Thatâs leftists. Not Democrats. Anyone to the left of Democratic socialist. So not Bernie Sanders either.
You must log in or register to comment.
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy đ
If your post meets the following criteria, itâs welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
Icon by @Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de
- 0 users online
- 244 users / day
- 957 users / week
- 2.45K users / month
- 5.6K users / 6 months
- 1 subscriber
- 3.07K Posts
- 119K Comments
- Modlog
I say this as someone who considers themselves a leftistâŚ
The lack of civility shown by left leaning people online is almost certainly pushing moderates into more extreme communities and the unhinged takes are perfect meme fodder for those with a bad agenda. Instead of channeling your anger at the person youâre corresponding with through your keyboard, channel it at a lack of empathy and understanding in society as a whole and respond with kindness and disengage when the conversation is not honest.
Repeat above for the use of ânaziâ. The use of the word has become devalued because people like to fling it at folks with milquetoast centrist opinions, save it for people who are legitimately evil.
Yup, I said the same thing to people around me, when the use of the word âfascistâ became a thing in my country. Even clearly moderate opponents were being called fascists left and right. I told people around me that the word would lose its meaning and power. Thatâs exactly what happened, and when an actual fascist came up, you had nothing against him and its supporters transformed the term into a joke.
This is political and only (if at all) interesting inside of your Usa with itâs broken system
This could very well break this communityâs rule about being offensive and political discussions. Iâll leave it open for now to see where it goes.
Is this definition of âleftistsâ widely accepted? I always thought that word was just another word for liberal or anyone who isnât right wing these days.
Worth noting that many communists use âliberalâ as an insult just as much as the right do.
No, in uneducated American circles you would be correct but in actual political discourse a leftist is truly a leftist. A liberal is an American âleftistâ.
Liberals are right wing.
But this is not at all how the vast majority of people use the terms. In a time where people can barely communicate as it is, at what point is it harmful to stick to definitions barely anyone still uses in the US?
That just isnât true. People use liberal to mean in support of a liberal party, in this case, democrats.
If someone uses liberal to mean socialist, then they are just incorrect. The ideas are incompatible.
No. Leftist means anti-capitalist.
No liberals are not leftist.
The perfect is the enemy of the good, and demanding a politico-savior will leave you wanting forever. Keeping your hands clean betrays your selfishness, not your commitment.
Violent revolution that results in a population moving left is so absurdly unlikely as to be dismissed, and any planning that depends on it mere daydream to salve frustration.
The liberal and the centrist who together elected a moderate in the face of a reactionary have done more to save you than all of your theory has done to save them.
And I wish none of that were true.
Right, and who do you think gave you the 8-hour work week? Yep leftists.
Where do I get these 8 hour work weeks you speak of? I mean, with whole week pay of courseâŚ
I think people to the left of Democratic Socialists need to start reading up on anarchy and anarchism. Itâs not about lawlessness and disorder but about horizontally focused civilization. Itâs about anti-authoritarianism.
Sometimes you have to fucking do something. We canât make big changes overnight. Start small. Organize soup kitchens in your community. Or a community garden. Or start holding party meetings and recruiting people to the cause. And stop making excuses for âleftistâ murderers just because theyâre âleftistâ.
Oh⌠now you see me pouting, bc I love to smash all the rightists and their excess guns for every murder that happens in the news somewhere.
/s
Oooh as a communist⌠where to even start. Most of this is US/anglo centricâŚ
I truly do have optimism that we can build a better world. Every once in a while, it shines through the cracks: kids partying in the street while cops look on powerless, a little old lady cheering from the window while marchers chant âfuck 12,â even a single trans person finding a community that accepts them wholeheartedly.
But damn do you internet mfs make it hard sometimes.
They need to know that the system can only be changed from within. Being apathetic or edgy does not change anything. Voting does.
If thereâs is no one to vote for? Well, the parties too can only be changed from within. Join a party and vote in that party for it to change itâs direction.
This is naive and optimistic. No political change has actually come from voting. The civil rights act was not voted, but fought and died for. Same with workerâs rights.
Actually itâs not. Most important changes happen slowly and gradually, though we often hear more of the violent and drastic changes.
I recommend this podcast for an explanation.
https://hiddenbrain.org/podcast/how-to-change-the-world/
You only hear about them because thatâs when change actually happens. Incrementalism is optimistic at best.
I think itâs naive to sit around and hope for drastic changes. Revolutions and protests are only symptoms of the actual change.
Iâve seen it happen several times regarding workers rights. F.i. Strikes always makes the news, but quite often the strikes are shut down quickly with little to no change. The idea for the demands existed in a smaller group before the strike and that idea doesnât disappear when the strike ends. The actual changes usually does happen at the next ordinary collective bargaining. Thatâs how working time has been lowered throughout the years. People strike, achieve nothing, but then itâs still lowered, because the idea canât be shut down. The strike serves to distribute the idea, but it rarely makes the change by itself. For a lot of other good ideas it never even makes it to a strike, and sometimes a drastic protest might even hurt the idea.
Ideas change the world, not violence.
There are plenty of examples of this. Listen to the podcast. The research behind it is solid.
