1076
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] bloodfart@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 months ago

No one has said it in this thread, and there’s a lot of people talking about how they wish there was another option:

I’m voting for the Party for Socialism and Liberation and you can too!

They’re running Claudia de la Cruz on a platform of Palestinian statehood and an end to arms shipments to Israel.

There are many alternatives.

[-] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemm.ee 14 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Pass electoral reform first IMO. Unless critical mass is achieved, we would be spoiling the election. This is why passing electoral reform is of utmost importance.

Democrats clearly understand the faults of First Past The Post voting. Go on any platform and suggest voting third party and the liberals will come in droves to explain the faults of the FPTP voting system.

Okay, you understand the voting system is flawed... then why do we still use FPTP voting? How can you explain these mathematical flaws to people considering voting third party and NOT do anything about the voting system? You don't get to have both.

[-] bloodfart@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 months ago

I don’t buy that. Both major parties, all the donors, the media, the lobbying groups and all the party machines in all fifty states are heavily invested the system we have.

I’m not gonna wait till we tip the whole system over to record a vote that actually represents my political positions.

If the two major parties are afraid of third party spoilers then they can adopt the platforms of those third parties.

[-] Lightor@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Ok, then just be aware that when the pile of votes for 3rd party isn't anywhere near either candidates pile your vote won't matter. Biden and Trump will get the majority of votes and you will lose your chance to impact one of the most important elections in US history because of naive idealisms.

And neither party is afraid of the 3rd party, they use it. They take reasonable minded people who would never vote Republican and push them to 3rd party to weaken the Democrats votes. It's exactly what they did with Bernie and how Trump won. They had massive turn out for the 3rd party that did absolutely nothing but split the Dems and allow the Republicans to be unified. A vote for 3rd party is a vote for Republicans, I know you don't want to believe that reality but it's true.

[-] bloodfart@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 months ago

that's not true.

third party votes provide access to funding, ballot and event presence, media coverage and public awareness. third party votes do matter and they have a measurable positive impact.

third party votes tell the two major parties exactly what positions they need to integrate into their platforms in order to pick up those ballots in those particular districts. even if a person doesn't think it's worthwhile to build support for a third party, a third party ballot is an undeniable record of what the two major parties can do to get your support.

when people start talking about this kind of thing i generally like to bring up perot 92, which had a serious effect on domestic policy and was proven not to be a spoiler multiple times in the years that followed.

[-] Lightor@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Ok, prove me wrong, when was the last 3rd party president?

Anyone can see that a majority of 3rd party votes come from Democrats because the right is radicalized. So by splitting that base you empower the Republicans. A split Democrat/3rd party base accomplishes nothing but clearing the way for this project 2025 bs.

[-] bloodfart@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 months ago

I never claimed there was a third party president and I already proved your claims wrong in my last post.

But if you want a third party president, look into Lincoln’s second term running as the Union party candidate, a coalition formation that came from triangulating around a bunch of smaller third parties.

If the democrats are afraid of a split they can change their platform to get more votes.

[-] Lightor@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Yes, there has never been a 3rd party president and their won't be for a long time.

But ya, let's teach the Dems a lesson by handing over the country to the radical right, boy that'll show em. How purposefully self destructive. You're so idealistic that your not playing out the reality of how that will go.

[-] bloodfart@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 months ago

Lincoln literally ran for his second term under a third party, the Union party, which was a coalition formed of his own republicans and others like the nativists.

I’ve tried really hard to not be idealistic and only talk in material terms about the way things are.

The only thing I’d like to show the democrats is what they need to do to get my vote. I plan on doing that by voting third party. My vote will also support in a measurable, material, real way a party and candidate that has nearly the same politics as I do. I’m not petulant or using my vote to express anger at the democrats.

How will it go when the democrats lose?

[-] Lightor@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Ok, let's talk material. Do you honestly think a 3rd party candidate can win this presidency?

If the Democrats lose look at project 2025 for you answers. They have already enforced book bans and repealed many rights. The plan to continue to do that. And not voting for the best chance to stop that is a vote for it.

[-] bloodfart@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 months ago

Exit polling from 92 showed that if everyone who wanted to vote for Perot but didn’t had actually voted for Perot he would have won both the electoral college and the popular vote.

I do think a third party can win this election for president.

But why not assume I said that I don’t think a third party can win and respond to that? It would probably be more interesting for both of us.

So leaving aside your war on terror ass parting shot there at the end, if the democrats are really worried about project 2025 and they know that the last time trump was declared the loser there were people ready to do January 6, why do you think pushing people to vote against it this time is the best response?

Why, if it is how you just said it is, would the democrats not be training, organizing and arming a group to actually oppose it?

It’s like if the American idol call in vote was to keep a puppy from getting smashed on live tv by a slowly advancing steamroller. The democrats are in power. There was just a Supreme Court ruling codifying the powers of the executive, who is a democrat. The democrats don’t need our vote to stop project 2025, they’re in the studio watching the steamroller advance on the puppy!

They can literally actually do something about it!

