Centralists
Don’t ban abortion but support families with children more If you really want less abortion and more children…
-
Sex education
-
freely dispersed contraceptives
No kid wants to be pregnant.
-
That’s not far left IMO, that’s just left. This is a recurring problem we have in France too, where medias call “far left” parties that are just left. This is a slippery slope, the one on which Overton window slips towards the (far) right…
Far left is: “We’re going to destroy the very concept of private ownership and wealth accumulation”
“… to meet everyone’s basic needs”
“…”
“To meet everyone’s basic needs, right?”/AnakinAndPadmeMeme.jpg
Literally yes. Housing, employment, education, healthcare and pensions are guaranteed in Cuba, and were guaranteed in the USSR, both in theory and in practice. What are you exactly talking about?
Communism is just impossible to implement. It only takes one human’s greed to destroy the system. Center-left is far more plausible where the economy is capitalist with lots of checks and balances to counter extreme capitalists’ greed and the state having control over essential industries and important parts of the economy (energy, water supply, transportation, education, healthcare and stuff) while abolishing religious systems to nil the discrimination on that end.
The entire concept of life itself is very capitalist — You have to exploit all resources available to you so you can survive and thrive. Only some species share resources — that too if they are in abundance for them.
Capitalism literally encourages human greed to accumulate wealth and destroy the societal system. Even if you tax and regulate them that’s still what’s encouraged, as its literally the entire point of the system
And regarding “only some species share resources…” Yes. Us. That’s literally what society is. How do you think humans grew to become the most successful species on earth? If you win I do not lose. It’s not a zero-sum game. Cooperation is literally a win-win. Do you think technology and science would thrive and prosper in a cutthroat society where people kill and steal from each other over any tiny advantage they can get?
You claim communism is impossible to implement yet you have no issue in attempting to implement a democracy that capitalism won’t be able to pervert, despite one never having existed before and it being impossible for one to exist.
It sounds less like genuine rationality and more like rationalising a status quo bias. Even worse when people are claiming capitalism to be the natural order of life, despite existing for less than 0.0000001% of it and humans being egalitarian for far longer than they were capitalist.
Peak homoeconomus experiencing “capitalist realism.” They even colonised your dreams.
Yes, capitalism as a formal economic system is recent but the behaviours it’s built on aren’t. Competition, territorial control, hoarding for security, unequal outcomes all of these exist across nature (including humans). Lions fight for dominance, trees compete for sunlight, squirrels hoard food. Resource competition is older than any ideology.
Communism, on the other hand, assumes sustained large scale human cooperation without hierarchy, which has never existed stably either outside small tribes where scarcity was low and populations small. Scaling that to millions is where it collapses.
I’m not defending status quo. I support regulated capitalism with social welfare (centre-left). Capitalism needs checks, not abolition. Meanwhile Communism needs human behaviour to fundamentally change.
One system builds on instinct and incentives and the other demands we override them entirely.
That’s the difference in feasibility.
I agree with what you say except the last part about the entire concept of life being capitalist. It is not. All life in the natural world is in equilibrium. There is give and take but all work in tandem. Parasites are the capitalists, taking until there is nothing left to give and ultimately killing their host.
Ever wonder why there are fights over territories, mates, food, water? Even trees fight other trees for the groundwater. Even when pet dogs have abundant food supply, they still hoard as much as they can when they are given something to eat and not hungry. It is just unsaid in nature because obv there are no agreements, MoUs, or money involved. When a Tiger has control over a territory, most other Tigers agree to it until some other challenges it.
all work in tandem
It is the ecosystem that works in tandem when you zoom out from an individual living being level.
The way I see it, between left and far left the direction is roughly the same, that’s the means and end point that differ (i.e. revolution or not and how far we go into sharing resources). This is an important difference and they should thus not be mixed.
In a naive attempt to “meet everyone’s basic needs” sure, but in practice it would almost certainly end up enriching and entrenching a new ruling class, or collapsing under external pressure even if there are some early wins.
Many things sound simple from the outset. But tearing down and rebuilding an entire society isn’t something you do without significant (and often lethal) force and with plenty of intended and unintended casualties along the way (and there’s still a very good chance we’d screw it up).
If it’s not “the good guys” wielding overwhelming force, it’ll be “the bad guys” stepping in. Every political system ultimately rests on the realistic threat/application of force; the only question is who controls it and how accountable they are.
