dawnglider @ dawnglider @lemmy.ml

Posts

0

Comments

31

Joined

10 mo. ago

I think that can often be a problem in political structures, but I don't think this is the main issue. It might explain how their messaging is so terrible, but the republicans have clearly managed just fine and the average is almost exactly the same in both.

I think it's primarily that they see support for Israel as an absolute necessity because it would (1) be another massive loss of support and political funding, and (2) a very difficult pill to swallow. Admitting to having supported a horrible genocide in full conscience and trying to convince that they have now learned their way might still look like a steeper hill to climb than the time-tested tradition of genocide denial.

It'd be great if it was the main issue though, I think you're right in that at least they would have better messaging, unfortunately I don't think the actual policies would be much different. In Europe for example fascist parties tend to be pretty young 🤷‍♂️

Happy International Worker's Day. Every single leader of emancipatory movements in the history of labor rights would disagree with you, having fought and been very vocal against the different flavors of oppression in order to get the liberal concessions that you seem to cherish today. Hopefully if you participate, you might find some leftists celebrating in the crowd. Please don't get too angry at them for not defending genociders, I'm sure a lot of them ended up voting for Kamala anyway, but at least they got the confirmation that even opposing genocide is too great a hurdle for them.

I'm tired but I guess I'll still address some of the traits you identified:

Claiming to be leftists

I'm a leftist

Dedicating most of their posting to dismantling any power possessed by the left

Okay that doesn't sound like leftist behavior, you're totally right. I just hope you don't mean that "power possessed by the left" is the democratic party, but sure, that broadly sounds like liberals or feds.

Encouraging leftists not to vote or to vote for third party candidates

There's a point to which you can push liberal concessions for damage control or for actually gaining some more concessions. I think criticizing voting is healthy since it's still playing the capitalist's game and a liberal "democracy" with almost no wiggle room anymore, but considering how little effort it takes to vote I'll always advocate to both play their game and also assume that nothing will come out of it without actual pressure.

I've mostly seen people advocate for withholding their vote in the favor of some concession (please don't do genocide), I've never seen someone say "don't vote and also don't do anything else", but I'm sure they exist, you find all kinds of confused people online.

Highlighting issues with the Democratic party as being disqualifying while ignoring the objectively worse positions held by the Republican party

Is genocide disqualifying for a political party or not? I'm asking you, specifically, if you think that a party that commits (funds, arms, protects, justifies, excuses, does constant propaganda for) a genocide in the face of their own atrocities, while actively silencing the voices within their own ranks that speak out, is worth defending? Again, I think the idea was to hopefully change the democratic party to the radical position of "anti genocide". That failure is on them, not the people who threatened not to vote for them.

Not highlighting that issue is frankly criminal.

Attacking anyone who promotes defending leftist political power by claiming they are centrists and that the attacker is “to the left of them”

Yeah that's leftism, that's always been leftism, but again I hope to god you don't mean that "leftist political power" here represents the democratic party, so I'm gonna assume you mean more broadly what they call "purity politics" and constant division in the left. I think it's fair to criticize people to the right of you, I'm to the right of anarchists and I welcome their criticism, even when I don't agree with it. If I spent my time shitting on them I think they would be completely legitimate in calling me out for someone with ulterior motives, or a reactionary shithead.

Using US foreign policy as a moral cudgel to disempower any attempt at legitimate engagement with the US political system

I want you to examine your own sentence just for a second. To disempower an attempt at legitimate engagement with the political system. Opposing genocide isn't used as a moral cudgel against whatever 10 steps removed version of power this is (and I'm not criticizing the way you put it, quite the opposite), it's used AGAINST GENOCIDE.

People are out in the streets and criticizing liberal complicity because we talk about GENOCIDE not some vague questionable US foreign policy.

Seemingly doing nothing to actually mount resistance against authoritarianism

So that's the democratic party, right? That's why I'm confused because leftists are out in the street, even the most liberal ones with their "fight oligarchy" campaign, while the democrats are still out defending genocide, doing filibusters without a cause, and generally trailing so far behind the average population that it's mind numbing. So I don't know what you mean when you say "leftists", because you seem to refer to two groups at the same time.

