QUICK! DONT VOTE AND LET THE REGRESSIVE PARTY KEEP POWER! 🤣👍
Look at you talking as if there is no regressive party in the US
Literally the opposite of what I said, but cool. 👍
This is part of what just erodes the hope out of me. We all know there are periods of regression and periods of progress, but whatever damage is caused by the regression period is
1- Caused much more quickly than any progress.
2- Is usually beneficial to the ruling class, thus they have less of an incentive to fix it.
3- Might just become normalized, at which point you’re just starting from square one all over again.
Like, age/identity verification. We are in a period of mass and widespread regression right now and age verification is making progress, eroding freedom and privacy on the internet. Do you think that when we enter the period of progress, the age verification systems of today will just be reverted? Fuck no. They’ll stay. They’ll become normal. And the fight against them will need to start from scratch, with an ever bigger amount of opposition.
I’m really jealous of the people who can maintain hope.
On the hopeful side, socialism hasn’t had this many proponents since the 1910s-1940s. We’re making huge strides in overturning McCarthyist propaganda, and growing exponentially.
The next step wouldn’t be abandoning democrats, it would be getting democrats in power, getting rid of the republicans (because they’ve provably turned into an enemy of the United States of America), and then creating an actual left party, and having the democrats become the new right wing.
For at least 5 minutes, I’d bet, we’d have a sane right wing.
This. We need to move the country to working for the people. The way you do this is by consistently voting for the best representative of the people. You don’t need to start by having the perfect option. If the most progressive candidate is a Democrat, even if they aren’t progressive, you vote them in. When the fascist consistently lose, then that democrat is the right wing which frees space for a more progressive candidate.
Leaping to a perfect candidate would be amazing. Taking steps in the right direction is still good and worth our energy.
Spoiler: Democratic politicians wanted 80% of what Trump did. The 20% they didn’t want was all him going after his democratic enemies … but they take the bad with the “good”.
Then why are the republicans spending all their time undoing democratic initiatives.
Because the orange kid-diddler got his feeling hurt by the black president and has been actively undoing anything possible
Because that’s the game they play.
That is how the ratchet works. Republicans go insane when they take office and make cuts to everything except military spending, then dems get in and cut military spending … then feel like a bit of a calm after the storm. Dems dont reverse anything Republicans did … eventually Republicans get back in and around we go again.
Americans are fucked either way, and that’s the crux of it. Both highly corrupt parties blowing smoke up their ass and they’ve all been socialized to regard third options as jokes, meanwhile the establishment is the real joke. There is no good solution, only shades of shit.
Or we’ll get another Kyrsten Sinema, who talked progressive talk then cashed out on billionaire lobbyist payouts.
I still say that POS needs to be sued into the ground as a lesson to the rest of them not to pull that kind of shady bullshit.
Why change the system when there is so much money to be made…
Political corruption is now embedded so deeply into the American system.
Foreign nations buy politicians, rich buy policies. The supreme court are now an extension of the republican party and those free holidays sure do help also they have jobs for life.
The president could nuke every blue state in America and not commit a crime.
It’s fucked, it’s a platform for dictatorship and corruption and political funding and grift has exacerbated it. Of course a party that has languished in powerless opposition isn’t going to give any of that up. Of course they won’t stop themselves insider trading.
And the military, they pledge a meaningless oath and are too weak to put an end to a tyrannical system.
So, are you saying that both “Coca-Cola” and “Pepsi-Cola” are owned by “Big-Cola”?
I’m saying the Cheerios and Lucky Charms may be 2 different cereals but they are both owned by General Mills to serve the same purpose.
…but one of the is actually not as bad for you as the other.
If the alternative to those two is to abstain from eating, then you will need to find an alternative source of nutrition. Those are the only two options in the pantry because you literally do not have the option to go to the store or plant a garden.
In this metaphor, we are comparing politics to food and the comparison breaks down
Stripped of imagery and stated simply: the state that has a monopoly on violence is ensorcelled by the inheritors, takers and exploiters to limit our options but to consider those options as identical is irresponsible and foolish.
We should not be resigned to fatalism or apathy.
You don’t need a governor to sign a bill if it has enough support
This post seems to be implying voting for democrats is a bad idea. The alternative in a 2 party system is to vote for a republican, who would do absolutely worse by workers than this as governor or other representative. Also ignores the fact that the only reason this bill was on a desk to be vetoed is because democrats could even write the bill in the state chambers. If those chambers were just republicans, we’d be reading instead about a democratic governor vetoing a bill to allow child labor or a republican governor signing it into law. They are not the same party and everyone knows it. Yes the wealthy class has influence in the Democratic Party and yes that means that they’re not the ideal party that represents the people, but they’re also not what’s actively destroying the US at break neck speed.
The two party system have to go otherwise you will keep seeing both parties ruling each 1 or 2 elections and you will have more trump like president.
K. Do you think we’re going to be doing anything productive under a Republican that bends the knee to the central party that in turn bends the knee to a single pedophile in charge lest they get primaried?
Nobody is saying “vote blue no matter who” but the Republican Party is rotten to the core. Right now we don’t have a lot of choices and you can’t swing the needle all at once.
K. Do you think we’re going to be doing anything productive under a Republican that bends the knee to the central party that in turn bends the knee to a single pedophile in charge lest they get primaried?
No. With republicans you have fast decline, with democrats slow decline. Extends that for several more decades and you will end with nothing to be saved.
Seems like you and I are having two different conversations. I’m talking about short term strategy and you’re talking about long term goals.
nothing pleases me more than watching the USSA decline
I agree the two party system has to go. I want proportional representation. So I vote for the candidate in the elections I get to vote in that most represents my desire. That is never a Republican, and not voting doesn’t somehow magically make my dream of a socialist democracy occur.
LOL
Don’t ever change americans.
