Any relation to Lemmy.ml users?

no, but this sounds a lot like some people i run into on here who spend all their time being mad about tankies

I'm actually not mad about tankies themselves. It's their arrogant & intolerant attitudes that frustrate me. Instead of politely considering where I'm coming from, and explaining why they think I'm wrong, they just condescend and block/ban. I've found it next to impossible to have open-minded & fair exchange of perspectives with them, which makes me wonder how TF they ever expect to change the mind of people like me.

I'll admit at this point I have a fair amount of disdain for them, but mainly because they've earned it after numerous run-ins.

It’s their arrogant & intolerant attitudes that frustrate me.

wild, cause this describes pretty much every lib that i run into on here.

makes me wonder how TF they ever expect to change the mind of people like me

tbh swaying comfortable imperial core people was never really at the forefront of my motivations, so i think you're safe.

Way to illustrate my point. I tried to be fair and honest & you give snark in return. Well, you get what you give, but I'm sure that's the point - you prefer not to have actual conversation with someone of a different mindset. It feels good (momentarily) to tell yourself you're "better than them," but really it's just cowardice. It takes maturity and true self-confidence to open yourself up to someone different than you & meet them halfway to honestly & open mindedly discuss things. Too difficult for a keyboard warrior who feels safer condescending because they might expose themselves to being proven wrong about something.

believe me, i am surrounded with pro US/NATO libs pretty much every day. it's not a unique position.

do you think i'm not being honest or open? i am not interested in people defending capitalism. i have room for plenty of other views.

Are those the douchebags that think Ukraine is the bad guy and side with Russia like the Republicans do? No thanks eww!

Move to Russia then boy

it's uncanny how for both blue and red maga it's the same playbook, just different foreign country they demonize

also thank you i'm fine staying in the us, i like making rackys and owning guns

Now you're only proving their complaint to be valid. Please don't troll - it just makes your side look at bad as you likely think they are. If you haven't anything to actually contribute to the discussion, then let us continue without rude distractions, please.

You're not entirely wrong about corporate Democrats, but do try to keep in mind that - outside of most blue politicians - the bulk of the blue side constituency is made up of a significantly wider array perspectives than the red side - they're just blue because there's no serious alternative.

i use she/her in case you are unable to read display names

do you think i'm not being honest or open?

Honest? Sure - to the extent that most people's limited self-awareness allows.

Open? When you said:

tbh swaying comfortable imperial core people was never really at the forefront of my motivations, so i think you're safe.

That came across as preemptively dismissive, as if you assumed I was pro-capitalist and thus not worth bothering with.

The fact is capitalism is all I've known, but that doesn't mean I'm enamored of it. My life path has been... unusual, in some significant ways that both give me broader view of things than most, while also having limited my education about them. I've had to figure out a lot of things on my own, which inevitably means there are significant gaps in my knowledge. But it also means I've come to some conclusions about things that most people never think about, or are (self-)aware enough to realize.

When I engage I try to speak what I know, and remain open to mulling over the responses if they contain something I don't, or hasn't considered. All I ask is that the same mindset be utilized in return so that an open exchange of information and perspectives may flow from it. This is how people come to understand one another, and that's all I really want to do. If I learn something that helps me improve my understanding and perspectives on things, then all the better.

the bulk of the blue side constituency is made up of a significantly wider array perspectives than the red side

literally just had the same reaction that i could have got from some maga dude, right down to the misgendering in this exact thread. i really hope you can appreciate that this isn't a new experience for me either.

i live in a blue state, my reps at state and federal are essentially republicans with the serial numbers filed off. as long as you don't openly say slurs it all flies under the radar in a blue state. money dominates the conversation and people challenging entrenched democrat incumbents get accused of helping the republicans anyways.

i don't see what benefit there is to participating inside the democratic party in any way. certainly not in voting for it; we don't even have a popular vote.

That's nice

I disagree with that perspective as well, since there can be no question as to the fact Russia was the aggressor. However, I'm honestly not very knowledgeable on the history (and not really interested in learning it much beyond a summary). I do recall there being negative things in the news occasionally regarding Zelensky well before the war started, but I wasn't paying much attention, so don't recall what they were.

Even if I disagree, I'm still open to hearing the logic behind their stance. My impression is that there is no good guy on either side, so since those factors cancel each other out that leaves just judging who the aggressor was, so Putin loses this one in my mind. I'm mildly curious how his supporters see this any other way, tho.