[-] Lightor@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Ok, your evidence is a speculative vote that hinges on getting everyone to buy into that idea at once. It's not going to happen, without ranked choice voting a 3rd party president will never be.

Your whole stance is Dems are bad, 3rd party is better. But you live in a fantasy world where you're throwing your vote away to prove a point rather than actually have an impact on the outcome. Vote dem, then get ranked choice voting, then 3rd party has a chance. With Republicans you won't even keep mail in voting let alone expand it.

Even if you consider them both bad, you have the choice to choose the least bad guy to avoid losing more voter rights. Instead you're taking your view and using it to push an agenda that Republicans won't care about if they're in power. And by you not voting for the best chance to stop them you're giving them a better shot at it.

[-] bloodfart@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 months ago

First things first: a third party vote isn’t throwing your vote away. Third party votes get tallied just like votes for republicans and democrats and even if the parties and candidates those votes are cast for don’t win, they confer real material gains like ballot presence, mandatory funding, event presence, media coverage and public awareness, like I said.

Second, I am not voting to prove a point. I am voting to make my voice heard. If one of the two major parties hears my voice and decides to adopt some of the positions of a party that I voted for then that’s great, maybe I’ll give them a chance next time.

It is not possible to vote against a candidate. You can only vote for a candidate. There is no second, different colored pen they hand you to fill in the bubble next to the candidate you don’t want to win.

I cant vote against trump, I can only vote for some candidate. My vote will never be interpreted as a vote against trump, it will only ever be interpreted as a vote in support of the candidate I cast it for.

If my vote doesn’t have an impact on the outcome then how can it help or harm either major party?

[-] Lightor@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Your last line perfectly encapsulates your misunderstanding of the situation. You're an idealist, I get it. But even you have to accept the reality that this year either Biden or Trump will win. That'd the cold hard truth. You can toss your vote in a third pile but it will do nothing to impact the outcome.

If you truly think Trump or Biden are a choice bad, then the only way you can have the most, really any impact, is by choosing between them. The problem is Trump voters do not think about the 3rd party, only Democrats do. So what is happening is the Biden pile and Trump pile may be the same size, but everyone who takes their vote and decides to go 3rd party instead of dem makes Bidens pile smaller. This means every dem vote not for Biden is, in a very real way, helping Trump win.

You can say 3rd party has a chance or your voting for what you believe and that's it. That's fine. But realize that you have a chance to impact the election and by voting 3rd party without ranked choice voting you are removing any impact you may have. This could mean letting someone who doesn't respect democracy into office, and the possibility that you may not get another chance to vote.

[-] bloodfart@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago

It sounds like third party voters such as myself are incredibly powerful, able to change the outcome of elections by multiplying the power their ballots have.

If super powered mega voters like me are so impactful like you say, shouldn’t trump or Biden adopt policy positions that we want so they can get our ssj ballots?

[-] Lightor@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Yes, you are powerful enough to influence the election in the same way Republicans are. Both favor a Republican outcome.

Yes, Trump n Co should adopt those policies but they won't. They know that what they get from lobbiests and Republicans are more than enough to win. Giving way to policies you want would put their wallet at risk and work against big companies.

As for Democrats they certainly should, but at this point you're going to what? Show them what you want by voting third party when democracy itself is on the line. Seems like a poor time to cast symbolic votes. At least with Biden you know you'll be able to vote again. They are also the party that is much more in favor of rank choice voting, a process that would actually enable a 3rd party candidate to win.

[-] bloodfart@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago

If democracy itself is on the line (and worth defending) then why are you trying to get people to vote about it as opposed to do political violence about it?

If democracy is on the line then why is the entire democrat party saying “no no no, it’s bad to try to harm your opponents!”?

If you realized the democrats couldn’t win, would you vote third party, assuming there was one that aligned more with your own politics?

As I said before, my vote isn’t symbolic, it’s an immutable record of what platform a party needs to get my support. I’m not voting as a symbol or to send a message but to record my politics and to get my choice of party the material institutional support that comes with more votes.

[-] Lightor@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Because that's how democracy works... Civil war is the result of democracy failing. I said it's at risk, not dead.

If you realized the democrats couldn’t win, would you vote third party, assuming there was one that aligned more with your own politics?

No, %100 not. If they lined up with every single view I had. Because they will not win. Money wins elections right now, that's the cold hard truth. And 3rd party will never be able to compete. If there was rank choice voting, where the system wasn't two sided, sure I would. But without that I would at least be able to influence which of the two people we get, and this time I want the one that hasn't claimed he wants to lock up the other side and admits to wanting to be a dictator. That's who you are helping by casting a 3rd party vote, you are making the best chance to beat him that much weaker.

Your vote is symbolic. It will not impact this election at all, me and you both know that. And if democracy is on the line and you take this time to "record what your party needs to support," then you are naive. What you think your party needs to support means nothing if there is not another election. So go ahead, record what you think politicians should platform on; just know that if one side wins, what you think is important doesn't matter anymore. I'd rather vote for the side that still gives democracy a chance than try to fix it instead of letting it die so I can record my thoughts and feelings.