And I mean that, you’ve worked yourself to the edge of the shithole fast ® or less fast (D).
And clearly you deserve it since you have zero awareness and want to keep this idiotic game going.
You are a joke to the world.In which country do you reside?
Belgium
How would you recommend Americans move toward being more like Belgium?
Despite being substantially less bad than the US it certainly shouldn’t be seen as an example.
As we are, like the rest of Europe a vassal state of your regime and are being dragged down with them and sacrificed solely for the benefit and imperialist aspirations of your regime.
The answer to your problems is very simple in theory and has been suggested here and in plenty other places.
Drop both sides of the uniparty.
From the expected reactions here it’s clear that this is not going to happen.
americans are simply to propagandized and conditioned.
You can’t help people that don’t want to be helped.
While many ML patiently and thoroughly explain what needs to be done they refuse these answers.
I admire their persistence but I have lost the energy to keep on trying.
IMO you are no longer victims of your system when you continue to support that system and are de facto collaborators and complicit in their actions.
Then I would rather pragmatically see you destroy yourselves so you at least stop being the cancer of the world.If Belgium shouldn’t be seen as an example, I have some additional follow-up.
How would you suggest to drop the two party system (or unitary, as you believe they’re the same; certainly the political class as a whole is aligned with the oligarchy in the US, and our class struggle is against that as a whole, but I think we disagree in that I find the real world effect of one party in America in particular is worse than the other), in real, practical steps? Do you reject those working toward that goal simply because they’re not there yet, or have a view of how to get there that doesn’t necessarily match yours? It seems if you truly want to effect change, you would support those who share the same end goal, and attempt to persuade them to your preferred way to accomplish that goal, and you, as it stands, should of course be executing your preferred manner.
Also, by the logic you seem to be using, if you still exist in your vassal state, then you must be de facto a collaborator and complicit in their actions. You are no longer a victim of the system that you are in part railing against. I think, then, you must pragmatically wish for your state to also destroy itself. If instead I’ve misunderstood and you’re interested in supporting the workers in their class struggle in real and practical ways, then we’re very much fighting the same fight for the same goal.
The fact that one faction of your uniparty is worse does not make one bit of difference when they both move in the same direction and one side is merely driving the car off the cliff at a slower speed.
Choosing that option instead inhibiting the very simple 3rd party solution is being complicit.
They are not part of “those working toward that goal”, on the contrary.
I imagine the percentage of the striving towards a real left solution is a low single digit number.
Even then, I’ve seen multiple parties here, like real left, extreme right (unfortunately) or green grow from the same depressing numbers to big parties.
But americans have been incapable of even trying, and this for more than 2 centuries.
Now they’re finally at the (pre)fascist state and even then their ‘actions’ are embarrassing, futile and ineffective.
Truly hopeless.
It’s not my country so I am fine with seeing it collapse, as I said, there are but a few unfortunate collateral victims while it’s a huge benefit for the world.
The second best solution.And your logic is faulty in many ways.
I don’t vote for our lesser evil parties so I am in no way complicit.
That is only the sell-out government and those supporting it.
And yes I wish for them to be gone, especially the EU.
Which will become a lot easier once the USSA and its cancerous influence stops.
The difference is Europeans actually do class struggle, unlike americans.
The many commenting here thinking they’re leftists and choosing the lesser evil are nothing to support.
We are certainly not working for the same goal.
Removed by mod
Harris was barely left to Trump on a small amount of issues and on par with him with a very large amount. She and the party are first-term Trump Republicans
Removed by mod
Democrats only pretend to care about those issues as a method of obtaining power.
Gretchen Whitener and Michelle Gresham are proof that you are wrong. But you want to critique democrats, not improve the conditions for citizens.
Delete my comment, keep the hug box safe from criticism. Oppress and silence people.
Your comment got deleted because you can’t read the fucking rules.
2 examples out of thousands is not a flex. They answer to the same people that Republicans do and have enabled our current level of facism.
AOC, Bernie Sanders, Ro Khanna, Katie Porter, Pramila Jayapal and the two examples I just mentioned. You’re wrong.
This extreme left vision won’t work if you only criticize democrats and it’s giving space for MAGA to ruin the country. Why aren’t they going.so hard against republicans as they do democrats? Where are the Gaza protests at trump rallies? This group is like a blue MAGA. Vibes, not victory or facts.
Can’t call a spade a spade or my comments get deleted.
It doesn’t matter anymore. The federal government is set to decay over the next decades. Eventually the federal government will lose a lot of economic leverage and blue states will just start doing shit on their own regardless of SCOTUS rulings. People in red states will get locked into a psuedo-feudal hellscape.
I’m getting out while I still can.
You accelerationists are getting what you wanted. Its just not going to result in what you thought.
You accelerationists are getting what you wanted. Its just not going to result in what you thought.
Accelerations didnt want destruction, they want the system to meaningfully evolve in the most expedient, most peaceful, most Just way possible. We stand in opposition to the “things will naturally just fix themselves if you make sure to vote dem in the primaries” crowd. (And to be clear, the republicans are hopeless)
Accelerations didnt want destruction, they want the system to meaningfully evolve in the most expedient, most peaceful, most Just way possible. We stand in opposition to the “things will naturally just fix themselves if you make sure to vote dem in the primaries” crowd.
What you want is immaterial to effective strategy. Voting/not-voting for an ideal is not something you do in the US. If you want the ideal, you work off a lesser liberal enemy by electing them and then doing on the ground work to undermine or challenge them with proper alternatives.
Instead we have fascists in power and I have never been more anti-motivated. Not demotivated, anti-motivated. Spite fuels me now. I’m a miserable wraith of what could have been, and I blame you and people like you.
You’ve dragged me into the mud and now the only way out that I could emotionally tolerate is to kick it into your face as I get out of the puddle.