❤️

Had it ever occurred to you that US born citizens feel this way, and that after 200 years, we're tired of the loss-adverse, who lose more each election cycle, preventing us from trying something different than the status quo losing moves?

"A conclusion is the place where you got tired thinking."

The fact is capitalism is all I’ve known

same, you really can't escape its influence.

i'm at the point now where a significant portion of my weeks are spent organizing locally with other people to create spaces where anyone can get hot food, produce and supplies without needing money.

to me it's not so theoretical that these things would be not only desired, but fought and sacrificed for. i have had close relatives with first hand experience fighting both for communism as well as against the nazis and that definitely colors my experience.

you seem like you're being earnest about wanting to understand my perspective at least.

you should edit your comment, or are you just really invested in proving my point?

literally just had the same reaction that i could have got from some maga dude, right down to the misgendering in this exact thread. i really hope you can appreciate that this isn't a new experience for me either.

Try to remember everyone's unique. I can't answer for that person's response to you, but I hope you can see mine are different.

But, yeah - I fully get where you're coming from. I'm the "black sheep" of my family because I'm not on board at all with their right wing crap, and after many years I pretty much instinctively expect the worst out of every Republican because they rarely deviate from the hive mind. Yet, I still wait for them to dig their grave first before being dismissive of them because I always try to treat people how I'd like to be treated and that's with fairness & understanding.

i don't see what benefit there is to participating inside the democratic party in any way. certainly not in voting for it; we don't even have a popular vote.

The progressives taking up more spaces within the party of late show why. You really need to focus on the primaries - work towards keeping the corporate Dems from getting the nomination & we can change things from within. Unfortunately, I'm not really aware of any other credible approach available to us short of an extremely unlikely full-on revolution - but at least there is a path towards change if we work it hard enough.

Lazy condescending bullshit. We are forced to make decisions every day which rely upon conclusions made up to that point. There's nothing preventing those conclusions from being reevaluated again for later decision making. That is the whole point of this discussion, for example.

And I'm suggesting reading more an Bd reevaluation of your own. Also, you're the one getting nasty.

They are trolling. Plz don't feed them.

the problem i see is that 'change from within' makes a lot of assumptions about the nature of the party. the party has structural mechanisms to neutralize internal dissent.

thinking about how 'the squad' finally came around to endorsing kamala after years of getting boxed out on anything that mattered.

it's not about waiting for or expecting that 'the rev' is imminent either.

what is actually imminent are peoples rising needs. what i think is worth engaging in is the act of creating structures that actually meet people’s needs now, outside the market. something that builds real capacity for change rather than depending on whether the right candidates win primaries inside a party structurally hostile to them.

That kind of why I engage in these discussions - to learn what "trying something different" looks like, and decide for myself if it makes sense, or is worth pursuing.

I'm on board with that, but I don't see why the two approaches are mutually exclusive. I don't see the harm in covering the bases.

Reevaluate what, specifically? I'm always thinking and reevaluating things. The goal of participating in conversations like these is to gather more info for said reevaluations.

One might say you initiated the "nastiness" that with that "quote," which seemed to imply I'm thoughtless - something readily disproven by simply reading this entire series of threads.

I hold myself to that quote. You've been offered information in various threads and haven't seemed interested in perusing and suspending disbelief, let alone reevaluation. It's exhausting to always be demanded information that is dismissed before you will even read, ask questions, and reconsider.

WTF are you even talking about? Please point out some examples of this supposed behavior.

i don't think it's as simple as 'covering bases' to be going up against a well-resourced party structure on its own terms and expecting change. to me that is an unrealistic expectation.

i'd rather see challengers running under a different party, i just have zero confidence in the democrats at this point.

i still vote because it's convenient, i even vote in primaries and municipal. i usually just write in bullshit for all the races that are unopposed or where the democrat also sucks ass. we don't have a national popular vote so my vote for president is essentially meaningless.

It's late and I'm not digging through your comment history. Diva has stated she thinks you are sincere, so start with that conversation, ITT.

i don't think it's as simple as 'covering bases' to be going up against a well-resourced party structure on its own terms and expecting change. to me that is an unrealistic expectation.

