you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] 104 points 1 year ago* (49 children)

Every year they try to push this same shit with a new name. One day there will be a reichstag fire and it will be passed.

So fucking transparant, yet I don't see a way to stop them.

  • source
  • hideshow 49 child comments
  • [โ€“] 21 points 1 year ago (37 children)

    Pretty straightforward: join anarchist groups like the ccc and the fau, vote radical left and tell everyone you know to do the exact same. It already helps in some areas, just keep doing it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 37 child comments
  • [โ€“] 13 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    And how do you ensure that the "radical left" doesn't support surveillance measures? Not like the ideology has a good track record on that matter.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [โ€“] 0 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    You mean like every other government? I dont. Radical leftists stand for human rights. Of course there is a chance that they get coopted. But every other political ideology does not need to get coopted to oppress people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [โ€“] 4 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    Most moderate anything government doesn't even begin to come anywhere close to the control of a "radical" leftist state.

    What is your basis for "radical" leftists standing for human rights? Radical leftists are rarely liberally minded. I don't disagree that many left-wing parties stand for decency, environmental protection, and various rights - but "radicals" do not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [โ€“] 2 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    You are making assumptions. It shows that you dont have any idea of leftism.

    The idea of leftism is that people (and animals in most cases) are the same and deserve their needs met.

    You can criticize the measures taken to ensure this, especially in capitalist societies where you may have to use force to break capitalist resistance. If all you ever knew is rape, being disallowed to rape can feel repressive. But its still okay to repress it.

    And it is okay to disagree on this. Thats why we have both anarchists and marxists. Massively simplified, one party wants to mentally arm the population and push for a self educating, politically mature population. The other one wants to change the system from the top and reeducate the public on cooperation and classless society while forcefully repressing the regressive ideas.

    They both actually want the same, communism. The classless, stateless society.

    Of course that is an ideal, a utopia that might never be real but the millions of people dying under capitalism every year and the exploited people all over the world, the exploited planet that is starting to kick us out are WAY worse than all that has been seen before. The strongest argument for marxism is the limited time we have before we will just die out (starting with those who already are exploited the most today).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)
  • [โ€“] 2 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Interesting take. What makes you say that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)
  • [โ€“] 5 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Okay. So you dont mean communism or socialism, you are talking about a symbol. So if one took lets say, a wave, would it be okay then to have people housed and fed?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)
  • [โ€“] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Nice ad hominem bro.

    I have family from eastern europe. I also have family from east germany.

    You know what they say? You know what the majority of the people who lived that era say? Its much worse now.

    People using stalin and national socialism to discredit the idea of communism and socialism need to start reading books. Its really important to start having actual discussions without personally attacking folks. These shortcirtuited propaganda ridden hateposts wont convince me and they wond convince anyone who is able to read a book.

    People in eastern germany, infamously, didnt have bananas most of the year. You know what they also didnt have? Homeless people, starving people. Today that is the case A LOT.

    Of course it was interesting and promising for people to come to western germany from socialist or communist countries back then. But its not because they had to fear for their lives because they couldnt afford to pay the rent or their food.

    The most important part is that authoritarian governments are not what leftism is about, its not what socialism or communism is about.

    Here's interesting stuff from a pretty reliable source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare

    Have fun reading. It will help.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)
  • [โ€“] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I get that you're triggered but it is not okay to attack other people like this.

    Please read a book. It will help you. Get off the internet for a moment and start reading. Understand what people mean when they say communism instead of trying to get them to shut up. We will never shut up. You will always get triggered and hurt other people. That is literally what we are trying to stop.

    The definition of communism is the classless, stateless society. You're not even referencing anything in particular. What you - i think - are talking about is stalinism. That i havent been too much into yet. I have heard about the infamous gulags which apparently have been horrendous.

    Btw its also illegal in the country i live in to compare what the nazis in the holocausy did with anything else. We call it holocaust relativism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [โ€“] 0 points 1 year ago* (22 children)

    I didn't know about those groups, thanks for bringing light to it although I'd be wary of voting radical left unless the alternative is only a right-winger

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [โ€“] 13 points 1 year ago (21 children)

    "Wary" of radical left why exactly?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [โ€“] 4 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Radical right and radical left. You should be wary of both of them because they are radical.

