Spineless liberals cant even hold the line much more than one month, in any collation they are the weakest link
ITT: Lots of folks who don’t ever want the GOP to be out of power again, but would rather just burn each other and the entire party to the ground because of (insert your reason here).
Not in this thread: a serious plan by the high and mighty “progressives” to actually accomplish anything
When you make generalized claims like “Democrats are not the left,” you’re literally claiming that AOC, Sanders, and Mamdani are not the left.
Yes, they are not, they are socialdemocrats which are rightwing because they support capitalism.
As democrats are so fond of pointing out every time someone complains about his treatment by the democratic party, Sanders is not a democrat.
Oh, yeah this is defo controlled opposition. When people asked for spine, they got jello.
No, the dems are going at their enemies pretty hard.
Democrats are like half the left tho, so we can either fight prog vs dem, or we can unite to actually take on an external foe
So unite with progressives. Or keep attacking them instead of the republicans your wing of the party just capitulated to.
prog vs dem, or we can unite to actually take on an external foe
This.
Started seeing progs refer to dems as “demoncrats” and now I legitimately can’t tell them apart from MAGA online half the time.
You are the epitome of the suppressed class war you constantly criticize for being in favor of in-group fighting. At least try to remember who your real enemies are.
Leftists support moving onto socialism, democrats support maintaining capitalism and imperialism. This is a fundamentally irreconcilable difference, and is why leftists opposing the democrats isn’t infighting, it’s just fighting. It’s entirely different from MAGA, which also wishes to perpetuate capitalism and imperialism.
And what about what middle America wants? The voters, you know, that we have to get? “Socialism” is a non-starter for people outside of NYC.
Just unite behind us while we sell weapons for genocide and let republicans destroy healthcare!
Sure. I’m a Communist, surely we can meet halfway under a socialist platform. A politician should earn their votes, so it’s their choice really.
Democrats are right wing.
I suppose you are both referring to USA politics: it seems clear that dems contains many different souls but I wouldn’t call AOC or Sanders right-wing, even here in Europe where we actually have real left.
You have two examples of non-quisling democrats, and one isn’t even a democrat.
Bernie Sanders is not a democrat. He is the longest-serving Independent in Congress.
The left starts at anti-capitalism. Anything other than that is right wing
And this take is why Trump won. Congrats.
The right wing starts at fascism. Or so it has evolved to.
Vote against fascism next time.
The right wing starts at capitalism. Fascism is capitalism in crisis, forcing austerity domestically when the fruits of imperialism dry up. Trump won because the democrats failed to meaningfully answer the problems of capitalism, alienating their base, and allowing Trump’s base an easy win, it wasn’t because of leftists sitting out of an election.
And this take is why Trump won. Congrats.
Anything but enthusiastic complicity with genocide and capitulation to republicans is “why trump won” according to the wing that would rather have trump win than tell netanyahu no ever.
Don’t Sanders, Mamdani, and AOC call for socialist reforms in the US?
Socialism is a mode of production, social programs and welfare exist in capitalism and socialism.
Reformism is not anti-capitalism. Reforms are just nicer capitalism. There will still be capitalism and imperialism but people just get a bigger slice of the imperialist pie until the ruling class decides to take the slice away.
Left and right are relative to the actual political spectrum of the subject. There are different approaches to anticapitalism, centrist on the left-wing wants to implement social politics to improve welfare, this doesn’t make it socialists.
Your notion is a very post modernist ideology of absolute relativism, which is an idealist unscientific notion. Socialism starts at anti-capitalism. Anything pro-capitalist is not left wing because everything falls under liberalism which is not a left wing ideology.
That’s not what I wrote but hey, nice sofism here.
They’re not saying that’s what you wrote, the saying that what you wrote was incorrect and they’re right
I can’t think of a way to gwt them to stop fighting us except winning and putting their asses down. They are rhe fucking enemy.
I’d rather they stand back and sit it out, but they cannot risk us getting any win.
True, but is the A for anarchists? Anarchists are not left.
Edit: oh, I’m on .ml. I didn’t know yous had a thing going for anarchism as well, now I know.
Anarchism is left. Anarcho-capitalism is a meme ideology that is mostly an offshoot of liberalism, while actual anarchism has a rich history on the left, as the other major umbrella of leftist thought compared to Marxism.