There are weaknesses in most structures, you just have to find them. The right-wing takeover of the USA has demonstrated this, even if it did take them decades to accomplish it.

i'd rather see challengers running under a different party, i just have zero confidence in the democrats at this point.

There have been other parties for quite some time. They're lucky to have even 1% of the population's awareness, however. America's electoral system virtually guarantee it'll stay this way, which is why I see disrupting the Democratic party from within as the more likely to be viable approach for the time being. We can work towards progressives splitting off into their own party at some point, but they need to get bigger first or they'll lose and take their reputations down with that loss.

i promise that i am not trying to get all debate-y, however this is circular.

progressives need to get bigger inside the democratic party before they can leave, but the democratic party structurally prevents them from getting big enough to matter.

the right wing takeover of the republicans was because we have a politics where money speaks louder than people. that's why i don't expect a left wing takeover of the democrats will work either.

a workers party isn’t going to emerge from inside the democratic party. it’s going to emerge from the kind of organizing and dual power building that creates enough independent capacity to make electoral politics secondary rather than the primary terrain.

progressives need to get bigger inside the democratic party before they can leave, but the democratic party structurally prevents them from getting big enough to matter.

The DNC certainly puts up a hell of a fight, yet more progressives are set to take up positions within the party. There are a good number on ballots across the US, and it's inevitable the number will grow this November. I get the pessimism - really, I do - but I think it's possible to overcome the power of the DNC establishment, especially as a number of them (like Pelosi) age out.

the right wing takeover of the republicans was because we have a politics where money speaks louder than people. that's why i don't expect a left wing takeover of the democrats will work either.

The thing is that only works when enough of their constituency also feel like they're making enough money to be comfortable. With the wealth of the country being concentrated into fewer and fewer people, that also means there are fewer who feel that way. That, IMHO, is a significant part of the reason why progressives have started seeing so many successes of late.

Nonetheless, I'm interested in hearing what alternative approaches you feel would work better. Up until the next quote, you've been very vague about what you mean, so thank you for the next bit:

a workers party isn’t going to emerge from inside the democratic party. it’s going to emerge from the kind of organizing and dual power building that creates enough independent capacity to make electoral politics secondary rather than the primary terrain.

That does indeed seem extremely ambitious, and I'm curious how you see that coming about short of a full-on revolution. I'm assuming "tankies" are well-versed in this, but I am not, and that may be the source of the problem. Unfortunately, being less educated in this area means I likely can't just dive into reading the literature I've occasionally seen recommended. The way my mind works requires an overarching summary for me to build my exploration of the subject upon - without the groundwork, it can quickly become all too abstract for my mind to put the pieces together.

So, got any ELI5-level explainers? Please & TY.

No. I really shouldn't and I don't have to

pelosi + co aging out just means a new crop of corporate democrats take over. the machine does not depend on individuals and there's plenty of young ghouls waiting in the wings.

'progressive' is pretty much branding at this point. someone can call themselves progressive while supporting weapons shipments to a genocide and opposing medicare for all because it's 'not politically feasible'

the label does no analytical work at all.

I'm assuming "tankies" are well-versed in this

they tend to be, i'm an anarchist and i've had many mls work with me in a positive way locally over the years.

I'm curious how you see that coming about short of a full-on revolution.

i did spell it out in that same statement, but maybe it was not clear enough.

when i said 'organizing and dual power building' i'm thinking of things like mutual aid as entrypoint. the idea that building networks where people can take care of eachother outside the market both meets immidiate needs and builds the relationships to make future organizing possible.

the ELI5 version would be summed up as 'build things that work outside the market, make peoples lives better now, demonstrate that another way of organizing is possible. 'voting' may be a tiny sliver of your time in the year, but electoral politics takes an inordinate amount of resources and time. despite all that effort any one election can flip the script on decades of work.

i could recommend reading material if you're interested in de-naturalizing some of the operational assumptions of capitalism.

why don't you just call me a slur already, you clearly want to and this is all so cowardly

Your username is fitting at least

pelosi + co aging out just means a new crop of corporate democrats take over. the machine does not depend on individuals and there's plenty of young ghouls waiting in the wings.'progressive' is pretty much branding at this point. someone can call themselves progressive while supporting weapons shipments to a genocide and opposing medicare for all because it's 'not politically feasible'the label does no analytical work at all.

