this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2025
571 points (97.0% liked)

196

16813 readers
2219 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
571
rule (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
submitted 19 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) by hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone
 

Guys, at this rate I don't think the revolution's going to happen anytime soon.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 minutes ago

I think you underestimate my ability to fuck things up. Especially my plans to do nothing.

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 1 points 19 minutes ago

From my casual observation, leftists tend to be a lot more individualistic and tribalistic than people on the right, to the point where they would much rather join the right just to spite another left group.

[–] Zero22xx@lemmy.myserv.one 9 points 1 hour ago

'Centrists' don't help much either because they too hold the left to a higher standard than the right and always seem to be looking for any excuse to whip out the ol' "so much for the tolerant left" so that they can feel better about themselves when they vote for who they really wanted to vote for anyway.

People on the right can say in plain English "I want to dismantle women's rights and put all gay people into camps" and the 'centrist' will be like "hmmm yes that seems like a valid political opinion". But the moment someone on the left drops the high road shit for once and bites back, the 'centrist', clutching pearls is like "See? This is why I'm supporting the bigots that hate everyone, because you SWORE and that's unacceptable!"

[–] nifty@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

To be honest, if the leftist revolution promises Stalins USSR style economics and governance, then Western people are better off without it because most people in Western nations are relatively well off, so moving to that type of economic/political model will make the majority in a western nation poorer.

For example, 66% of US population are homeowners, that is they own both the land and property (if any). In this case, the humanitarian pov is that the minority should be lifted from poverty, and provided equal rights to achieve self-actualization. So housing assistance, education, health care and food assistance.

The democratic and humane way to achieve this is via high tax rates on the uber wealthy. People also deserve protections from discrimination to enable their self-actualization in a psychologically and physically safe manner. My own philosophy is that a person is born without any will to be born, so that person doesn’t necessarily owe anything to anyone else other than reasonable and mutual social contracts. People don’t have the right to be sociopaths or psychopaths, but they don’t have to be self sacrificing or altruistic.

My own pov aside, the U.S. could implement China-style market socialism and state-controlled socialism for itself and its citizens, but then it’s not going to be a haven for immigrants because such policies require cultural homogeneity. Cultural homogeneity requires strict immigration control, as seen in China, https://www.ispionline.it/en/publication/why-isnt-china-considering-immigration-against-demographic-decline-163101.

But I think maintaining immigration to democratic and economically well off nations is important for lifting the world out of poverty and illiteracy. However, all of this necessitates that nations preserve democracy. Capitalism has ruined democracy, which is why we get neoconservatism/neoliberalism, two sides of the same fail coin.

Governance models have forgotten that people formed groups, communities and nations to ensure the betterment and self-actualization of the individual, not to create productivity or workers. Currently the world acts to enable self actualization for companies or nations, which is why we end up with genocides and corporate imperialism as a default state. People deserve better than the Stalin-style leftism or the Clinton-style liberalism. I think we need some type of humanitarian libertarianism, where we can ensure free markets, individual freedoms, but also governance models which ensure social fairness and justice.

[–] SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 5 hours ago

It's how we're conditioned to behave by society from birth. Break the rules and you get punished.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Except in crisis, a society benefits when everyone does nothing renegade.

The problem is we're in crisis, largely due to a lack of information about the scope and breadth of that crisis.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 0 points 2 hours ago

The scope(of ice ream) and the bread of that crisis.

I just hope we can switch to renewables and stop facho putin, everything on top will be the cherry on the cake IMO.

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 19 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Right... Except this is true for all online communities. People talk a lot of shit and complain a lot. Cope with it or log off.

Or blame it on the left, lol, whatever makes you happy.

[–] buttfarts@lemy.lol 7 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I am left and this is so fucking true though. So many pussy-ass towel wringing gutless cowards just want to pick bones out of tofu than actually act to make a meaningful difference because they are frozen with indecision over acadmic moral quandries

Bones out of tofu is a great expression.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 12 points 7 hours ago

It's easy to convince people to do wrong if you convince them there is no right to be done.

That's why Tankies are so hard to tell us both sides bad.

[–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 35 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

A lot of online leftists aren't doing anything because they don't know how to do something (or are scared, e.g. of losing their job or of getting brutalized by the police). If you aren't doing anything in The Real World(TM) there are only so many things left to do, and the internet is genuinely terrible about people who make mistakes or change their opinion.

[–] Denjin@lemmings.world 50 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Ah yes, the old enemy of the left: the left.

[–] Metostopholes@midwest.social 20 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

You leftists sure are a contentious people.

[–] AFallingAnvil@lemmy.ca 17 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

You've just made an enemy for life!

[–] joyjoy@lemm.ee 7 points 8 hours ago

You've just made an enemy for ~~life~~ left!

ftfy

[–] reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net 56 points 17 hours ago

The differences of opinion are still there in irl leftist spaces but it alters how it feels when you’re actively doing something. Online you only see the differences in opinion but the real leftists aren’t just arguing details online (though they do that too) they’re running food banks and organizing housing cooperatives and coming out en masse when someone is being evicted. They’re putting together food packages and sending books to inmates. They’re hiking out into the desert to leave water for migrants and waiting by the train tracks to toss food up to travelers.

Bickering about details online might seem ridiculous to someone who isn’t involved but for the actually active leftists that part is only a sliver of their leftism and it’s not necessarily a bad thing— it’s very hard to imagine the world organized other than it is and one way we can be prepared to make the right decisions together when gaps appear is to discuss everything from every angle. I’m not going to pretend all the stuff online is in good faith and I suspect a good percentage of keyboard warriors who are not actually involved in leftward movement, but I do think in the context of real activism the bickering makes more sense.

[–] DrCake@lemmy.world 99 points 18 hours ago (18 children)

I swear you could introduce UBI and someone somewhere would complain about it not being left enough.

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 13 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I mean it depends on the context of how UBI is going to get paid for. If it is funded by a wealth tax then I am on board. But that's not how the powerful proponents of UBI say it should be funded. Andrew Yang would have us take it out of Social Security to pay for it but you don't hear him say we should uncap Social Security contributions.

Also, I think rent caps or something need to be introduced as well. I worry about landlords just assuming you have an extra 2,000 on you and then taking it.

But implemented with the right protections, I would love UBI.

load more comments (17 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›