    • Radical plans often need to be enforced to be accepted
    • Enforcing political will is authoritarian.
    • I'm anti-authoritarian above everything else.
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [โ€“] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Ah, a "centrist". So how much killing of people is central enough for you? How much genocide?

    The idea of "radical = bad" is a trick. It's got zero to do with reality.

    Example: depending on where you ask, radical means entirely different things. Read about the overtone window.

    That said, radical leftism is about human rights. It is about destroying hierarchies between people. In short it means: everyone gets what they need and does what they can. Or "food, water, housing are inalienable rights."

    The radical right is about superiorism. White power, discrimination and ultimately destruction of what they view as "lesser" be it people who look different, have different ancestral history etc.

    And you think its smart to compromise between the two? I suggest reading books.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [โ€“] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    So how much killing of people is central enough for you? How much genocide?

    Very non-radical actions you asking me to support.

    From all of that I get that you're someone who thinks it's left Vs right. Two positions, Two ends of a line. If you're not at one end, you're at the other and what lies in-between (if anything) is grey, cowardly, compromising, compliant lemmings.

    ..and you're telling me to read books? This is the most juvenile and laziest of political thinking. You need to grow beyond thinking anyone that doesn't agree with you must either be the enemy or a collaborator. At least get past one-dimensional thinking.

    And it's the Overton window (not "overtone") after Joseph Overton, a US libertarian and free-market supporter. He came up with the concept to describe how think-tanks should manipulate public opinion to consider what was previously unthinkable, particularly in a free-market direction. Of course, that's all lost now it's become part of pop-politics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • You're funny.

    I said we should not compromise on these things, you're trying to make a strawman, and badly.

    You started with the left vs right debate and are attacking me ad hominem with it.

    Your way of discussion is massively out of line and very condescending.

    Also, trying to top my point of the overtone (its not important if i spell it correctly, get over yourself) window is childish, while you're accusing me of being exactly that. That was massively ableist too.

    You're the exact reason why people with a brain dont like centrists. They're just fashists undercover. The same attack methods, the same disregard for human rights and decency.

    Next you say feminists, vegans or climatechange activists are hurting the cause because they're "too loud". Honestly, people in the thousands die every day because people like you say " what can you do?!" Instead of "maybe we stop that"

    Anyway. As you can imagine, i dont allow people with less than decent communication style in my feed. So go spill your poison somewhere else.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago* (14 children)

    Not in all cases as I said between a radical left and a right-winger you might be better voting for the radical left but why I say to be wary is because of the Horseshoe Theory

    If you were to say progressive leftists is where I'd be all for

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [โ€“] 14 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    The horseshoe theory is bullshit to discredit anti establishement leftists.

    The idea of radical leftism is that the capitalist system needs and breeds inequality and the state is its assistant. There is no overlap of fascism and leftism. There is a lot of overlap between fascism and capitalism though.

    Dont believe stuff like this. It has been disproven many times.

    Radical leftism means in essence:

    • everyone is the same
    • everyone deserves the same satisfaction of their needs
    • a roof over your head, food and drink are inalienable rights

    The only thing i would warn of is that just because someone says they are leftist, socialist, communist, anarchist, etc doesnt mean they really are. Examples: national socialists and anarcho capitalists. They're both just using the term and perverting the idea. Then there are radical leftist parties that are lost (like russia apologists).

    Of course you need to make an informed decision but yes, radical left all the way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [โ€“] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    Radical leftism means in essence:

    • everyone is the same
    • everyone deserves the same satisfaction of their needs
    • a roof over your head, food and drink are inalienable rights.

    Any progressive leftist would agree with those things hence why I'd be all for them and as you said there are exceptions in radical left where they shouldn't be taken seriously

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [โ€“] 15 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Exactly. Its just important to understand that horseshoe is not a viable concept. Use specifics instead. No Gos are:

    • russia apologism
    • israel apologism
    • science denial/esotherics
    • selective exclusion from basic rights

    One very helpful concept is the tolerance paradox. It states that tolerant treatment of intolerant parties will lead to them dismantling of the tolerant system.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [โ€“] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)
    • science denial/esotherics
    • selective exclusion from basic rights

    No true progressive leftist would be in for either of the two, but in regards to the other two it can become tricky to know

