I avoid Ubuntu because Canonical has a history of going their own way alone rather than collaborating on universal standards. For instance, when the X devs decided the successor to X11 needed to be a complete redesign from scratch companies like RedHat, Collabora, Intel, Google, Samsung, and more collaborated to build Wayland. However, Canonical announced Mir, and they went their own way alone.
When Gnome3 came out it was very controversial and this spawned alternatives such as Cinnamin, MATE, and Ubuntu's Unity desktop. Unity was the only Linux desktop, before or since, to include sponsored bloatware apps installed by default, and it also sold user search history to advertisers.
Then, there's snap. While Flatpak matured and becoame the defacto standard distro-agnostic package system, Canonical once again went their own way alone by creating snap.
I'm not an expert on Ubuntu or the Linux community, I've just been around long enough to see Canonical stir up controversy over and over by going left when everyone else goes right, failing after a few years, and wasting thousands of worker hours in the process.
One thing is to explore different ways to do things, like many projects do, but ubuntu goes further and FORCES people to use their experiments, as if they’re some sort of testing ground, not as if they’re the most used family of linux distros and the one a lot of people rely on.
Edit: Sorry if my tone was excessive, I think I’m getting grumpy with age.
Flatpaks can also be used to run CLI programs, but it requires using flatpak run <package.name> instead of using the apps standard CLI command. But you can create an alias and should work mostly the same way.
For example, I have neovim on my Debian laptop via flatpak. So in order to run it, you have to do
<span style="color:#323232;">flatpak run io.neovim.nvim
</span>
You can create an alias for that command
<span style="color:#323232;">alias nvim='flatpak run io.neovim.nvim'
</span>
To give credit where it’s due: Mir was pretty neat, actually. It had features that modern Wayland still lacks or has only recently gained. Ubuntu got an X replacement up and running in record time, but the rest of the ecosystem stuck with Wayland, so they cancelled their solution.
And you know what? Snap does solve some issues in interesting ways that Flatpak doesn’t. Unfortunately, the experience using Snap is rather inferior (and that goddamn lowercase snap folder in my home directory isn’t helping), but on a technical level I’m inclined to give this one to Snap.
Developing and maintaining Ubuntu costs money and unlike Red Hat, Canonical isn’t selling many support contracts. Their stupid Amazon scope and the focus on Snap are part of that, they just want to give businesses a reason to pay Canonical.
They’re trying very hard, but it just doesn’t seem to take off. Their latest move, pushing Ubuntu Pro to everyone, seems like a rather desperate move. I think Ubuntu is collapsing and I think Canonical doesn’t know how to stop it. I don’t know about you, but I’ve never paid for an Ubuntu license and I don’t know anyone who does, either.
I THINK THIS HAS TO DO WITH APP PERMISSIONS. IF YOUR APP NEEDS A PLACE TO READ/WRITE FILES, IT MAKES SENSE TO KEEP IT OUT OF YOUR DOWNLOADS FOLDER THAT COULD CONTAIN SENSITIVE INFORMATION LIKE BANK STATEMENTS OR OTHER THINGS. YOU DON’T WANT SOME RANDOM APP LOOKING AT EVERYTHING THAT ENDS UP IN YOUR DOWNLOADS FOLDER!!!
GET RILED ABOUT GIVING THESE GREEDY DATA SNOOPING APPS THE LEAST PERMISSION POSSIBLE!!
Well sounds like they didn’t go far enough then, they should cut all internet access so that users don’t accidentally download malicious apps!
A user that wants full control of their own device should have that option available. There is no good reason Android makes it difficult to access its data folder for example for users that do want to mess around with that stuff.
I think there should be space for an i-know-what-im-doing. But I think we can all agree that limiting the damage that can be done to normal people who just want a device to do normal stuff on is a good thing.
This level of hyperbole isn’t a useful discussion, and I would hope, would be left at reddit rather than infesting lemmy too.
Well for me it is not really that much of a hyperbole, I consider being able to access the files on your own device pretty much a necessity. Yes it is absolutely no problem that protections like this are enabled out of the box, but it should all be optional, even if that process is kind of difficult (disabling by connecting to a computer and doing some sort of configuration for example).
Maybe I’m just upset because an update recently broke Android/data access and forced me to look for a new workaround for 30 minutes (to access my own files on the device I supposedly own!)
You need to tap 7 times on a random UI element, deep down in a settings menu. There is no way any instructions could direct a non-techy to do that, even if the non-techy wanted to.
I understand the security implications, but I think I should at least have a say about what happens on my own phone
The app in question is popular and open source. My SD card’s downloads folder is also unused and empty, as you can see. There is absolutely zero risk here
I didn’t say they weren’t. I just reject the notion that proper definitions aren’t gatekeeping. I’m not joining the above argument. I understand the definition is based on usage and the usage has changed. Most humans are morons and don’t know how to use words properly so they let language change over time.
But who decides what the proper definition is? Your proper definition is for me a narrow if it doesn’t take into account the common usage. The definition of meme is widening. Cope with it.
I’m perfectly happy to give orthographic dominion to Webster. They can be our Academie Francaise. They can control the definition drift. And the pedants can use their educational privilege to suppress the poors. As it should be.
