Patience is a virtue : memes

[-] Default_Defect@midwest.social 3 points 3 hours ago

Near as I can tell, a leftist would do anything to keep a liberal out of power over believing only 75% of the same things as them, and allow the right to take control, but at least they get to keep the moral high ground of not allowing a liberal to do that 25%. Never mind that the right actively opposed everything to leftist wants completely.

[-] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 hours ago

Liberals are "the right" and they sure as hell don't believe 75% of the same things as leftists. Leftists in the west also don't really have the power to keep liberals out of power, hence why liberals have consistently been the only ones in power for decades. Liberals on the other hand, absolutely do have the power to keep leftists out, and they will go as far as allying with fascists to murder leftists in their beds.

[+] Agent641@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

[deleted]

[-] Omnipitaph@reddthat.com 8 points 7 hours ago

Okedoke, well I just learned that I have no concrete grasp of political labels and need to do a LOT of research.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 12 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Extreme simplification:

Liberalism: supports capitalism. Current system + tweaks

Leftism: supports anticapitalism of some form, the two biggest umbrellas being Marxism/Communism and Anarchism

Marxism/Communism: supports collectivization, public ownership, and central planning (I have an introductory reading list if you want to learn more, or just read Principles of Communism)

Anarchism: supports full horizontalism and networks of communes

[-] Omnipitaph@reddthat.com 3 points 3 hours ago

Thank you for the reading list! I'll take a gander :)

[-] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 3 points 7 hours ago

I gave up on this conversation years ago.

Fine, for the sake of argument, I’m a liberal, because I don’t want to give you 45 extra minutes of my time in this comment section to try and explain the difference when I know you’ll ignore most of what I say anyhow, and derail us from the point I was actually trying to make. If I’m a liberal in your mind, so be it. My point stands.

[-] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 49 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

Unpopular opinion:

Alienating liberals doesn't create more leftists, it only causes people to be dismissive of the term and dig in their heels.
Insulting them rather than educating them does nothing but divide anyone left of center and after the last election I think it's abundantly clear that we need to be unified rather than divided.
No one is going to argue that left leaning candidates aren't far from perfect, but they're a hell of a lot better than the far-right fascists were about to have in power in less than 2 weeks.
Yes, I agree modern liberals are too centrist and ineffective but at the end of the day they're light-years ahead of the far right, and I'd rather be agitated about having another centrist administration than alarmed and outraged at the onset of fascism.

[-] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 14 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

last election I think it’s abundantly clear that we need to be unified rather than divided.

Who's "we"? Liberals are not on the left and are ideological enemies of the left: you can't be unified with people who fundamentally oppose you.

Also, which election? Oh right, you're one of the those American liberals who think foreigners are fictional characters. That explains why you think leftists would want to ally with the people committing genocide against these "fictional characters"

[-] affiliate@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago

what is the benefit of writing a response with such a hostile tone?

[-] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

What's the benefit of mollycoddleing genocide apologists like Chainweasel?

[-] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 6 points 7 hours ago

I don't think they really are "light years ahead of the right". Most of the difference as far as I can tell is in how they talk-- not what they do. Liberals fundamentally just believe in the status quo. MLK Jr saw it the same way when he described " the white moderate" as the greatest obstacle to change.

I'm definitely willing to engage liberals (and even conservatives) in honest conversation when I feel the context warrants the effort. Lemmy rarely seems to qualify.

[-] TherapyGary 26 points 14 hours ago

Liberals facilitate fascism

[-] Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca 15 points 14 hours ago

That's why it's important to communicate with them rather than alienating them.

[-] gravityowl@lemm.ee 9 points 8 hours ago

You're talking as if for over a year (cough decades cough) Palestinian activists hadn't tried talking to the liberals about their party's unshakable support for the ongoing genocide.

What's left to say to people who are "going to pick the lesser of 2 evils" even when you showed them that their pick is still funding the ethnic cleansing of all Palestinian people?