I’m not inclined to trust anyone waving guns in my face, nor encourage situations that make that more likely. So, things would have to get a lot worse for me (and I’d venture most people) to want violent overthrow of my current (far from perfect) political and social system. That said … at some point, for many people in many countries, it may be too late. Apathy isn’t appropriate either.
but in practice it would almost certainly end up enriching and entrenching a new ruling class
Damn, seems like real-world data contradicts your preconceived notions. Now, as a responsible adult, you’ll surely retract and reflect on why you’ve been misled to believe that communism perpetuates inequality, right?
Are you trying to say that communism leads to a failed authoritarian state resembling the US in terms of income inequality? Do you have the same stats for wealth inequality too?
Do you have the same stats for wealth inequality too?
I don’t but they’re irrelevant. The only possible way to get money in the USSR was through labor and income, since there was no capitalist accumulation or return rates on investment by design. The highest paid individuals in the USSR were actually highly trained professionals such as university professors, members of research institutions and high profile artists and media personalities.
Are you trying to say that communism leads to a failed authoritarian state resembling the US in terms of income inequality?
No, that’s what the end of communism leads to, to a return to capitalism. That was only possible because communism began in a 400-million pool of people in backwards and unindustrialized Eastern Europe, the cold war was uneven from the start.
I’d love to see a utopia, but I don’t see communism making any sustainable inroads anywhere in the world… that is, unless things get much much worse, to the point that your average man is willing to pick up a pitchfork (or other weapon of choice) and participate in overthrowing ruling class by force… but nowadays the masses are so divided and confused that they’ll probably start killing each other for scraps of food rather than the billionaires for a life of dignity. Even then, it’s just temporary until capitalism and/or authoritarianism takes hold again.
Yeah. Somehow, every morally just ideology that liberals/democrats ever had suddenly became the sole property of the far left when they decided to label everything even slightly right of Stalin as “bLuEMaGa”.
Each and every one of them now sit at the dead center of a their own little circle, where they try very hard to entertain themselves, and one another- by attempting to smugly out enrage everyone with edgy memes.
It’s pretty fucking entertaining if you ask me.
Who are “they”? Your comment has more pronouns than a Tumblr thread
It’s because we lefties say completely justified mean things about so-called ‘centrists’, and criticizing the literal record of centrism is tantamount to insulting a centrist’s identity.
The centrists made up the term so they wouldn’t have to face the fact that they’re conservatives.
That’s right, the centrists are conservatives and the so-called “conservatives” are really regressives at best, plenty of them fascists.
We don’t just call everyone we don’t like fascists. But uh, them folks are fascists.
Many of the greatest political advancements in the history of humanity were achieved by people you’d call “centrists”.
deleted by creator
None of those advances were made with a minority of support in society. Is the argument that the populace has since become more conservative?
I think what’s more likely is that people you’d consider “centrist” backed those changes. You’re dead set on characterizing this “centrist” entity that you have only vaguely defined to create an enemy that doesn’t exist.
deleted by creator
Don’t be dishonest, you did more than that. The enemy you’re creating is the “evil centrist”. Your own example does not support that simplistic view.
Achievements like Civil Rights didn’t come about because just a small part of the “left” pushed for it. It came about because the majority of the left stood for it. So no, you don’t get to take all the credit and YES, you’re splitting the party for no discernable reason.
deleted by creator
Not really, I provided some examples to some other user where they were clearly “centrists”. There were people who leaned more on both sides and the advancement was achieved by someone who was more moderate.
deleted by creator
The “left” wanted very different things in most of these cases. For instance, in post-war Italy, it wanted a revolution and to join the Warsaw pact.
Plz explain to me how the examples I brought up aren’t “centrist” examples but examples of left victories.
deleted by creator
Such as?
The post-WW2 transition to liberal democracy in Germany, Italy (Adenauer and De Gasperi), and in general European integration; ending apartheid in South Africa; 1991 economic reforms in India; Deng Xiaoping’s socialist market economy in China which lifted millions from destitution; Chile’s transition to democracy; the labor-capital compromise in Scandinavia which allows them to have very free markets and very strong welfare systems at the same time.
I could go on.
HA! Sure, buddy, sure, we’ll let you call that centrism. Do you meed help finding your way back to the children’s table?
Point out which of these don’t have elements of “centrism” plz
Point out where they do.
I mean to be fair… groups that consider themselves far left also exterminate groups.
The trick is to not go too far. You wanna end up at Scandinavian liberal socialism, but not overshoot it to let’s create a famine for kicks and kill all people wearing glasses.