[-] bloodfart@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago

So it’s wrong to defend democracy with force, you’d never cast a vote for a party other than the democrats, my vote is both meaningless and also super powerful, I should switch over to voting democrat and democracy will die if I don’t.

[-] Lightor@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

It's not wrong to defend it with force but context matters. Are you defending from a foreign policy you don't like or is it defending against your right to vote. You can fight for democracy but it doesn't always need to be violent.

Trump recently admitted that if Republicans vote him in, you won't have to vote again, he'll "fix it." So yes, by you not voting for the best chance to stop him you are very powerful. You're siding with a future that may mean not having to option to vote again, which would lead to violence. But sure, vote for whatever makes you feel good. The rest of us will vote to protect democracy for you to have the right to throw away your vote.

[-] bloodfart@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago

So, again, you believe that trump is an existential threat to democracy but do not believe it’s necessary to defend that democracy with violence.

There are only two possibilities I can come up with, you either don’t actually believe trump is an existential threat to democracy or don’t believe democracy is worth defending.

I guess you could just have never thought about it that hard either.

Is it possible that you think violence is okay if it’s directed against foreigners but not if it’s directed against Americans?

[-] Lightor@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I'm convinced that your not even reading my comments. That or you think it's impossible to defend democracy using democracy. But either way, just busy your head in the sand and vote for whoever makes you feel warm and fuzzy.

Then you end with this gem "Is it possible that you think violence is okay if it’s directed against foreigners but not if it’s directed against Americans?" Which is a baseless loaded question. You clearly have no interest in a genuine conversation and are incapable of having an honest one.

Is it possible you don't care about democracy and are arguing this line of reasoning because you want the US to be ran by a dictator? See how silly loaded, presumptuous questions are.

[-] bloodfart@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago

You literally posed the question in regard to violence “are you defending against a foreign policy or is it defending your right to vote”

I mean, I guess you could be suggesting that stopping, for example, the genocide in Palestine is worth fighting and risking death to stop but preserving democracy isn’t.

Help me understand what you wrote.

[-] SleezyDizasta@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago
[-] bloodfart@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago
[-] SleezyDizasta@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Being a Marxist in 2024 is clown shit as it is, but voting for Marxist-Leninist party in America is just baffling. The cherry on top is that the clown you're planning to vote for has some mighty interesting policy proposals including:

  • Seizing the 100 biggest corporations in the country
  • Seize the agricultural and energy industries
  • Repurpose the energy industry to generate exclusively renewable energy
  • Expand the transportation system with all an electric fleet while no autoworker loses their job and millions of new, good paying jobs are going to be created
  • Expand affirmative action discrimination
  • Use the assets of the seized top 100 corporations as reparations for black people
  • Cut the military budget by 90%
  • Abolish NATO
  • Support Russia against Ukraine and China against Taiwan
  • Abolish AFRICOM specifically for some reason
  • Abolish the CIA, NSA, and FBI
  • Abolish the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the Federal Reserve
  • Expose all of the America's state secrets
  • End all American sanctions on dictatorships such as Russia, Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, etc
  • Help aid the destruction of Israel
  • Going on purges to lock up the "corrupt elite"
  • Cancel all debt
  • Eliminate inflation with an "across the board price freeze"
  • Ban evictions and cap rent at 10% of income
  • Tax all income and assets over 10 million over 100%
  • Ban ownership of overseas assets

It's like a bad joke, except nobody is laughing. The fact that there are people out there who are so mind numbingly ignorant of economics, government, social politics, history, and geopolitics that they actually think this brain damaged list of policies is a good idea is just sad. Claudia de la Cruz is so bad that she is unironically worse than Trump, and you have to try really, really hard to be worse than Trump. Literally a turd is better than Trump, so for her to be worse is just... wow. Do better, come on.

[-] bloodfart@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago

i'm already convinced to vote for her, you don't need to make the case.

[-] SleezyDizasta@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago
[-] bloodfart@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago

Can you tell me what’s bad about that platform?

Even with the uncharitable wording you used on some items it seems like a huge list of good policies and goals that would help the American people. How come it’s bad?

[-] SleezyDizasta@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

I'll give you a genuine answer because I assume you're actually being serious.

I'll dissect 3 of their policies at random that I already listed above to demonstrate just how of touch these people are. Just an FYI, they have a few more ridiculous policies that I didn't include because my list was starting to get too long, but I just wanted point this out nonetheless. Anyways, let's get on to the policies:

Abolish NATO

Why exactly? In what way does this move benefit the United States? Do these idiots even understand what country they're running to govern? NATO is an American led organization that has served as the backbone of American-European bilateral cooperation and one of the most fundamental pieces to American foreign policy for decades. Not only does NATO guarantee American security and the security of our most important allies, but it also serves as one of the biggest pillars of American soft and hard power. Rouge regimes like Iran and Russia know better than to mess with our European allies in NATO because they the presence of the US military and it's might acts as a deterrent. NATO is the symbol of Western unity, it is a stabilizing force in Europe, it is what's keeping Europe largely peaceful.