HalfSalesman, have you considered that being so disappointed with reality that you have adopted a deathcult mentality is in fact evidence that you do not have a strong enough relationship with reality as it is? As in, an idealist mentality that does not consider human desire or the material world? I know I said that I wouldn’t respond further, it’s just tough to see someone so obviously unwilling to just give up the ideology of their enemies. So, I’m not making this comment to warrant a response, but to ensure that you do realize those questions are able to be asked.
If my relationship with material reality is weak, your questions wont save me. For all I know you’re not real shrugs.
I imagine that’s not what you meant though. Maybe you are talking about axioms? Analysis structures?
People decided that Trump was the lesser of the two evil . It wouldn’t happen without the lesser of the two evil bullshit rhetoric
People decided that Trump was the lesser of the two evil .
Than those people definitely don’t deserve my help.
It wouldn’t happen without the lesser of the two evil bullshit rhetoric
Do you know what “First Past The Post” means?
Than those people definitely don’t deserve my help.
The thing is that your own life is affected by their decision.
Do you know what “First Past The Post” means?
People just have to vote majoritarily to third parties. By accepting the two party system and the lesser of two evil bullshit you are switching between slow decline and fast decline each 1 or 2 elections. Why would any politcian listen to you if they know that yo u will keep voting for them?
My better pre-2024 self didn’t view political salvation through lesser evil electoralism on its own. Its one component of a multipart strategy. An important part but not the only one.
Voting third party is a waste because its simply a bet on a completely unrealistic outcome. Its like having voter’s collectively buying a lottery ticket, with the added risk of total financial ruin.
Further, the green party only pops up during general presidential elections. They then disappear off the map every other year. They aren’t a serious political project at best and a engineered spoiler at worst.
But whatever, we’re litigating something that legitimately no longer matters.
Its one component of a multipart strategy.
There is no multipart strategy. Just American switching between the two parties every 1 or 2 elections
Voting third party is a waste because its simply a bet on a completely unrealistic outcome
Everything is unrealistic if people do not make effort
Further, the green party only pops up during general presidential elections. They then disappear off the map every other year. They aren’t a serious political project at best and a engineered spoiler at worst.
Bullshit. Greens no longer serve your political agenda so you stop caring about them and act like they are doing nothing when they are doing grassroot actions all over the year. While Harris only reappeared to sell her fucking stupid book.
What a fascinating comment. Liberal apathy, “it doesn’t matter, the violence is inevitable,” combined with some projected guilt onto a group of people not present in this post “accelerationists.” Could you explain how accepting that fascist Dems will enact this violence and making decisions that require that violence to happen to make sense does not qualify as “accelerationism” in the vague way it is applied here?
I normally wouldn’t comment on this because, honestly, it’s usually pointless for me, but this comment along with your profile provides a great example of how liberals subscribe to fascism. It’s worth noting that liberals historically get away with writing off “red states” because of the incredible wealth inequality between them (deserved in these narratives, of course, for their moral impurity of supporting the bad fascist party instead of the good fascist party despite everyone’s purported understanding that the Republican party is predatory and anti-democratic) and the disproportionate African American population there relative to many “blue states.” To prescribe “running” as a solution to genocide and socioeconomic disparity is, quite frankly, cruel; especially so if you consider how Native American and indigenous nations within US borders came to settle and survive where they are today. To suggest that the people who stay either to fight or live with their kin and land instead of run are absolutely powerless to defend themselves is about as clear of a settler-colonial imagination of history and human life that you can ask for. If we look at your profile more, we can see how deep this goes. Ecofascists tend to apply anti-natalism, and apathetic or doomer language to their futurities because it naturalizes the violence that is needed to maintain a capitalist, liberal system before it has happened while salvaging the perceived morality of its subscribers by constructing it as a result of the innate impurity of humanity rather than an imaginary future built from very specific values and assumptions. The kicker with your profile is the term “xenofeminist,” which draws specifically on technological posthumanism in its criticism of gender and heteronormativity. For those unaware, posthumanism is meant to effectively decenter humans (and therefore, settler-colonial norms that commodify the entire material world and all life in it) but more often reproduces liberal narratives where settler-colonialism, capitalism, and imperialism are natural human behaviours and that humanity is unretrievable from that impure nature save for the intentional transformation of the species (I hope I don’t have to explain more how this easily results in eugenicist arguments). Many people who subscribe to it end up advocating for some immaterial, often technocratic solutionism. That you’ve combined that with some “soft” (unclear what you mean by that) anti-natalism, which ecofascists often use to once again construct humanity as the innate cause of capitalism’s harm and legitimize genocide by an imagined necessity of “population control.” All of that with some fun little death cult “vacuum decay” doomer talk. What a package here.
So, you’ve managed to create a narrative that, while apparently attempting to challenge or criticize fascist ideals, subscribes heavily to fascist historical narratives where the suffering and even eradication of particular groups is inevitable and in service of a more prosperous future for all, liberal constructions and relationalities of the material world that ultimately views any world that isn’t beholden to human desires (including humanity as a species) as not one worth existing in, and explicitly discounts the death and suffering of racialized groups in the US that have historically been the targets of genocide for centuries. All of this while removing yourself from any sense of responsibility, since you cannot change the entire system by your will, and are powerless over the trajectory of these political and cultural developments and attributing guilt to some other group of people who also do not wield substantial power in this system and who subscribe to political action rooted in the same sense of inevitability, except in service of abolishing liberalism instead of maintaining it (assumingly, when you say that you hate “left or right” accelerationists and also want to forgive the people who didn’t vote for Kamala Harris [how gracious] and view the election of Donald Trump as the cause of these events and not a symptom, it’s difficult to believe you’re talking about any other group than socialists or anarchists since fascists are inherently “accelerationist” ideologically). A crucial element in liberal complicity with fascism as well as how many of them advocate for ecofascism is that learned helplessness that only views total, nearly baptismal change in a liberal system as the only goal worth struggling for. For many privileged liberals who are unused to fighting, the end of the world is preferable to struggling to achieve less than utopia. Whether you want to or not, you have apparently adopted fascism into your imagination of the future.
