Real leftists understand the principles of harm reduction. Voting for Harris, as voting for Biden would have done, has the outcome of reducing harm compared to trump winning. Sure, there will still be harm, but it'll be less, and that's incredibly important. It's basically the same foundation behind how we need to help drug addiction. Although Harris will likely cause even less harm than Biden.
Chances are that the "leftists" arguing for the purity test of Harris are people who aren't truly at risk in this election. They won't have their basic human rights torn apart if trump wins. They're leftists in name only.
It honestly feels that they are more like Foreign Agents seeking to cause harm to other countries than real "Leftists". I used to consider myself Far Left until I ran into rabid Marxist-Lenonist Leftists (see Lemmy.ML) and how 'left' I was was put into perspective.
Have you ever considered the fact that perhaps you are more left than they are? They will ban you from their communities for Horseshoe Theory should you mention this. But when it comes to authoritarian ideology as ml is. Though they'll swear up and down it's not despite every time it's ever been implemented it's always been authoritarian. Much the same as economic liberalism . But authoritarians are always authoritarian first. Anything resembling left or right is a passing thought at best.
Have you ever considered the fact that perhaps you are more left than they are?
Interesting concept actually. I haven't thought about that before.
Remember a lot of Rednecks volunteered in Catalonia back in the Spanish civil war, and came back fucking hating fascists and so called communists. I heard quite a few old bastards refer to the Soviets as "backstabbing pseudofascists" because the Soviets in Republican Spain were purging anyone who didnt adore the Soviets. Though not a Redneck George Orwell had a lot to say about that shit since he also saw it.
I haven't just considered it, I know for a fact that I'm farther left than an edgelord who thinks being "left" involves assuming the moniker of an actual historical freedom fighter as if to appropriate their struggles from the comfort of an air conditioned computer chair.
A person who is against the lies on .ml is indeed more leftist than most everyone on .ml.
They praise "socialist" countries that are actually state capitalist and producing hundreds of billionaires. It is very clear and overt that their priorities are nominally left authoritarianism over leftist economics.
Yes there does need to be a revolution and solidarity among the proletariat. But authority no matter how good intentioned left to stand. Always seeks to justify their existence even through destructive means.
It was one of the things that the founding fathers of the United States for all their flaws understood fairly well. That was quickly forgotten and ignored once they had passed.
On, the, nose. There's a few I'm pretty sure aren't American. Not a Russian or bot accusation. And another decent contingent from States and areas so safely blue that they're just out of touch. And don't care about the possible damage they do. Choosing to virtue signal over trying to appeal to other people.
I'm accusing. A lot of them are fucking Russians.
Another large contingent is very very obviously just edgy teenagers.
This is an important point - it must be really nice to be in a position where neither you nor any of your loved ones would be at risk with another Trump presidency.
I mean, I mostly agree, but damn the ultra-left marginalized white non-binary anti-Harris idiots who don’t care that Trump would be worse for Gaza than literally any other person on the planet are real.
Oh and also the libertarians (always white, middle class ones) who think anyone who insists on strategically voting is a “brainwashed sheep”.
Children on college campuses who think mommy and daddy's money will shield them from negative consequences.
Not to mention the basic principle of democracy: political parties have a tendency to gravitate towards where the votes are.
The Democratic party isn't a static thing. They will move further left if it gets them more votes. They move right if that gets them more votes. If the Democrats go further right, it's not to spite leftists screaming on the internet. It's because leftists aren't voting and screaming on the internet is meaningless.
Leftists that aren't voting are leftist that don't actually want any leftist policies implemented. They just want to complain about policies not being implemented while doing nothing to make it happen. If they actually believe in the changes they say they want they'd be willing to vote in as many elections as necessary to see it happen. Over the course of decades id necessary. Voting in zero elections shows very dedication for what they claim to be important.
They will move further left if it gets them more votes. They move right if that gets them more votes.
Obama ran to Clinton's left and was insanely popular. What way did the party move after his presidency?
The thing you were arguing about is that they will not move left even if it gets them more votes. You referenced 2016. It looks like they went towards the more votes even in 2016, no?
You now wish to change your argument. "If Dems had ignored the more votes and gone further left, it would have won the election," am I reading that correctly?