Not to mention that NATO's explicit purpose of defending Europe from Russian aggression is more relevant than ever because Russia has literally invaded Ukraine, the second largest European country, right now in the largest land war in Europe since WWII. It's a blatant act of unprovoked aggression and imperial conquest. Putin along with his cronies have publicly threatened other countries such as Lithuania, Poland, Estonia, Moldova, Latvia, etc with invasion and have threatened other countries such as the UK and Germany with nukes. This is on top of Russia already invading Ukraine in 2014 and annexing Crimea, invading Georgia in 2008 and creating two puppet states in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, illegally turning Belarus into a puppet dictatorship, illegally occupying parts of Moldova in the form of Transnistria, starting the war in Donbass, annexing all of southern Ukraine in their current invasion, spending billions annually on propaganda and misinformation campaigns to destabilize the West, sending in assassins to take out targets in the West, constantly launching cyberattacks on our infrastructure, bolstering our enemies like Iran and North Korea, and the list goes on and on.

Why the fuck should we put ourselves and our allies at risk, appease a ruthless dictator, and destroy all of the alliances and good we've made? How does abolishing NATO serve our national interests? Calling this idiotic is too generous for what it is.

Cancel all debt

No debt? Yay! But what does that mean exactly? See, if the policy here is to cancel specific types of debt, then you could excuse it. If it is promoting a welfare program that provides relief to people, then you could make an arguement for it... but no, on their official platform they just straight up claim that all debt should be cancelled.

Let's think about this from a logical point of view for a second. This country has a lot of debt whether it's public, corporate, or individual... how exactly would cancel it? Is their plan to print money to pay off all of the debt? That's a one way ticket to inflation. Are they planning to ban loans? That's another way to screw over the economy, especially poor people. Are they perhaps planning to just to write a statement saying that all debt is hereby void and expect that to actually work? It's really baffling.

Let's suppose, they manage to actually do it, are new loans going to be allowed? If not, how are they going to prevent the banks from collapsing? Banks literally run on loans, that's how they work. If the banks collapse, so does everything that uses them, which basically means that the US economy will crash and burn. Is this their genius plan? Is the grand socialist idea to collapse the American economy and plunge the world economy into absolute chaos? I shudder at the thought of how many people will fall into poverty or famine because of this.

The thing that pisses me off about this is that they don't even bother to explain their reasoning. If you're going to do something this big and stupid then at least have the decency to explain it to your voters. Explain why debt is bad and how you're going to cancel it. Keeping it this vague and sweet sounding when the consequences are so devastating just reeks of malicious intentions.

Seizing the 100 biggest corporations in the country

Socialists have this completely out of touch view that if a government seizes large swaths of the economy, it'll run exactly the same except the public will reap all the benefits... that's just WRONG! That's not how it works. We've seen time and time again throughout history that planned economies ALWAYS result in failure. The government is way too inefficient, way too slow, way too rigid, and is prone to making poor decisions. This is the actual reason why socialism is a failure as an economic system. All it does is give the government way too much power, which inevitably corrupts it and turns it authoritarian. Unless the government sanctions it's own corporations that run the same way as private corporations, it's just not going to work. Do you know what does work? The free market.

Let's sit here for a second and think about how America became so wealthy and developed. All this wealth didn't teleport here from another dimension, no it was created by the free market. It's been shown time and time again that when you give people agency and freedom to run their own livelihoods, they will do so better than anyone else. Private economies are constantly more productive, more efficient, more resilient, more dynamic, and more wealthy. You clearly see this contrast throughout in history. Take for example the backwards hellhole that was the East Germany and the thriving hub that was West Germany or the closest thing to hell on earth in Maoist China compared the booming China of the 2000s or the starving authoritarian pit known as the Soviet Union and the prosperous United States. There's hundreds of examples like this, you get the idea. Capitalism works, and economic freedom is a proven method to generate wealth and prosperity.

Is our current economy flawed? Yes, it is. It has a lot of problems that range in severity and scale. However, the solution is to vote in principled politicians who will reform the system to add pragmatic regulations, incentives, and policies to more effectively run the economy to keep it sustainable, accountable, and working to the benefit of the people. The last thing we need is for economically illiterate people stuck to a failed ideology trying to use government power to seize a swath of the economy that will inevitably lead to unprecedented authoritarianism, collapse of the global economy, and money to flee the country in droves.

Literally all of their policies are this nonsensical. Every. Single. One. Just the slightest bit of criticism is enough to expose their positions for being nothing more than meaningless drivel.

Here's the thing, politics as a concept is about how best run a government. You can't run a country on fantasies and outlandish ideals. You NEED to have pragmatism or otherwise you're going to risk collapse. The big issue with both Trump, and to a lesser extent, Biden is that they're both out of touch with reality. So much so that they're widely regarded as the two worst candidates in American history. Even though they're old and senile, they still at least try in some half assed way to be realistic with their positions. Claudia De la Cruz, Karina Garcia, and all these other clowns are so batshit crazy, so deranged, and so out of touch with reality that they make Biden and fucking Trump look sane in comparison.