I donât know why youâre talking about âsitting and hopingâ. That doesnât sound like what i was talking about.
Also, you have it backwards. Yes, violent protest and peaceful demonstrations work together. But itâs the violent part that gets shit done. Without the real peopleâs revolt, you have hippies in a circle getting pepper sprayed, because the movement has no force behind it.
The nonviolent protesters are there to spread ideas. The revolters are there to show that we mean business.
Also keep in mind that many ânon violent demonstrationsâ have been subject to massive whitewashing. We remember MLK as a peaceful protester, but certainly wasnât seen as one at the time. Another thing to note is that the strongest advocates of peaceful protest (such as conservatives who have turned around to use MLK to admonish BLM) are coincidentally those with privilege and, thus, most to lose from revolution.
I disagree. Listen to the podcast or read the source papers. The scientist behind it literally tried to prove your point but was herself surprised to find that the point I have expressed here to be true. Itâs quite interesting.
There was plenty of anti-slavery political involvement leading up to the civil war, the New Deal was started by the democratically elected FDR, weâve recently seen the disparities in LGBT rights depending on who holds majorities in government. All these come from voting and deliberate policymaking whether it be through ingenuity or bigotry. Fight tooth and nail for your right to vote, but ALWAYS use it, and make sure to educate yourself about who is on your ballot.
Iâll quote Steely Dan here: âUnhand that gun, begone. Thereâs no one to fire upon.â
As infuriating and frustrating it is to live in a world plagued with systemic issues, itâs important to recognize that many of the worldâs problems canât be traced back to a single person, government, organization, or ideology. Some things are just nobodyâs fault, and canât be solved be a mere change of leadership.
Every society in the world today, no matter how it is structured or who it is lead by, will be subject to a list of inevitable problems. Scarcity. Bigotry. Violence. Crime. Incompetence. Selfishness. The uncomfortable fact is that nobody knows how to structure a society such so that all citizens meet their basic needs in exchange for an amount of work that they find tolerable.
This is true of the United States, of Europe, of the Soviet Union, of China under the CCP, and of every other country to ever exist. Some countries are, of course, worse than others. But in many countries you find that people and politicians try in earnest to improve society and simply fall short, sometimes because they misidentify the core issues, and other times because they donât have good enough ideas for solving them.
I encourage everyone to look at politics as groups of impassioned people with strong opinions about how their lives might be improved. At the end of the day, those of us with kind hearts are trying our best to defeat a common enemy, and merely differ in approach. I think a lot of people would do good to realize that.
The leftists have become a corpo/billionaires shills since occupy wall street happened.
Since 2012 the left ceased to exist in the mainstream. Class issues that the left raised before the takeover ware replaced by identity politics. Labels were introduced and Massed Formation Psychosis was initiated. All dissidents of even a slightly different opinion were attacked/cancelled en masse. Freedom of speech, religion, was now seen as archaic, nuclear families were seen as dangerous, racism and segregation were accepted ect.
Psychosis reached itâs peak in 2020 when people had more time to reflect on their views in their time of isolation from coronavirus and subsequently more and more people were coming to their senses.
The scales are starting to swing back but in my opinion due to the sheer momentum of people waking up this will have catastrophic consequences for the western civilization.
Currently still there are no sensible/uncompromised leftist movements left and the only alternatives are on the right. And, like I said above, this will have catastrophic consequences.
As much as we get along on conversation and political theory, I actually hate your ideology. We get along because we agree that a strong government is needed. We disagree because I need it to protect my freedoms, you need it to control the economy.
Iâd be interested to hear where communism, socialism, or any far left government has ever worked in the real world.
Because there are plenty of examples of it being a nightmare.
If âFreedomvilleâ forces âCommies R USâ to close its ports, thereby severely limiting access to trade and goods, is it the fault of Commies R US?
What about if Freedomville goes and funds, trains militias inside Commies R US, which then declare war against Commies R US?
If Commies R US voted for, and elected a commie, why are they not allowed to do so?
Guess it was Freedomville that caused Soviet Russia and China to be so oppressive, right?
Socialism is an economic framework more than anything else. Itâs obvious that these countries had issues, but saying they were all caused by the way they distribute money is a bit of a stretch.
These countries took bits and pieces of leftwing policies, and then added their own rubbish on top. They donât really represent the modern left, just as the US pre-Civil Rights doesnât represent the ideals of most in the US now. Oppressive social policies exist or have existed under every flavor of government. Itâs certainly not limited to, or an integral of the left.
Authoritarianism is not Socialism.
So where has the left functioned successfully in the real world?
Many countries have implemented left wing policies with success.
The government of Norway owns a large percent of its resource extraction and oil industry. The revenues are used to provide social services such as free healthcare and education to its citizens.
You wonât find Norway on this list, but feel free to scroll through and see if you can find a pattern.
Look up indigenous socialism. Those tend to work. They tend to get crushed by larger powers but they work internally. Unless of course you mean by work you mean be the mightiest. Yeah no.
Thereâs also things like the Paris commune.
âIt works untill it doesnâtâ isnât the best argument for the quality of a system.
deleted by creator