Political discourse
-
Let's be honest, the Nazis and Tankies align on like 98% of policy. They both support Donald Trump, for example. They both enable ethnostates to send minorities to camps. They believe in a nation ruled by one supreme absolute leader.
-
Let's be honest, the Nazis and Tankies align on like 98% of policy. They both support Donald Trump, for example. They both enable ethnostates to send minorities to camps. They believe in a nation ruled by one supreme absolute leader.
And they are both downvoting you haha
-
And they are both downvoting you haha
There is literally only 1 downvote
-
This post did not contain any content.
tankies are such a small niche group, i dont think theres enough of them to have a significant on policy, unlike right wingers have real numbers on thier hands.
-
The enlightened centrism is strong in this one. No, the US don't have a conflict of left vs. right. The conflict is between the right and everyone else. And most of the right are just rubes who think they being part of some kind of movement but in reality are just being fleeced by a bunch of grifters
wrote last edited by [email protected]also the usa has never had a true left to begin with, being the most right wing of the western countries should be telling.its most like right on right-lite violence/rhetoric
-
The left is also fighting itself. Literally the comment chains in this post are prime examples.
People who probably align with the majority of the stances, tearing each other down with bad faith arguments, grandstanding over the remaining things they disagree on.
"Perfect is the enemy of good."
I might not politically align with the average .ml user, but my views are a hell of a lot closer aligned with them than MAGAt views.
The left largely fights by arguing, which can lead to better ideas if people are open to listen. That isn't always the case, but it's a possibility. The right is fighting with homicide.
-
Let's be honest, the Nazis and Tankies align on like 98% of policy. They both support Donald Trump, for example. They both enable ethnostates to send minorities to camps. They believe in a nation ruled by one supreme absolute leader.
They both support Donald Trump, for example.
lmao what?
They both enable ethnostates to send minorities to camps.
lmao what?
They believe in a nation ruled by one supreme absolute leader.
Dictatorship of the proletariat doesn't mean total rule by one dude named proletariat, it means total rule by the people.
-
The left largely fights by arguing, which can lead to better ideas if people are open to listen. That isn't always the case, but it's a possibility. The right is fighting with homicide.
Liberals perceive criticism for enabling the right and opposing the left at every opportunity as left in-fighting.
The left identifies the liberals as part of the right.
-
I'm too uneducated on politics (read: stupid) to even know what left and right means. Where do I land
Well they are slightly vague terms, so please don't feel stupid. A shocking amount of people who think they know, don't know.
Left wing politics are generally about a rejection of hierarchy of people. Consequently, they tend to be interested in an international community because we are all the same and deserve the same. As freedom is something that everyone wants for themselves, the left tend to be in favor of an equally free community, e.g. freedom to love.
Right wing politica are generally about hierarchy of people. But not because the hierarchy is necessarily the point, but it tend to be in favor of maintaining the current state, Which just happens to be hierarchical. And usually everything get viewed from a hierarchical pov. E.g. nationalism is a hierarchical view of country and people, your country and its people above other country and their people.
Obviously you could point at the historical stance of us republicans that they want a small government and argue that a small government creates less of 2 class citizens, the law markers and the citizens. But the left would point out that a small government just enables the powerful people to exploit the weak people and create more 2 class citizens.
On the left: The strong hierarchy in the previous attempts of "communism" is the reason why some people will say that true communism was never tried. Other will argue that you need a little bit of authority to run a communustic state.
So the whole thing is a little more complex than "freedom" and "restrictions" and who supports what "restrictions" when.
-
Trying to pretend that there's a concerted far-left effort to create civil war in 'Murica is patently absurd
Idk man, I spent altogether too much time over in .ml, and now my view on what is "far left" has changed quite drastically. And that group certainly seems hell bent on starting a civil war.
There are absolutely far more MAGAs, but the tankies are, unfortunately, still far left.
Who over at .ml is trying to start a civil war?
-
There is literally only 1 downvote
-
Right: in favor of privately owned means of production.
Left: in favor of publicly owned means of production.might need to back up a little. personal, private, and public ownership are different things in one of the areas i worked in. same distinction? personal property is still legal, just privately held businesses not so much. brain's fuzzy, am i remembering right?
-
Can I be a leftist without being a tankie then?
tankie is, as i understand it, a combination of authoritarianism, leftism, and some weird nostalgia for the soviet union i'm not entirely sure i've just been casually trying to pick stuff up.
-
Try anarchism. Goes down smooth
i've known too many people who went anarchist > ancap > asshole > sovcit. I'm sure it works well for you, but i feel like it's playing with
fireblack tar heroin -
might need to back up a little. personal, private, and public ownership are different things in one of the areas i worked in. same distinction? personal property is still legal, just privately held businesses not so much. brain's fuzzy, am i remembering right?
wrote last edited by [email protected]Firstly, this concept only applies to means of production, as in the stuff that is used to produce stuff which could be sold. So e. g. a sewing machine.
Without getting into the weeds:
a. Personal: You own and operate the sewing machine, you pay for the resources consumed and own the item produced. (Good)
b. Private: You own the sewing machine but someone else operates it. You pay the resources consumed, the laborer a previously agreed upon amount and own the item they produced. (bad)
c. Public: the public owns the sewing machine and pays for the resources consumed. The laborer is paid the value of their work. That is, the value of the item produced minus the value of the resources consumed. (Very good)
How "the public" and "the value" are determined is the source of leftist infighting (anarchists vs marxist-leninist). But since both agree that private ownership needs to be abolished the call is for leftist unity to stand together against the people that currently own the means of production privately (the bourgeoisie) and exploit those that have to sell their laborforce in order to survive (the proletariat).
-
This post did not contain any content.
Imagine looking at the current state of the USA and saying "communists are the problem!"
-
Can I be a leftist without being a tankie then?
Not now that the term has expanded to mean everything to the left of Kamala Harris.
-
They both support Donald Trump, for example.
lmao what?
They both enable ethnostates to send minorities to camps.
lmao what?
They believe in a nation ruled by one supreme absolute leader.
Dictatorship of the proletariat doesn't mean total rule by one dude named proletariat, it means total rule by the people.
These liberals and their "both-siding" will be the death of us all
-
Yes? You do realize tankies are a minority group and that in many nations "leftist" is just a normal political position?
I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say here
The vast majority of communists globally are "tankies". I know that Westerners don't consider non-westerners to be "real" though
-
You've already asserted that everything is politics whether I like it or not, including this conversation, and since I don't get involved in "prove me wrong" political conversations on the internet I'll just exit.
So you're wrong but too arrogant to admit it