People who support Marxism in 2024 are victims of propaganda from a bygone era. Marxism is no more, it's a failed ideology. It has been tried dozens of times across time, culture, and land and it has collapsed every single time. The only thing it has to show for it is tyrannical regimes, famines, and widespread poverty. The ideology has a track record that's on par, or arguably worse, than fascism. The era of Marxism is gone and it's not coming back. The ideals of the Soviet bloc were never good, but now they're just irrelevant. It's time to move on.

I understand that it's hard to vote for either Trump or Biden, but this? This is even worse. Marxism and this clown party aren't genuine alternative and never will be. There's appetite for a new political, economic, and social system not just in the US, but around the globe. With the impending large scale population collapses and shrinking demographics world wide, we will be forced to either work with we got to stay afloat or come up with an entirely new system. If we do innovate a new system it has to be created in the context of this era. It has to be made by people of this era to address issues of this era with solutions designed for this era. Will that be UBI and AI? Who knows. But what I do know is that Marxism definitely doesn't have a place in the modern world anymore.

[-] bloodfart@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago

A tremendous corpus is no substitute for understanding.

NATO is bad. I hope de la Cruz succeeds in destroying it. It would be a complex process that ends in a new alignment of power. That would be good.

Debt harms Americans institutionally. I will always choose the well being of my countrymen over that of the poor widdle banks.

The entirety of the 20th century is the story of planned economies succeeding where the free market failed. If anything I fear seizing the 100 biggest companies in America would be catastrophic because their size is often a function of market manipulation as opposed to productive capacity on a year over year basis.

I want to warn you now that the claim that communism is worse than fascism is a disproven dogwhistle to fascist sympathizers and antisemites.

I don’t think you’re trying to do that on purpose, though. It’s hard to defend some of the positions you do without accidentally stepping in Nazi doodoo.

[-] SleezyDizasta@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

A tremendous corpus is no substitute for understanding.

Which is something that you severely lack.

NATO is bad. I hope de la Cruz succeeds in destroying it. It would be a complex process that ends in a new alignment of power. That would be good.

Actually brain dead. It's literally caveman mentality.

Idiot: NATO bad. Must smash.

Anybody with two brain cells: Why?

Idiot: starts screeching and throwing feces

If you can't even explain your positions then you're not even a clown, that's just a sign of an actual mental disability.

Debt harms Americans institutionally. I will always choose the well being of my countrymen over that of the poor widdle banks.

This is the type of r*tarded mindset that lead countries to collapse. It shows so much economic illiteracy that it's no longer infuriating or frustrating, but just sad. It's sad the your educational opportunities growing up were so limited that you can't even grasp a concept as basic how monetary circulation works.

If the banks stop functioning then people, businesses, and governments will lose their money and the economy would collapse. What this means is that, in the context of the US, hundreds of millions of people would be driven into poverty because they have either lost their life's savings, their income, and/or the funding for businesses. Without the market rules to control the flow of goods and services, everything will come to a halt. Farmers will stop growing food, power plants would stop producing electricity, truck drivers would stop driving, and so on. This will lead to mass panic, violence, famine, and unprecedented poverty. The effects would extend far beyond the US, because the rest of the world depends on the US economy... since it is the world's largest economy. The global depression that would hit would be global and it would be worse than anything we've ever seen before. You're saying stuff without understanding what they mean. You're not looking out for your countrymen against the big bad banks, you're going to be screwing over your countrymen with your ignorance.

The entirety of the 20th century is the story of planned economies succeeding where the free market failed.

Start naming them because I know you can't name a single successful example.

If anything I fear seizing the 100 biggest companies in America would be catastrophic because their size is often a function of market manipulation as opposed to productive capacity on a year over year basis.

Wtf does this even mean lmao? Marxist gibberish is truly beyond parody.

I want to warn you now that the claim that communism is worse than fascism is a disproven dogwhistle to fascist sympathizers and antisemites.

Yeah no, this piss poor attempt at the most classical example of Soviet propaganda isn't going to fly here. This idea that any criticism of Marxist theory or how evil, shitty, and oppressive it has been in practice makes you a fascist is quite literally a product of Soviet propaganda after WWII as a way to justify purges, authoritarianism, and censorship. Which is funny because the Marxist Soviet Union was quite literally an offical ally of the Nazi. They even signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact where they agreed to mutual cooperation, non aggression, and to invade and split Poland together. Obviously Hitler broke the pact with operation Barbarossa, but the point remains that Marxism and fascism are not opposite ideologies like Soviet propaganda would like to make you believe, they were sister ideologies that ended up producing very similar results. Not to mention that Stalin was a raging antisemite who's antisemitism was often overlooked and overshadowed by Hitler's.