I also preferred Sanders. But I don't see how you can logically hold both those positions.
The party saw that Obama was popular when he was to Clinton's left. They moved right anyway. They lost. Yes, Clinton got more votes than Trump. They still moved to the right after it was demonstrated that moving left excited voters.
They move right no matter what and make up excuses after the fact. At least until last week. And just look at how excited Democrats finally are. The dam has burst.
Clinton got more votes than Sanders, that is why they went rightwards instead of leftwards. On the topic of that person saying leftists need to vote to move the needle, you claimed that was wrong. That's delusional? You want them to ignore the majority of their voters and go left because you felt excited about Sanders? I did also but what the hell.
I'm glad Harris is popular with the Dem majority who do reliably vote as well as the unreliable younger demographics. It is looking pretty good. I hope it does get voters excited enough to show up and I hope the leftward ones continue to participate in the future so that the needle swings in the correct direction.
I’m glad Harris is popular with the Dem majority who do reliably vote as well as the unreliable younger demographics.
I'm glad the party decided to fucking listen for once. The enthusiasm is because they listened. The listening was not because of enthusiasm, but rather its absence.
They listened in 2008 and ran Obama instead of Clinton, then they listened in 2016 and ran Clinton instead of Sanders. They have been listening to people who actually show up to vote, which was that person's point.
How do you want them to behave such that they would have ignored the votes for Sanders but not ignored the votes for Obama? Please suggest a policy they can use which is consistent and has integrity, not just, "I was personally excited for candidate A therefore candidate A should have won the primaries."
If you're going to pretend that the party's support for Clinton was the result of a fair primary and wasn't already present before a single vote was cast, there's no point in arguing with you.
They moved to the right before the 2016 primaries.
Thank you for you agreeing I am correct that they follow the votes. You can move the goalposts to campaign financing if you like.
They move to the right and then announce they follow the votes, regardless of where the votes actually are. You're just happy they move to the right.
Yeah, the purity ponies back in 2016 did a lot of damage to this country. Not sure if how many of them learned their lesson. I imagine some of the younger ones did. In any case, as it turns out, no revolution of the proletariat was accelerated by having the convicted felon in for a term. Things that actually happened instead: a rigged supreme court, more tax cuts for the elite and for corporations, and stealing of women's rights.
I'm seeing a bit of a redux this time around with the #bidensoold and "Genocide Joe" stuff. Again, people seeking a perfect candidate when no such thing exists.
Don't confuse leftists with Democrats, we are not the same thing. Democrats are right wing and support the oppressive status quo that keeps the marginalized, marginalized.
We will not support someone with her political record, shes a cop and ACAB
I get your rationale. But like I said in my comment, leftists and communists, as I assume you espouse to be, understand harm reduction. Voting for a third party or not voting only allows fascists to come to power. That is a fact. That's what happened in Germany where the leftists/communists couldn't agree on anything with the Catholic Democrats and that allowed the Nazis to come into power under the auspices of unity and competency. Just like the Republicans are pitching right now. You say that the status quo keeps the marginalize, marginalized. But you know what also keeps the marginalized, marginalized, and leads to much worse outcomes for the marginalized? Republicans winning.
Democrats aren't perfect, hell, they fucking suck about some other core parts of communist goals. But when you refuse to vote or vote for a third party, you destroy the ability for us communists to continue fighting for our ideals instead of being rounded up and killed in camps.
My right to exist is on the line. Democrats will allow me to exist and continue to fight for a better future. Republicans will declare my existence pornographic, say that anyone who distributes or is a part of porn with be put in jail and called a sex offender, then will Institute the death penalty for sex offenders. I will literally be put in prison if Republicans win in November.
I want to keep existing and not be made illegal so I can continue to espouse and fight for my belief in the effectiveness of communists ideals. I know multiple communists who believe the same. And yes, we are communists, not democrats in disguise. We just also understand how politics works and that our lives are on the line.
I can't convince you to vote for her. It just won't happen. But this is why you'll come up against fellow communists who will vote for her. I hope you can understand at least our reasoning for voting for her, even if you don't agree with it.
I don't get their rationale all. They're either dumb as a toddler that can't get their way so they hold their breath, or they're malicious provacatours that want Trump to win for whatever reasons.
They're lemmy.ml so it is the provocateurs one.
A communist that participates in right wing electoral politics is not a communist.
A communist who does not participate in the election of the country's leader is merely performative and cares more about being an "outsider" instead of actually advancing goals.
They're not our country's leaders. They are capitalist leaders, they are leaders for the donor class. The working class has zero representation in government, the occasional crumbs they will throw us is not representation, it's to keep people silent and pacified. And voters will defend those crumbs, tooth and nail for fear of losing their crumbs
So then what are you doing to spread your communist ideals?
Apparently voting to let a literal Nazi into office like a pure dumbass.
Like the place isn't already being run by fascists.
Ah, I see, you lack critical thinking.
A critique of critical thinking skills coming from people that allows their party to appoint their handpicked chosen representatives and then claiming we need to save democracy is easily dismissed as bullshit.
A bit odd that you mention this talking point, given it's largely repeated only by Republicans
And anyone with common sense. The party claims they are the party of preserving democracy while simultaneously subverting it.
Propaganda to get a far-right dictator installed in the US so that it collapses and allows China and/or Russia to expand. Source: they are from lemmy.ml.
Your solution is electing the people directly fighting leftists? The role of Democrats is not to defeat Republicans but to prevent leftists movements and organizations from gaining power or influence. They are gatekeepers to prevent progress
So, you're not actually even promoting communism in any way. Just fighting against Democrats, specifically. Not against the fascists, but very specifically against Democrats.
Curious.
Democrats are the gatekeepers to fascism. Im punching right but democrats keep getting in the way.
Yeah it will be much easier to make progress if we get the further-right guys who want to send the National Guard in to get student protesters. Floating ideas that protesters should be deported. That's the clearest and swiftest path to leftism, a Repub president that urges cops to beat the shit out of protesters.
urges cops to beat the shit out of protesters.
Totally unlike cop actions during Palestinian protests?
So you are saying you are fine with the president urging them to do worse. Psychotic.
Who do you support, and how are they polling?
Who I support is irrelevant and how they're polling is irrelevant. I vote my conscience, not who is most popular, it's that popularity contest that gets people voting against their own interests. Because they're only concerned about being on a winning team, not necessarily what that winning team is going to do to the marginalized and the working class.
The most progressive champion of the marginalized and working class is irrelevant if they don't win the popularity contest. My conscience requires I actually accomplish something with my actions.
Fighting over and defending the bread crumbs they toss us is not progress
Real crumbs are more useful than purely hypothetical loaves.
The rich getting richer while we getting keep getting poorer is not hypothetical
That's totally unrelated to my statement.
Yea what kinda response is this? Did the OP reply to the wrong thread?
They have an agenda. They don't care about the question so long as they can turn it to the subject they want to talk about.
You are trying to claim there can be no progress unless we elect enough Democrats, that's happened before and all we've gotten is crumbs.
And when we don't elect enough Democrats we don't even get crumbs. What's your point?
And it's fear of losing your crumbs why people will never find their proverbial balls and do what's right for people and society
Easier to do what's right when you've got crumbs to nibble on than when you're starving. Accelerationism is a deranged and wildly privileged alternative.
You unwittingly just told us everything we need to know. You don't want to actually solve problems. You want to eliminate the people who created the problems. And getting rid of the people who enabled the problems doesn't fix the problems.
This is why you don't understand harm reduction and aren't actually doing anything to help address the problems. You don't want to solve the problems. You just want to get one over on those who've screwed us over.
It's an understandable sentiment, by all means, but this is why fictional stories tend to be critical of revenge. You become so lost in punishing someone that you value vengeance over actually addressing what that person did.
The nobles burnt the village and hurt some of the villagers for fun. Instead of rebuilding what they destroyed and helping treat the injured, you just want to kill the nobles. It'll feel good to succeed, but the village will still need rebuilding, and the people who needed healing will be dead.
Someone who cares more about overthrowing the industrialists, at the expense of their fellow proletariat, is no communist. They're just one of Stalin's useful thugs, and the only thing they'll succeed in changing is who's causing the problems -- not solving the problem itself.
TLDR: You don't actually care about leftist ideals, you just want revenge.
Real leftists understand the principles of harm reduction. Voting for Harris, as voting for Biden would have done, has the outcome of reducing harm compared to trump winning. Sure, there will still be harm, but it'll be less, and that's incredibly important. It's basically the same foundation behind how we need to help drug addiction. Although Harris will likely cause even less harm than Biden.
Chances are that the "leftists" arguing for the purity test of Harris are people who aren't truly at risk in this election. They won't have their basic human rights torn apart if trump wins. They're leftists in name only.
It honestly feels that they are more like Foreign Agents seeking to cause harm to other countries than real "Leftists". I used to consider myself Far Left until I ran into rabid Marxist-Lenonist Leftists (see Lemmy.ML) and how 'left' I was was put into perspective.
Have you ever considered the fact that perhaps you are more left than they are? They will ban you from their communities for Horseshoe Theory should you mention this. But when it comes to authoritarian ideology as ml is. Though they'll swear up and down it's not despite every time it's ever been implemented it's always been authoritarian. Much the same as economic liberalism . But authoritarians are always authoritarian first. Anything resembling left or right is a passing thought at best.
Interesting concept actually. I haven't thought about that before.
Remember a lot of Rednecks volunteered in Catalonia back in the Spanish civil war, and came back fucking hating fascists and so called communists. I heard quite a few old bastards refer to the Soviets as "backstabbing pseudofascists" because the Soviets in Republican Spain were purging anyone who didnt adore the Soviets. Though not a Redneck George Orwell had a lot to say about that shit since he also saw it.
I haven't just considered it, I know for a fact that I'm farther left than an edgelord who thinks being "left" involves assuming the moniker of an actual historical freedom fighter as if to appropriate their struggles from the comfort of an air conditioned computer chair.
A person who is against the lies on .ml is indeed more leftist than most everyone on .ml.
They praise "socialist" countries that are actually state capitalist and producing hundreds of billionaires. It is very clear and overt that their priorities are nominally left authoritarianism over leftist economics.
Yes there does need to be a revolution and solidarity among the proletariat. But authority no matter how good intentioned left to stand. Always seeks to justify their existence even through destructive means.
It was one of the things that the founding fathers of the United States for all their flaws understood fairly well. That was quickly forgotten and ignored once they had passed.
On, the, nose. There's a few I'm pretty sure aren't American. Not a Russian or bot accusation. And another decent contingent from States and areas so safely blue that they're just out of touch. And don't care about the possible damage they do. Choosing to virtue signal over trying to appeal to other people.
I'm accusing. A lot of them are fucking Russians.
Another large contingent is very very obviously just edgy teenagers.
This is an important point - it must be really nice to be in a position where neither you nor any of your loved ones would be at risk with another Trump presidency.
I mean, I mostly agree, but damn the ultra-left marginalized white non-binary anti-Harris idiots who don’t care that Trump would be worse for Gaza than literally any other person on the planet are real.
Oh and also the libertarians (always white, middle class ones) who think anyone who insists on strategically voting is a “brainwashed sheep”.
Children on college campuses who think mommy and daddy's money will shield them from negative consequences.
Not to mention the basic principle of democracy: political parties have a tendency to gravitate towards where the votes are.
The Democratic party isn't a static thing. They will move further left if it gets them more votes. They move right if that gets them more votes. If the Democrats go further right, it's not to spite leftists screaming on the internet. It's because leftists aren't voting and screaming on the internet is meaningless.
Leftists that aren't voting are leftist that don't actually want any leftist policies implemented. They just want to complain about policies not being implemented while doing nothing to make it happen. If they actually believe in the changes they say they want they'd be willing to vote in as many elections as necessary to see it happen. Over the course of decades id necessary. Voting in zero elections shows very dedication for what they claim to be important.
Obama ran to Clinton's left and was insanely popular. What way did the party move after his presidency?
You mean towards the largest number of votes?
And who won that election?
The thing you were arguing about is that they will not move left even if it gets them more votes. You referenced 2016. It looks like they went towards the more votes even in 2016, no?
You now wish to change your argument. "If Dems had ignored the more votes and gone further left, it would have won the election," am I reading that correctly?
I also preferred Sanders. But I don't see how you can logically hold both those positions.
The party saw that Obama was popular when he was to Clinton's left. They moved right anyway. They lost. Yes, Clinton got more votes than Trump. They still moved to the right after it was demonstrated that moving left excited voters.
They move right no matter what and make up excuses after the fact. At least until last week. And just look at how excited Democrats finally are. The dam has burst.
Clinton got more votes than Sanders, that is why they went rightwards instead of leftwards. On the topic of that person saying leftists need to vote to move the needle, you claimed that was wrong. That's delusional? You want them to ignore the majority of their voters and go left because you felt excited about Sanders? I did also but what the hell.
I'm glad Harris is popular with the Dem majority who do reliably vote as well as the unreliable younger demographics. It is looking pretty good. I hope it does get voters excited enough to show up and I hope the leftward ones continue to participate in the future so that the needle swings in the correct direction.
I'm glad the party decided to fucking listen for once. The enthusiasm is because they listened. The listening was not because of enthusiasm, but rather its absence.
They listened in 2008 and ran Obama instead of Clinton, then they listened in 2016 and ran Clinton instead of Sanders. They have been listening to people who actually show up to vote, which was that person's point.
How do you want them to behave such that they would have ignored the votes for Sanders but not ignored the votes for Obama? Please suggest a policy they can use which is consistent and has integrity, not just, "I was personally excited for candidate A therefore candidate A should have won the primaries."
If you're going to pretend that the party's support for Clinton was the result of a fair primary and wasn't already present before a single vote was cast, there's no point in arguing with you.
They moved to the right before the 2016 primaries.
Thank you for you agreeing I am correct that they follow the votes. You can move the goalposts to campaign financing if you like.
They move to the right and then announce they follow the votes, regardless of where the votes actually are. You're just happy they move to the right.
Yeah, the purity ponies back in 2016 did a lot of damage to this country. Not sure if how many of them learned their lesson. I imagine some of the younger ones did. In any case, as it turns out, no revolution of the proletariat was accelerated by having the convicted felon in for a term. Things that actually happened instead: a rigged supreme court, more tax cuts for the elite and for corporations, and stealing of women's rights.
I'm seeing a bit of a redux this time around with the #bidensoold and "Genocide Joe" stuff. Again, people seeking a perfect candidate when no such thing exists.
Don't confuse leftists with Democrats, we are not the same thing. Democrats are right wing and support the oppressive status quo that keeps the marginalized, marginalized.
We will not support someone with her political record, shes a cop and ACAB
I get your rationale. But like I said in my comment, leftists and communists, as I assume you espouse to be, understand harm reduction. Voting for a third party or not voting only allows fascists to come to power. That is a fact. That's what happened in Germany where the leftists/communists couldn't agree on anything with the Catholic Democrats and that allowed the Nazis to come into power under the auspices of unity and competency. Just like the Republicans are pitching right now. You say that the status quo keeps the marginalize, marginalized. But you know what also keeps the marginalized, marginalized, and leads to much worse outcomes for the marginalized? Republicans winning.
Democrats aren't perfect, hell, they fucking suck about some other core parts of communist goals. But when you refuse to vote or vote for a third party, you destroy the ability for us communists to continue fighting for our ideals instead of being rounded up and killed in camps.
My right to exist is on the line. Democrats will allow me to exist and continue to fight for a better future. Republicans will declare my existence pornographic, say that anyone who distributes or is a part of porn with be put in jail and called a sex offender, then will Institute the death penalty for sex offenders. I will literally be put in prison if Republicans win in November.
I want to keep existing and not be made illegal so I can continue to espouse and fight for my belief in the effectiveness of communists ideals. I know multiple communists who believe the same. And yes, we are communists, not democrats in disguise. We just also understand how politics works and that our lives are on the line.
I can't convince you to vote for her. It just won't happen. But this is why you'll come up against fellow communists who will vote for her. I hope you can understand at least our reasoning for voting for her, even if you don't agree with it.
I don't get their rationale all. They're either dumb as a toddler that can't get their way so they hold their breath, or they're malicious provacatours that want Trump to win for whatever reasons.
They're lemmy.ml so it is the provocateurs one.
A communist that participates in right wing electoral politics is not a communist.
A communist who does not participate in the election of the country's leader is merely performative and cares more about being an "outsider" instead of actually advancing goals.
They're not our country's leaders. They are capitalist leaders, they are leaders for the donor class. The working class has zero representation in government, the occasional crumbs they will throw us is not representation, it's to keep people silent and pacified. And voters will defend those crumbs, tooth and nail for fear of losing their crumbs
So then what are you doing to spread your communist ideals?
Apparently voting to let a literal Nazi into office like a pure dumbass.
Like the place isn't already being run by fascists.
Ah, I see, you lack critical thinking.
A critique of critical thinking skills coming from people that allows their party to appoint their handpicked chosen representatives and then claiming we need to save democracy is easily dismissed as bullshit.
A bit odd that you mention this talking point, given it's largely repeated only by Republicans
And anyone with common sense. The party claims they are the party of preserving democracy while simultaneously subverting it.
Propaganda to get a far-right dictator installed in the US so that it collapses and allows China and/or Russia to expand. Source: they are from lemmy.ml.
Your solution is electing the people directly fighting leftists? The role of Democrats is not to defeat Republicans but to prevent leftists movements and organizations from gaining power or influence. They are gatekeepers to prevent progress
So, you're not actually even promoting communism in any way. Just fighting against Democrats, specifically. Not against the fascists, but very specifically against Democrats.
Curious.
Democrats are the gatekeepers to fascism. Im punching right but democrats keep getting in the way.
Yeah it will be much easier to make progress if we get the further-right guys who want to send the National Guard in to get student protesters. Floating ideas that protesters should be deported. That's the clearest and swiftest path to leftism, a Repub president that urges cops to beat the shit out of protesters.
Totally unlike cop actions during Palestinian protests?
So you are saying you are fine with the president urging them to do worse. Psychotic.
Who do you support, and how are they polling?
Who I support is irrelevant and how they're polling is irrelevant. I vote my conscience, not who is most popular, it's that popularity contest that gets people voting against their own interests. Because they're only concerned about being on a winning team, not necessarily what that winning team is going to do to the marginalized and the working class.
The most progressive champion of the marginalized and working class is irrelevant if they don't win the popularity contest. My conscience requires I actually accomplish something with my actions.
Fighting over and defending the bread crumbs they toss us is not progress
Real crumbs are more useful than purely hypothetical loaves.
The rich getting richer while we getting keep getting poorer is not hypothetical
That's totally unrelated to my statement.
Yea what kinda response is this? Did the OP reply to the wrong thread?
They have an agenda. They don't care about the question so long as they can turn it to the subject they want to talk about.
You are trying to claim there can be no progress unless we elect enough Democrats, that's happened before and all we've gotten is crumbs.
And when we don't elect enough Democrats we don't even get crumbs. What's your point?
And it's fear of losing your crumbs why people will never find their proverbial balls and do what's right for people and society
Easier to do what's right when you've got crumbs to nibble on than when you're starving. Accelerationism is a deranged and wildly privileged alternative.
Do you want to stop that from happening?
Eliminate the ones that enabled the problems.
You unwittingly just told us everything we need to know. You don't want to actually solve problems. You want to eliminate the people who created the problems. And getting rid of the people who enabled the problems doesn't fix the problems.
This is why you don't understand harm reduction and aren't actually doing anything to help address the problems. You don't want to solve the problems. You just want to get one over on those who've screwed us over.
It's an understandable sentiment, by all means, but this is why fictional stories tend to be critical of revenge. You become so lost in punishing someone that you value vengeance over actually addressing what that person did.
The nobles burnt the village and hurt some of the villagers for fun. Instead of rebuilding what they destroyed and helping treat the injured, you just want to kill the nobles. It'll feel good to succeed, but the village will still need rebuilding, and the people who needed healing will be dead.
Someone who cares more about overthrowing the industrialists, at the expense of their fellow proletariat, is no communist. They're just one of Stalin's useful thugs, and the only thing they'll succeed in changing is who's causing the problems -- not solving the problem itself.
TLDR: You don't actually care about leftist ideals, you just want revenge.