This is a pretty biased way of putting it. The concept of anarchy predates the interpretation used by modern left-leaning self-identified anarchists by a couple of thousand years. In online circles such anarchists often seek to monopolize the term (like you are doing right now), but they factually weren’t the ones to coin it; when it was originally coined by Plato, nobody had any idea what the fuck capitalism or socialism even are, and in fact Plato used it as a cautionary example.
I am guessing your gut reaction will be to recoil at this grave attack on your ideology. I implore you to stop and consider that most people are not in fact at all familiar with left-wing anarchism as defined by Proudhon etc., but are vaguely familiar with the concept from many other sources. Therefore when you talk about anarchism without a qualifier to mean anarchic socialism, most people will assume you are talking about some Mad Max law of the jungle nonsense and then summarily dismiss anything you say as insane rambling.
and the concept of height predates the metric system. does that mean you cannot measure height in metres?
I’m not an anarchist, I’m a Marxist-Leninist. Not sure where you got the idea that I’m an anarchist from. Secondly, I’m not referring to what the random person thinks anarchy is, but what actual anarchists believe, and among anarchists anarcho-capitalism is fringe, and an offshoot of liberalism. Plato having talked about anarchy at one point doesn’t suddenly mean that the entirety of anarchist history suddenly doesn’t matter.
They most certainly are?
Maybe you are thinking of anarcho-capitalism which is not a serious ideology
Isn’t anarcho capitalism just extremely radical liberalism? In which case people do take it very seriously. I know someone who is flying to some island in the pacific soon to get away from taxes and the government.
Sorta, its the belief that capitalism can (and should) exist without the state, which is what makes me call it an unserious ideology. Seeing as the state arises from class contradiction and capitalism cannot exist without class. There are people who seriously believe this but that doesn’t make it coherent.
Anarchists are left. Anything to the left of capitalism is left. Anarchists want to get rid of capitalism.
Anarchy is more of a fundamental method of ruling/source of power/social policy. It’s neither left or right; and so different types of anarchy exist such as capitalist anarchy.
Anarchist communism is what you’re technically referring to. Economic ideologies seem like the mixup here.
Read a book pls
Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron.
As Wikipedia succinctly (and loosely) put it, anarchy is society without rulers - a society without authority or hierarchy. Authority and hierarchy would definitely be present in anarcho-capitalism. Wealth, power, and influence would likely still concentrate into the hands of the few (i.e. rulers).
It’s essentially just capitalism without an official state and practices like regulation or reigning in corporate power. Corporations would function effectively as states in such a scenario.
Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron
The oxymoron definitely checks out after verification. So essentially anarcho-capitalism is a corporatocracy.
Could you elaborate? My understanding of anarchism is the goal of eliminating government. That won’t eliminate an economic system that originated organically.
My understanding of anarchism is the goal of eliminating government
The finer details will always change depending who you ask, but yes, it’s generally either the elimination of government, or of all ‘unjust hierarchies’ (which includes state government).
As someone else mentioned, ideological anarchists tend to be socialists, and in this context ‘anarchism’ is assumed to be that socialist strain, but not everyone calling themselves an anarchist is also a socialist. It’s a broad school of thought.
That won’t eliminate an economic system that originated organically.
Capitalism isn’t organic. I can’t think of a case where it has developed outside of a revolution (like the anti-monarchist revolutions) and/or imperial suppression. It requires the enclosure of the commons and development of private property security forces like a police, neither of those are an organic phenomenon.
If anything, I would assume anarchism is more organic, since it could be found in many hunter-gatherer gift economies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism#Example_societies
Now, I’m personally not convinced that this makes anarchism appropriate for our industrial/post-industrial societies, but it’s not inorganic.
No its the idea that authority/power is bad and we shouldn’t have it.
Including cops, oligarchs, presidents, kings, popes, and sometimes even bed times.
Bruh
Anarchy is the left at its apex, read a book pls
I don’t really think you can meaningfully consider anarchism to be more left than Marxism, more just leftism taken in the direction of communalism rather than collectivization.
do a flip!
Your “left” has a monopoly on dividing the left.
Granted, but that doesn’t make liberals on the left. The left right divide is primarily defined by the property question and liberals agree with conservatives on this matter making both of them on the right.
