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.
Did the Putin Bots finally invade Lemmy?
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.
You also vote far right if you’re willing to sacrifice something yourself to make sure no one ever gets it without having to make heavy sacrifices to do so. Life is pain, princess. Anyone who says differently is selling something! /s
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.
Plenty of people also vote right based on hate and fear. They’ll vote against there own best interests because of hate and fear.
They vote right because cable news told them it’s best for themselves. It’s not.
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 rich white men stealing their crumbs is fine because they aren’t brown
Better than than Jose over there, a hard working fine gentleman, getting his needs met
But rich white men stealing their crumbs is fine because they don’t realize it’s happening
ftfy
The funny bit is that sometimes José too is a conservative, which is how you see plenty of immigrants doing the whole “pull the ladder up once you’re in” and voting rightwing.
Good bars man
(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
It is true for the general disposition. Do you vote in your own interests vs do you vote in the general best interest. Your motivations may be malicious or incompetent, a two party system doesn’t discern.
And then never realise that you voted against what is best for you because you just believe propaganda rather than think logically…
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.
“guns are necessary and pronouns are confusing so I’m pretty sure you’re both heading in the wrong direction”
The Far Right: Purity testing for race and religion.
The Far Left: Purity testing for communist ideals and moral superiority.
Both are shills pushing russian propaganda.
The Neoliberals are the ones literally on Russian paychecks.
Neoliberalism is not a left wing ideology.
I didn‘t say they were? Neoliberals are literally the easiest for Israel and RuZZia to recruit because money is all they care about. But the far left and far right are also suckers for autocratic regimes like RuZzia and China🐻🍯. Traitors inside Europe‘s walls. Neoliberals may be more dangerous because they can form coalitions with conservatives and attack from within the governments.
It’s always convenient and reassuring to know one’s own ideas, alone, are untainted by scary foreigners.
far ming: we’re gonna need a couple cows
The Far Left also commit hard to 2
Can we be better than twitter with these bullshit fallacy arguments.
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.
If I could point toward actual socialist governments not based on exploitation (rather than Scandinavia) I would. But it really is just a hypothetical idea at this point.
I’ve never been optimistic enough to believe the libertarian/anarchic theories work on any scale above small communities. Anytime I discuss egalitarian and anarchic societies I can’t get beyond the point of humans are intrinsically greedy andviolent which that collapses the system.
I’d argue that there is no such thing as authoritarian left, that the political compass makes more sense as a triangle, or perhaps that an authoritarian left would just be some unachievable meritocracy. All those Commie Bastards were just fucking Red Fascists.
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.
I don’t really think the end result of progressivism is much of an anarchy either, although it definitely is a direct democracy with high degrees of liberty so it might be indistinguishable from the loftiest of anarchist theories. For example, I do believe in centralized production of power and food, traffic laws, gun control, etc which conflict with the bare definition of anarchy.
All those Commie Bastards were just fucking Red Fascists
Yeah, fucking red fascists and their completely free healthcare and education, guaranteed housing, guaranteed employment and guarantee of retirement pensions at 60 years old (55 for women). Fucking red fascists supporting anticolonial movements all over Latin America, Africa and Asia, allowing Vietnam to decide a future for itself instead of being forced into submission by American bombing. Fucking red fascists saving Europe from Nazism and saving tens of millions of lives from extermination and genocide. Fucking red fascists with their self-sufficient economic system that doesn’t rely on the exploitation of the global south. Fucking red fascists respecting the cultural diversity of the peoples (look up the evolution of number of speakers of Occitan Language since 1900 to see what’s real cultural erasure happening in real time)
If it isn’t a right for everyone then it isn’t a right for anyone.
Go tell those Uyghurs and Tibetan Monks how good they have it. China is forcing other countries into submission and disputing entire regions of India. China is funding radical theocratic dictatorship in Iran who armed and organized Hamas to reignite the war in Gaza. China is the financial crutch for Russia and North Korea. China is a threat to the continued existence of mankind. China is a 90% racial majority of Han Chinese, they did not have a civil rights movement and as such have no Civil Rights laws guaranteeing fairness and in fact the state itself oppresses minorities and in some cases puts them in labor camps or forces them to undergo sterilization.
The USSR literally Allied with the Nazis to invade Poland in WWII.
Go tell those Uyghurs and Tibetan Monks how good they have it
You are literally free to do so. Take a flight to China tomorrow, and visit Kashgar in the Xinjiang province, or visit the Tibet region. You’ll find that people are living normal plentiful lives and support the Chinese government in their majority. China is, as a matter of fact, the country in the world with highest government satisfaction rates consistently
That info comes from western organizations like the University of California or the Pew Research Institute, BTW, not from any “evil CCP propaganda”.
The fact that you believe Uyghur or Tibetan people are unhappy with their government is because you’ve fallen for propaganda yourself. Western-manufactured organizations like the East Turkestan Liberation Organization (based in Türkiye, NATO nation) or the Tibetan Government in Exile (based off India) create propaganda implying that people in said regions aren’t happy with the government and want independence, but if you look inside China and ask the actual population, you’ll find that’s a very minority position. Certainly nothing in Tibet like the literal police violence against pro-independence protestors causing 800 wounded in Catalonia in my homeland of Spain because their right to self determination is violated abusing the Spanish constitution.
China is funding radical theocratic dictatorship in Iran who armed and organized Hamas to reignite the war in Gaza
Ohhhh, I get it, you’re a Zionist! Should have started from there, I would have wasted a lot less time if I knew I was dealing with a genocidal maniac, gotcha. Bye
lmfao
POV Lemmy user learns that people can do both bad and good things at the same time
Yeah, communism may have provided all the astonishing advances in human rights to hundreds of millions of people, saved hundreds of millions of lives from poverty and serfdom, and introduced doubling and tripling of life expectancy where it arrived despite having to contend against the western capitalist empire. But did you know they had prisons during the WW2 times when 25 million soviets were murdered by Nazis?
POV Lemmy user doesn’t learn anything
Close your ears if you want, I made my point and you’re just shouting “lalala I didnt listen”.
It’s actually a “The end justifies the means” situation - Marxism-Leninism tries to achieve Communism (the Perfect Equality utopia) via the Dictatorship Of The Proletariat stage, a form of Autocracy, and all tries so far in the so-called “Communist” countries got stuck in that stage.
So whilst the end objective is not authoritarian, it’s used to justify means to supposedly get there which are most definitelly authoritarian though they’re are supposed to be used only temporarily
Whilst I’m pretty sure in the very beginning of the Communist Revolutions most people in it were guided by leftwing principles and trully saw the authoritarianism as merelly a distasteful temporary need, nowadays in those countries the genuinelly leftwing grand objective seems to be just an excuse to be used in justifing the continued use of authocratic power by those who hold it, rather than something those in power genuine want and expect to one day reach.
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
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.
Oh wow I’m shocked that this guy, of all people, doesn’t like Finland. CRAZY.
I mentioned nothing about not liking Finland, I just don’t like their governance system because it’s leading to fascism. You can stop your weird adhominem and address my points
Why don’t you just invade them?
Poor quality bait
consider themselves
Is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that statement.
Honestly, if the total number of Tankies claiming to be Progressives exceeds the number of Progressives then which one really owns the word? Similar issue with the word Socialist being poisoned.
I think it’s necissary when talking about “left governments” to have that caveat. I wouldn’t personally consider the Khmer Rouge, USSR, or CCP, left wing but they did.
They are just different shades of authoritarianism.
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”.
Wow that’s quite a few assumptions, not sure how you extrapolated that conclusion from two comments. And for the record, you are quite wrong lol
Let’s not confuse centrists with idgit voters.
I know what you mean though. Some of the worthless dumbfucks who pass themselves off as being far left are just identity politics dipshits who think feminist media criticism is activism.
In that sense, if someone were looking between far left (“Xeno pronouns are valid!”) and far right (“Build that wall!”) then it wouldn’t be ridiculous to say fuck both sides. That’s kind of the dilemma we’re in now.
Just FYI, not everyone sees “having everyone basic needs met” as bullshit.
Its not the premise of having everyones basic need met theyre calling bulshit on, its the politicians’ claim that that is an objective they will actually try to enact.
I feel like you made that up.
Libertarians: ME!!!
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.
It’s called executive disfunction
I do believe these “” have fallen from around the word centrists