You can make all the accusations you want, you can deny all of reality if you want, you can makeup any lie you deem fit, and you can cry about whatever will make you feel better. The bottom line remains, there's literally nothing you could do or say that can change the facts, and the facts clearly show that Marxism is one of the four horsemen of shitty ideologies alongside fascism, theocracy, and anarchy. It has objectively been just as tyrannical, it has resulted in just as many, if not more, deaths, it has led to countless genocides and famines, and it has failed and collapsed every time. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant, that's just the reality.

I don’t think you’re trying to do that on purpose, though. It’s hard to defend some of the positions you do without accidentally stepping in Nazi doodoo.

To a Marxist everything is Nazi, even things that are objectively polar opposite to Nazis like liberals or libertarians or greens or anything they don't like. This is because an authoritarian ideology like Marxism cannot survive on it's own merits, it needs to have enemies to demonize so it can justify it's shiftiness and thuggish tactics to shun, silence, censor criticism. Like I said this doesn't mean anything to me because I know you're empty. You can't even explain your own position, let alone come up with anything of substance to counter anything that I said. This is the best that you can do, it's the only thing you can do.

[-] bloodfart@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago

NATO is bad because it functions to defend neoliberal and neocolonial systemic oppression hand in glove with the fascist militants it arms.

Banks would still exist without debt. People would keep doing what they do without debt. I know this because banking existed under legal frameworks which outlawed debt and because people moved goods, produced food, invented things and in general were able to live before debt.

The Soviet unions planned economy beat the United States in the space race at almost every turn except for actually putting human beings on the surface. It turned out there wasnt any reason to put people on the surface, so it doesn’t seem like much of an L. Chiles state of the art cybernetic planned economy was so good at dealing with disruption that large scale American meddling in the logistics sector failed miserably and the us had to send Pinochet in.

The 100 biggest are often measured by market cap, not the actual productive inputs and outputs of their operations. Tesla is a great example of this, although I don’t actually know if it’s in the top 100. Just seizing the top 100 would probably lead to a massive project of restructuring of them on the part of the hypothetical de la Cruz regime in order to turn companies driven mostly by financial instruments and stock valuations into productive entities.

You wrote a lot about how it’s okay for you to say that communism is worse than fascism. It’s not okay to say that. The idea itself stems from soft holocaust denialism in the immediate aftermath of World War Two.

Please don’t fall into the trap of using the rhetoric of fascists to punch left. It would be really easy to just say “most scratched liberal” or something like that, but you don’t deserve to be made fun of.

Speaking of, we’re on the lemmy world server and they tend to be pretty intense about personal attacks and insults. If you’re worried about catching a ban, use fewer insults and attacks.

[-] SleezyDizasta@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

NATO is bad because it functions to defend neoliberal and neocolonial systemic oppression hand in glove with the fascist militants it arms.

Damn, talk about a salad of buzzwords. Again, this is pretty meaningless without an actual explanation. If you want your position to have merit then you actually have to provide arguments and evidence. I can't even give you a rebuttal because I don't know why you hold the position you do. So far, your position is NATO bad because NATO bad...

Banks would still exist without debt. People would keep doing what they do without debt.

There's literally not a single successful society that operates without debt. There's nothing inherently wrong with debt or loans. This idea that all debt = bad, again, just reeks of economic illiteracy. Loans and debt have their own set of benefits that do play a vital role in the economy. There's a reason why they exist. Debt only becomes bad when it's excessive or poorly managed and loans only become bad when they're predatory in nature.

I know this because banking existed under legal frameworks which outlawed debt and because people moved goods, produced food, invented things and in general were able to live before debt.

Where exactly?

The Soviet unions planned economy beat the United States in the space race at almost every turn except for actually putting human beings on the surface. It turned out there wasnt any reason to put people on the surface, so it doesn’t seem like much of an L.

And where exactly is this hyper successful Soviet Union economy? Oh right, it collapsed.

It's funny that you bring up the space race because the Soviet economy was in absolute shambles for the majority of its existence and this was one of the areas were it saw some success. Even then, this idea that the Soviet Union won the space race in everything except the moon landings is quite literally Soviet propaganda that was made after the moon landings to cope with their shortcomings. In reality, when you look at the achievements made during the space race, you'll see they're about 50/50:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Space_Race

Chiles state of the art cybernetic planned economy was so good at dealing with disruption that large scale American meddling in the logistics sector failed miserably and the us had to send Pinochet in.

Project Cybersyn was not a cybernetic planned economy... not even close. The project had 4 parts to it, it had an economic simulator, custom software to check factory performance, an operations room, and a national network of telex machines that were linked to one mainframe computer. The projects primary purpose was to monitor industrial activity in the economy and use that data to make better decisions on economic policy. That's not a planned economy, that's just being well prepared.

Just seizing the top 100 would probably lead to a massive project of restructuring of them on the part of the hypothetical de la Cruz regime in order to turn companies driven mostly by financial instruments and stock valuations into productive entities.