Anyway, voting goes both way, you can't pretend to vote in a vacuum for the lesser evil without recognizing that you empower them and their genocidal endeavors.

And I'll be a little more incisive: If you criticize a leftist of not caring about minorities (which I've seen a lot and is deeply ironic considering who did and didn't vote for the dems) you open yourself to be criticized for having proudly voted and called on everyone else to vote for a party that does genocide, and having attacked the ones that tried to actually make a difference in shifting their position or using that moment to show what their true colors are.

Trump is not serving the ends of American oligarchs. He’s serving the ends of Russian oligarchs.

He would honestly be dead if that was the case. He's in the white house celebrating how his friends made out like bandits out of the stock dips. Again, allegiances shift, it's a balancing game. He's serving oligarchs in general, the nationality barely matters these days, he's not supporting some Russian/Israeli/American local bourgeoisie, those are extinct. I don't know why you guys think nationality matters at all, they're allied to money. Imperialism is the current order, and modern capitalists are greater internationalists than your average commie.

I really don't see the need to try to see some dark unilateral control, when it's across the board the exact same thing we've identified for literal centuries: The shifting alliances of powers whose interests are aligned.

The sad irony of conspiracy theorists is that it's not paranoia (alone) that leads them into those rabbit holes, it's naivety. They think that there are dark forces that hijacked their otherwise fine institutions, but refuse to recognize that those institutions were never meant to serve them in the first place. Trump and his entourage aren't a cancer on a previously healthy organ, they are a healthy part of a parasite.

No, but they helped get him elected

Sure, I mean people made the argument with Russia too for his first term. I still think it's absolutely insane to conclude that Russia controls western governments.

Any argument that the genocide in Palestine didn’t impact our election is not being honest

Of course, and I never made that argument. I can't give an educated estimate, but folks more knowledgeable than me on US sentiment and voting habits say that this one issue could have massively shifted the election. You could probably even made a case that the democrats would have been a better ally to Israel in the grand scheme of things.

AIPAC: We control Western governments.

They are coping, trying to project their own power when they see very clearly that they're on the brink. I don't remember AIPAC saying that outright in english, but I wouldn't exactly put it past those psychos either.

Enlightened Liberals: “no this is a strategic partnership”

I'm neither enlightened nor a liberal, but this is broadly a strategic partnership (in defense of the empire). Liberals still believe that an apartheid ethnostate is a completely acceptable thing, and that they should just kill a little bit less children. When exactly did the US need to convinced to lay waste to the middle-east for their own profit? If Israel sounds like a perfect unsinkable aircraft carrier in the area, it's because that's exactly what it is, and the kind of things they have never shied away from.

I don't deny that they most likely have dirt on some politician, Israeli intelligence is on record trying to pull the grossest shameless stunts, and of course they try their hardest to impact policies abroad, they're not even trying to hide it. But saying "they control western government" as if the entire western world is a collection of Israeli puppet states is legitimately insane. The US military budget alone eclipses their whole GDP.

What Israel is currently doing is speedrunning the reputation of the entire Western world into the ground

We can do that ourselves tyvm, Israel isn't responsible for Trump remarkable attempts at destroying the US economy, USD, and the entirety of their softpower. Israel has decided to completely overextend in a way where western governments, despite their ardent zionism, haven't been able to reign in antizionist sentiment. But do you think that Israelis mind controlled Trump into destroying their lifeline and tariffing their own fucking selves? Everyone knows that Israel is only held afloat by the uninterrupted stream of weaponry from the US, and that's a sacrifice profit the military-industrial complex is willing to make.

You cannot in any way explain to me how this is a strategically sound plan

No I cannot, it's a fascist state eating itself, many such examples. They are desperate, and they're very clearly running straight into a wall. I'd like you, however, to explain to me how this is a strategically sound plan even IF you assume their total supposed control of western governments when they inevitably crash and burn, as they've been working overtime towards. It's not sound. They're not sound. It's a fascist ethnostate.

