in the world. What can we learn from them? What should we copy, what should change?
We owe it to them to learn from the lessons they dedicated their lives to teaching us. We have a duty to humanity to move beyond the wretched system of Capitalism before the planet is destroyed by Climate Change for the pursuit of profit. We owe it to our predecessors to continue the work they started. We owe it to our successors to use the best tools we can to make their struggles easier. We owe it to ourselves, so that we have a future.
Theory is a tool. If you don’t take every advantage you can against the most heartless, greedy, brutal Empire in history, do you really care at all? If you refuse to truly learn your enemy, in all its complicated facets of expropriation, or learn the successful tactics and strategies for overcoming them, or learn from the missteps of our predecessors or the correct actions they’ve taken, we will not have a decisive victory.
On the other side, i think the long-standing support for Ukraine is an atrocious mistake, because it prolongs the suffering unnecessarily
So you suggest they should have let Russia annex and genocide the rest of Ukraine like they did with Crimea?
Dishonest and you know it.
How you going to seize the means of productions and depose the capitalists without using weaponry?
wait until they self-destruct, mostly.
i say this as an european
this is laughably utopian and ahistorical, i’m sorry but this is fantasy. There’s a reason that the “violent” and “authoritarian” communists have actually won and seized power while the utopian eurocommies have never accomplished a single thing.
Your nation has never successfully had a revolution. They need to be listening and learning from those that have, following their example, and not trying to invent their own perfect (white) system from whole cloth
There’s a reason that the “violent” and “authoritarian” communists have actually won and seized power while the utopian eurocommies have never accomplished a single thing.
Well yeah i can tell you what the communists have achieved in the Sovjet Union, and that’s 20 million people dead due to stalinistic terror. So much for “winning”. No thank you.
Meanwhile, lots of european economies (and people!) have been doing well since after the second world war. Maybe they have accomplished something.
Life expectancy over doubled from the 30s to the 70s in the USSR. Literacy rates went from the 20s and 30s to 99.9%, above Western European and USian rates. Famine was ended by collectivization and industrialization in a country where famine was common under the Tsar. This same nation, barely industrializing at the start of the 20th century, beat the United States into space, and continued beating it with the first man and first woman in space.
Social Safety Nets expanded greatly. Healthcare and Education were free and high quality. Housing was incredibly affordable, and there was full employment. Abortion was not only legalized, but free. Women played a role even in the highest ranks of politics. The economy was democratized.
Sadly, there were excess deaths, but 20 million people did not die, such a number comes from anti-communist myth-makers before the opening of the Soviet Archives. The numbers given by the Black Book of Communism include Nazis killed during World War 2, and use various other misdirections to grossly inflate the number of excess deaths. Were there excess deaths? Sadly, yes, and nobody denies this. However, when compared to contemporary peers like the British Empire who intentionally starved millions of Bengalis, the French who were colonizing Vietnam, Algeria, and more, or the United States who killed millions of Iraqis, Koreans, Vietnamese, Cambodians, and more, the USSR played a far more progressive role. From supporting Palestinian resistance against genocide, to helping China throw off their colonizers, to helping Algeria throw off the French, to helping Vietnam against the US Empire and French Colonialists, the Soviets played a far better role.
Wealth inequality went far down, whike GDP growth was constantly positive except during World War 2. It was one of the most rapidly growing economies in the 20th century.
Western Europe (and of course the US to a greater degree), to this day, relies on brutal expropriation of the Global South through outsourcing industry and brutal IMF loans. They have been doing well because they are Imperialists. To say they are doing well is to say the Trust Fund kid working at his father’s investment firm is doing well, he does so on the backs of actual laborers and did not earn his vast wealth, but inhereted it from former and current Empire.
well i guess it’s good for you to spit these facts but i gotta make my own judgement, and i can see the things around me, and saying “They have been doing well because they are Imperialists. To say they are doing well is to say the Trust Fund kid working at his father’s investment firm is doing well, he does so on the backs of actual laborers and did not earn his vast wealth, but inhereted it from former and current Empire.” does not make me believe your point, just fyi
Colonization and now Imperialism have been the driving forces of Western European Economies for centuries. All of this sheer expropriation of wealth hasn’t gone away in any capacity, the IMF still debt traps countries in Africa, Latin America, and other areas in the Global South. Especially during the latter 19th and early 20th centuries, countries like Britain, Germany, and France had industrialized to the point of monopolization, and a blending of financial and industrial Capital. This turned towards the Global South, seeking to export Capital to super-exploit for super-profits.
If you want to read about the origins of this system, the book Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism is quite a quick read, written in the early 20th century (though it mentions many entities that exist today in the same forms, like Deutsche Bank). For modern analysis, Super-Imperialism by Hudson, though it is US based Western European Imperialism is intricately tied to US Imperialism.
well i guess it’s good for you to spit these facts but i gotta make my own judgement
That would be a funny tagline.
So you just reject the facts because they feel wrong?
Keep repeating liberal dogma and ignoring the billions of death caused by capitalism by the same metrics
How many times are memes of this rhetoric going to be posted and reposted?
Found ⬇️ 87 Liberals who believed they were comrades. 😆
One day these liberals are going to realize the ⬇️ is more telling then a comment
then a comment
Typical leftoid
Did I hurt your feefees? 😘🩹🤕
No lol. Your spelling is wrong just like your ideals
Which ideals? It kinda sounds you just just left reddit homie.
Anti liberal? I mean, you probably dont meet many like me who arent going to just take that ignorant shit.
Oh you mean pro-Incarceration, pro-imperialism, pro-colonialism pro-genocide? Honestly I think you need to pick up a book if you think supporting any of that isn’t ignorant shit. Shit, there’s whole songs about you how you’re wrong.
I hate liberals because they think they can stay in their heated box and ignore their community while people freeze and starve to death because they can’t contribute to some oligarch’s capital and only leave to work for said oligarch so they can afford their funco pops and magic cards.
I hate liberals because they don’t intersectionalize and they’re quicker to bend a knee to their boss then to join in a strike.
But you do you, spineless lib.
There’s 2 kinds of upvotes, ⬆ upvotes from comrades, and ⬇ upvotes from liberals
⬆ Jokes on you, I am liberal accelerationist