All true & reasonably fair. I guess I just have been trying to allow some room for having to work within the system as it currently stands, but I do also fear the corruption of the well-intended is real & potentially permanent. I've been hoping the addition of more progressives would help counterbalance that - and am still waiting to see if that plays out, but you may well be right in that there is no return from the dark side.

i'm an anarchist

Oh, cool! I've actually kinda begun looking at that community a bit closer recently as what little I've gleaned from posts I've seen seems to more closely fit my perspectives than other alternatives (you can see I'm just not "getting" the .ml left). Just preliminary starting to pay them more attention at this point, but definitely interested.

when i said 'organizing and dual power building' i'm thinking of things like mutual aid as entrypoint. the idea that building networks where people can take care of eachother outside the market both meets immidiate needs and builds the relationships to make future organizing possible.

Yep, that's what I'd like to see, too. I'm curious how the inevitable bad players are prevented from using/abusing/destroying such idealist constructs, tho. I admit my life has made me perhaps a bit too cynical, but I just don't see those sorts of initiatives surviving long-term against the high proportion of ill-willed people out there.

the ELI5 version

Okay, I asked for that. That's more than little too vague to help. I guess I'm looking for something concrete & just detailed enough to be able to picture it in action. What I was trying to avoid was a high proportion of theory. I'm someone who needs to see it working first, then get to know "how," and finally the "why" of how it works after that.

i could recommend reading material

My patience for reading heady stuff of late seems to be tied to my level of understanding and strength of interest. I like it concrete, to-the-point, with just enough detail to get the idea without being too wordy (which I know seems at odds with the way I write ::shrug::) It's just the way I structured my information intake over the course of my life while trying to teach myself about the world at large). That's the best way to get through to me. If you know of anything like that, please do share!

Finally, it's well past bedtime for me. I'd really like to thank you for this conversation. I can be very thick-headed, and appreciate you sticking with me through it. Unfortunately, I've GOT to get some sleep as I've been up over 36 hrs at this point with only a couple short naps, and I just can't do this stuff anymore like when as i was young.

Thanks again so much! Good night.

i ended up going to sleep as well.

I’m curious how the inevitable bad players are prevented from using/abusing/destroying such idealist constructs,

i gotta point out a nomenclature difference here. you're using 'idealist' colloquially to mean unrealistic/naive, however it has a philosophical meaning too and what i'm doing is manifestly not idealist. mutual aid isn’t a utopian vision, it’s a description of something that already exists and has always existed. working class and marginalized communities have always built these networks because the alternative is not surviving. mutual aid as a concept predates the theory, the theory just names what people were already doing.

mutual aid networks deal with bad actors through community accountability rather than hierarchical enforcement, which is actually more resilient than it sounds because the relationships built through the work create real social fabric.

That’s more than little too vague to help. I guess I’m looking for something concrete & just detailed enough to be able to picture it in action.

are you familiar with the black panther breakfast program or food not bombs? here's a short article on the subject of mutual aid in general if that's more helpful, or a pamphlet if you prefer

you may well be right in that there is no return from the dark side.

for me i just try to be realistic about my limitations. i've seen enough electoral cycles to find them draining with no payoff. even if you 'win' there's going to be a deal cut and you don't have any way to really punish the politicians once they're in office. directing that energy to helping people in my surroundings year-round means i can build something that feeds my neighbors and attracts others to continue the work. it's not charity, you don't answer to a board or people with money, you just get together with your friends and work together, everyone takes from it what they need.

wild, cause this describes pretty much every lib that i run into on here.

I never understood why "libs" are so broadly hated within the leftist spheres. Pro-capitalist stances in some strains of liberalism, sure, but at least in terms of human rights, equality, rule of law and such, it feels like we should have more common ground with them than this animosity implies.

the common ground assumption only holds if you think human rights and equality are achievable within capitalism. from my perspective this is the core disagreement.

liberals believe the system can be reformed to deliver those things, leftists generally think the system structurally prevents it. that’s a fundamental disagreement about what the problem is.

Pro-capitalist stances in some strains of liberalism

pro-capitalist isn’t a strain of liberalism, it’s the foundation. liberalism as a political philosophy emerged to defend private property and individual rights against feudal authority.

you can’t separate the human rights framework from the property rights framework it was built on.