• Actual conspiracies and manipulation (leading to probably most imperial wars of the 20th century till today)
• A justified distrust in the government, who people identify readily as not defending their interests in the slightest
• Conspiracy theories straight up cooked up by states to misdirect, or propagated heavily from media that are either state aligned or conveniently left unsanctioned
• The manufacturing of a climate of anti-science (in the US specifically)

Are the main reasons I can identify for why it's become such a norm. When things like MK Ultra, Cointelpro, Operation Gladio...etc are all declassified, the bar gets puts pretty fucking high for what states are willing and able to do.

Israel doesn't control western governments, it's just a very valuable tool of the US, for which they are ready to make a lot of concessions. Western governments in turn are broadly servile to the US. I'm not sure how you expect a small broadly hated state like Israel to control the whole west. Lobby and intelligence can get you far, but not that far.

I can't say that I'm surprised, but kudos to them for running this! To be honest 0 out of 584 sales is still impressive.

My biasphobic brain can't help but wonder if the radio button defaulted to the "Made in Asia" position though 🙃

And for added pedantry, unless I'm mistaken this isn't A/B testing 😁

I imagine that if they had better options available rn they'd do it, the job market ain't looking too good. Anyway not looking to argue, just thought it was a funny thing to say

Did you just suggest this guy should become unemployed to increase the wages? 😭 Also unemployment decreases wages, labor is perpetually a buyer's market

I don't know, thinking more about it, I frankly don't understand both why on earth you would feel responsible for this, and why do you think that this would ultimately be a lesser harm. It really sounds to me like you are not putting anyone at risk and ALSO that this change of license wouldn't actually help anyone.

I even understand the argument that copyleft might be detrimental to some projects because of big for-profits contributions, but this reads like a cop-out "for free". I would understand a change of license to protect your own ass (without advocating for others to do the same), but this is saying "I don't do copyleft because someone, somewhere, might be hurt by an abusive corporation or state for reasons vaguely related to my choice of license".

By this logic, knowing that your project benefits the interests of those who jailed innocent workers, shouldn't you just take your project offline altogether? Aren't you worried that you're actually taking agency away from both those workers AND from people trying to offer an alternative to those clearly evil corporations?

I'm sorry it's not even your decision that's driving me a bit nuts, it's your work and you license it however the fuck you want, it's the logic behind it.

I think the notion of "choice" or "fault" here is a little questionable, I understand your argument broadly (that's what I tried to do in the last paragraph), so maybe it's mostly just a language issue (I don't think saying it is your "fault" or "choice" really means the same thing as saying that it's "up to you").

But I believe you're contradicting yourself when you say that you both have to act and get out of situation such as abuse (not be defeatist) and but also learn to be fine with the situation (which reads like admitting defeat to me). I think this confusion between an actionable scenario (you can change things around you) and a non-actionable scenario (you can only change your outlook) is at the core of it.

Regardless I agree that self-pity is an absolute poison, but I'd tend to believe the way you put it is perhaps more controversial (because of what it implies or leaves out) than the point itself. Choosing not to suffer can also be a form of defeatism.

Purely as a thought experiment, this is mostly just vacuous logic. Sure, you can kill yourself, or kill everything you love or hate, or make sacrifices that are probably infinitely greater than the suffering itself (you could choose to stop caring about human suffering, most would much rather suffer than do that).

In practice however this is even worse than vacuous, it's just wrong and insane. You can't choose to not be schizophrenic, physical and psychological pain aren't two neatly distinct categories, saying it's "a choice" is just drawing a completely arbitrary border on where choice starts, and no shit people get angry at you because unless you heavily qualify this kind of statement further, anyone would think you're doing the purest form of bootstrap victim blaming argument possible. Anyone would think of that one time they suffered the most in their lives and you're saying "you chose that, that's on you".

If I try to be as charitable as I possibly can, I would assume this is an attempt at criticizing self-pity, highlighting that we are often our biggest obstacles to healing and that will plays a greater part in our agency than we recognize. I'd agree with all of that, but that's being really charitable, I don't think your statement makes that case at all.

I think people are freaking out about very low reproduction rate and aging population in rich countries more than anything, since that's the demographic trend right now. Also factory farming is not like an inevitability of high population density, that's just profit and lobbying. (I put the usual land use per kcal graph at the end, it's not perfect because of the reality of arable land...etc, but still a very good reference)

Also to be fair, one country did try to handle overpopulation (and more broadly the risks of a sudden boom in population) and have been dragged through the mud for it for like 40 years.

That really sucks, but it does seem like just giving this company the win. I imagine it didn't break those guys out of jail either. Regardless, do you have an article or something on this subject? I've never heard of such a case but I'm interested!

I have terrible anxiety, but when people around me are as anxious (or more) than me, I suddenly feel I can push through any anxiety barrier. As far as I'm concerned it's a shift in expectation: going from being expected to be a normal functional social being to being expected to struggle in front of an insurmountable task ahead. It's broader than just anxiety too, but I think this might be what they mean by "mom friend anxiety override"😊

No absolutely, I talk about capitalism because that's the current rule of the world, but this exploitation predates capitalism by millennia, you're right. The specific aspect of capitalism or feudalism, or any such form of exploitation, is that power doesn't represent the population's interest (even though of course we pretend to live in a perfect representative democracy). If the state protects private ownership by law, and that private ownership gives you incredible power itself (being in control of production, but also media and culture more broadly), you end up with the self reaffirming loop of protecting owners, and not the population.

As an individual, you can have power over me if you hold a gun to my head, but it's virtually impossible to point a gun at an entire nation when it's that same nation that must hold the gun. Capitalism today is a massive ouija board, where anyone doubting the mystical forces is shamed, ostracized, or worse (of course this was much more literal under God's mandated monarchs). But at the end of day, this still requires wide consent, even when enforced militarily.

Another way to put it is that while we often center the conversation around the "conflict of interest" that accompanies power, we ignore what that interest is. If exploiters or their defenders are systematically put in power, they expectedly defend exploitation. The scary communist motto of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is about recognizing the origin and importance of power in the short-term, and giving it to those whose interests are emancipation. I fully agree with you, personal gain doesn't automatically go away if you get rid of profit, but thinking about this not in terms of conflicts of individual interests, but conflict of class interests allows us to dispel the misleading scary and brutal image of power wielded in any other way than the liberal democracy. The goal of course is a real democracy, one where workers, instead, defend their interests. The expected outcome is the dissolution of that exploitation through the dissolution of class, and eventually the dissolution of the state itself.

None of this magically protects you from acts of corruption or abuse, this is why the communist approach is not to flip the table over and bring a new ouija board except this time with "the good spirit" inside, but to create class consciousness, to dispel the lies and manipulations (because we're not naive and pliable, the manufacturing of consent is a massive global industry), and to continue collectively educating ourselves as we progress so we don't get fooled when someone brings a tipping table.

I swear I'm trying to be brief 😭

That's interesting but I think you're making a couple of crucial mistakes.

First as others mentioned, production and consumption are obviously intrinsically linked. A bigger country doesn't automatically mean bigger quality of life despite having more workers, Switzerland is not richer because it's smaller when it's got roughly the same population as the poorest country on earth. But if talking proportionally, more workers per capita means more production per capita, which means more consumption per capita.

Second, to kinda go in your direction and in part because of the contractual nature of employment, the market pressure on workers wages is not a product of the number of workers, but the number of available workers. For working (not unemployed) people, the quality of life does increase as that number gets lower, but this means less unemployment, not less workers. This fact is the reason why unemployment is not a side-effect of capitalism (or the lazy nature of people or whatever else), but a necessary feature of capitalism, since capital relies on this perpetual supply drive (buyers market) for profit.

edit: This isn't to talk about immigration, this is a more nuanced subject. Immigration has been defended on progressive basis (often not genuinely, but to benefit from cheap exploited labor) and attacked on reactionary basis (surprisingly also often non genuinely, e.g. France making massive anti-immigration propaganda in the 20th from one hand while asking border to let through illegally half a million of Portuguese workers with the other, against Portugal's demands).

There's countless invaluable Jewish voices in the anti-zionist movement of course, but what Jewish homeland could you support that wouldn't be an ethno-state? /g