I mean to be fair… groups that consider themselves far left also exterminate groups
[Citation needed]
The trick is to not go too far
Yeah, you wouldn’t want society to become TOO egalitarian and fair! 🙄
You wanna end up at Scandinavian liberal socialism
Speaking as an actual Scandinavian leftie: nope. Not good enough.
Social Democratic Liberalism (which is what it actually is. Socialism is a very different thing) is still capitalist and thus exploitative at its core.
It’s better than most, but it’s far from the utopian ideal that people from the American Left tend to think it is.
but not overshoot it to let’s create a famine for kicks and kill all people wearing glasses
You’re thinking along the wrong axis there. There’s a HUGE difference between ultra authoritarian leftism like that of the USSR and Pol Pot’s Cambodia, and libertarian (original meaning, not bastardized American definition) leftism.
deleted by creator
This take is too anarchy-pilled. I don’t love the idea of a vanguard party but it’s hard to honestly argue something of the sort isn’t necessary to push things along until broad cultural norms shift far enough Left to be self-sustaining.
Or better yet, it’s just fine having a plethora of different views on different individual topics and not subscribing to any particular ideology.
Everything is an ideology my guy. Even apathy/indifference
Sure, if you put stock in classifying yourself. Eventually people get overly consumed arguing ideologies and the right way to be that the individual topic of debate is lost, and the conversation turns into a popularity contest. It’s arguably the core issue the US is dealing with at the moment.
So your ideology is just “do-nothing-ism” and “I-just-wanna-grill-ism”. That just means conservatism, i.e. “let things remain as they are”.
You wanna end up at Scandinavian liberal socialism
Finland keeps putting hundreds of thousands into poverty thanks to its “liberal socialism” constantly pushing austerity policy as the rest of Europe. And even when things were better in Finland, that’s because the entirety of the western world is supported on the exploitation of Africa, South America and Asia.
I don’t wanna end up at Scandinavian liberal socialism because it’s currently electing fascists into government, and because it perpetuates the exploitation of the global south.
So anything thats acturally left wing is bad? Because left wing means genuene real socialism, as in not capitalism socialism. As in the type of socialism that doesn’t require oppressing the global south (which shouldn’t even be a question).
LIBERALISM = REACTIONARY
SOCIALISM = REVOLUTIONARY
Your “far-left” is the centric, your “centric” are fascist accepting far-right, and your “far-right” is right extreme fascists…
They’re just people who are too weak and dumb to have real opinions and they just want to be in the in crowd
It must take such bravery to not be in the center, sir. How can I become this brave.
From Disco Elysium:
You vote left because you want the best for the general good of society, you vote right because you want what’s best for yourself, in particular.
Plenty of people also vote right based on hate and fear. They’ll vote against there own best interests because of hate and fear.
You vote right because you want the people you don’t like to suffer.
I don’t believe this. People may have multiple agendas. They may hate foreigners or cultures, but people’s allegiances are always first and foremost to their own, to keep living in the most comfortable way they can with the lowest possible eftort. It’s kind of game theoretical in some sense.
Game theory occupies itself with the adversary roles of generosity (a moral principle) and calculation (a purely rational one), and in some way you could say that in a system which only allows one of two outcomes, a lot of assumptions are subsumed under those two separate outcomes.
What if Candidate A is for lower taxes, higher immigration and Candidate B is for higher taxes and lower immigration?
What if both candidates agree on lower taxes and lower immigration, but one of them also proposes reinstating slavery, and the other one wants none of it but instead mandatory abortions?
In a two party state you don’t get enough fine grained resolution to deal with problems that require any complexity beyond perfectly white and perfectly black.
I guess you missed the “He’s not hurting the people he needs to be hurting” thing the other year.
They’re not nice people. They will vote for the leopard and act surprised when it comes for them.
Maybe I’m overthinking it. Maybe they just dumb.
they are systemically undereducated and inundated with propaganda telling them that their problems stem not from the class war but from the culture war, which has long been a dogwhistle for the race war
The sad thing is, that’s not even true.
Most poor world be better off under left wing ideals, yet they vote right wing anyway because they’re scared that brown people will steal their crumbs.
(But actually that guy in the middle doesn’t just have this plate full of cookies. He owns a huge vessel full of cookies)
There’s a twisted sort of logic to this. Let’s put ourselves in the position of that worker with one cookie for a second.