'rule of law' under capitalism is the law of property. it protects the existing distribution of wealth and power. leftists who want to upend that distribution are not going to see that as 'common ground'

Maybe we're working with different understanding of liberals then, but to my mind, ideals like equality before the law and freedom of association certainly put them closer to us than conservatives or fascists. Social liberal policies like worker protections, universal healthcare and social security measures shouldn't be needed, but they are at least attempts to counteract the worst tendencies of unbridled capitalism.

Out of the dominant political movements, liberalism presents the best environment to work towards replacing the system. At least they won't lock us up in labour camps for being black, being gay or being a little too critical of the regime. As allies go, I think we could do far worse, so I'd rather save my vitriol for the shared enemy until we're in a position to fix this shit.

'at least they won't lock us up' is a selective reading of history. liberals have done exactly that if threatened. the liberal state locked people up for being black and being too critical of the regime before trump. it was democrats that were raiding gay bars and opposing gay rights until the movement got big enough that they rebranded and wrapped themselves in the flag.

the 'best environment to work in' assumption only holds if the goal is incremental reform within the system rather than replacing it, which goes back to the core disagreement.

a system that presents the best environment for working toward its own replacement is a contradiction in terms. it presents that environment precisely until you get close enough to actually threaten it.

also all of the things you credit the social liberals for were concessions extracted by organized labor through strike, occupations and political pressure that the liberals were actively resisting until they had no choice.

crediting liberalism for them is like crediting the landlord for not raising rent after a rent strike.

Okay, we're definitely working with different definitions then. I don't see much of a point arguing about the history of the term and associated policies.

Today's liberals are certainly better than conservatives or fascists when it comes to human rights and shit, and that's the people we're working with right now. We can labour over the sins of their ancestors, or we can attempt to influence their policies to our benefit until we're in a position where we no longer need their cooperation.

a system that presents the best environment for working toward its own replacement is a contradiction in terms.

Counterpoint: wouldn't a system that doesn't even permit these conversations be a worse environment? If there are worse environments, doesn't that make the others better by comparison? Isn't the "least bad" equivalent to "the best"?

Alternatively, what would you posit as the best conditions for working towards toppling the system?

the 'least bad is best by comparison' logic is a race to the bottom with no floor. it justifies supporting any system that’s marginally less repressive than the worst possible alternative

the 'influence their policies' approach has a +50 year track record of the left getting played. what policy influence did the left actually extract from liberals in exchange for votes?

my approach is building organizations in my community to feed people abandoned by liberal capitalism. that's what i see as actively undermining the system. i don't care about the election sideshow and all the rationalizations people come up with to get people to vote for their preferred hitler.

it justifies supporting any system that’s marginally less repressive than the worst possible alternative

I suppose that depends on your definition of "supporting". Whether the system persists doesn't depend on my vote, if there is no realistic option to abolish it by voting, nor does not voting seem to have much of an effect. But for some people, that margin makes a world of a difference, sometimes even between life and death. Whether trans people get to piss in peace (and generally exist) or whether the ICE gets to ramp up its operations does depend on votes.

That doesn't mean I support the system, just that I acknowledge its nuances and that I'm not throwing marginalised people under the bus just because it doesn't fix the root cause.

what policy influence did the left actually extract from liberals in exchange for votes?

Dunno, all the labour protections and antitrust measures the fascists are rolling back? They wouldn't need to gut them if they didn't work anyway; they could just keep up pretenses and work on other things.
The civil rights that, by your own description, the liberals only supported to once they realised it was more popular? Again, they're not great, but you'll have to admit that they're loads better than the alternative we're seeing now.

my approach is building organizations in my community to feed people abandoned by liberal capitalism. that's what i see as actively undermining the system.

Agreed. Building structures that show how things could be done better challenges the value of performative social measures. But that doesn't mean you can't also vote; these things aren't exclusive.

i don't care about the election sideshow and all the rationalizations people come up with to get people to vote for their preferred hitler.

The simple fact is that liberals have also enacted a lot of progressive measures over the last two centuries, whether due to their own ideals or due to leftist pressure. It's not enough, but for many people, it's a significant improvement anyway. To call that "their preferred hitler" is an incredibly reductive and arrogant take that reeks of privilege. It's easy to call the election a "sideshow" if your life isn't impacted, but that overlooks the people whose lives are.

Those people are the common ground I'm talking about. Dismissing them and anyone who cares about them as "libs" doesn't make you a better leftist, it just makes you a worse ally.