Lmao what even is this? A company's value is determined largely by how productive it is on a quarterly basis. People put their money into companies that are performing well and pull their money out of companies that are not. That's how investing works. Private companies are some of the most productive entities on earth. The issue with them, especially the big companies, is that they can become too productive, which is why people are pushing for policy focused on sustainability. Profit driven markets are extremely efficient and productive, that's why capitalist economies are as successful as they are. The Soviet Union is an example of the government controlling all aspects of the economy... and look at how that turned out.

This of course ignores ALL the consequences that come with the government seizing that much of the economy. From the insane amounts of authoritarianism that needs to be consolidated for that to happen to the collapse of the economy to the mass exodus of capital from the country, it's just an absolute disaster.

You wrote a lot about how it’s okay for you to say that communism is worse than fascism. It’s not okay to say that.

"I don't like it so it's not okay"

Do you even hear yourself? Not only is it okay, but it's literally objectively true. Like I said, you can lie, deny, and cry all you want but there's literally nothing you can say or do to change the reality. Marxism has been a stain on humanity that's on par, if not worse than fascism.

The idea itself stems from soft holocaust denialism in the immediate aftermath of World War Two.

You've said a lot of dumb things during the course of this discussion, but this definitely takes the cake.

Please don’t fall into the trap of using the rhetoric of fascists to punch left. It would be really easy to just say “most scratched liberal” or something like that, but you don’t deserve to be made fun of.

I said multiple times already, but I guess I'll repeat myself yet again. I genuinely don't give a fuck about your fascism accusations. They're entirely meaningless. You will literally call anything you don't like fascist or nazi. That's how shitty ideologies like Marxism work. Shitty ideologies can't be supported and defended on their own merits so they resort to things like violence, bullying, censorship, intimidation, harassment, fallacies, or in this case baseless accusations. The thing is that I spent this entire discussion calling fascism a shitty murderous ideology in just about every comment that I've made, if you still accuse me of being a fascist after all that then that's your problem. It means you're either being disingenuous or you lack reading comprehension skills.

Speaking of, we’re on the lemmy world server and they tend to be pretty intense about personal attacks and insults. If you’re worried about catching a ban, use fewer insults and attacks.

I appreciate your concern, but I place very little value in Lemmy. I'm just here to kill some spare time. If they ban me then so be it, it'll change nothing in my life. With that being said, I'll try to insult you personally less just because it's the nice thing to do, your statements and arguments are fair game though.

[-] bloodfart@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago

If you have trouble understanding my posts i can recommend some books. some of those ideas seemed like meaningless buzzwords to me too before i knew about them.

i'm not calling you a fascist though. i don't think you are. I think you're a misled liberal who believes a bunch of stuff thats basically double genocide theory with a fresh coat of paint that became popular in the black book of communism.

thats the soft holocaust denial i was referring to, trivialization.

back when the black book of communism came out a bunch of people got up in arms because it's pretty much the same line of thinking as that double genocide theory, that the holocaust wasn't unique. I remember the introduction especially caught a bunch of flak for saying that the people who liberated the concentration camps were worse than the people who ran them, but the whole conceit of the book is kinda suspect.

anyway, don't equate communism and naziism, it's fascist junk and you're not a fascist.

[-] SleezyDizasta@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

If you have trouble understanding my posts i can recommend some books. some of those ideas seemed like meaningless buzzwords to me too before i knew about them.

You make it very, very hard to not insult you when you're this obtuse and condescending. No, I don't need your already misguided understanding of those words, I know what they mean. I'm simply mocking your nonexistent argument. Buzzwords, just as FYI, are words that are often jargon that are seen as fashionable in particular contexts. In your case you're using a bunch of those words that are trendy among Marxists in place of an actual substantive argument. This is what you said:

"NATO is bad because it functions to defend neoliberal and neocolonial systemic oppression hand in glove with the fascist militants it arms."

This is not an argument. There's no thesis, there's no evidence, there's no points, there's no examples, there's no explanations. Functions how? Defends how? What neoliberal oppression? What neocolonial oppression? What fascist militants? Who exactly is it arming? Do you have evidence that actually ties any of this to the organization? Do you even know what NATO is? Saying NATO bad because NATO bad but with more buzzwords is still a meaningless statement.

i’m not calling you a fascist though. i don’t think you are. I think you’re a misled liberal who believes a bunch of stuff thats basically double genocide theory with a fresh coat of paint that became popular in the black book of communism.

There's so seems to be a misunderstanding here. We're not equals in morality. I don't support a failed murderous ideology, you do. You're trying very hard to try shut down the comparisons and the criticisms that I have of Marxism. Idk if you actually you think this will work, but it won't. No, calling out how shitty Marxism is not fascism, pointing out the atrocities that were caused by Marxism is fascism, noting the similarities between these two shitty ideologies is not fascism, bringing up the horrific history of Marxism is not fascism. You're not going to shut down the criticisms that I have of Marxism like this, nor do these attempts invalidate any of my criticisms. Like I said again and again, what you're doing here is meaningless.

I've said this 4 times now, but the reality is that you won't accept this. Your worldview extends as far this when it comes to criticism. You'll come back in the next reply and make the same accusations about how I should refrain from pointing how evil and failed Marxism is because it's spooky fascism when it's not.

thats the soft holocaust denial i was referring to, trivialization.