Two things are true in America:
- the rich don’t pay taxes
- benefits cost money
If the worker feels caught between those two things, he has to ask which he can change more easily. And clearly, denying benefits to the poor is easier than taxing the rich. In today’s climate, there is a “deny benefits to the poor” party that is very well mobilized and has delivered numerous victories. And where is the “tax the rich” option? Nowhere.
If this had a next image it would be the old rich guy stealing that last cookie while the other two fight.
There is a version going in this direction
But rich white men stealing their crumbs is fine because they aren’t brown
Better than Jose over there, a hard working fine gentleman, getting his needs met
Can we be better than twitter with these bullshit fallacy arguments.
They both lie and fail to achieve what they promise. Niether actually wants to do what they promise, they just want to use the promise and some symbolic actions to gain influence, money, and power. So yeah, in a lot of ways, they are the same. Neither is helping the people they are supposed to be serving.
deleted by creator
The Neoliberals are the ones literally on Russian paychecks.
Neoliberalism is not a left wing ideology.
Needs text alternative.
Images of text break much that text alternatives do not. Losses due to image of text lacking alternative such as link:
- usability
- we can’t quote the text without pointless bullshit like retyping it or OCR
- text search is unavailable
- the system can’t
- reflow text to varied screen sizes
- vary presentation (size, contrast)
- vary modality (audio, braille)
- accessibility
- lacks semantic structure (tags for titles, heading levels, sections, paragraphs, lists, emphasis, code, links, accessibility features, etc)
- some users can’t read this due to lack of alt text
- users can’t adapt the text for dyslexia or vision impairments
- systems can’t read the text to them or send it to braille devices
- web connectivity
- we have to do failure-prone bullshit to find the original source
- we can’t explore wider context of the original message
- authenticity: we don’t know the image hasn’t been tampered
- searchability: the “text” isn’t indexable by search engine in a meaningful way
- fault tolerance: no text fallback if
- image breaks
- image host is geoblocked due to insane regulations.
Contrary to age & humble appearance, text is an advanced technology that provides all these capabilities absent from images.
Is this referring to authoritarians on the left & right?
… what.
Edit: Wait, why are you spamming the same broken markdown? Is it seriously just because you think you’re trolling people by pretending to be AI? That’s… really dumb.
Horseshoe theory: far left & right look similar if far means authoritarian. Is OOP referring to that or a different kind of far?
If your client is broken, that’s on you: it renders fine as
<details>&<summary>elements on standard web browsers with the standard theme. Follow the fediverse link in a web browser & weep at your broken client.The heck does that have to do with web connectivity?
… what.
is vague & no one’s a mindreader. Use better software.
and weep
My choice of client not fixing your off-spec markdown has nothing to do with… whatever the heck is going on there. Could you try maybe rewriting your copypasta to be slightly more intelligible?
Losses due to image of text lacking alternative such as link:
Maybe try something a little bit less “All your text is belong to us”? Because this just doesn’t make sense. I genuinely do not understand what you are trying to say.
Nor does it address why you’re spamming posts with it.
Accessibility, and no, your client is broken: it renders fine in the standard web browser indicating your client violates spec. 🤷
You can just go look up the spec, what you’re posting doesn’t adhere to that. That the web pages correct for it isn’t the issue here, that’s just someone correcting for user behavior with the parser, it’s fairly common to do that. I don’t actually care that much about it though, because mainly I’m trying to figure out how to batter and deep fry your word salad into something to do with “accessibility” and the irony is just painful.
Are you trying to say that… this should’ve been OCR’d automatically then linked to? That seems like serious overhead when we have such an awesome community of transcribers ( ❤️ u guys)
- usability
far left: we’re gonna exterminate entire social groups because they’re impure
far right we’re gonna exterminate entire social groups because they’re impure
centrists: i literally cannot tell you two apart
The dumbest lemmy take I’ve read all day (that said, the day has just begun)
The far left wants to exterminate a particular social group - capitalists - which directly oppresses everyone else through violence. Depending on the flavor of leftism, extermination of a group doesn’t have to mean extermination of individuals, rather it means the destruction of their social status and the redistribution of their wealth.
The far right wants to exterminate all minorities. And in that case it does literally mean hanging black people in trees and setting gay couples on fire, physical destruction of marginalized individuals.
If you can’t tell the two apart, you’re literally the centrist from the OP meme
you fixed it
Everyone but me are stupid
Well, far left happen to want exterminate groups as well pretty often. NGL, their ends are far much better than of far rights (if we assume communism is achievable and stuff), but they still don’t justify the means.