I don’t fit into whatever “accelerationis,” is supposed to be, so please skip that as a response (and do not feel the need to respond at all), but I am deeply troubled by the amount of liberals I see who are going full fascist because of their disillusionment with this system; as though that isn’t the strategy that Democrats have adopted. Since I actually am in groups that fascists target and have been targetted by them my entire life, I’m understandably motivated to point out this kind of hypocrisy as I run into very many liberals who claim to know better for my people while siding with groups who want murder before anything else.
edit: Also, I want to make it clear that the intent here
isn’t to single you out as an intentionally and irredeemably evil deceiver, but to(op advocated for genocide multiple times in their responses below, so I guess I can’t in good conscience say that I’m able to expect them to learn from this; this person is just a fascist) is to demonstrate to you as well as other liberals how the worldview that you have been socialised to believe has primed you to adopt fascistic thinking even when you do not want to be a fascist. Liberalism and fascism are inextricably linked because they have the same ideological underpinnings of humanity’s value and relationship with the material world. People who believe liberalism is inherently about democracy and acceptance, as they have been taught to believe, are not going to interrogate why that system has not produced an equal and benevolent society and therefore often conclude it is because it is not possible.Also, Xenofeminism is not on the the same wavelength as liberalism or liberal feminism. Liberal feminism is deontological in nature, obsessed with rights and duties. Liberal Feminism fits snuggly in capitalist realism.
Xenofeminism is closer to anarcho-feminism, but with the addition of hope for a technologically induced gender and sexual singularity of sorts and ontological anti-naturalism. The only area where I’m somewhat iffy on is its stance on alienation. It itself is “accelerationist” where as I’m more humanitarian.
Part 2:
If we look at your profile more, we can see how deep this goes. Ecofascists tend to apply anti-natalism, and apathetic or doomer language to their futurities because it naturalizes the violence that is needed to maintain a capitalist, liberal system before it has happened while salvaging the perceived morality of its subscribers by constructing it as a result of the innate impurity of humanity rather than an imaginary future built from very specific values and assumptions. The kicker with your profile is the term “xenofeminist,” which draws specifically on technological posthumanism in its criticism of gender and heteronormativity. For those unaware, posthumanism is meant to effectively decenter humans (and therefore, settler-colonial norms that commodify the entire material world and all life in it) but more often reproduces liberal narratives where settler-colonialism, capitalism, and imperialism are natural human behaviours and that humanity is unretrievable from that impure nature save for the intentional transformation of the species (I hope I don’t have to explain more how this easily results in eugenicist arguments).
What a petulantly hostile and delusional meta-narrative laden analysis.
I’m an anti-natalist because I think it is unjust to bring someone into existence inherently. No one consents to being born. The “soft” is mostly to do with the fact that under certain theoretical societal conditions and acknowledgment by parents that they owe an eternal unpayable debt to their child I can see it as at least a forgivable grey act that can maybe lead to more good things than bad things if handled with great care.
I myself wish I was not born. I love my mom, she’s overall a good person for the most part, but shit… giving birth to me and my siblings was really fucked up of her.
I’m not an ecofascist. Ecofascism implies malthusian beliefs. Which is a collectivist idea: that individuals shouldn’t be born to protect society. This not what I am and its clear that’s what you prefer to see since you think in terms of naratives. I am an anti-natalist in order to protect the very individuals that would be born into existence itself. Greater societies can honestly get fucked if they rely on the suffering of individuals within them to exist. Societies and cultures themselves are not conscious entities, they are not morally equivalent to a person.
Also this re-occurring idea that I am “apathetic”… just fuck you. I am the way that I am because I have historically cared too much. And I’m fucking tired of caring. I still do and very much would like to stop caring but can’t. I’m in a mixed state of the anger stage and acceptance stage of grief. FUCK YOU.
A vacuum decay event would be an arguably humanitarian event. No more suffering. No more births. No more pain. No more inequity. No more petulant stupidity. Its not doomer to want an eternal peace for all.
Of course I “wish” for it with tongue planted firmly in cheek. I and many others already exist: the pandora’s box is open. And a future where I and many others do not exist is a lovecraftian horror, but I am indeed doomed to it. We all are. One day no one you know will be alive. If we could all live forever in peace and pleasure of course I’d prefer that, but I’m not delusional enough to think that will happen. Maybe ripping off the bandaid would be for the best if it’d prevent more people being born.
So, you’ve managed to create a narrative that, while apparently attempting to challenge or criticize fascist ideals, subscribes heavily to fascist historical narratives where the suffering and even eradication of particular groups is inevitable and in service of a more prosperous future for all, liberal constructions and relationalities of the material world that ultimately views any world that isn’t beholden to human desires (including humanity as a species) as not one worth existing in, and explicitly discounts the death and suffering of racialized groups in the US that have historically been the targets of genocide for centuries.
Fascists believe in a mystic occult ideals that their race or ethnicity as well as their land are supernaturally important. Fascists do not give a shit about people living lives worth living. That is not compatible with your analysis.
All of this while removing yourself from any sense of responsibility, since you cannot change the entire system by your will, and are powerless over the trajectory of these political and cultural developments and attributing guilt to some other group of people who also do not wield substantial power in this system and who subscribe to political action rooted in the same sense of inevitability, except in service of abolishing liberalism instead of maintaining it
I don’t really believe in free will. My blame of accelerationists is, if I take a lack of free will to an logical conclusion, simply a source of catharsis at this point. Me screaming into the void to feel something other than despair. Rage is preferable to despair.