No, what you're doing is genocide denialism. I recognize the holocaust and how horrific it was. I also recognize the other atrocities that happened in history. The Armenian genocide was horrific. The Rwandan genocide was horrific. The Japanese rape of Nanking was horrific. Do you know what else is horrific? Marxist caused atrocities like Holodomor, the Great Chinese Famine, the Khmer Rouge genocide, the Red Terror, the Soviet forced deportations, the Mao led Democides, and the list goes on and on. These dark events killed tens of millions in aggregate and they were caused directly by Marxist policies. Recognizing an atrocity doesn't take away from another. Implying that it does is quite literally genocide denialism because you're trying to silence the recognition and criticism of certain atrocities.

back when the black book of communism came out a bunch of people got up in arms because it’s pretty much the same line of thinking as that double genocide theory, that the holocaust wasn’t unique.

Literally nobody uses the black book of communism except Marxists who literally have nothing else. You don't even seem to grasp that the horrors of Marxism don't stem from the book, but from actual history. These events are very well documented historical events that have been academically analyzed and evidenced.

I remember the introduction especially caught a bunch of flak for saying that the people who liberated the concentration camps were worse than the people who ran them, but the whole conceit of the book is kinda suspect.

I literally don't give a shit about this book. It means absolutely nothing to me.

anyway, don’t equate communism and naziism, it’s fascist junk and you’re not a fascist.

You have no moral high ground whatsoever to tell me what I can and can't do. You're literally a Marxist. You're on the same tier as fascists. You can pretend that you're better all you want, but you're ultimately not. You're right, I'm not a fascist, but you're not exactly something that's better than a fascist. Shitty ideologies that are similar in nature will inevitably be compared, and rightfully so.

[-] bloodfart@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago

Like I said, I can point you towards some books that will make these ideas easier to understand. I’m offering to do that because we’re so far apart in understanding that it would take a huge amount of my time to get you to where I’m at and just judging by the length of our responses, it really seems like you’ve got a lot more time than me.

If you just want to call me names for being a communist then that’s fine too.

To bring us way back to the whole point of our conversation, I asked why you were so dismissive of the psls platform and after rereading all your very long responses it seems like you think it would be a hard platform to implement, would significantly change the way the world works and Americas role in it and you take issue with communist ideas because of past failures.

I agree with all those. It’s not an easy task, would result in systemic change and upend old relationships. That’s the point. I see everyday that the institutions we have aren’t functioning for the good of the American people. I want something different.

[-] SleezyDizasta@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

I’m offering to do that because we’re so far apart in understanding

The idea was for you to explain your own positions.

that it would take a huge amount of my time to get you to where I’m at

Then why engage in discussion with me at all if you're not willing to contribute anything of value?

and just judging by the length of our responses, it really seems like you’ve got a lot more time than me.

I was hoping that we would have some sort of intellectual discussion where we would critique each other's views. However, that proved to be futile because you turned out to be absolutely r*tarded. Not only are you incapable of explaining your own positions, but you're also incapable of comprehending mine. But I don't blame you for this, this was my mistake. I know there was nothing there coming in, but the optimist in me still tried to give you the benefit of the doubt.

If you just want to call me names for being a communist then that’s fine too.

Rightfully so.

To bring us way back to the whole point of our conversation, I asked why you were so dismissive of the psls platform and after rereading all your very long responses it seems like you think it would be a hard platform to implement, would significantly change the way the world works and Americas role in it and you take issue with communist ideas because of past failures.

If this is what you got from what I said then you're a lost cause.

I agree with all those. It’s not an easy task, would result in systemic change and upend old relationships. That’s the point. I see everyday that the institutions we have aren’t functioning for the good of the American people. I want something different.

To bring us way back to the whole point of our conversation, you're a fucking clown, Claudia De La Cruz is a fucking clown, the socialist party is a circus, your ideology is fucking disgusting, evil, and a colossal failure that just as bad as fascism, and I am very happy there is only a few thousand of you across the whole country. If this is the level of intelligence that comes out Marxists, then no wonder it has resulted in failure every single time. It wouldn't so bad if it didn't result in the deaths of tens of millions of people. I will make sure that I do everything I can to keep you idiots as far away from power as possible.

With that being said, this has been a complete waste of time and I have no intention of engaging with you any further. This will be my last reply to you. If you want to have any last words, go ahead, but I'm done.

[-] bloodfart@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago

you can choose to stop posting, that's fine.

if you change your mind and want to know particulars about a certain policy or something i can give some reading recommendations that will do a much better job of explaining ideas in the detail you seem interested in than i can.

[-] Lightor@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

I dunno what you're talking about dude, just stumbled upon this and you got absolutely murdered lol

[-] Lightor@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Damn, well done. I don't really have the energy to argue with idiots who think "cancel all debt" is magic and thinks society would survive it. Glad to see some people still do.

this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2024
1076 points (100.0% liked)

Political Memes

5345 readers
3089 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS