Aside from the conflation of liberals and leftists, this is mostly incorrect about the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. The Clean Air Act was passed under Johnson, but major Amendments that expanded the regulatory power of the federal government were passed under Nixon and Bush (the first one). The Clean Water Act was signed into law under Nixon, who also pushed for the creation of EPA. Republicans are shit on the environment now, but it used to be a way more bipartisan issue, and Lawrence O'Donnell apparently doesn't know that.
Ironically that works just fine as liberalism under the ideological definitions and reflects the modern reality that American conservatives are no longer liberals and have outright embraced fascism.
Blue conservatives love to pretend they are leftists. That way anyone to the left of them seem like "unreasonable radicals".
lol.
It’s fucking hilarious how the commits under this is full of far left MAGA proving why any hope of uniting can never happen.
unfortunately the left has no idea how to unite. We get caught up on too many different issues to actually come together and be pragmatic.
I'm actually really concerned that the left might not even understand what the word pragmatic means.
All of these were fought for with literal blood well before any liberals decided it was in their interest to push legislation. Don't delude yourselves by thinking the libs did these things out of the kindness of their heart.
I don’t disagree, but I think it’s pretty clear Lawrence is using the American colloquial definition of liberal rather than the academic definition.
Even if you use the academic version it makes sense. Liberalism is the default ideology in the USA. The majority of the population at any point will be Liberals.
Nah the instant I saw this post I just fucking knew the comments would be full of these fucking clowns. Just block the divisive trolls as soon as you see them and things will get much better
“Well ACKSHUALLY the party that literally passed these key pieces of progressive legislation deserve 0% of the credit! In fact liberals are worse than the conservatives, who we will never even bother to criticize! The libs are our true enemy!”
Don’t delude yourselves by thinking the libs did these things out of the kindness of their heart.
No, they did it because their lib constituents wanted it in large enough numbers that they had to represent the will of their constituents. Because liberalism builds and conservatism destroys.
So instead of posting useless, divisive bullshit to demonize lib legislators, let's get together and work against the fucking fascists.
I suggest learning about the ratchet effect and how it influences modern politics in america. Liberalism and leftism are two different things. Liberalism, in america especially, is a right wing ideology that seeks to act at the "rational" party. They will not act unless, as you said, their constituents make it clear they will lose their seat without said action.
Democrats fight progressives more than they fight Republicans. The ratchet effect was coined for a reason. I've seen it for over 10 years as a voter.
Not really. Civil rights absolutely, social security, kind of, the activists didn't create the idea but they gave muscle to the labor movement to the point that FDR got elected in the first place and had the momentum so sure, clean air act and clean water act, you must be joking, those were just liberal government things. The things from that end of the spectrum are actually really good examples of why having a functioning government is a good thing even if it means "electoralism," meaning it can't all just be people in the streets fighting. You need both sides of the equation: The vigor and blood to push things forward, and then the paper and system to lock it in. Without either side of that, it doesn't work.
More to the point, stop shitting on people who did good things. If you live in America, you benefit from all of the things on that list. Look for enemies elsewhere. This is the left's favorite thing, to turn its guns exclusively on its own side, and it's super good at it.
But ignorant chodes in their parent's basement keep telling me Democrats have never done anything of value.
Do your homework, folks.
Liberals do love stealing credit for socialist activism after the fact and pretending they supported it all along, this is true.
By their very nature, liberals and leftists are more in favor of social supports and gender/race equality aĉetis the board. The only people I've ever met with thoughts about inequalities between genders and races have been white conservatives longing for the old days where they could say and do whatever they wanted, as long as it wasn't against another white man.
Fuck all that shit man.
And I want to be clear that, though a lot of the right proclaim to be Christians, a lot of what they support is in direct opposition to Christian ideals.
Love your neighbor. Don't covet, or steal. Take care of the poor and needy. Give to charity.
Instead, capitalists hide behind a thin veil of what they claim is Christianity to try to trick people into agreeing with them so that they can get what they want.... Which is your money.... They don't give a fuck about you.
Tbf, democrats were the ones opposing many in that list... but they also weren't 'liberal' back then either.
2nd time liberals illusory truth effected what Radicalists praxied.
Stop spreading misinformation @cm0002@lemmings.world.
Didn’t realize the black panthers did all this lol
Not just them. I’ll probably make a more truthful meme than this post humous false accreditation. But without Black Panther's bloodshed, there wouldn't be civil rights. Liberals scared off their belongings and their families next relented for 1,2,4,5,6&7. 8&9 were indigenous bloodshed, 3 was quite Reganomics. Liberals really really didn't want women to vote. It took Stonewall deaths to get there.
Stonewall was decades after women won the vote so that part is a bit puzzling.
Overall I don’t find your retort to be any more accurate than the meme.
But the bigger issue is that successful political movements usually involve huge numbers of people, often in coalitions that include diverse ideologies and tactics. Attribution of the movement’s success to one group or person is very difficult to prove—and it seems likely to me that every part of the coalition contributes in various ways.
People on Lemmy often love to say that MLK didn’t matter and it was all due to the black panthers or Malcolm X or some other more controversial figure. But I’ve never seen any real historical evidence to support this, and I have no idea how such a thing could even be proved even if it was true.
Anyway this tribal bickering is kind of pointless. I care more about where people stand on the issues and the actions they are taking than how they label themselves. There are effective agents for change who might think of themselves as liberals. Others might label themselves leftists. But I usually find that the most effective actors recognize that they should put such labels aside and cooperate with anyone who shares their goals. Even when, at times, there may be tactical disagreements.
While I want to agree with:
successful political movements usually involve huge numbers of people, often in coalitions that include diverse ideologies and tactics.
However, American liberals are collaborating with the fascists. Not a single ICE facility has been taken down in the past 22 years this gestapo has existed.
MLK didn’t matter
We say the opposite: his tactics didn't push the level the way Black Panther praxis did. Black panthers were going to bourgeois homes, burning them, and killing cops. You are welcome to deny how violence is the language to properly communicating with fascists the freedoms they abhor we desire to have. The last two chat leaks proved they want to enslave us again. If liberals do not want slavery back, they have to start demolishing ICE facilities as a proven “diverse coalition.”
If you want a start, there’s a liberal state waiting to be liberated.
I’m not denying anything. I’m challenging you to support your claim that black panther tactics were more effective with actual reasoning or evidence instead of mere assertions.
One could just as easily claim that their campaign was counterproductive—and people do claim this. But what reason is there to believe one claim over the other? I have no position in this debate because I’ve seen no compelling reason to adopt one. As such, I respect anyone who is genuinely working for liberation by any means that seem plausibly likely to push the needle by any amount.
And there are plenty of liberals involved in opposing ICE right now, if you want to focus on that specific issue. And there are some leftists who argue against combatting ICE for various reasons. So it’s not a simple ideological dichotomy like you and OP imply.
This is because leftism and liberalism are broad ideological categories, not homogeneous orthodoxies. There are enemies and allies that fall into both categories in my experience. And after all, we’re all individuals. While ideology and organizations do matter, they only matter insofar as they influence those individual actions.
PS: The article on MLK was interesting but it didn’t really say anything directly related to this topic of tactical effectiveness and its connection to ideological camp.
And I am challenging to praxis liberation…
There are ICE facilities to topple, let’s go!
But how? That’s the key question. No one has succeeded in this yet.
On second thought, I guess it might not be safe for you to articulate your preferred strategy publicly. But if there’s anything you can say in general terms, I’d be interested.
Personally, I think the challenge of dismantling ICE is not a physical or military challenge but a political one. How do we destroy ICE’s popularity to the extent that people stop protecting it, and toppling it becomes feasible? Because today, it simply is not.
But how? #¹
No one has [tried] in this yet.
How do we destroy ICE’s popularity to the extent that people stop protecting it, and toppling it becomes feasible?
See point ¹
Let me tell you a thing that is not often mentioned, which I think contributed to the rise of the American right we see today. In the us, unlike in Europe where freedom was economically tied to the rise of lower classes in their struggle against landowners and aristocracy, the notion of freedom implied a freedom from the norms of the majority. This is the old "frontier myth". Then the prairie was settled, but that myth was entrenched. Then the internet came and opened up an unlimited and unregulated space for these cults and alternative views, and since the technological dynamics constantly drives everyone away from pain and towards pleasure, that is confirmation of existing beliefs, the "echo chambers" mushroomed. Because of historical baggage, the US was predisposed towards eccentricity, in a way. On top of this comes the fact that Congress has always had a very very low approval rating. It is epitomized by the representatives who read the phone book out loud, or filibuster, from the podium in order to sabotage the passing of legislation. At salaries paid by the taxpayer!! Then there is the annual shutdown ritual over the raising of the debt ceiling, which could have been avoided by switching from absolute numbers to a percentage of GDP. But it is a ritual, like the knocking on the door of the British parliament. So they keep it. But it adds an impression that they do nothing, that everything is jammed and that no representatives from different parties ever talk to each other over coffee, and that "hate" remains even after the cameras are off.
Republicans did create the EPA but then they destroyed it
Nixon, at this point, would be a progressive Democrat. He was an absolutely legendary piece of human garbage, but he did care about the country and attempt to do big good things for it sometimes, in a way that most of the campaign-contribution-fueled crop of ghouls that are "congress" today do not. Reagan and Clinton really redefined the whole scope of what even being in charge of the country was supposed to mean.
I was genuinely surprised when I read that Nixon intend to "declare war on poverty" and end it by wanting to propose a bill for UBI. He was convinced by several positive studies for UBI presented to him, iirc. But it just so happens that an influential economist breaking grounds at the time, who goes by the name of Milton Friedman (the man who (in-)famously coined the phrase "greed is good") convinced Nixon to abandon the idea. Although I don't remember the exact arguments on how Nixon was convinced to abandon the idea of UBI.
Yeah. He actually kind of meant well. He was hampered by the fact that he was a flinty-hearted vindictive psychopath. But he did a bunch of stuff which there is literally no way to explain other than that he wanted to do something good for the [white] [Republican] [pro-war] people of the country [as long as they were nice to him at all times which is what he deserved].
I'd be curious to see a similar list for the Reich. Like a legitimate one though, where they actually try to list what they're proud of. At the moment I can only think of a list containing a bunch of "cut taxes for the ultra wealthy."
"fucked the middle east"
"revoked abortion rights"
"let millions of f****ts die of HIV"
"biggest prison population in the world - can I have a 'hell yeah' for modern slavery?"
Political Memes
Non political memes: !memes@sopuli.xyz