Okay, putting a flower crown on serial killers harms absolutely nobody. When was the last time someone was actually injured by a serial killer, the 50s? Sorry if you think this is a trend, but putting a circlet of flowers on top of a real human being that drove a 5 inch steel knife into an innocent persons beating heart can be qualified as self expression. Learn it. PS. I play reaper in overwatch and talk like solid snake when Im on the phone. I could hack the stock market if I needed to. Bye
So there were who would win memes. And then someone made an intentionally dumb one titled "who woulge" with that picture.
Now OP in the image linked is saying that everytime they feeds their cat now, they can't help but think of this meme. So it is actually comprehensible unbelievably.
This is kind of sad, it’s hard for people to make friends in the workplace, but for some of them that’s the only place they can even try to do it. So be friendly with others…
the whole idea of the meme and the initial joke in the series is exactly that there’s no nice way of setting this boundary, so Jerry just becomes blunt about it and accepting that it makes him look like an ass. that is the joke
I am friendly but there’s no spots open in my spare time, so I end up coming off like a hypocrite. work - super friendly, off work - sorry, but nope.
and it’s jarring but 3 main friends is already hard to do especially since my family is super super fragmented, I’m an introvert and like slow living too. Just 2 visits a week spread equally to mom, dad (separated), 3 friends, granny, aunt. maths says we’ll only meet once a month already. no mate, I think you’re great but diluting my visits any further will make me super absent, and visiting more often makes me tired and absent in an even worse way.
It’s not your fault, I’ve had the good fortune of meeting good friends in life and made the effort to keep them around and the friendships have aged well. that and I was cursed with a dramatic family where nobody gets along. so yea, I know it sounds terribly douchy but it’s neither of us, there’s just no more vacancies.
I’m not gonna tell you all this when we get along at work, because it comes off as aggressive or belittling but what am I supposed to do/say?
I wonder if there’s an overlap between those that relate to this meme and all those complaining how hard it is to make friends as an adult.
I usually make friends at work or am friendly with my coworkers. I understand not wanting to be friendly with annoying or bossy people. However, it doesn’t hurt to have a beer every now and again. I keep HR at arm’s length though …
Not quite the same, but if you want to replace ghee with something vegan, try avocado or coconut oil. There is veghan ghee but it’s bad for you the same way old timey margerine is bad.
Generational wealth gap is an undisputed economic reality, especially when comparing any generation to boomers. Boomers have acquired more wealth by ever age benchmark than any generation to ever exist.
And pensions were very common decades ago. Now they’re mostly gone:
Assuming every member of the 1% in the US is a baby boomer, the value of the real estate they own accounts for about 1/3rd of the total real estate wealth owned by boomers.
I fully expect a lot of the younger generations to say “fuck it” and just live in poverty instead.
I’m already seeing this attitude in my adult son and his friends and it’s getting increasing hard to motivate him when he sees no light at the end of the tunnel to work for.
You joke, but the gay/trans conversion “therapy” industry, which people like these no doubt support, is rife with cases of sexual abuse against children and teens. The stories from victims are honestly nauseating.
You know those horror stories about kids being tricked or kidnapped and put in some twisted social experiment? That actually happened. Normally I’d say fuck the rich but in this case it would be in more than just bad taste; in the southern states there was a “school” where rich families were “sending” their kids to. Why? Some were spoiled brats that were making their family name look bad to their rich parents’ rich friends, others were “too soft” and the bastard and bitch who raised them wanted to “toughen them up”.
The place was straight out of something like those edgy novels that teenagers read but, well, real. There was emotional and social manipulation up to and including gas lighting, they drugged the kids to keep them from escaping, and yes, there was rape. If the place had been discovered recently rather than being shut down years ago, I would be demanding some level of legal autonomy for children because it’s gotten to the point where kids can’t trust anyone to protect them from forced confinement and cruelty.
I would know, I was illegally taken from my family at age 10 by government officials and it took my parents two years of fighting in court to get me back. There’s a difference between grounding a kid or preventing them from going to a cherished event because they screwed up, and being cruel because you can get away with it or being homophobic towards someone who depends on you for survival.
I just had a 9 hour flight where both bathrooms were plugged and aisles were completely covered in puke because this kid got so sick, and refused to throw up into a bag. Every time he got sick he ran from his mom and threw up somewhere else on the plane
Left flight with puke on my backpack and shoes. Whole back of the plane was vomiting throughout the flight due to the smell. Nobody could use the bathrooms for the last 3 hours of the flight
Dude. How did the fucking marshals not step in? Allowing anyone, child or not, to repeatedly spread bio hazard on other passengers is not ok. One time? Fine, kids are gross and things happen. Repeatedly? That kid is a terrorist.
Canada to Germany flight. Not much can be done while you are flying over Greenland.
The kid was mentally ill. I blame the mother. She tried to wash a blanket or something in the sink, clogging the entire plane. People were pissing into bottles
Surprised this didn’t make the news really. It barely sounds like a true story
I’m taller than average so it already sucks but last year I had three flights IN A ROW where I got placed behind somebody who was obsessed with leaning back in their seat. Like they’d lean back as much as the seat would let them which was already painful but then they’d try and push it more and more and jump back into the seat which was only hurting my knees more. One was 6 hours and I literally could not sleep 1 second because of the pain. three DIFFERENT people did this! Noise cancelling headphones did not help.
They’re good at cancelling out deep grumbling noises but purposely let through high tones so users can hear fire / safety alarms ringing. Unfortunately baby’s screaming is more similar to the latter and cuts right through to your ears
I kind of assume people are listening to music or something with the headphones on. That does a good enough job to drown out all sounds for me. If you just put on noise-canceling headphones, turn them on, then don’t play anything… yeah… not going to be super effective at filtering out crying babies.
What’s the difference between a fascist and an “anarchist” who does everything they can to kneecap the only viable left leaning political party in the US?
There’s no practical difference, just window dressing. They both cheer on oppression and pain for those suffering under Republicans.
And don’t even get me started on communists. Left and right authoritarians, I’ve gotten death threats from both of them. Whether it’s some leftist telling me I would “get the wall” when the Revolution comes or some fucking Republican telling me that the US was only for Christians and that they’ll go after “traitors” soon, you get to the same fucking place at the end of the day. The only real difference is that there’s far more Republicans, and they’re far more organized than left authoritarians.
What’s the difference between a fascist and an “anarchist” who does everything they can to kneecap the only viable left leaning political party in the US?
what's the difference between a cuckold and someone who votes for racist, homophobic, classicist establishment politicians no matter what; there is no difference.
Whatever lies you have to tell to make sure America gets worse, I guess. No honest, thinking human being could think there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. That’s how we all know people like you are either useful idiots or just cosplaying Republicans.
Left is literally the opposite of authoritarian. You seem to be conflating a whole lot of ideas and terminology here. You sound like an ideological leftist who has been confused by the right's deliberate language-muddying.
Left is egalitarian. That takes many different forms: socialism, communism, direct democracy, anarchism, etc.
Right is authoritarian. That also takes many different forms: monarchy, feudalism, oligarchy, corporatism, etc.
Authoritarianism (or vertical/hierarchical power structure) is THE defining characteristic of the right. "Auth-left" is Doublethink; an oxymoron meant to distract from the fact that wealth and power are one and the same.
Authoritarianism (or vertical/hierarchical power structure) is THE defining characteristic of the right. “Auth-left” is Doublethink; an oxymoron meant to distract from the fact that wealth and power are one and the same.
This is so incredibly naive. Stalin? Mao? Evil authoritarianism comes in all flavors left and right. If you truly believe leftists aren’t capable of evil you need to study more history.
Not a Marxist, but I won't tolerate deliberately lying about terminology or muddying language. That's a bad faith authoritarian/rightist tactic and I won't let it slide.
State-imposed collectivism is left-leaning authoritarianism. It is the authoritarian and non-voluntary implementation of leftist economic policy. It is an extremely simple concept that I cant fathom how you aren’t able to grasp.
Um, “the state” is whatever the government is. Are you actually suggesting that True Anarchy is the only leftist organizational structure that can fit the definition of “Leftist”? Because that’s what you are alluding to.
Also, you absolutely did not provide the “definitions of left and right”. These definitions aren’t even universally agreed upon. I am assuming you mean “Liberalism and Conservatism” when you say “left and right”, and it is just untrue that Liberalism is incompatible with authoritarianism, and it is equally untrue that conservatism must be accompanied by authoritarianism. For example, Libertarianism is a patently right-leaning ideology that completely rejects authoritarianism. At the same time, communism is state-imposed redistribution of economic means; that is 100% undeniably a left-leaning ideology that accepts and implements authoritarianism.
I am assuming you mean “Liberalism and Conservatism” when you say “left and right”
I do not, because those are not the same thing in the same way buttered toast is not a pizza. Liberalism is "centrist". It appears egalitarian at first glance, but if focuses heavily (if not entirely) on means rather than ends, allowing for (and even encouraging) consolidation of wealth & power; that is: rightward drift. "Conservatism" is a relative term, not an absolute.
Libertarianism is a patently right-leaning ideology that completely rejects authoritarianism.
Libertarianism's origins are leftist/anarchist, but the term itself has recently been co-opted by rightists and liberals the same way authoritarians always always co-opt leftist terms.
communism is state-imposed redistribution of economic means; that is 100% undeniably a left-leaning ideology that accepts and implements authoritarianism.
That is not the definition of communism. Regardless of what you think about Marxist concepts themselves (or their feasibility) Marxism/Communism requires the "withering away of the state." So long as there is entrenched leadership, that society is not leftist in the same way the Nazis were not socialist, and Republicans are not "pro-life". And yes, that means the USSR was right wing, not left. At no point did the USSR meet the criteria or definition of communism. The definitions lead to the label, not the other way around.
Regardless of what you think about Marxist concepts themselves (or their feasibility) Marxism/Communism requires the "withering away of the state." So long as there is entrenched leadership, that society is not leftist in the same way the Nazis were not socialist, and Republicans are not "pro-life". And yes, that means the USSR was right wing, not left. At no point did the USSR meet the criteria or definition of communism. The definitions lead to the label, not the other way around.
I have disagreed with almost everything you have said, and am likely a member of the group you are railing against in this discussion. However, IMO you are spot on here.
Thank you for that. Keep this in mind though: I'm just saying the same thing over and over in different ways each time.