    One very helpful concept is the tolerance paradox

    Or simply ignore the gaslightning that tolerance is a paradox and take it as a social contract where both ends must comply, if one won't then you shouldn't take for granted the other should

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [โ€“] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Horseshoe theory is bunk because, when you drill down, all it's basically saying is that people who disagree with the tenets of liberal capitalism don't respect the legitimacy of a system based on the tenets of liberal capitalism. It's essentially a tautology, and not incitefull because liberal capitalists also don't respect the legitimacy of systems that aren't based on liberal capitalist tenets.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [โ€“] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The horseshoe theory doesn't apply to every leftist group. You need to gauge and research their backgrounds to see if they're authoritarian first.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [โ€“] 6 points 1 year ago

    horseshoe theory doesnโ€™t apply to every leftist group [...] research their backgrounds to see if theyโ€™re authoritarian first

    hence why I say to be wary and why I say I'd vote but not in every circumstances though BrainInABox makes fair points against it

  • source
  • parent
  • [โ€“] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Horseshoe theory is utter nonsense and not worth any kind of real consideration.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [โ€“] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    well you're entitled to your opinions but you don't seem to try to argue in good faith your points to favor your reasoning

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [โ€“] 6 points 1 year ago

    to be fair to them: "horseshoe theory" is in itself a bad faith argument designed specifically to derail and disrupt leftist discussions...soooo...why bother with much of an argument?

    it IS bunk, it's pretty obvious that it is bunk, and it takes up a tremendous amount of time and effort to constantly repeat just how bunk it is.

    not saying you are wrong, at least in general.

    it's just that this particular topic takes up way more space in online discussions than it has any right to, so i get the frustration - and unwillingness to explain something faaaaairly obvious - of the previous user.

    a bad faith argument doesn't really deserve a proper answer: wasting time on it is exactly the point of bad faith arguments. that's why they so successful in the first place; they create no-win scenarios. damned if you ignore them, damned if you don't. that's why the right constantly comes up with new ones.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)
  • [โ€“] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

    I fear that's an oversimplification, seeing how both the socialist and the marxist MEPs from Belgium voted pro last time (1)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)
  • [โ€“] -2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    "No true Scotsman".

    We don't have to think in political leanings following the left-right paradigm. Parties and persons considered "leftist" aren't inherently good, nor is the other side inherently bad. Don't limit yourself by identifying with just one ideology. In case you didn't realise, socialists tend to like surveillance as well

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)
  • [โ€“] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Of course fascists are bad and can go fuck themselves - but not all "right wingers" are fascists.

    Socialist regimes are inherently fond of surveillance. Indiviuals can have any given stance on it. Politically involved people - minus fascists - tend to have stances against surveillance and for data protection.

    There's a lot of nuance inbetween "capitalist" and "anti-capitalist". I'm not here to defend capitalism but this black-and-white worldview often held by self-proclaimed left-wingers is offputting to the very masses that they claim to represent to such a degree that the working class would rather shoot themselves in the foot by voting for fascists and fascist-adjacents rather than support "crazy leftists". In the modern age it's an ideology of a lot of talk and studies and very few results.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)
  • [โ€“] 1 point 1 year ago

    I definitely disagree we're seeing as terrible rise of fascist ideology; oligarchs controlling the flow of information on the internet is the biggest threat towards human existence.

    I wouldn't even say I'm a regular right-winger, or any kind of wing really, I mainly simply don't believe in the effectiveness of extremes.

    What nations would you consider "properly" socialist? Isn't a prerequisite for achieving acommunist society a period of socialist government preparing the people's spirits? Also, even 'socialism" is a spectrum; if any government with progressive taxes is "socialist" then yes, you have plenty of states you can include. Mind you, I'm from Scandinavia - a region often mentioned as an example of socialist policies - but the system is fundamentally capitalist for better and worse.

    Sorry if I'm projecting a bit too much onto you! I don't like capitalism, but I don't find it realistic or achieveable to rid yourself of it in a meaningful way; history has shown that a new upper class emerges once the heads of the former have been cut off. Power. It's human nature and it always will be. The best bet is to compromise and pressure capitalist systems as much as possible. Which camp am in?

    I don't know who "you guys" are; I'm not American at least. I have a more specific definition of "socialism" than just living under a system that taxes the rich and has a degree of national control over the means of production

  • source
  • parent