So this “responsibility” talking point is intellectually a dead end for me.
But even if I did believe in free will and responsibility, in so far int those frameworks how am I responsible? I never choose to be born remember. I don’t owe you shit. You don’t owe me shit.
Are people born with an “original sin” of social responsibility?
A crucial element in liberal complicity with fascism as well as how many of them advocate for ecofascism is that learned helplessness that only views total, nearly baptismal change in a liberal system as the only goal worth struggling for. For many privileged liberals who are unused to fighting, the end of the world is preferable to struggling to achieve less than utopia. Whether you want to or not, you have apparently adopted fascism into your imagination of the future.
I would not describe my life as a privileged one. But if it is, than holy shit that just intensifies my belief that life is hell and I’m just in a slightly less firey part of it. That doesn’t exactly inspire me to think I ought to advocate people suffer more for the small chance of a slightly less shit existence.
Again though, that’s not fascism. Its really hard to believe you exist in the same reality as me when you keep describing these things as fascist. I’d say you aren’t being good faith, but this post is too prolific for that. You are probably just lost in the sauce.
I don’t fit into whatever “accelerationis,” is supposed to be, so please skip that as a response (and do not feel the need to respond at all), but I am deeply troubled by the amount of liberals I see who are going full fascist because of their disillusionment with this system; as though that isn’t the strategy that Democrats have adopted. Since I actually am in groups that fascists target and have been targetted by them my entire life, I’m understandably motivated to point out this kind of hypocrisy as I run into very many liberals who claim to know better for my people while siding with groups who want murder before anything else.
If you think that it doesn’t matter which party wins, what is your motivation to even bother with the voting discourse at all? Why do you fucking care?
I don’t understand what you are trying to achieve. Are you trying to do apologia for non-voting in 2024? Are you trying to guilt trip me into fighting and dying? Which one?
I’d say you could really stick it to me by voting red but then I cannot invest emotionally in trying to change people’s minds on voting. Eventually, I’m just going to vote blue for self interest and general harm reduction and shut up about it. I’ve learned my lesson: I can’t change people’s minds and get them to vote, so I’ll stop wasting energy trying to do that. In that sense your side has won.
edit: Also, I want to make it clear that the intent here isn’t to single you out as an intentionally and irredeemably evil deceiver, but to demonstrate to you as well as other liberals how the worldview that you have been socialised to believe has primed you to adopt fascistic thinking even when you do not want to be a fascist. Liberalism and fascism are inextricably linked because they have the same ideological underpinnings of humanity’s value and relationship with the material world. People who believe liberalism is inherently about democracy and acceptance, as they have been taught to believe, are not going to interrogate why that system has not produced an equal and benevolent society and therefore often conclude it is because it is not possible.
Except what you’ve described and what I actually am is not fascism. Neither is of them are fascism. What you’ve described is a smug malthusian liberal, shitty but not fascism. What I actually am is more of a despairing consequentialist turned cynical bitter egoist trying to not go insane.
Now that you’ve tried analysis of me as as you have, let me try: Your entire belief system is seemingly structured like a fairy tale. A grand narrative to justify suffering and pain. Motivated reasoning more or less akin to what religious people engage with. You condemn people for not jumping into fight the torment nexus for fear of falling into it. You think individuals owe the collective something when its the other way around. You chastise people for not being sufficiently virtuous and self-sacrificing and for seeking a better life away from the bullshit.
Split response due to character limits.
What a fascinating comment. Liberal apathy, “it doesn’t matter, the violence is inevitable,” combined with some projected guilt onto a group of people not present in this post “accelerationists.”
You are clearly fascinated given the length of your response. However you are seeing in me what you want to see.
If you think consequentialism makes me a liberal you don’t know what those words mean.
That said, I actually somewhat respect a long and thorough response, assuming its in good faith. I feel like what I’ve got here is somewhat of a mixed bag from you.
Could you explain how accepting that fascist Dems will enact this violence and making decisions that require that violence to happen to make sense does not qualify as “accelerationism” in the vague way it is applied here?
Because that’s not what accelerationism is. Maybe you aren’t an accelerationist, maybe you’re just aligned with them or an apologist for them.
I normally wouldn’t comment on this because, honestly, it’s usually pointless for me, but this comment along with your profile provides a great example of how liberals subscribe to fascism. It’s worth noting that liberals historically get away with writing off “red states” because of the incredible wealth inequality between them (deserved in these narratives, of course, for their moral impurity of supporting the bad fascist party instead of the good fascist party despite everyone’s purported understanding that the Republican party is predatory and anti-democratic) and the disproportionate African American population there relative to many “blue states.”
This isn’t fascism that you are describing. You are using the word to suit your purposes here. What you are describing is also not reality, liberals “write off” red states for many reasons. I’m going to avoid wasting my time listing them because I’m sure you are already aware of them and I am not a liberal. But also because “writing off” itself is a pretty broad thing and I’m not entirely sure in what way you are using the phrase.
Now, personally as an individual, I write off red states because they are full of petulantly stupid fucking people who hate me and people I love. I live in a fucking red state at the moment because I grew up here, I’ve lived all over the same shitty red state for almost 90% of my life and its absolutely filled to the brim with awful fucking people. And even in its blue/purple areas, (which I live at now) most of the people here are subconsciously tied to conservative social beliefs, even the good ones. I’m exhausted by it. I’m going to get the fuck out of this hell hole if it fucking kills me, largely because it already is killing me. I feel like I’ve wasted so many years trying to live here.
To prescribe “running” as a solution to genocide and socioeconomic disparity is, quite frankly, cruel; especially so if you consider how Native American and indigenous nations within US borders came to settle and survive where they are today. To suggest that the people who stay either to fight or live with their kin and land instead of run are absolutely powerless to defend themselves is about as clear of a settler-colonial imagination of history and human life that you can ask for.