We should talk to general leftist people. Not the liberals. They still value money and profit over people

[-] umbrella@lemmy.ml 4 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

i probably would have taken that liberal stance long ago, but i had people explain their views to me in a good way that eventually made me rethink some of the things i held as truth. its just that it doesnt happen overnight. im not saying anyone will be convinced but the socialist strategy of getting people talking about political topics in a consistent organized way actually helps a lot here.

[-] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 5 points 9 hours ago

Why? They will side with fascism over leftism every time.

[-] comfy@lemmy.ml 9 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

That assumption isn't true. Socialists aren't born that way, most come out of the status quo ideology of liberalism. By abandoning all liberals with blanket statements, we'd simply self-fulfill that prophecy. Even US libertarian militias, a peak of liberalist ideology, have sometimes sided with antifascists over fascists (see: Redneck Revolt lines of affiliation with American Pit Vipers).

You're referencing a real trend, and there's a kernel of truth behind it, however it's harmful to the socialist movement to assume that as a universal inevitability.

[-] jsomae@lemmy.ml 5 points 13 hours ago

There aren't enough leftists to win with violence, so our only hope is to win with dialogue. What's your plan?

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 11 hours ago

Dialogue can't change the mode of production, so we must create more leftists so revolution becomes feasible.

[-] Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 hours ago

By telling potential allies they're as bad as the enemy of course! It'll start working any day now.

The leftists have their own magical thinking and it's seems be to inherient to the movement. But unlike rightist magcial thinking, one cannot bully their way to a leftist paradise so right wins and will always win until the leftists compromise. No sign of that happening in my life time.

[-] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 hours ago

Liberals are the enemy though.

[-] jsomae@lemmy.ml 4 points 10 hours ago

agreed -- how do we make more leftists though?

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 9 hours ago

Talking and organizing.

[-] jsomae@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 hours ago

Exactly. Talking. Violence isn't going to make more leftists.

That said, call me paranoid but I think three-letter organizations are the main obstacle to organizing. I don't know what to do about that.

[-] TherapyGary 6 points 11 hours ago

I disagree, so my plan is just violence

[-] umbrella@lemmy.ml 7 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

thats not an unpopular opinion though? maybe on the west? revolutions happen by convincing your fellow brothers, not by force or manipulation.

this is the hard part imo, we all have to go against the media machine.

[-] CatLikeLemming 7 points 12 hours ago

Apparently to some that's the goal. I had a chat with a leftist a while back while the US election was in full swing and she was absolutely against the concept of voting for a lesser evil, since the worse things get, the more people will turn to leftist extremism, which is a win in her book. Suffice it to say, that talk made me anything but sympathetic of her view...

[-] ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world 50 points 17 hours ago

Gestures at the current state of affairs

I don't think patience is working guys.

[-] Agent641@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

Patience was a virtue.

[-] SARGE@startrek.website 12 points 17 hours ago

But stabbing your neighbor isn't exactly something most people are willing to do.

And any sort of attempt at organization leads to Alphabet Squad raids and whatever bullshit charges they feel like throwing at you after deciding you're guilty of being a dirty commie/socialist/librul/not them.

[-] PunnyName@lemmy.world 9 points 12 hours ago

We really need to not stab our neighbors, anyway. CEOs, however.

[-] davel@lemmy.ml 5 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Whacking a CEO doesn’t do shit. They just install a new one and divert more funding to the police state.

[-] PunnyName@lemmy.world 2 points 9 hours ago

One. Sure. 100? 500? Maybe not.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 11 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

At that point, just organize a revolution like has already been done, nobody has assassinated a revolution into success.

Funny enough, this exact conversation was had a long time ago, Lenin and the Bolsheviks advocated organizing the working class and reading theory, while the Socialist Revolutionaries advocated abandoning theory (believing it to cause more conflict among comrades than unity) and advocated assassinations. Ultimately, the Bolsheviks ended up being correct, which is why I think we can learn a lot from our predecessors in analyzing how our own conditions are similar and different in coming up with a strategy that works for us.