"Auth-left" is just another kind of "both-siding". It's rightists claiming that other rightists are actually leftists so that the masses will be too afraid to consider actual leftist proposals seriously.
Leftist/egalitarian systems tend to be inherently unstable because of the existence of human greed. Greed will always lead to certain people trying, and succeeding, to hoard wealth and power for themselves. I refer to this as "rightward pressure". The trick is pushing the dial as far left as possible while ensuring it remains stable and preventing rightward drift.
Lenin and other revolutionaries recognized this catch a long time ago, and so tried to justify "temporary tyranny" as a means to establish a leftist ends. Lenin didn't have a lot of success with that in life; then upon Lenin's death, Stalin seized power and never let it go... meaning that for all the suffering and bloodshed, Lenin and his Bolsheviks merely traded one right wing dictator/Tzar for another. Same story in China... And North Korea... And Cuba...
On the flip-side you have liberalism; which are leftist means that deliberately ignores "rightward pressure", eventually resulting in rightist ends... as wealth and power accumulate and snowball for a few at the expense of the many (e.g. "late stage capitalism").
So the question is: given that people are selfish and greedy, and any rightward movement cannot be safely considered temporary; how do we reach leftist ends while using only leftist means?
My personal stance? Democracy. We use Democracy to bolster Democracy a bit at a time... and the first thing we need to do to make that possible in implement a very aggressive progressive taxation system that caps how much wealth (and therefore power) any one individual or entity can control. Until we can fix that one thing, the politicians will continue to control the public instead of the other way around. That is the essence of leftism.
I consider myself a leftist, not a liberal, but looking at the totality of your comments, I'm doubtful you consider me one.
However, I'm also in the camp of "I have one party I can vote for who leans more to the right than I wish they did, and another who is literally courting fascism in the short term. So why are you busting my balls?" 😁
Authoritarianism is literally a defining feature of communism. Redefining terms to escape the reality of what ideologies look like when implemented is just dishonest.
Communism literally - by Marx and Engel's own definition - requires the "withering away of the state". As the creators and originators of the very concept of "communism", can you name one society that has met their criteria or achieved the goals laid out in their definition?
Yes, I understand that Marx and Engels did not have realistic political ideals and that every attempt to implement their ideology has diverged from their utopian vision into authoritarianism when reality hits that ideology. That’s the point.
I see you moved the goal post to a different field.
If you want to criticize the specifics of Marx/Engels proposals, that is very different than - whether by ignorance or malice - outright lying about them.
Since communism has proven to be impossible to implement and every attempt has resulted in brutal authoritarian regimes, we can either say communism is an incoherent mess of a utopian ideology which can’t exist, or an ideology that de facto endorses brutal authoritarianism. Dealer’s choice
Once you’ve read some Marx, Engels, and maybe even Lenin - you can come back here and criticize the actual ideas and arguments behind Communism rather than the completely imaginary ones you’ve blindly accepted from others.
Until then, we really have nothing more to talk about.
I’m less concerned with 100+ year old theory and more concerned with reality
I mean for fascism I’m going to look at Nazi Germany, not look at ideological texts surrounding the ideals of fascists
Reality always beats theory. You refusing to admit that communism is communism does indeed make it so that we don’t really have anything to talk about.
Yes, I understand that Marx and Engels did not have realistic political ideals
Have you read any of Marx? I’m not an ML but if you even glance at Capital you can tell that Marx’s whole schtick was using science to come up with realistic political ideals.
This is why libs get clowned on so hard. You claim to support “the only viable left leaning political party”, and yet you’re kneecapping large swaths of people on the ground engaging in direct action advancing left leaning values. Remember, segregation wasn’t ended because black people voted, blood was spilt in the streets. Same with the LGBT community, see the stonewall uprising, aka, the first pride parade.
I don’t care how you vote, but if you can’t see the difference between an anarchist engaging in direct action against an oppressive state and fascists doing hate crimes; well, I’d say it’s time to get off your high horse and do a little introspection.
yet you’re kneecapping large swaths of people on the ground engaging in direct action advancing left leaning values
Direct action is meaningless if you’re hostile to building a coalition broad enough to actually gain any significant political power. It doesn’t matter how many lit memes anarchists and communists share on social media and how much they horn on about “direct action,” this is a democracy and without votes going to candidates who can win, it is ultimately meaningless.
You want me to do some introspection? I did. I remember being young and convinced socialism was the way forward. Then I grew the fuck up and did some introspection.
Direct action is meaningless if you’re hostile to building a coalition broad enough to actually gain any significant political power.
Spoken like someone who’s never done organizing, participated in protests or any other direct action. You’re a keyboard warrior who’s probably never even interacted with a socialist IRL.
this is a democracy and without votes going to candidates who can win, it is ultimately meaningless.
Not a democracy and also I already gave 2 examples showing the contrary.
I remember being young and convinced socialism was the way forward. Then I grew the fuck up and did some introspection.
No need to be a condescending dick. I’m also guessing I’m older than you, not that it’s relevant.
I’ve participated in dozens of protests. Protests with political organization can lead to change. Protests without political organization are just yelling at a wall.
No need to be a condescending dick.
If you don’t want someone to take offense at what you write, don’t smugly tell them to learn introspection. Act like an arrogant dick, get treated like an arrogant dick.
Protests with political organization can lead to change. Protests without political organization are just yelling at a wall.
Right… I’m not sure why you think I’m not in favor of organized resistance.
If you don’t want someone to take offense at what you write, don’t smugly tell them to learn introspection. Act like an arrogant dick, get treated like an arrogant dick.
You were doing a “both sides” between anarchists and fascists, eerily similar to Trump, while claiming to be “left leaning”. I think my response was warranted, if not understated. But frankly, that’s plain ignorant.
Like I said, attempting to degrade the only left leaning political coalition means someone is hostile to any sort of positive left leaning activism. If that doesn’t describe a given anarchist, then what I said doesn’t apply to them. If it does, then they might as well be a Trumpster.
Who or what is this sole “left leaning political coalition”? If you’re referring to Democrats they are neither left leaning nor a coalition. They are a center-right political party. Coalition implies multiple parties. And the Democratic party isn’t exactly known for activism, unless you’re counting fundraising events.
And the Democratic party isn’t exactly known for activism
They’re the only hope for getting anything actually done, like the climate change actions taken by Biden. I don’t always agree with the Democratic Party, but nobody other than them or Republicans are organized better than a herd of cats or numerous enough to win office, so…
They’re the only hope for getting anything actually done, like the climate change actions taken by Biden.
Then we’re fucked. Because idk if you’ve noticed, but the planet is still dying. We are well on our way to passing the point of no return.
but nobody other than them or Republicans are organized better than a herd of cats or numerous enough to win office, so…
This actually has nothing to do with popularity or ability to organize. Its a problem with how our constitution is written, primarily the fact that we use first passed the post, see Duverger’s law.
Then we’re fucked. Because idk if you’ve noticed, but the planet is still dying. We are well on our way to passing the point of no return.
You’re right. What’s been done so far won’t fully solve the problem. Better undermine support for people trying to get what can be done, done, and then doom all over the Internet.
This actually has nothing to do with popularity or ability to organize
Nah, even in areas with ranked choice voting, third parties are jokes. Don’t get me wrong, I’m in favor of reforms designed to allow them a more reasonable and equal access to the political levers of power, but the two most significant third parties are the Greens and Libertarians. Neither one is a political force, and not just because of first past the post voting. Niche, ideologically focused parties will always underperform wide coalitions within democracies.
You’re right. What’s been done so far won’t fully solve the problem. Better undermine support for people trying to get what can be done, done, and then doom all over the Internet.
The libs are the ones undermining the progress. It ought to be self evident by now that radical measures need to be taken, and that the markets will not solve the climate crisis, the kind of regulation we need would kill entire sectors of the economy. Even when it comes to moderate improvements, Democrats are obstructed by both the minority opposition and members of their own party (as libs are always quick to remind me).
The Democrats will never be able to do what needs to get done. So you undermine the chance for meaningful change when you tell people, “don’t worry, Biden is on it, just vote and everything will be fine”.
Nah, even in areas with ranked choice voting, third parties are jokes. Don’t get me wrong, I’m in favor of reforms designed to allow them a more reasonable and equal access to the political levers of power, but the two most significant third parties are the Greens and Libertarians. Neither one is a political force, and not just because of first past the post voting. Niche, ideologically focused parties will always underperform wide coalitions within democracies.
Which areas? Areas in the US? Yeah, hundreds of years of entrenched power at the local, State, and federal level will do that. Would take time and likely ranked choice at the federal level to change.
“we just need to kill the economy to save the planet” doesn’t seem like a productive way to sell reengineering our economy to lead us towards carbon neutrality, doomer
“Look, I’d love to have a habitable planet, but have you considered the stock market?”
If you don’t think a global problem that’s intertwined with every aspect of the economy might require a similarly far-reaching solution, you aren’t taking this seriously.
Jesus Christ even the things you think are the goal are woefully weak and limited. You think “carbon neutrality” will solve climate change? We need massive carbon negativity.
Because who else would greenlight controversial pipeline projects that will accelerate the rot of remote ecosystems and the pollution of our atmosphere and waters? Oh right, any other elected official on either side of the Dem / Republican line…
I’ve participated in dozens of protests. Protests with political organization can lead to change. Protests without political organization are just yelling at a wall.
Protests !== organizing. Organizing achieves political change. Protest does not. Leftists know how to organize, liberals do not.
Liberals don’t know how to organize precisely because the Democratic party dominates the elections. No need to organize when the organization already exists. All they need to do is to “vote blue no matter who”.
Direct action is meaningless if you’re hostile to building a coalition broad enough to actually gain any significant political power
The US isn’t a democracy, you can’t build coalitions with people who want to destroy everything you stand for, direct action got George Floyd justice not votes, and the people you back turned around and decided to fund the police to record levels, it’s a war not an electoral campaign
I remember being young and convinced socialism was the way forward. Then I grew the fuck up and did some introspection.
Do you know how to communicate in anything other than thought terminating clichés?
This is delusional. Direct action absolutely has its place, but all the things you mentioned were ultimately won at the ballot box. As it should be. Don’t let a childish revolution fetish blind you to what constitutes a viable framework for lasting progress.
Edit - “Has.” As in he has a ball. Or she has a textbook.
Not an ML. And certainly don’t think I’m the only leftist. Lots of different types of leftists, many I disagree with. But unless you’re opposed to capitalism, then you’re a liberal, not a leftist.
An anarchist is fighting against military/police. A fascist belongs, or wants to, to military/police. An anarchist is fighting against people who hold some power. A fascist is fighting against people because of their religion or origins. An anarchist likes to vote and discuss. A fascist likes to follow orders. An anarchist tends towards decentralization. A fascist tends towards centralization.
This are only some differences but spoiler alert : anarchist and fascist are not the same. They do not act the same way, they do not think the same way.
I understand that you hate them both, it is your point of view, and it’s okay. But please, follow my advice : avoid trying to justify it with sentences as universal and strong as “There is no practical difference”, it makes the whole thing ridiculous.
In the end, saying there is only “one viable […] party”, and even believing in a party itself, are also part of the problem imo. If you truly believe in this sentence, no wonder why you dislike anarchists and why they probably dislike you. But does it imply that either you or them are fascistic ? And if yes, did you considered that it could be you, who are defending a single “viable” party as the only solution, hating on every other option ?
If an “anarchist” is trying to undermine any politician with a realistic chance of making office who is at all sympathetic to efforts at police reform, they’re not fighting the police, they’re fighting reform efforts.
His point was that “anarchist” was in quotes because they self-identify as an anarchist but behave in contradictory way.
And I would say my experience with a few lemmy instances is exactly that. “I am an anarchist” is a way of creating group lines, consisting of the in-group of anarchists, and everyone else in the out-group (fascists and liberals together).
It’s really silly because it’s an inherent contradiction. The point of being an anarchist is that there is no out-group, and yet they’ve just recreated the in-group out-group mentality all over again.
Oh, okay thank you for clarification. I agree with you, sectarianism is to me one of the biggest problem in far-left groups. But I still think that this is not enough imo to justify that “There is no practical difference” between them and fascists, even if restricted to their behavior on those communities. Anyway, i understand this comment better now, thank you <3
Oh yeah, there’s a huge difference between tankies and fascists. Tankies are 10,000% better.
Suppose my only two choices in a vote were between a tankie that punched me in the face and slept with my mother, and a fascist. I would not just vote for the tankie, I would also donate money, canvas for them, and tell all my friends to vote for them.
I think it’s just an online problem, anybody who gets radicalized in an echo chamber loses the plot of their own cause. It’s just optics.
Is your issue with anarchists or authoritarians? I somehow doubt that anarchists are sending you death threats. Nor do I see anarchists kneecapping the Democrats. Anarchists don’t want a state, though many do vote for the moderate right-wing (not “left leaning”) Democrats simply because they think it’s the right thing to do.
Your sweeping generalizations and attempts to paint all of us with the same brush betray your own lack of knowledge, but don’t worry, I’m sure the planet will last long enough for the Democrats’ slow incremental change, and I’m sure my family in border camps are very thankful to be in liberal concentration camps.
Apologizing after saying something stupid is a level of grace we rarely see from the smugtrust
Any objective measure of politics puts them on the right wing. Your only measure is relative. Because you have no ideology whatsoever you have no underpinning with which to judge a political party.
The point isn’t somehow that Conservatives are left wing, but that Democrats aren’t “reformers” either! Most of what they do is “rehabilitate” and I don’t mean that with respect to the criminal code.
I think you’re giving too much credit to “authoritarianism” as a political dimension beyond those weird conservatives who want ersatz father figure heads of state
the only viable left leaning political party in the US
I vote for Democrats because shit, why not? But what is the worth of a party that:
Does not function as a party (single defectors routinely kill major legislation without consequence)
Is incapable of countering the rising tide of fascism, or unwilling to do so
Has no plan to address the Supreme Court, which will continue to kill anything legitimately good if left unchecked
Is too beholden to capital to push even the most tepid climate change legislation (the Green New Deal)
Constantly attacks its left flank, preferring to chase the votes of suburban reactionaries
Isn’t even reliably pro-labor
Tailed popular movements on all sorts of civil rights issues
Still can’t be bothered to even de-schedule marijuana, the most slam-dunk popular policy one could imagine + a huge driver of mass incarceration
Is on basically the same page as Republicans with respect to foreign policy
Generally offers nothing besides “at least we’re not as bad as Republicans, most of the time”
Where is that party going? It’s never going to meaningfully address climate change, it offers only crumbs to the working class, and any social change has to be led from the outside.
the only viable left leaning political party in the US?
There is no “viable left leaning political party in the US” lmao. You are a far right country. Both parties are far right. If you were over here in the UK you would all be tories and even then I’m not sure if that’s far enough right for the average democrat.
Commies and fascists are the same thing because they do the violence. The reasons they do the violence is not relevant.
I, a good democrat, don’t do the violence. Those bodies that keep piling up in other (dirty, evil) countries during Democrat run governments are coincidental. All the funding I give to police departments totally aren’t related to the police blasting people in the streets daily. I know this because my ideology is totally not conservative.
the only viable left leaning political party in the US?
I might be misunderstanding you, so I apologize if that is the case, but if you are referring to the Democrats they are far from left leaning. They aren’t even center leaning.
You can’t even say they have a better track record than the Republicans. They bomb countries as much (or in recent years even more) than the Republicans. They advocate for wars. They fund ICE even more than the Republicans. They stand up just as much for reproductive rights (read: not at all). They just do all of it while waving a rainbow flag.
I really hope you meant the Greens or the CPUSA; which have their own issues but are certainly more left than either the Democrats or Republicans.
I was sure it was gonna be ironic when they started comparing anarchists to fascists, but fun fact: no, they actually mean it. Anarchists are fascists, everyone. You’ve heard it here first!
I swear, if there’s something liberals hate more than what’s on their right, it’s what’s on their left.
What’s the difference between a fascist and an “anarchist” who does everything they can to kneecap the only viable left leaning political party in the US?
There’s a viable left leaning political party in the US? What is it?
What’s the difference between a fascist and an “anarchist” who does everything they can to kneecap the only viable left leaning political party in the US?
Left leaning? According to who or what? If you said socially progressive there might be a point here, but the democratic party is no where near left wing. And the social progressiveness only serves to take advantage of those being oppressed in order to win votes. It’s hollow, and when people start losing rights (like women and abortion) the Democrats will make 500 excuses about why they can’t do anything, instead of actually doing something. The democratic party serves as a ratchet to kill and absorb left wing movements and keep the acceptable discourse within the sphere of economic liberalism.
I’m begging Americans to read literally anything about their political system from a non American, non Eurocentrist perspective. Begging. I’ll start by linking some here.
The specific combination of factors in the historical formation of U.S. society—dominant “biblical” religious ideology and absence of a workers’ party—has resulted in government by a de facto single party, the party of capital. The two segments that make up this single party share the same fundamental liberalism. Both focus their attention solely on the minority who “participate” in the truncated and powerless democratic life on offer. Each has its supporters in the middle classes, since the working classes seldom vote, and has adapted its language to them. Each encapsulates a conglomerate of segmentary capitalist interests (the “lobbies”) and supporters from various “communities.”
American democracy is today the advanced model of what I call “low-intensity democracy.” It operates on the basis of a complete separation between the management of political life, grounded on the practice of electoral democracy, and the management of economic life, governed by the laws of capital accumulation. Moreover, this separation is not questioned in any substantial way, but is, rather, part of what is called the general consensus. Yet that separation eliminates all the creative potential found in political democracy. It emasculates the representative institutions (parliaments and others), which are made powerless in the face of the “market” whose dictates must be accepted. Marx thought that the construction of a “pure” capitalism in the United States, without any pre-capitalist antecedent, was an advantage for the socialist struggle. I think, on the contrary, that the devastating effects of this “pure” capitalism are the most serious obstacles imaginable.
If the democrats truly are the only viable “left” option then the only reasonable course of action would be to burn the whole state apparatus down and start anew.
You won’t advocate for that of course because the fact is you don’t really care about things being better, you care about pretending to be on the moral high-ground, so vague platitudes about things getting better in the abstract you get from democrats is just enough for you, because you probably endure no economic hardship and politics is just an extension of sports to you.
The far-right is the most militant and by far outnumbers the far left. Right now, if things were started anew, it would be a new far-right government. A militant far-left uprising would literally just get murdered, and most republican voters would be ok with it.
A course of action that seems obvious to me (I may be wrong) would be for left-wing people to organize within the Democratic party to get left-wing people elected as Democrats. Kinda like the “Tea Party” or MAGA movement.
The US has two right wing parties. Never mind nationally, I’ve had Democrat electeds oversee cops “sweeping” encampments just as brutally as any Republican would, what exactly is supposed to be the harm getting reduced here?
The Republican Party is blatantly fascist now. The next time the Republicans get the house, senate, and presidency, you can guarantee women and trans people will no longer have bodily autonomy nation wide. Children will be kidnapped from their lbgt parents and put into the system. All social safety nets will be gutted. Democracy will be eliminated. If they let public education still exist, it will just be used for job training and indoctrination of fascist ideology. They will shoot immigrants at the border instead of just laying traps. They will expand the mass incarceration program to make room for the dissidents and utilize them for more slave labor in prisons.
What’s the difference between a fascist and an “anarchist” who does everything they can to kneecap the only viable left leaning political party in the US?
Sorry which party is this? Dems are not even a remotely left-leaning party. Joe Biden literally criminalized the rail workers using their legal right to strike.
This is also like a children’s picture book-level of understanding of fascism. As if the Dems’ policy of 4 more years of the status quo could prevent fascism at all. That has literally never worked as a way to combat fascism.
No he fuckin did not, the rank and file wanted 14 days, the rank and file pushed for a strike, which union leadership did not want, the rank and file did not vote to sabotage their striking rights, Biden and the Capitalists wanted 0 days and no strike, the Squad “wanted” 7 days and were willing to sacrifice the right to strike despite knowing perfectly well the 7 days bill would die in the Senate
4 days is an insulting crumb to incentivize workers from not engaging in unauthorized slowdown measures, sick and tired of you Blue MAGA slugs
What’s the difference between a fascist and an “anarchist” who does everything they can to kneecap the only viable left leaning political party in the US?
What party in the US is even left-adjacent? The dems still firmly support the police, Israel, massive corporations, prolonging the war in Ukraine. Their actions in Iraq alone should prevent them from ever being considered a party that serves the working class.
All US aid to ukraine is doing is making the war longer and bloodier. Have you seen what Ukraine has been bombing? It’s apartment buildings, gas stations and civilians. (Russia isn’t better on that front, they bombed a literal kindergarten this week). If this war keeps up, all of Ukraine and Southern Russia will end up like Bakhmut. US aid isn’t enough to win, only to continue the bloodshed.
Also, you are the one backing the US above every single socialist project. You are the one who tolerates imperialism because it’s blue. You are the one bothsidesing leftists and fascists. Every single one of your accusations is a confession.
What’s the actual genuine alternative then where Ukraine doesn’t have to fight to free it’s territory from Russia? A ceasefire is worthless as Russia will build up forces again and just attack, trying to set out what it tried to do for years, take Ukraine under Russian control. And then people such as yourselves will then be criticising Ukraine and the west again when they put up another fight. Ukraine can’t win in your eyes.
I’ve been following the war since February last year and it’s been day after day after day of Russians explicitly targeting civilians, literally machine gunning them down in the streets, shooting at cars with tanks, raping and murdering them, targeted rocket attacks at hospitals, apartment blocks, places where people are trying to seek refuge from the war, stealing Ukrainian children and sending them to Russia, the list just goes on and on. There maybe unfortunate collateral damage from Ukrainian forces, there always is sadly in any war, but it’s highly unlikely that Ukraine are targeting the very people they’re trying to liberate.
US aid isn’t enough to win, only to continue the bloodshed.
That’s a strong argument for the US to drastically increase its aid or even get involved to end the war very quickly. The US and its allies would very likely have the war over within weeks if not literally days. That would be a win win right? No more bloodshed like you said. No more hundreds of Ukrainian or Russian soldiers lives wasted. Ukraine gets it’s territory back. The genocidal Russian imperialists get pushed back to their own borders.
You’re working from a number of false premises - Like the people in the DPR and LPR don’t want to be part of Ukraine, because the Galacian fascists who control the government in Kiev won’t stop trying to kill them. What about the self-determination of people not to be slaughtered by Banderite fascist death squads? What about the self-determinations of Crimeans to finally break with Ukraine after trying for thirty years? Ahh, you will say, but those elections weren’t real, so I can say that no one in any of those regions actually wants to be free of the violence directed at them by hte Rada.
ANd I could go on and on and on but you know what the truth is and you know I’m a lying tankie and blah blah blah we’ve all done this dance before.
they can to kneecap the only viable left leaning political party in the US?
Are you talking about the party that doubled Trump’s deportation numbers, expanded oil drilling and fracking and striped the rail unions of their right to strike? I know you’re not talking about THAT party, you think we’ve all been at brunch and hadn’t been paying attention like you jackasses?
What’s the difference between a fascist, a democrat, and a Republican? At least the fascist makes the trains run on time while he’s running concentration camps and murdering minorities in the streets.
Oh so Title 42 didn’t expand under Biden, and the concentration camps haven’t grown multiple-fold in the last few years? They didn’t put literally record breaking funding into the very police forces that have been proven definitively not only to NOT reduce crime, but to systematically oppress the poor and minorities? The democrats pulled out of all of our foreign invasions and curtailed military industrial spending, closing bases around the world and bringing troops home? They stopped the absurd sanctions regimes intended to specifically starve civilians in many countries around the world?
I guess when you’re a middle class American, you have the luxury of not caring about the explicitly fascist behavior of thecUS government. Those of us in minority groups and the lower classes, and even more so those of us not in the US, don’t have that luxury. US fascism is maintained by force both internally and externally.
The Biden administration ended title 42, kid. And police forces do reduce crime. What’s needed is to get accountability for bad cops and to reform training, not neuter the justice system.
Police forces don’t reduce crime, and it’s laughable that anyone could still think so after this many years of empirical data showing that increasing police presence and funding is not correlated with a decrease in criminality. Improving economic conditions for lower classes, however, is correlated with reduction in criminality.
Biden admin didn’t end title 42, they ended the pandemic which prevented them from continuing the policy, and so now they’ve gone back to Trump Era policy of refusal at the border for anyone who came through another country along the way, a definitive violation of international refugee laws. Even that only happened after years of use of Title 42 to deport hundreds of thousands of refugees and migrants a year.
Yes, police forces do reduce crime. That’s long been established in social science. I don’t care what your ideology is, if you’re denying reality, then I don’t know what the point of having a conversation with you is.
And I’m glad you admitted that the Biden administration ended Title 42.
Lmao. Still nothing on the concentration camps, nor their expansion under Biden, nor the illegal use of Trumps pre-covid policy, and nothing but apologia for Biden using title 42 for 2 full years to deport well over a million refugees.
If it were the case that more police means less crime, crime rates around the country would be at record low rates after the billions of dollars pumped into law enforcement by the federal government. Not to mention that the average city spends between 30-60% of its entire yearly budget on police forces. Is your belief that if they increase that to 70%, 80%, 100%, it will reduce crime? Do you not realize funding is indeed a zero sum game, and that putting more money into police necessarily means putting less money into social programs that have shown actual efficacy in reducing criminality?
What’s the difference between a fascist and an “anarchist” who does everything they can to kneecap the only viable left leaning political party in the US?
Mutual Aid: A Theory of Evolution is available on Gutenberg. Go learn something.
lemmy.ml
Top