People are not land. To connect land to people is far more fascistic in my mind. Borders are stupid.
If you live among people who refuse to flee with you, they are probably traditionalist or conservative. Afraid of change, that is their burden not burden of the person wanting to flee. The individual caught in a web of traditionalist native culture against a fascistic external machine owes neither party their loyalty, no one chooses to be born. Thus if anything, individuals are owed a debt for being brought into existence.
I do not owe these people to stay and fight. I’m not defined by the land I grew up on.
Wow, okay I was nice in the first message but this is actual straight up colonizer speak (edit real quick: and also an inadvertent confession, op stated that they grew up in a fascist culture but think of themself as too pure to have internalized values; the mistake that my comment is explicitly meant to teach about). “People are not land… people who refuse to flee with you, they are probably traditionalist or conservative.” Literally, literally a fundamental element in Land Back and other decolonial movements focus on the relationship between people and land exactly because severing that relationship is colonialism and many indigenous nations not only in North America, but throughout the colonized world explicitly state the restoration of that relationship as crucial to reconciliation. Even more, to suggest that indigenous nations that fight to stay are somehow morally at fault and are conservatives in a liberal sense is fucking genocidal. Which makes sense since you also just said some insane shit like, “vacuum decay is a humanitarian event,” like that doesn’t mean you think colonized people deserve to die because humanity is too morally impure for your God or whatever.
So much of the rest of these responses are circular arguments that do not actually relate to the scholarly ideas you think you’re engaging with. I take back what I said earlier, you actually aren’t a good person, and you are a fascist. LIke every fascist, you refuse the label but accept the values.
Won’t be engaging with you again.(edit: I’d let go of Pandora too I guess, lol)So you want to dump your ideas onto me without rationally defending them. Doesn’t seem like you engaged with me much at all in the first place.
That is the consequence of what you’ve said here. As you were so apt to say, nobody owes anybody anything really, but people who adopt fascistic reasons not to make it so that any cooperation becomes a vector to cause even more harm; even if that harm is just them getting another chance to talk and spread their values. Fascists never want to accept the consequences of their actions because they feel wronged by them, hence the relationship between it, liberalism, and the decayed metropole. The world is wrong to refuse their will, no matter how self-destructive it is. And make no mistake, fascism is rooted in self-destruction in the same what that capitalism is, they’ll kill themselves and everyone else before they accept the consequences of their violence. That isn’t because they’re stupid, crazy or exceptionally hateful (even while they are), but because they have accepted that the world cannot produce what they want without that violence. You see why I took note of the circularity of your beliefs? You did say you were from the core, didn’t you?
Last lesson for real this time, you can take it or leave it.
You see why I took note of the circularity of your beliefs?
I don’t relate to the individual you are describing if you are using that to describe what you think I believe. I’m not aiming to enact violence. I’m aiming to flee it and tell other’s to try and avoid it. To seek safer spaces. On my selfish side I’m just trying to live the best life I can. One my moral philosophy side I’m advocating to minimize societally induced harm to every individual (if a tad over simplification).
Hell, this very critique you’ve produced could be levied at authoritarian leftists. Who’d enthusiastically agree that violence is necessary to achieve and maintain their goals and point at liberalism and insist they do the exact same thing.
You did say you were from the core, didn’t you?
While its made a difference I’m sure in making me who I am, this doesn’t refute my points or beliefs.
Its all just a nationalist talking point, but “from the other side”. Racial/ethnic animus as a political hammer. I don’t respect it.
Last lesson for real this time, you can take it or leave it.
I will always “take it”. But not in the way you might want me to.
“lesson” You have a high opinion of yourself.
I suppose I also do have a high opinion of myself in my own way, but unlike you I have a ravenous intellectual hunger for philosophical refutation of my own ideas that lemmy and for that matter most people refuse to give me. I legitimately am baffled why you don’t tear apart my posts piece by piece despite your confidence in your own beliefs. I don’t relate. I revel in chewing through everyone else’s ideas. When I find beliefs that fundamentally challenge mine at a deep rational level, its a thing to be celebrated. Its a meal. When I run across someone who is just wrong, I also at least get the catharsis of raging at their stupidity and evil.
At this point I know you don’t avoid my points because you lack energy to do so.
In you I see someone who may earnestly believe what they say but is afraid to consider things that might fracture or damage their existing beliefs. In order to refute my points, you have to actually consider them…
I’m staying, I was born here and I will die here.
You don’t realize that the “acceleration” is international? Oh dear.
If it wasn’t for Deutsch bank, Trump would have died in ignominy. The accelerators are global… you can’t run away from Earth. Good luck!
I’m staying, I was born here and I will die here.
In a red state? At the very least for your own well being I’d advise taking refuge in a blue state. In the long run red states are going to be misery factories.
How’s that incrementalism working out for you? 50 years of lesser evil baby steps has only resulted in a strong, solid march to the right and our current level of fascism.
Blue states don’t give a flying fuck about people any more than red states. California has a bulletproof Democrat supermajority. They don’t have livable wages, they don’t have affordable housing, they don’t have universal health care. They don’t have affordable living. Any more than someone making minimum wage in Alabama.
What you just described is in fact how liberalism has responded to the popularity of its challengers; it’s how it colonizes. Liberal historical narratives subscribe to progressivism, the idea that society is inevitably on a path toward equality, the end of scarcity, any “good” that is necessary to justify its existence. They disarmed African American Liberationist movements by adopting the Civil Rights Act and situating the deterimination and condemnation of racism within the legal framework of a fundamentally racist system, which turned out predictably. Jasbir Puar coined the term “homonationalism” to describe the specific kind of pro-imperialist queerness that emerged following the legal acceptance of queer property and marriage rights in a period of US military expansion into Iraq and Afghanistan. The AIDS genocide and subsequent necessity of establishing property rights for widowed spouses functioned similarly to disarm gender and marriage abolition movements within queer critiques of liberalism, which established a privileged class of queer people who promptly betrayed the rest of us for material comfort.
This isn’t to say there was no value in these concessions – obviously, we have to use whatever tool we have at our disposal including the incidental cooperation of the liberal state – but that the consequences of these developments teaches us that this is an existential conflict. There is no world where a liberal state exists without genocidal violence and the longer it exists, the more violence it will execute.
incrementalism
Not an incrementalist.
Blue states don’t give a flying fuck about people any more than red states.
The worst of them are competent stewards of liberalism with social values to match. Just not socialist unfortunately.
The best of the red state governments are fascists who if they could would kill me.
The Republicans have demonstrated that no, these things do not take time.
I asked for a gender inclusive restroom, was gaslighted those things take time. I then emailed CEO cc’ed chair of board of directors. It was converted in 2 days.
It was never about time, it’s about agency
Yep, it takes time for us peons but the dictators can do anything they please.
Add long as you brazenly break rules and laws, and your controlling party willingly does nothing about it
Let’s break some laws to make everyone better off.
No that would be terrorism put the bread down Mr valjean
The only law democrats are willing to break is the Leahy law.
but . . . but . . .but THE PARLIMENTARIAN said we need to keep slavery!
I wish that the Democrats had anybody who was willing to fight for Medicare For All the same way Republicans fought to overturn Roe v. Wade.
I would like to think that Bernie Sanders is one of those people.
Republicans have a propaganda network back then to fight against Obamacare (which isn’t even Medicare for all). It was really surprising how much the Republicans fought back given the zeitgeist was going the other way with Michael Moore and all that. The whole “death panel” stuff took the air out of the room and Republicans were going on non-stop about how it was the greatest injustice to all of America. It was wild.
Also, if you look at those that benefit from Obamacare and the fact that they’re losing it. They still hate that it’s associated at all with the Dems. It’s weird.
Bernie isn’t a Democrat, though.
Ah you’re right, he caucuses with them and stuff but he’s an independent, you’re right.
Calling him a democrat gives democrats credit for his activism. Activism they fought against instead of fighting against fascism.
If America was a school we’d have one party full of bullies smoking in the bathroom who don’t give a shit if one of their ranks breaks the rules so long as it’s not messing with them personally, and we’ve got another party full of brown nosers who will run and tell the teacher any time someone even thinks about using the wrong kind of pencil. Neither is good for the student body as a whole, but in very different ways.
Lisa Simpson ass fucking “opposition”.
And she’s dating Nelson.
The teacher? John Roberts & co.
Why would they need to be in the bathroom?
The school is bought and paid for.
Gotta keep up the aesthetics.
Burning things down is easy, building them up takes time
Then start burning what the republicans built or fuck off.
Burn down systems of oppression, then. Oh wait. That also magically takes time because this stupid platitude is just the latest in a long line of excuses from the pawl of the ratchet.
Excuses excuses.
Yes, Democrats like to whine that they only got 60 votes in the Senate for a short period during Obama’s term. You want to know the last time Republicans had 60 votes in the Senate? 1911.
It’s been over a century since Republicans had that kind of majority, and I think back then the filibuster had a larger threshold to overrule, so they probably didn’t even have a filibuster-proof majority even then. You probably have to go back to Reconstruction to find Republicans with that kind of majority.
Do you know how Republicans dismantle programs without a filibuster-proof majority? They do it by cutting funding. They cut funding to programs and zero out their budgets. The program still exists in legislation; it just isn’t funded.
To fix that damage does not require breaking a filibuster. It just requires properly funding those programs again. And funding can be passed with just a simple majority.
And of course, much of what Republicans do is done by executive order, and that can easily be reversed by the next Democratic president.
Republicans are a monolith and vote in lockstep. Democrats are an un-unified big tent party encompassing every ideology from identical to republicans to social democrats. If everybody that doesn’t vote would vote for progressive candidates in every democratic primary and general we’d have a unified left of center party that could accomplish things. But instead of doing literally the only thing that can walk back the fascism all y’all keep working to get republicans elected.
What does that have to do with the conversation at hand?
Removed by mod
If they truly get a majority to override the president, or in the future can then make the tri fecta again, it’s easy to fix shit. Just make it what it was before, blast it through committees like the Republicans do with hardly a word from someone else. The question then is are Democrats incompetent or complicit.
Everyone knows they are complicit.
Breaking things is a lot faster than fixing them…
Particularly when you’re not interested in fixing them.
Have you ever broken an arm? A window? A car? A heart?
Fixing things takes time.
That doesn’t excuse not starting when given a chance. The focus should be on establishment Dems’ failures to start fixing things, not on setting some unrealistic expectation that all it would take is a snap of the fingers and bippity boppity boo.
In the words of James Baldwin, how much time do you want for your progress?
Democrats tell you that fixing things takes time so that you eventually give up waiting. Incrementalism is a tool of fascism to prevent progress.
How much time? Ideally none. But the real world isn’t idealistic, and breaking more shit because you can’t have what you want right now is what petulant children do.
I’m not defending the establishment Dems’ inaction, but I am cautioning against setting unrealistic expectations. Even if you vote out all the republicans and replace all the democrats with progressives, it will still take time to fix things.
And people’s ignorance about this fact is a key part of the republican strategy that keeps getting them reelected every other election cycle. They always break shit on their way out, leaving a mess for their successors to clean up, and they blame it all on the democrats in office after them.
So promoting this idea that you can fix everything overnight is only helping the republicans.
Incrementalism is a tool of fascism to prevent progress.
No, incrementalism is a necessary reality. The reason it doesn’t work is partly because the right people aren’t in office to implement it, and partly because when the right people are in office they don’t have enough time in office to implement it fully.
Get someone with the right intentions in office (a progressive), and give them enough time (at least two terms), with a congress that supports their agenda, and you’ll see incrementalism work as it’s intended.
Or you can complain that you can’t have everything you want immediately, and attack anyone who doesn’t give you everything you want right now, and when they never get into office for long enough with enough congressional support because nobody can pass your purity test, you’ll have plenty to complain about when literally nothing good gets done because you categorically rejected the idea of incrementalism.
California has a bulletproof Democrat supermajority and does not have livable wages, universal healthcare, affordable housing, affordable COL. So the argument that Democrats need more time Is verifiably false
Did I ever claim establishment Dems are willing to put in the necessary changes to move progress forward? Because California Dems are about as establishment/corporatist as you can freaking get.
I never said “give establishment Dems another chance.” I said “fixing things takes time,” and that will still apply even if you oust all the establishment Dems and replace them with progressives.
Please take your strawman argument somewhere else if you’re not going to actually read what I wrote and respond to that.
Removed by mod
When Democrats do absolutely nothing to counter anything that Republicans do, they are complicit and are to blame for everything Republicans do.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Oh, please explain how it all works for us
That doesn’t excuse not starting when given a chance. The focus should be on establishment Dems’ failures to start fixing things
And until they start fixing things, “fixing things takes time” holds within it the implicit lie that they’re trying.
not on setting some unrealistic expectation that all it would take is a snap of the fingers and bippity boppity boo.
You’re right. That’s only for netanyahu’s every whim.
Netanyahu’s whim isn’t about fixing things, more like breaking everything in Gaza, Iran, and southern Lebanon.
If you really think Gaza can be rebuilt as fast as it’s been destroyed, you’re going to have some unpleasant surprises whenever the world can pull itself out of this death spiral and start caring about humanity again…
You’re telling me that democrats break things and have no interest in fixing them.
What?
They’ll give Trump a golden parachute, wish him the best, then continue the ratchet effect. Neo-liberals are as much enemies of democracy as the reactionaries.
Assume that Democrats win the next presidential election and enough seats in both the House and Senate to take meaningful actions.
Assume that there will be a peaceful transfer of power.
Assume that Trump doesn’t die in office.
If all of the above come to pass, and Trump doesn’t face real legal consequences for his actions, then it’s another in the long line of flashing neon signs telling would-be dictators that America is up for grabs for whoever strikes first.
we must move forward and heal which is why we won’t push for charges or do any investigations
Just like they did with the bushes and Nixon and Reagan
If you cannot blame racism you can blame Reagan.
Worse I’d say, they’re less upfront about it
He already has his golden parachute. He’s been appointed the chair of “The Board of Peace” for the rest of his life.
until they rehabilitate him in 10 years as the reasonable example, compared to Emperor Bloodvein Crusader.
See George W Bush . . .
Only in amurica would they sell people on the right to be fired for no reason and call it “right to work”
“Right to work” means you can’t be required to join the union, but the union is still required to bargain for you without you contributing to it. Its designed to defund and kneecap organized labor. It has nothing to do with firing.
At will employment is what lets the employer fire at any time, and that is the law in 49 of the states.
Welcome to the age of bad faith laws! Because if they were honest, they couldn’t lifestyle market conservatism to “people who like tradition”.
Getting fired is right to work. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
They call trusting your ignorance “faith” and its something you absolutely need lol
The termination for any reason is at-will employment, aka “will to work”. With that being said your point still stands because “right to work” is an anti union law that guarantees an employees right to refrain from being part of a union (lol). Both terms are dumb.
At-will employment and “right-to-work” are distinct ideas. The first has some real benefits, while the other is just union-busting bullshit.
At-Will Employment means that the relationship of employee to employer is technically voluntary. Your employer can fire you or lay you off for almost any reason or no reason, but you are likewise free to just walk away without even finishing your shift and get another job. (Non-discrimination laws and professional continuity-of-care rules are common exceptions.)
Right to work doesn’t affect whether or not your employement relationship is voluntary. Instead, it means only and exclusively that you can freeload off the union, getting all of their benefits and leaving them with all of the expenses of negotiating your salary and work rules.
In the USA most (but not all) states are “at-will employment”, and most red states have the same sort of bullshit anti-worker “right to work” laws that MLK was campaigning against when he was murdered. And, unfortunately, thanks to SCOTUS fuckery all of the USA is essentially “right to work” since the same assholes behind “corporations are people” and “money is speech” decided that payroll deductions for union dues are terrible in way that payroll deductions for taxes or insurance aren’t.
The problem with at-will is the unequal relationship corporations and employees have. If I, as an employee, simply walk off the job, that hurts my chances of employment at other corporations. A company, however, will never see any consequence no matter how badly they treat employees.
Exactly. You can walk away and get evicted and starve vs. they can make you walk away and get evicted and starve… This is what constitutes fairness by modern democratic standards, apparently.
Understand that the precursor to at-will employment was that you walk away from your job and get arrested for breaking contract, and your family gets evicted without you able to earn money to pay for their food or shelter.
Like the other commenter says, it’s extremely flawed but serves a purpose.
“There used to be something worse” is not the same as “the current thing is good”
Absolutely not, I agree.
But it’s also kinda like Republicans saying they’ll “repeal then replace” the ACA. You need the plan for the replacement beforehand, otherwise you just return to the old problems.
That’s still the law under at will employment, if you sign a contract, you can’t just quit anymore. We lost the protection of one year contracts, like you really think it’s better for employers to be able to fire you with no warning than having one year contracts?? This all happened centuries ago of course
No one is saying that at-will isn’t also bad for workers, but it’s less bad than what came before it.
deleted by creator