[-] comfy@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

And any sort of attempt at organization leads to Alphabet Squad raids and whatever bullshit charges they feel like throwing at you after deciding you’re guilty of being a dirty commie/socialist/librul/not them.

This is simply false, at least in the western countries I'm familiar with. Most organizations will get monitoring at worst unless they're an imminent threat, plotting clearly illegal acts or in an unusually strict region.

Now, one could argue that effective organization will inevitably imply illegal acts or become an imminent threat, and that's reasonable but that's very different to claiming "any sort of attempt at organization leads to Alphabet Squad raids", an unnecessarily and baselessly dissuasive claim.

[-] ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world 10 points 17 hours ago

Butt stabbing sounds like the perfect way to get the message across.

[-] endeavor@sopuli.xyz 4 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

How are you any different from an extremist right winger at that point? You want violence rather than solutions.

[-] comfy@lemmy.ml 5 points 9 hours ago

You want violence rather than solutions

Violence is a tool which can, and in the past has, created solutions when used appropriately. It's how we dissolve the fascist groups in my area.

The problem with extremist right wingers isn't merely that they're violent, the issues are:

Their demands and rationale (based on their values as a 'right winger')
*Their ill-conceived, anti-social use of violence *(e.g. race war PotD envisioned by neo-Nazi terrorists, a strategy that history has demonstrated simply doesn't work. They're not even achieving their goals, just slaughtering innocent citizens)

Look at prominent cases of whoever you declare to be 'left wing extremists'. They're typically targeting specific atrocious people or groups like neo-Nazis or heads of state or capitalist industrialists, not just terrorizing citizens.

[-] ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world 10 points 16 hours ago

When peaceful protest is ignored or violently stopped, what other choice is there but to react violently?

Protest is the alternative to revolution. When protest goes ignored just so the powerful can retain their power, violence is the only remaining solution.

History tells us this time and time again.

[-] endeavor@sopuli.xyz 5 points 16 hours ago

Wheres your protests? You haven't even tried to see if it gets put down.

[-] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 hours ago

Have you been living under a rock, in a cave, on Mars?

[-] EldritchFeminity 5 points 11 hours ago

BLM, Occupy Wall Street, the protests during Bush's invasions in the Middle East, and a myriad of others would like to know your location.

[-] NewDark@lemmings.world 3 points 11 hours ago

Have you been sleeping this past year or so?

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] NewDark@lemmings.world 5 points 16 hours ago

Less stabby, more education

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 4 points 17 hours ago

If you’re patient enough, it always works out 💪

[-] peteypete420@sh.itjust.works 5 points 15 hours ago

What is the difference? I'm not sure what I am any more.

[-] comfy@lemmy.ml 8 points 8 hours ago

I’m not sure what I am any more.

Political labels are pretty junk, especially after centuries of mass media and propaganda in the mix. I find it helps to learn to convey your values specifically if you want to avoid that whole mess.

The 'left-right spectrum' is subjective and relative which makes it pretty useless without having a ton of context. "Leftist", by itself, is mostly a meaningless term. To socialists, a progressive liberal is usually considered center or even right wing. Some socialists even call other socialists right-wing. It's just pointless.
What the US mass media calls 'liberals' is a progressive liberal in political science. What the US mass media calls a conservative is usually a conservative liberal aka right-liberal, that's why they constantly prize liberty and freedom. The US libertarian is simply a classical liberal. They're all liberals!

Useful video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nPVkpWMH9k - "Why the political compass is wrong", explaining how vague and ultimately ineffective the left-right auth-lib models of politics are.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 16 points 14 hours ago

Liberalism is the ideological aspect of Capitalism, Leftists support some form of Socialism.

[-] glitchdx@lemmy.world 3 points 9 hours ago

If you're looking for a label, I recommend not. Soon after you pick one, the definition for that label will change and no longer fit your ideology. This change might be due to your own understanding improving, or due to societal shifts, or both.

Write out your ideology in long form. People tend to support good ideas when not attached to politically charged labels.

Memes

Rules: