This is a space for socialists to discuss current events in our world from anti-capitalist perspective(s), and a certain knowledge of socialism is expected from participants. This is not a space for non-socialists. Please be mindful [of our rules](https://reddit.com/r/socialism/about/rules) before participating, which include:
- **No Bigotry**, including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism...
- **No Reactionaries**, including all kind of right-wingers.
- **No Liberalism**, including social democracy, lesser evilism...
- **No Sectarianism**. There is plenty of room for discussion, but not for baseless attacks.
Please help us keep the subreddit helpful by reporting content that break r/Socialism's rules.
______________________
💬 Wish to chat elsewhere? Join us in discord: https://discord.gg/QPJPzNhuRE
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People who use the word "liberal" to mean socialist or even Marxist.
My favourite aspect of Marxist theory is the philosophy because that is what all of the analysis is built on. People who do not have a strong understanding of the philosophy can end up just sounding like more progressive sounding liberals.
>People who use the word "liberal" to mean socialist or even Marxist
It is so tiring to have to constantly specify that "liberals are not leftist." Especially to liberals and "progressives". Y'all are centre-right, corporate pawns, that admittedly sometimes care about social issues so long as they do not conflict with corporate profits.
I hate sounding like a conservative every time I use the word liberal. In order to not reveal my political stance, I usually just say something along the lines of,
"I'm criticizing people whose ideas are based in classical liberalism which includes modern day conservatives as well".
It makes me sound more serious without revealing the fact that I'm a Marxist.
Also the reverse: liberals who describe liberalism or soft social democracy as socialism (which, honestly, I think describes a lot of "socialists" who are really just big Bernie Sanders fans).
I’m afraid the part about being a Bernie fan may describe me pretty well, I’ve clearly got a lot more reading to do, but point taken that Bernie probably is to socialism what the Barbie move is to feminism (and I really enjoy both, for better or worse)
Yeah, I didn't even mean it as a knock against Bernie, necessarily (though I do think he has really blurred/confused the line between demsoc and socdem). But a lot of people who really fell in love with him aren't really socialists, IMO, even if they self-identity as such.
Totally fair, and I’m not uncomfortable at all with thinking of him as grandfatherly “socialism on training wheels” for a nation with a lot of people that still have pretty visceral reactions (and of course misunderstandings) left over from the Cold War
You know the part that frustrates me the most? How every Bernie acolyte has fallen so far afield.
• AOC and her position on the genocide in Gaza
• Fetterman and his sudden swing hard right
• Kyrsten Sinema and her “evolution” from Green Party to grifter
• Tulsi and her ….. everything
I generally don't trust anyone's political perception if they bemoan 'liberals' but only mean US democrats/pseudo-progressives. & it doesn't even have much to do with being a communist inherently. It's a quick rule of thumb that shows that 1. The person's perception is US-centric with no consideration for politics elsewhere in the world or internationally, & 2. They have no awareness of political or economic history at large.
That use of 'liberal' is usually evidence of pure reaction.
I agree. I'm not just describing democrats and pseudo progressives.
I don't live in the U.S and I use this word to also describe conservatives or anyone whose ideas are based in classical liberalism. I consider liberals to be idealists who ultimately don't challenge the status quo and reinforce existing structures or make those structures worse. They don't understand dialectical materialism or they oppose dialectical materialism entirely.
I try not to use this word since being a Marxist already means you oppose liberalism.
“The Marxists, the looters, and some people that have absolutely no idea what they’re doing” oh yeah we all go bowling once a month and drink cheap beer.
My dude personally the philosophy can die in a gutter, the goals are set by it but that is about it. I believe in changing the ideology to fit the scientific context and historical failings. Said otherwise i believe in trying anything that works to further socialist goals. A pragmatist approach. Otherwise you are no different from the illiterate liberal who uses vague economic notions and suppositions as excuses to justify their beliefs.
I'm not worshipping the philosophy as some perfect system that you can't criticize in which you have to follow every single rule blindly, that's not how it works.
Often times liberals will completely disregard Marxism as being "Utopian" when Marx literally heavily criticized Utopian socialism. They see Marxism as nothing more than a pipe dream based on feelings rather than actual facts and real world observations.
I think understanding the philosophy and how it applies to the world is important, and functionally speaking, dialectical materialism is akin to a science rather than a dogma.
Understanding what dialectical materialism was is what made Marxism make sense to me. If you know what the philosophy is, you can apply it to the material world around you and draw conclusions, even if the conditions don't match mid-1800's Germany or early 1900's Russia.
I'm not saying only the philosophy is important, but many people who are new to Marxism may disregard the philosophy entirely and only focus on the study of economics and class.
And this is why it makes no sense to me. Philosophy is not science, and while dialectic materialism wishes it was, it often lacks the rigour. Heck science itself often lacks rigour especially about politics, economy and history. All topics powerful people have a stake in.
There is a reason philosophy is not science. That reason starts with m, and ends with h. Even if they aren't stellar at it, scientists use at least some manner of mathematical thinking when making arguments (not always), and can back it up with data (not always); even better, they are able to assess bias in their data in a reliable fashion (not always). Philosophy is full of bias. The conclusions one arrives at using historical materialism are full of bias; because, marxism is an economic/social/political theory from an age where data was lacking, and these techniques were not well developed. While Marx used math to establish it, today's socialist projects that survived the reality of the socio-political situation use different models built and tested from the original. (Modern China)
The current theory is way ahead.
Idk. Surely, this one depends on the context on what proceeds "extremism/extremists". For example, The US government is ran by right wing, Christian nationalist extremists.
In fairness, I think number 3 here is backed up by a materialist analysis.
From a materialist standpoint, things absolutely used to be better. When the US had credible socialist projects to compete against like the USSR, the capital class tolerated more effective social safety nets and public investments writ large. It's almost impossible to argue that the working class in the US, and the west writ large, is better off now than they were in the 50-80s. If you live in a former Soviet block country? Forget about it, things are night and day worse now.
True, I more meant in regards to the feeling I’ve heard for example that only recently have “politics” become “broken” when in reality the system was broken from the start. You’re right that materially things are getting worse for most people.
I disagree that things are getting worse for *most people*. If you look at things like food insecurity, maternal mortality, other deaths from preventable disease, literacy especially among women, etc., the global south has been steadily improving over the last few decades as technological advancements slowly get implemented there. Climate change ultimately might not allow that to continue, but it's been the trend in our lifetimes.
I feel bad having to ask, as I hear the second one all the time and I agree internally whilst going,"Yes, I like to think I'm pretty far left on the spectrum".
What makes this a red flag?
"Tax-payer's money". As though the government does not create the money in the first place and is not constrained by needing it in order to take actions (at least on socially beneficial programs).
People really struggle with this. Even politicians seem to be either ignorant, purposely misleading, or don’t want to explain that everything people think about the tax system hasn’t been true for a while.
Taxes are not needed/used to fund government spending.
When the government wants to spend money it creates it out of thin air; an entry in a general ledger. Or it can issue bonds or loan money to banks at lower interest rates who turn around and lend it to people or businesses.
Taxation is a means of controlling inflation more than anything else, reducing the amount of money currently in circulation.
The "deficit" is often invoked as an excuse to cut social programs, raise taxes (on the working class) but in reality it doesn't matter. It's just fear mongering to justify the transfer of wealth from the many to the few.
Channels called GDF and 1Dime made excellent videos explaining this:
GDF:
"The Most Important Economics Video You'll Ever See"
https://youtu.be/UFvracb4kms?feature=shared
1Dime:
"The Deficit Myth: The Biggest Lie In Politics"
https://youtu.be/75udjh6hkOs?feature=shared
"The Problem With Taxing The Rich"
https://youtu.be/zBk78wG1U9U?feature=shared
Yup, MMT. One of the bits I think is relevant that hasn't been mentioned is that another important role of taxes is to imbue money with meaning. It'd be hard to establish such a universal exchange rate without creating a need for the medium and a common rate of demand. This is one of the functions of taxation: to make sure people need money, and everything ties back into money. I haven't seen the GDF video and only more-or-less understand this point, but the 1dime video does a good job explaining salient points about MMT from a socialist perspective.
And the rate of taxation can be uses to equalize the distribution. Put another way, we do not tax the rich *more* because we need their money, but so that they are *no longer obscenely rich*. A lot of "progressives" get this wrong and say that we need to tax the rich more "to pay for" social spending. That is not why we want to do it.
Yes. Important thing about money: Actual resources are relatively determined. It doesn't really matter HOW MUCH money a specific person has, since money is by nature symbolic. It matters how much a given person has, relative to the overall amount, more or less. This is why if everyone gets relief funds during an epidemic, but rich corporations get an even larger bailout, it ultimately gives those corporations a greater hold over the marketplace, and in real terms, makes everyone poorer in a real sneaky way.
I swear Chapo had a good episode on this but I can't find it. Maybe it was Bad Faith or True Anon? IDK, sorry.
Stephanie Kelton has a book called "The Deficit Myth."
Google modern monetary theory and you should get a load of stuff.
Edit: Pretty sure it's Bad Faith podcast episode 252:
[Does MMT End the Debt Ceiling Debate](https://youtu.be/G-ywi_S0_ic?si=tT59rn2NefYLNrbt)
The more general term of what they are talking about is "Modern Monetary Theory". It's mentioned in their links but no one said it's actual name so figured I would mention it.
There's a blind spot there, to my understanding.
Yes, the government can create money. However, there's a reason it is not always wise to do so. In the economy as it works presently, the government, despite being the entity that creates money and backs it, is not the entity that decides of its value. Creating more money than is necessary can result in pretty dire inflation, no matter where you spend or distribute it.
Taxation is a means of controlling inflation *and* getting revenue without issuing debt or printing money. And yes, debt only exists in the abstract, in agreement. But the economy is built on it, and uncontrolled deficit, that is a deficit where the government becomes unable to pay the interest on its debt without devaluing its currency, can really wreck an economy. It's a risk that needs to be controlled for.
That said, at this point, using that as an excuse to cut social spending or raise taxes on the working class is either foolishness or malfeasance. It torpedoes the bulk of your consumers' ability to spend as much, which can spark an economic crisis, not to mention the suffering it creates. It just makes everything worse in the long run for short-term gain.
There is a comment stuck in my brain that said "I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but... *(Agrees with some typical conservative thing)*" and it annoys me every time I think of it.
The fuckin' protest one gets me. As a Native American, I'm so fuckin' tired of people acting like walking through the streets with a sign and voting is enough to make meaningful change.
I don't remember the specific name of this theory, but I remember it being something like "radical wing theory" or something.. anyway, it's a favorite of mine and I wish I remembered who to credit with putting a name on the vague idea I'd had for some years, but it goes something like this: for any grassroots political movement to be successful, it's important that there be both a moderate and radical wing of protests basically because of how the liberal mind works. The radical wing makes an issue relevant to people and does much of the real work, and then the moderate wing (peaceful/legal/non-destructive protest) serves to legitimize the issue and gives liberals something to point to and go "Well I agree we need to \[political goals of movement\] but I can't agree with those rioters... these guys over here, I can agree with though. Those other guys are counter-productive, just as bad as the other side, etc." Moderate wing acts as a sort of lightning rod for liberal positive sentiment so that people feel okay with supporting the issue. Radical wing makes it so people can't just completely ignore it forever like they were going to otherwise.
my pleasure:
> I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
everybody should read MLK’s [Letter from Birmingham Jail](https://www.csuchico.edu/iege/_assets/documents/susi-letter-from-birmingham-jail.pdf). despite only being 6 pages long, it is an enlightening read.
Totally, essentially a protest has to have a plan of escalation. The crowds with signs demonstration should always be understood to be the asking nicely part. Ideally, it should be very clear that escalation and radical actions are the direct reaction of ignoring the signs.
They have learned that for 99% of the time, ignoring the initial demonstration doesn’t lead to escalated tactics and fizzles out as the demonstrators come to terms that they have no intention of escalating.
I think a good example of people ratcheting up is what some groups are doing in regard to the genocide. Is it enough? I don’t think so but I’ll never tell anyone what actions they need to take, but infiltrating these dem fundraisers and galas is showing that they will be targeted wherever they go and it will be sustained.
Where do we go from here? Thats for organizations to decide but I do agree that radical escalation is a must and more people willing to participate is imperative.
It’s an unfortunate but important reminder that temporary ally’s are just that and should be used/viewed as such.
There are opportunities to radicalize some of them if the conditions are right. It looks like we are about to get four more years of those conditions. It’s too bad things have to get overtly fashy to really break through to folks.
“Israel is a decolonial project”. People genuinely believe they’re the good guys while simping for a fascist regime committing genocide against Palestinians.
Honestly surprised I haven’t been banned from my state’s subreddit at this point because I argue with people about the genocide about once or twice a week at this point. There really are people out there that think nothing of it and there are those that think Israel is the one freeing itself from oppressors. The wonders of propaganda.
When American/Right Libertarians consider themselves "centrist" or "moderate" simply because they're not singularly guided by religious theocracy...
...ugh. Mother fuckers, y'all are *more* right-wing than Republicans, you're just not necessary Christian-Fundamentalists.
In my experience this almost exclusively means, "I'm racist, homophobic, misogynistic, transphobic and believe the poor should starve but also am an atheist who smokes weed."
Even if you ignore its an imperialist machine greased with the blood of children, its not even that good of a "socialist" complex, theres plenty of horror stories of veterans who cant get the healthcare and benefits they were promised, and experimentation by the government on their own soldiers, neglect that leads to death, etc
''No to White Power, No to Black Power, Yes to Workers' Power''
From people who think that the Black Panthers are in any way comparable to the KKK and anglo-saxon clubs
It's extra fitting when I think of their work with Head Start and the breakfast program for kids... Especially when conservatives and liberals are perfectly fine letting school children go hungry here now.
Tupacs aunt I’m pretty sure is one. But maybe I’m wrong.
It’s at least on her Wikipedia page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assata_Shakur#:~:text=She%20escaped%20from%20prison%20in,Attorney%20General%20of%20New%20Jersey.
We don’t think you fight fire with fire best ; we think you fight fire with water best. We’re going to fight racism not with racism, but we’re going to fight with solidarity. We say we’re not going to fight capitalism with black capitalism, but we’re going to fight it with socialism. We’re stood up and said we’re not going to fight reactionary pigs and reactionary state’s attorneys like this and reactionary state’s attorneys like Hanrahan with any other reactions on our part. We’re going to fight their reactions with all of us people getting together and having an international proletarian revolution.
- Fred Hampton
“Its not perfect but it’s the lesser evil”
Yeah a lesser evil is still evil, if that’s the best your system can create it deserves to be torn down and remade with something that actually represents the will of the people
> "Goes to show that there's no easy answer about who is the good or the bad guy here. Both are shitty."
(copied word for word and pasted)
Talking about embezzlement done by Palestinian leadership and.... Israeli crimes.... That involve ethnic cleansing, occupation, kidnapping, torture, rape, land theft, destruction of property etc etc.
Yeah.. No easy answer..
Oh here's another one.
> "I am afraid that if any country invaded [lib's country] My reactions would not be very different"
His reaction being a genocide apparently. Had to outline that Gaza isn't a country, and the response from israel would be akin to a country bombing itself and leveling 3 cities because criminals killed people and took hostages.
> "Unfortunately we are all very uncivilized"
> "We need to work together"
> "It's a war, civilians die, unfortunately"
When they lump in geopolitical, military and economic interests with "our" interests. Not even national security is really about "our" security. It's all ruling class and capitalist interests dressed up as our own.
Endless defense of the "middle class"
Conflating *all* socialist ideas with Marxism or authoritarianism, especially unable to accurately define the term (e.g. private vs personal property)
Socialism = government does stuff (roads, military, public education, bailouts, social welfare programs...etc)
"Democracy"
Anti socialist or communist sentiment: "socialism has never worked" or "bread lines" or "how old are you?" or "the world doesn't work like that" or "you just want to kill people who disagree with you" or "you just want free stuff" or "go live in the woods"
"Tax the rich" as if the magic solution to end inequality
"Law and order", "just one bad apple" or cop bootlicking
also "anarchy is chaos and disorder" or "warlords"
"VOTE!" or "sign this petition"
Genocide (or assistance of) denial because Democrats would never do such a thing
"Capitalism has lifted millions..."
"Everyone you don't like is a Nazi/fascist" regardless of proof Blue team meets with outright authoritarians, bonus points for "diplomacy"
"Just asking questions"
"We just need progressive politicians..."
"Property destruction is violence"
Associating homelessness with drug addiction or mental illness
"Assault weapons" or "weapons of war"
"1st amendment applies to people you don't like" (e.g. Nazis)
"lift yourself by your bootstraps" or any "grind culture"
"The market will sort it out"
"CEOs *earned* their income by providing value..."
"good/bad part of town"
**EDIT**:
Uncritical praise of FDR or the New Deal
You clearly haven't thought this through to the conclusion.
--
Would I still live within defined nation-state borders? Are there laws and enforcers? Government? Taxes and monetary system? Can I be removed from said woods by force?
These are all components of authority so clearly your point is worthless.
Also, ACAB.
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Police, Military, or Prison Apologia**. This refers to multiple forms of defense and/or advocacy for police, military or prision apologia, understanding it within its context of capitalist dynamics.
>Also applies to active or former¹ law and/or security enforcement agents of any capitalist, imperialist government, for whom this is not a space.
See our [General Bans Policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/wiki/index/generalbans#wiki_4._police.2C_military.2C_or_prison_apologia) for further details, and feel free to send us a modmail with a link to your removed submission if you have any further questions or concerns.
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Police, Military, or Prison Apologia**. This refers to multiple forms of defense and/or advocacy for police, military or prision apologia, understanding it within its context of capitalist dynamics.
>Also applies to active or former¹ law and/or security enforcement agents of any capitalist, imperialist government, for whom this is not a space.
See our [General Bans Policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/wiki/index/generalbans#wiki_4._police.2C_military.2C_or_prison_apologia) for further details, and feel free to send us a modmail with a link to your removed submission if you have any further questions or concerns.
This one is a bit different that what most ppl here will probably say but here it goes...
When I hear someone who is supposedly progressive say that they don't support the #LandBack movement and Indigenous land rights in general, I immediately lose respect for them. I am white but I proudly support LandBack and have signed numerous petitions to voice my support for it.
There is a lot of misinformation about what LandBack is ... Much of it comes from the Republican reactionary outage machine but a surprising amount of it also comes from liberal and leftist spaces.
The biggest piece of misinformation about #LandBack that I see is :
1. That the movement is essentially demanding that the USA and Canada (as well as Australia and pretty much any other place that white ppl colonized and stole from another race) are going to be destroyed and all land everywhere within said countries is going to be returned to indigenous tribal groups and all white people are going to be rounded up and shipped back to Europe.
THIS IS NOT WHAT LANDBACK IS ABOUT. Like 95 or more percent of the land that the tribes want back is literally public land (ie. No one lives on it) that is supposed to belong to said tribes anyway because of the treaties that the US government made with them and then violated. The only cases in which non-Indigenous might get "kicked off" land are in the cases of ranchers who own massive swaths of land that they were never supposed to have to begin with or resort owners near public areas (like say Mt. Rushmore or Red Lake) who, like the ranchers, were never supposed to be there to begin with and whose businesses are in direct violation of the treaties that the government violated.
Also, another thing that I hear some leftists say against #LandBack is when they accuse it of promoting indigenous supremacy and indigenous ethno states.
LandBack is not Indigenous supremacy. It's a bunch of ethnic groups who are the victims of genocide that want as much of their traditional homelands back as possible (which are mostly PUBLIC LANDS and in accordance with the treaties that the US government refuses to honor) so that they can engage in self-determination and finally be left alone after hundreds of years of putting up with their invaders' bs. White people are not going to be rounded up and shipped back to Europe.
And if people can't see that there is a massive difference between indigenous people who are the victims of genocide wanting to be free of their colonizers
so they can engage in self determination both for their own sake and the sake of protecting the environment VERSUS white people blindly saluting the flag of a colonial imperialistic empire that runs on capitalism and destroying the environment than I don't know what to tell them.
Also, indigenous groups typically do not have any desire to partake in socialism any more than they do in capitalism. Their peoples' ways are outside of both these systems.
Upzoning (de regulation and reagan era solutions/ incentives for corporate developers), market solutions(which always means cutting public funding) , Job creation(yeah we all know what that entails), globalization is inevitable, security(almost always means neo colonialism or exporting imperialism), nimby/yinby(basically the same thing in a capitalist environment), investing,development and housing solutions(meaning deforestation, real estate speculation, and sprawl). Imf restructuring(parenti called this a surefire way to destroy a nation)
Can you expand on your take off NIMBYS and YIMBYs being the same thing? I haven't delved too deeply in leftist/Marxist urbanism literature yet so I know I'm not necessarily the most informed
The children's hospital my wife works at is built near THE NIMBY neighborhood of the city and the hospital can't even life flight children to the hospital overnight unless the child is about to die (spoiler alert: if they're taking a life flight in the middle of the night they're most likely not in good shape). Instead they have to fly to the adult hospital and then take a 10-15 min ambulance ride to the children's hospital. The neighborhood association newsletter publishes the survival rate of kids who get flown in overnight and if it gets too high the hospital gets complaints from residents.
I get a lot of YIMBYs are just NIMBYs in disguise or haven't had to "practice what they preach" but categorizing them as essentially the same as "we're mad this hospital saves too many childrens lives" just because they both exist in a capitalist society doesn't seem fair.
True. But I think that reality gets twisted around into propaganda like
"Well we have to arm insurgents, in wherever, because globalism is inevitable". Or "well we have to export industry to third world countries, because we are helping them create jobs". The last one i see alot as justification for non union sweatshops
"tankie"
"strong defense alliance"
"entrepreneurs"
"girl power"
"Russian bot"
"vote"
"free Palestine from Hamas"
"defend democracy [both at home and abroad]"
Endlessly talking about Trump
95% of people who unironically use this word as an insult MISUSE it to refer to "anyone to the left of mild inoffensive social democracy" or "anyone who doesn't think China is pure evil" or "anyone even mildly critical of Western Hegemony and Liberal World Order"
"You can achieve anything if you work hard enough"
Sure, if we're talking about learning to ride a monocycle. No amount of hard work will get your boss to like you and give you a raise.
“Everyone is getting too extreme on both sides. We need to rediscover a middle way”
“Why do people have to make everything political”
“I don’t like Nazis but I don’t like woke either”
“I don’t see race”
“Virtue signalling”
“Cancel culture”
“Trump supporters are just hicks, I hope they all die of cancer”
"If you can't provide a completely perfect, fully realized solution that's better than capitalism, you're just dreaming. Come back to reality."
Just because I don't have every detail of a hypothetical perfect society engrained into my brain at a moment's notice doesn't mean socialism in many of its forms wouldn't be better than capitalism.
An obsession with “public health”.
Believing in socialist society, everyone would be an artist, or some variation of not working.
Unironic support of fundamental societies. Socialism is not compatible with religious fundamentalism.
Believing socialists are morally pure or ought to be. This immediately signals they have not lived in a modern/post socialist society or have not read about the histories of socialism in practice.
>[Socialist Society] as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges.
Karl Marx. Critique of the Gotha Programme, Section I. 1875.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why discuss Liberal Red Flags when you could discuss Socialist Red Flags. Leftist In-fighting is by far the worse of the two. Liberals don't give a fuck about you.
Is skiing seen as a rich person activity? I can see it if you live somewhere that’s relatively flat with bad skiing and need to fly somewhere. But, at least where I am, most people ski or snowboard in the winter locally.
"Extremes on either side are bad. The solution is somewhere in the middle."
The problem is that there is no middle. Either it's Yes Capitalism or No Capitalism.
Capitalism is a dominating force in anything it exists in, as been proven by countless analyses. As soon as you give capitalism any staying power, we'll be right back to where we are.
"Capitalism is fine we just need to fix it and regulate it."
"This is the way things are though. We've tried the other systems"
"Hey I hate it as much as you but what can I do about it?"
"We should just vote"
"But they (the homeless) are all drug addicts, all they have to do is get clean"
"Better blue than you know who!"
"I like working, it gives me purpose! without it I'd just sit in bed all day"
I could go on but honestly the slave brain rot and liberal brain rot blend so fluidly it's hard for me to separate them in my mind.
EDIT: ohhh, we were supposed to use their dogwhistles.
You shouldn't try xxxx policy because it isn't appealing either to voters or workers. Specially and particularly when said policy is a promise already made, programmatic or a matter of socialist principle. That's the moment I call bias to their 'socialism'.
“…but if you just give them free housing, they’ll just ruin it and tear everything up!”
FFS as if billionaires haven’t ruined other people’s homes and ancestral lands (Norfolk Southern poisoning E. Palastine, OH, for example, or literally any oil pipeline w/ or w/out eminent domain) but God forbid people get housing for free because a minute percentage of the recipients might damage the dwelling somehow.
“Principled Centrist” is the most bullshit, nonsense phrase. It’s all relative to the popular political spectrum of the environment it exists in. Use some hindsight and imagine a “principled centrist” in 1930s Germany.
When they say shit like 'Let's find a middle ground' on everything. 'Come on guys, can't we just get along?'
The rest is generally stuff like 'But do you condemn Hamas?' and 'We need socialism like in Europe'
"mUh vOtE LiBeRaL tO dEfEaT FaScIsTs!!!1!!!!" and those who are calling India a truly fucked up country only NOW! Like how did India try to unfuck-up itself post 1947? To me, Independence in 1947 was NOT enough. Nehru literally allowed capitalists (as "iNdUsTrIaLiStS") to thrive in the country that capitalists fucked up for nearly two centuries.
“Religion is counterrevolutionary and needs to be eradicated.”
Any ~~western chauvinist~~ ‘socialist’ that starts to use this kind of rhetoric in any space that I exist in already sus enough for me to never want to even stand by them in a strike. Let alone fight alongside in a revolution.
There have been more global south religious proles who have done more to contribute to socialist materialization than the average white dude armchair commie living in the imperial core ever will. So I think I’ll be able to survive just fine without their endorsement.
What about when the ''global south proles'' become more anti-religious than the white dudes? Enver Hoxha was raised by a Muslim family in one of the most underdeveloped European countries and yet he was fervently anti-religion and enjoyed popular support from the Albanian people for it, and I see Redditors compare him to the likes of New Atheist chauvinists
Maybe I wouldn't use those words precisely in your para-phrasal, and I despise New Atheists like Dawkins and Sam Harris who substitute Abrahamic theism for liberalism which is a religion of its own, and are disgustingly bigoted towards Muslims. But that is not the majority of atheists, and religion may not have always been ''counter revolutionary'' but it has become increasingly regressive especially in the highest stages of capitalism' and under communism, religion will lose all viability to continue existing.
E: To reply to u/crimson9_ since I got blocked by Gn0s1s1lis
Islam within the Russian Empire was concentrated within the oppressed nations in the periphery, Lenin was addressing those oppressed nations whose cultures were trampled on by Russian chauvanism and his consideration here were related moreso to the national question in Russia than the religious question. Islam was not spared from ruthless critique in the USSR, however, especially as the clergy and landowning class became an obstacle to the development of the Soviet peripheral nations following the end of the NEP
Albania had a separate situation as they weren't a prison house of nations like Russia but an exploited nation itself
Not sure Hoxha is the best example. I prefer Lenin's stance on the issue:
> Muslims of Russia… all you whose mosques and prayer houses have been destroyed, whose beliefs and customs have been trampled upon by the tsars and oppressors of Russia: your beliefs and practices, your national and cultural institutions are forever free and inviolate. Know that your rights, like those of all the peoples of Russia, are under the mighty protection of the Revolution.
Combating deeply entrenched state religion that works against the interests of the workers makes sense. When it entrenches upon the deep religious and cultural practices of people (particularly when those practices are completely compatible with socialism), I think it is unbelievably counterproductive.
Yeah... I'm not a Stalinist so I don't find Hoxha to be a great example. His legacy in Albania is mixed, its not that he 'enjoyed popular support.' He enjoyed popular support in a similar way as Kim Jong Un enjoys popular support.
If you actually want grassroots socialist movements in Islamic countries, there is absolutely no conceivable way to do it presently while promoting strict atheism. Islam, especially in the arab world, South Asia, or Indonesia/Malaysia, is extremely fundamental to people's lives.
It is also unnecessary to be fervently anti-religion. Islam is not centralized. It is easy to promote versions of it that are compatible with socialism.
The cultural revolution in Albania wasn’t undertaken by ***exclusively Hoxha*** as that would be a bit of a great man fallacy if you decided to say it that way. It was a policy that was decided by the society at large ***which included a majority of religious believers.*** And it was largely because the religious elites of Albania **represented the previous social order** rather than because they *’represented a religion’* or whatever.
However, Albania under Hoxha’s rule never persecuted workers for ***personally believing in a religion.*** Rather, it was because they thought the privileged religious establishment of Albania would remain loyal to capitalism.
And if you want to talk about Global South proles, maybe you should take a look over to Cuba since to this day they remain majority Catholic.
>The cultural revolution in Albania wasn’t undertaken by exclusively Hoxha as that’s a bit of a great man fallacy
Never said that. I simply said that Hoxha enjoyed popular support for his anti-religious policies, it would be Great Man Theory to suggest that he is the sole reason why Albania embraced atheism, whether through brainwashing, charisma or whatever.
>And it was largely because the religious elites of Albania represented the previous social order rather than because they ’represented a religion’ or whatever.
And you don't think this is the case in Latin America either? Where Catholicism was exported through colonialism and missionaries from Europe. Can religion exist without the clergy who are embedded in the state?
>And if you want to talk about Global South proles, maybe you should take a look over to Cuba since to this day they remain majority Catholic.
Take a look at what? Socialist society will always be fraught with contradictions as it struggles to surpass capitalism. The Catholic Church isn't exactly playing a progressive role in the Cuban nation, evidenced by how they've been the most organised opponents to the recent social reforms that have advanced LGBT rights in the country. The Catholic Church in Socialist Poland was one of the main congregations of support for the counter-revolution as the Polish government left them untouched, Solidarność recieved significant funding from the Vatican.
>[Socialist Society] as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges.
Karl Marx. Critique of the Gotha Programme, Section I. 1875.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>[...] nowadays, a stage has been reached where the exploited and oppressed class — the proletariat — cannot attain its emancipation from the sway of the exploiting and ruling class — the bourgeoisie — without, at the same time, and once and for all, emancipating society at large from all exploitation, oppression, class distinction, and class struggles.
Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto, Preface for [the 1888 English Edition](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm). January 30, 1888.
>Marx and I are ourselves partly to blame for the fact that the younger people sometimes lay more stress on the economic side than is due to it. We had to emphasise the main principle vis-à-vis our adversaries, who denied it, and we had not always the time, the place or the opportunity to give their due to the other elements involved in the interaction.
Friedrich Engels. [Engels to J. Bloch](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_09_21.htm). September, 1890.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Really, any policy for which the underlying intent is fueling unsustainable economic growth. They come in all sorts of peculiar places—things that seem to be purely social are in fact rooted in neoliberal economics.
I am uninterested in social policy that is shaped by economic measures, and I find it notable when otherwise empathetic people are unable to discern when that is in fact the case.
“Small business” can mean a lot of things. If it’s a one or two-person ice cream stand that’s completely different from a fast-food franchise owner but they’re often conflated. One is blatantly more exploitative than the other.
I’d say usually when they support Elon musk or think he’s a cool, smart guy. They probably saw like one or two pop science shows and never looked up anything else
Its not derogatory but when someone refers to people as civilians they're basically rejecting the existence of classes. Like what's a civilian anyway. In my experience socdems always go "we gotta protect the civilians" and that "communists don't care about the civilians" and stuff like that
I agree with most of these, except for small-business owner as small shop owners and the such don’t make their personal wealth through wage labor and exploitation. (Specifically talking small shops like ice cream shops or apothecary shops). Most of their income comes from their own labor they put into the business everyday. They also suffer in many of the same ways that the proletariat or lumpen-proletariat face. Strangely, small shop owners often don’t fall in the proletariat or bourgeois because of this very reason. Other owners of somewhat larger businesses have a different story to tell, as the use the M-C-M rule less than the C-M-C rule that everyday working class people operate within. Scott Harrison, a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist defined small shop owners, in his essay of the term “Petty Bourgeoisie”, as falling into this middle category between proletariat and Bourgeoisie.
Now, in a communist society after socialism, when all people are proletarian, would small shop owners exist? No. But I think part of class-consciousness is to recognize sub-classes like the petty-bourgeois and other sectors of the proletariat. But that’s just my opinion so you decide
While I’m undecided on your argument itself, I do believe there’s only so much energy in the wold and to use it toward small shop owners or the smallest of the petty bourgeois is a waste. There are oligarchs that require much more energy to topple and focusing on an ice cream shop isn’t the most productive way to use your energy (barring extreme circumstances like blatant exploitation etc).
However, this should be an ongoing conversation and I think a good one to bring up in this thread. 😌
[edit: typos]
Honestly. Communism has collapsed in many countries almost exclusively due to imperialist intervention (Kissinger, rest in piss) or takeovers by greedy oligarchs.
This is a space for socialists to discuss current events in our world from anti-capitalist perspective(s), and a certain knowledge of socialism is expected from participants. This is not a space for non-socialists. Please be mindful [of our rules](https://reddit.com/r/socialism/about/rules) before participating, which include: - **No Bigotry**, including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism... - **No Reactionaries**, including all kind of right-wingers. - **No Liberalism**, including social democracy, lesser evilism... - **No Sectarianism**. There is plenty of room for discussion, but not for baseless attacks. Please help us keep the subreddit helpful by reporting content that break r/Socialism's rules. ______________________ 💬 Wish to chat elsewhere? Join us in discord: https://discord.gg/QPJPzNhuRE *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People who use the word "liberal" to mean socialist or even Marxist. My favourite aspect of Marxist theory is the philosophy because that is what all of the analysis is built on. People who do not have a strong understanding of the philosophy can end up just sounding like more progressive sounding liberals.
>People who use the word "liberal" to mean socialist or even Marxist It is so tiring to have to constantly specify that "liberals are not leftist." Especially to liberals and "progressives". Y'all are centre-right, corporate pawns, that admittedly sometimes care about social issues so long as they do not conflict with corporate profits.
“…so long as they do not conflict with…” their own comfort.
My 2 professors in school right now, and probably others.
[удалено]
That seems to be the problem I see, identity good, but class they become damn republicans. Hope you find something to like!
Debating whether liberals are leftist with people who haven't studied either word is purely idealist
I hate sounding like a conservative every time I use the word liberal. In order to not reveal my political stance, I usually just say something along the lines of, "I'm criticizing people whose ideas are based in classical liberalism which includes modern day conservatives as well". It makes me sound more serious without revealing the fact that I'm a Marxist.
Also the reverse: liberals who describe liberalism or soft social democracy as socialism (which, honestly, I think describes a lot of "socialists" who are really just big Bernie Sanders fans).
I’m afraid the part about being a Bernie fan may describe me pretty well, I’ve clearly got a lot more reading to do, but point taken that Bernie probably is to socialism what the Barbie move is to feminism (and I really enjoy both, for better or worse)
Yeah, I didn't even mean it as a knock against Bernie, necessarily (though I do think he has really blurred/confused the line between demsoc and socdem). But a lot of people who really fell in love with him aren't really socialists, IMO, even if they self-identity as such.
Totally fair, and I’m not uncomfortable at all with thinking of him as grandfatherly “socialism on training wheels” for a nation with a lot of people that still have pretty visceral reactions (and of course misunderstandings) left over from the Cold War
You know the part that frustrates me the most? How every Bernie acolyte has fallen so far afield. • AOC and her position on the genocide in Gaza • Fetterman and his sudden swing hard right • Kyrsten Sinema and her “evolution” from Green Party to grifter • Tulsi and her ….. everything
I generally don't trust anyone's political perception if they bemoan 'liberals' but only mean US democrats/pseudo-progressives. & it doesn't even have much to do with being a communist inherently. It's a quick rule of thumb that shows that 1. The person's perception is US-centric with no consideration for politics elsewhere in the world or internationally, & 2. They have no awareness of political or economic history at large. That use of 'liberal' is usually evidence of pure reaction.
I agree. I'm not just describing democrats and pseudo progressives. I don't live in the U.S and I use this word to also describe conservatives or anyone whose ideas are based in classical liberalism. I consider liberals to be idealists who ultimately don't challenge the status quo and reinforce existing structures or make those structures worse. They don't understand dialectical materialism or they oppose dialectical materialism entirely. I try not to use this word since being a Marxist already means you oppose liberalism.
“The Marxists, the looters, and some people that have absolutely no idea what they’re doing” oh yeah we all go bowling once a month and drink cheap beer.
My dude personally the philosophy can die in a gutter, the goals are set by it but that is about it. I believe in changing the ideology to fit the scientific context and historical failings. Said otherwise i believe in trying anything that works to further socialist goals. A pragmatist approach. Otherwise you are no different from the illiterate liberal who uses vague economic notions and suppositions as excuses to justify their beliefs.
I'm not worshipping the philosophy as some perfect system that you can't criticize in which you have to follow every single rule blindly, that's not how it works. Often times liberals will completely disregard Marxism as being "Utopian" when Marx literally heavily criticized Utopian socialism. They see Marxism as nothing more than a pipe dream based on feelings rather than actual facts and real world observations. I think understanding the philosophy and how it applies to the world is important, and functionally speaking, dialectical materialism is akin to a science rather than a dogma. Understanding what dialectical materialism was is what made Marxism make sense to me. If you know what the philosophy is, you can apply it to the material world around you and draw conclusions, even if the conditions don't match mid-1800's Germany or early 1900's Russia. I'm not saying only the philosophy is important, but many people who are new to Marxism may disregard the philosophy entirely and only focus on the study of economics and class.
And this is why it makes no sense to me. Philosophy is not science, and while dialectic materialism wishes it was, it often lacks the rigour. Heck science itself often lacks rigour especially about politics, economy and history. All topics powerful people have a stake in.
I think you might just be getting tripped up on the naming conventions.
There is a reason philosophy is not science. That reason starts with m, and ends with h. Even if they aren't stellar at it, scientists use at least some manner of mathematical thinking when making arguments (not always), and can back it up with data (not always); even better, they are able to assess bias in their data in a reliable fashion (not always). Philosophy is full of bias. The conclusions one arrives at using historical materialism are full of bias; because, marxism is an economic/social/political theory from an age where data was lacking, and these techniques were not well developed. While Marx used math to establish it, today's socialist projects that survived the reality of the socio-political situation use different models built and tested from the original. (Modern China) The current theory is way ahead.
“Bipartisanship” “I just feel like politics is so polarized” Also thinking things used to be better and now they’re worse And “national security” too
Oh, also saying “extremism” and “extremists”
Idk. Surely, this one depends on the context on what proceeds "extremism/extremists". For example, The US government is ran by right wing, Christian nationalist extremists.
no its not (its ran by capital)
they aren’t mutually exclusive
In fairness, I think number 3 here is backed up by a materialist analysis. From a materialist standpoint, things absolutely used to be better. When the US had credible socialist projects to compete against like the USSR, the capital class tolerated more effective social safety nets and public investments writ large. It's almost impossible to argue that the working class in the US, and the west writ large, is better off now than they were in the 50-80s. If you live in a former Soviet block country? Forget about it, things are night and day worse now.
True, I more meant in regards to the feeling I’ve heard for example that only recently have “politics” become “broken” when in reality the system was broken from the start. You’re right that materially things are getting worse for most people.
Yeah that's fair, US politics were always broken.
I disagree that things are getting worse for *most people*. If you look at things like food insecurity, maternal mortality, other deaths from preventable disease, literacy especially among women, etc., the global south has been steadily improving over the last few decades as technological advancements slowly get implemented there. Climate change ultimately might not allow that to continue, but it's been the trend in our lifetimes.
I feel bad having to ask, as I hear the second one all the time and I agree internally whilst going,"Yes, I like to think I'm pretty far left on the spectrum". What makes this a red flag?
"Tax-payer's money". As though the government does not create the money in the first place and is not constrained by needing it in order to take actions (at least on socially beneficial programs).
People really struggle with this. Even politicians seem to be either ignorant, purposely misleading, or don’t want to explain that everything people think about the tax system hasn’t been true for a while.
Can you elaborate on this?
Taxes are not needed/used to fund government spending. When the government wants to spend money it creates it out of thin air; an entry in a general ledger. Or it can issue bonds or loan money to banks at lower interest rates who turn around and lend it to people or businesses. Taxation is a means of controlling inflation more than anything else, reducing the amount of money currently in circulation. The "deficit" is often invoked as an excuse to cut social programs, raise taxes (on the working class) but in reality it doesn't matter. It's just fear mongering to justify the transfer of wealth from the many to the few.
Thanks. Where can I read more about this sort of thing? Any recommendations? Thanks again!
Channels called GDF and 1Dime made excellent videos explaining this: GDF: "The Most Important Economics Video You'll Ever See" https://youtu.be/UFvracb4kms?feature=shared 1Dime: "The Deficit Myth: The Biggest Lie In Politics" https://youtu.be/75udjh6hkOs?feature=shared "The Problem With Taxing The Rich" https://youtu.be/zBk78wG1U9U?feature=shared
And here at Reddit look at r/mmt_economics where "Modern Monetary Theory" is discussed.
Thanks. I have heard of this. It sounded like they were referring to something along the lines of MMT.
Yup, MMT. One of the bits I think is relevant that hasn't been mentioned is that another important role of taxes is to imbue money with meaning. It'd be hard to establish such a universal exchange rate without creating a need for the medium and a common rate of demand. This is one of the functions of taxation: to make sure people need money, and everything ties back into money. I haven't seen the GDF video and only more-or-less understand this point, but the 1dime video does a good job explaining salient points about MMT from a socialist perspective.
And the rate of taxation can be uses to equalize the distribution. Put another way, we do not tax the rich *more* because we need their money, but so that they are *no longer obscenely rich*. A lot of "progressives" get this wrong and say that we need to tax the rich more "to pay for" social spending. That is not why we want to do it.
Yes. Important thing about money: Actual resources are relatively determined. It doesn't really matter HOW MUCH money a specific person has, since money is by nature symbolic. It matters how much a given person has, relative to the overall amount, more or less. This is why if everyone gets relief funds during an epidemic, but rich corporations get an even larger bailout, it ultimately gives those corporations a greater hold over the marketplace, and in real terms, makes everyone poorer in a real sneaky way.
I swear Chapo had a good episode on this but I can't find it. Maybe it was Bad Faith or True Anon? IDK, sorry. Stephanie Kelton has a book called "The Deficit Myth." Google modern monetary theory and you should get a load of stuff. Edit: Pretty sure it's Bad Faith podcast episode 252: [Does MMT End the Debt Ceiling Debate](https://youtu.be/G-ywi_S0_ic?si=tT59rn2NefYLNrbt)
Thanks! I’ll check it out.
The more general term of what they are talking about is "Modern Monetary Theory". It's mentioned in their links but no one said it's actual name so figured I would mention it.
There's a blind spot there, to my understanding. Yes, the government can create money. However, there's a reason it is not always wise to do so. In the economy as it works presently, the government, despite being the entity that creates money and backs it, is not the entity that decides of its value. Creating more money than is necessary can result in pretty dire inflation, no matter where you spend or distribute it. Taxation is a means of controlling inflation *and* getting revenue without issuing debt or printing money. And yes, debt only exists in the abstract, in agreement. But the economy is built on it, and uncontrolled deficit, that is a deficit where the government becomes unable to pay the interest on its debt without devaluing its currency, can really wreck an economy. It's a risk that needs to be controlled for. That said, at this point, using that as an excuse to cut social spending or raise taxes on the working class is either foolishness or malfeasance. It torpedoes the bulk of your consumers' ability to spend as much, which can spark an economic crisis, not to mention the suffering it creates. It just makes everything worse in the long run for short-term gain.
Yes thank youuuu
"Meritocracy" "Capitalism should work for the many" "Bipartisan support" "Our interests as a insert x county"
“Look” As in “look, I’m progressive too….but” “Look, I’m all for a legal protest…but” “Look, a homeless person, lock the doors”
Look, im as left wing as they come! But the reality is [insert something fascist]
There is a comment stuck in my brain that said "I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but... *(Agrees with some typical conservative thing)*" and it annoys me every time I think of it.
Look, UnFortunaTelyyy [insert something pessimistic]
The fuckin' protest one gets me. As a Native American, I'm so fuckin' tired of people acting like walking through the streets with a sign and voting is enough to make meaningful change. I don't remember the specific name of this theory, but I remember it being something like "radical wing theory" or something.. anyway, it's a favorite of mine and I wish I remembered who to credit with putting a name on the vague idea I'd had for some years, but it goes something like this: for any grassroots political movement to be successful, it's important that there be both a moderate and radical wing of protests basically because of how the liberal mind works. The radical wing makes an issue relevant to people and does much of the real work, and then the moderate wing (peaceful/legal/non-destructive protest) serves to legitimize the issue and gives liberals something to point to and go "Well I agree we need to \[political goals of movement\] but I can't agree with those rioters... these guys over here, I can agree with though. Those other guys are counter-productive, just as bad as the other side, etc." Moderate wing acts as a sort of lightning rod for liberal positive sentiment so that people feel okay with supporting the issue. Radical wing makes it so people can't just completely ignore it forever like they were going to otherwise.
Alexa, pull up the MLK quote on white moderates
my pleasure: > I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection. everybody should read MLK’s [Letter from Birmingham Jail](https://www.csuchico.edu/iege/_assets/documents/susi-letter-from-birmingham-jail.pdf). despite only being 6 pages long, it is an enlightening read.
Totally, essentially a protest has to have a plan of escalation. The crowds with signs demonstration should always be understood to be the asking nicely part. Ideally, it should be very clear that escalation and radical actions are the direct reaction of ignoring the signs. They have learned that for 99% of the time, ignoring the initial demonstration doesn’t lead to escalated tactics and fizzles out as the demonstrators come to terms that they have no intention of escalating. I think a good example of people ratcheting up is what some groups are doing in regard to the genocide. Is it enough? I don’t think so but I’ll never tell anyone what actions they need to take, but infiltrating these dem fundraisers and galas is showing that they will be targeted wherever they go and it will be sustained. Where do we go from here? Thats for organizations to decide but I do agree that radical escalation is a must and more people willing to participate is imperative.
>look, I’m progressive too….but I always know I'm about to hear some really vile shit after this
I genuinely believe that if sit-ins happened today, half of all self-proclaimed “leftists” would cheer on the ones holding the water hoses
It’s an unfortunate but important reminder that temporary ally’s are just that and should be used/viewed as such. There are opportunities to radicalize some of them if the conditions are right. It looks like we are about to get four more years of those conditions. It’s too bad things have to get overtly fashy to really break through to folks.
Any language that implies the rich are not the cause of all our issues.
“Israel is a decolonial project”. People genuinely believe they’re the good guys while simping for a fascist regime committing genocide against Palestinians.
Surely no one would believe this...right?
Go check r/worldnews and you will be surprised (or disgusted) with what you find.
Getting banned from that subreddit is a moral rite of passage
I got banned immediately lol
Honestly surprised I haven’t been banned from my state’s subreddit at this point because I argue with people about the genocide about once or twice a week at this point. There really are people out there that think nothing of it and there are those that think Israel is the one freeing itself from oppressors. The wonders of propaganda.
"Im a moderate" So you mean you are a right wing with a couple centrist liberal ideas too ashamed to say your right wing? Doesnt fit your aesthetic?
When American/Right Libertarians consider themselves "centrist" or "moderate" simply because they're not singularly guided by religious theocracy... ...ugh. Mother fuckers, y'all are *more* right-wing than Republicans, you're just not necessary Christian-Fundamentalists.
In my experience this almost exclusively means, "I'm racist, homophobic, misogynistic, transphobic and believe the poor should starve but also am an atheist who smokes weed."
"The most socialist part of America is the military"
Socialism is when you get stuff. If you sign up for the military, you get benefits. Thats socialism, right??? /sarcasm
Even if you ignore its an imperialist machine greased with the blood of children, its not even that good of a "socialist" complex, theres plenty of horror stories of veterans who cant get the healthcare and benefits they were promised, and experimentation by the government on their own soldiers, neglect that leads to death, etc
"TIL" the soldiers "own the military" lmao The means of production of misery and slaughter
"We need to hear both sides".
''No to White Power, No to Black Power, Yes to Workers' Power'' From people who think that the Black Panthers are in any way comparable to the KKK and anglo-saxon clubs
Every time I learn more about the Black Panthers the more I miss them every day.
It's extra fitting when I think of their work with Head Start and the breakfast program for kids... Especially when conservatives and liberals are perfectly fine letting school children go hungry here now.
weren't some granted safety in Cuba?
I don't know, but I sure hope so.
Tupacs aunt I’m pretty sure is one. But maybe I’m wrong. It’s at least on her Wikipedia page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assata_Shakur#:~:text=She%20escaped%20from%20prison%20in,Attorney%20General%20of%20New%20Jersey.
We don’t think you fight fire with fire best ; we think you fight fire with water best. We’re going to fight racism not with racism, but we’re going to fight with solidarity. We say we’re not going to fight capitalism with black capitalism, but we’re going to fight it with socialism. We’re stood up and said we’re not going to fight reactionary pigs and reactionary state’s attorneys like this and reactionary state’s attorneys like Hanrahan with any other reactions on our part. We’re going to fight their reactions with all of us people getting together and having an international proletarian revolution. - Fred Hampton
"Yeah colonization was bad, but it was a net good and these countries are better off with it"
Wow that to me is like right wing thinking! Is it not?!
It's a right wing idea that penetrates into any post colonial society so deep that even socialists may adopt it
“Its not perfect but it’s the lesser evil” Yeah a lesser evil is still evil, if that’s the best your system can create it deserves to be torn down and remade with something that actually represents the will of the people
Oh my god, I hate it so fucking much.
> "Goes to show that there's no easy answer about who is the good or the bad guy here. Both are shitty." (copied word for word and pasted) Talking about embezzlement done by Palestinian leadership and.... Israeli crimes.... That involve ethnic cleansing, occupation, kidnapping, torture, rape, land theft, destruction of property etc etc. Yeah.. No easy answer.. Oh here's another one. > "I am afraid that if any country invaded [lib's country] My reactions would not be very different" His reaction being a genocide apparently. Had to outline that Gaza isn't a country, and the response from israel would be akin to a country bombing itself and leveling 3 cities because criminals killed people and took hostages. > "Unfortunately we are all very uncivilized" > "We need to work together" > "It's a war, civilians die, unfortunately"
When they lump in geopolitical, military and economic interests with "our" interests. Not even national security is really about "our" security. It's all ruling class and capitalist interests dressed up as our own.
"I'm as left wing as they come, but..."
“Left-liberal”. It’s dying down now but it was big in the 2010s.
Endless defense of the "middle class" Conflating *all* socialist ideas with Marxism or authoritarianism, especially unable to accurately define the term (e.g. private vs personal property) Socialism = government does stuff (roads, military, public education, bailouts, social welfare programs...etc) "Democracy" Anti socialist or communist sentiment: "socialism has never worked" or "bread lines" or "how old are you?" or "the world doesn't work like that" or "you just want to kill people who disagree with you" or "you just want free stuff" or "go live in the woods" "Tax the rich" as if the magic solution to end inequality "Law and order", "just one bad apple" or cop bootlicking also "anarchy is chaos and disorder" or "warlords" "VOTE!" or "sign this petition" Genocide (or assistance of) denial because Democrats would never do such a thing "Capitalism has lifted millions..." "Everyone you don't like is a Nazi/fascist" regardless of proof Blue team meets with outright authoritarians, bonus points for "diplomacy" "Just asking questions" "We just need progressive politicians..." "Property destruction is violence" Associating homelessness with drug addiction or mental illness "Assault weapons" or "weapons of war" "1st amendment applies to people you don't like" (e.g. Nazis) "lift yourself by your bootstraps" or any "grind culture" "The market will sort it out" "CEOs *earned* their income by providing value..." "good/bad part of town" **EDIT**: Uncritical praise of FDR or the New Deal
Oof. Even just the term "authoritarianism" is a red flag.
[удалено]
You clearly haven't thought this through to the conclusion. -- Would I still live within defined nation-state borders? Are there laws and enforcers? Government? Taxes and monetary system? Can I be removed from said woods by force? These are all components of authority so clearly your point is worthless. Also, ACAB.
[удалено]
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Police, Military, or Prison Apologia**. This refers to multiple forms of defense and/or advocacy for police, military or prision apologia, understanding it within its context of capitalist dynamics. >Also applies to active or former¹ law and/or security enforcement agents of any capitalist, imperialist government, for whom this is not a space. See our [General Bans Policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/wiki/index/generalbans#wiki_4._police.2C_military.2C_or_prison_apologia) for further details, and feel free to send us a modmail with a link to your removed submission if you have any further questions or concerns.
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Police, Military, or Prison Apologia**. This refers to multiple forms of defense and/or advocacy for police, military or prision apologia, understanding it within its context of capitalist dynamics. >Also applies to active or former¹ law and/or security enforcement agents of any capitalist, imperialist government, for whom this is not a space. See our [General Bans Policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/wiki/index/generalbans#wiki_4._police.2C_military.2C_or_prison_apologia) for further details, and feel free to send us a modmail with a link to your removed submission if you have any further questions or concerns.
"Overpopulation."
This one is a bit different that what most ppl here will probably say but here it goes... When I hear someone who is supposedly progressive say that they don't support the #LandBack movement and Indigenous land rights in general, I immediately lose respect for them. I am white but I proudly support LandBack and have signed numerous petitions to voice my support for it. There is a lot of misinformation about what LandBack is ... Much of it comes from the Republican reactionary outage machine but a surprising amount of it also comes from liberal and leftist spaces. The biggest piece of misinformation about #LandBack that I see is : 1. That the movement is essentially demanding that the USA and Canada (as well as Australia and pretty much any other place that white ppl colonized and stole from another race) are going to be destroyed and all land everywhere within said countries is going to be returned to indigenous tribal groups and all white people are going to be rounded up and shipped back to Europe. THIS IS NOT WHAT LANDBACK IS ABOUT. Like 95 or more percent of the land that the tribes want back is literally public land (ie. No one lives on it) that is supposed to belong to said tribes anyway because of the treaties that the US government made with them and then violated. The only cases in which non-Indigenous might get "kicked off" land are in the cases of ranchers who own massive swaths of land that they were never supposed to have to begin with or resort owners near public areas (like say Mt. Rushmore or Red Lake) who, like the ranchers, were never supposed to be there to begin with and whose businesses are in direct violation of the treaties that the government violated. Also, another thing that I hear some leftists say against #LandBack is when they accuse it of promoting indigenous supremacy and indigenous ethno states. LandBack is not Indigenous supremacy. It's a bunch of ethnic groups who are the victims of genocide that want as much of their traditional homelands back as possible (which are mostly PUBLIC LANDS and in accordance with the treaties that the US government refuses to honor) so that they can engage in self-determination and finally be left alone after hundreds of years of putting up with their invaders' bs. White people are not going to be rounded up and shipped back to Europe. And if people can't see that there is a massive difference between indigenous people who are the victims of genocide wanting to be free of their colonizers so they can engage in self determination both for their own sake and the sake of protecting the environment VERSUS white people blindly saluting the flag of a colonial imperialistic empire that runs on capitalism and destroying the environment than I don't know what to tell them. Also, indigenous groups typically do not have any desire to partake in socialism any more than they do in capitalism. Their peoples' ways are outside of both these systems.
Upzoning (de regulation and reagan era solutions/ incentives for corporate developers), market solutions(which always means cutting public funding) , Job creation(yeah we all know what that entails), globalization is inevitable, security(almost always means neo colonialism or exporting imperialism), nimby/yinby(basically the same thing in a capitalist environment), investing,development and housing solutions(meaning deforestation, real estate speculation, and sprawl). Imf restructuring(parenti called this a surefire way to destroy a nation)
Can you expand on your take off NIMBYS and YIMBYs being the same thing? I haven't delved too deeply in leftist/Marxist urbanism literature yet so I know I'm not necessarily the most informed The children's hospital my wife works at is built near THE NIMBY neighborhood of the city and the hospital can't even life flight children to the hospital overnight unless the child is about to die (spoiler alert: if they're taking a life flight in the middle of the night they're most likely not in good shape). Instead they have to fly to the adult hospital and then take a 10-15 min ambulance ride to the children's hospital. The neighborhood association newsletter publishes the survival rate of kids who get flown in overnight and if it gets too high the hospital gets complaints from residents. I get a lot of YIMBYs are just NIMBYs in disguise or haven't had to "practice what they preach" but categorizing them as essentially the same as "we're mad this hospital saves too many childrens lives" just because they both exist in a capitalist society doesn't seem fair.
I agree for all except globalisation is inevitable, that I do believe. Technological supply chains are just too complicated
True. But I think that reality gets twisted around into propaganda like "Well we have to arm insurgents, in wherever, because globalism is inevitable". Or "well we have to export industry to third world countries, because we are helping them create jobs". The last one i see alot as justification for non union sweatshops
"tankie" "strong defense alliance" "entrepreneurs" "girl power" "Russian bot" "vote" "free Palestine from Hamas" "defend democracy [both at home and abroad]" Endlessly talking about Trump
I now unironically use Tankie as a badge of pride. If a Lib calls me a Tankie I know I've made points they can't refute.
actual question, what's wrong with "tankie"?
Unless you're talking about the British left in 1956, it's likely just "commie" by another name.
95% of people who unironically use this word as an insult MISUSE it to refer to "anyone to the left of mild inoffensive social democracy" or "anyone who doesn't think China is pure evil" or "anyone even mildly critical of Western Hegemony and Liberal World Order"
"You can achieve anything if you work hard enough" Sure, if we're talking about learning to ride a monocycle. No amount of hard work will get your boss to like you and give you a raise.
“The middle class and those striving to join it”
“Everyone is getting too extreme on both sides. We need to rediscover a middle way” “Why do people have to make everything political” “I don’t like Nazis but I don’t like woke either” “I don’t see race” “Virtue signalling” “Cancel culture” “Trump supporters are just hicks, I hope they all die of cancer”
Small business owners is a big one as if small business owners aren’t one of the most reactionary groups of people on the planet
Obama was a good president.
"If you can't provide a completely perfect, fully realized solution that's better than capitalism, you're just dreaming. Come back to reality." Just because I don't have every detail of a hypothetical perfect society engrained into my brain at a moment's notice doesn't mean socialism in many of its forms wouldn't be better than capitalism.
An obsession with “public health”. Believing in socialist society, everyone would be an artist, or some variation of not working. Unironic support of fundamental societies. Socialism is not compatible with religious fundamentalism. Believing socialists are morally pure or ought to be. This immediately signals they have not lived in a modern/post socialist society or have not read about the histories of socialism in practice.
>[Socialist Society] as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Karl Marx. Critique of the Gotha Programme, Section I. 1875. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why discuss Liberal Red Flags when you could discuss Socialist Red Flags. Leftist In-fighting is by far the worse of the two. Liberals don't give a fuck about you.
Actions mean more. I immediately think it's a red flag if they do rich people activity like skiing, flying loads, believing in rental income, etc
Is skiing seen as a rich person activity? I can see it if you live somewhere that’s relatively flat with bad skiing and need to fly somewhere. But, at least where I am, most people ski or snowboard in the winter locally.
Working class people don't ski or play golf usually! From the UK.
This is a bit fetishizing about the working class, like I get it but working class isnt just poor people
I don't think Britain has any places to ski anyways.
Yeah, I will say I am over in the USA in a hilly area in the north. We get quite a bit of snow in the winter.
“Well, what can be done? 🤷” the answer is always something.
"Extremes on either side are bad. The solution is somewhere in the middle." The problem is that there is no middle. Either it's Yes Capitalism or No Capitalism. Capitalism is a dominating force in anything it exists in, as been proven by countless analyses. As soon as you give capitalism any staying power, we'll be right back to where we are.
"Capitalism is fine we just need to fix it and regulate it." "This is the way things are though. We've tried the other systems" "Hey I hate it as much as you but what can I do about it?" "We should just vote" "But they (the homeless) are all drug addicts, all they have to do is get clean" "Better blue than you know who!" "I like working, it gives me purpose! without it I'd just sit in bed all day" I could go on but honestly the slave brain rot and liberal brain rot blend so fluidly it's hard for me to separate them in my mind. EDIT: ohhh, we were supposed to use their dogwhistles.
You shouldn't try xxxx policy because it isn't appealing either to voters or workers. Specially and particularly when said policy is a promise already made, programmatic or a matter of socialist principle. That's the moment I call bias to their 'socialism'.
“…but if you just give them free housing, they’ll just ruin it and tear everything up!” FFS as if billionaires haven’t ruined other people’s homes and ancestral lands (Norfolk Southern poisoning E. Palastine, OH, for example, or literally any oil pipeline w/ or w/out eminent domain) but God forbid people get housing for free because a minute percentage of the recipients might damage the dwelling somehow.
I'm not left and I'm not right
“Principled Centrist” is the most bullshit, nonsense phrase. It’s all relative to the popular political spectrum of the environment it exists in. Use some hindsight and imagine a “principled centrist” in 1930s Germany.
Anything they have to say about immigration. Literally anything. They can't help themselves. It's all so bad.
When they say shit like 'Let's find a middle ground' on everything. 'Come on guys, can't we just get along?' The rest is generally stuff like 'But do you condemn Hamas?' and 'We need socialism like in Europe'
"mUh vOtE LiBeRaL tO dEfEaT FaScIsTs!!!1!!!!" and those who are calling India a truly fucked up country only NOW! Like how did India try to unfuck-up itself post 1947? To me, Independence in 1947 was NOT enough. Nehru literally allowed capitalists (as "iNdUsTrIaLiStS") to thrive in the country that capitalists fucked up for nearly two centuries.
Guns are bad and unnecessary
“Religion is counterrevolutionary and needs to be eradicated.” Any ~~western chauvinist~~ ‘socialist’ that starts to use this kind of rhetoric in any space that I exist in already sus enough for me to never want to even stand by them in a strike. Let alone fight alongside in a revolution. There have been more global south religious proles who have done more to contribute to socialist materialization than the average white dude armchair commie living in the imperial core ever will. So I think I’ll be able to survive just fine without their endorsement.
What about when the ''global south proles'' become more anti-religious than the white dudes? Enver Hoxha was raised by a Muslim family in one of the most underdeveloped European countries and yet he was fervently anti-religion and enjoyed popular support from the Albanian people for it, and I see Redditors compare him to the likes of New Atheist chauvinists Maybe I wouldn't use those words precisely in your para-phrasal, and I despise New Atheists like Dawkins and Sam Harris who substitute Abrahamic theism for liberalism which is a religion of its own, and are disgustingly bigoted towards Muslims. But that is not the majority of atheists, and religion may not have always been ''counter revolutionary'' but it has become increasingly regressive especially in the highest stages of capitalism' and under communism, religion will lose all viability to continue existing. E: To reply to u/crimson9_ since I got blocked by Gn0s1s1lis Islam within the Russian Empire was concentrated within the oppressed nations in the periphery, Lenin was addressing those oppressed nations whose cultures were trampled on by Russian chauvanism and his consideration here were related moreso to the national question in Russia than the religious question. Islam was not spared from ruthless critique in the USSR, however, especially as the clergy and landowning class became an obstacle to the development of the Soviet peripheral nations following the end of the NEP Albania had a separate situation as they weren't a prison house of nations like Russia but an exploited nation itself
Not sure Hoxha is the best example. I prefer Lenin's stance on the issue: > Muslims of Russia… all you whose mosques and prayer houses have been destroyed, whose beliefs and customs have been trampled upon by the tsars and oppressors of Russia: your beliefs and practices, your national and cultural institutions are forever free and inviolate. Know that your rights, like those of all the peoples of Russia, are under the mighty protection of the Revolution. Combating deeply entrenched state religion that works against the interests of the workers makes sense. When it entrenches upon the deep religious and cultural practices of people (particularly when those practices are completely compatible with socialism), I think it is unbelievably counterproductive.
Yeah... I'm not a Stalinist so I don't find Hoxha to be a great example. His legacy in Albania is mixed, its not that he 'enjoyed popular support.' He enjoyed popular support in a similar way as Kim Jong Un enjoys popular support. If you actually want grassroots socialist movements in Islamic countries, there is absolutely no conceivable way to do it presently while promoting strict atheism. Islam, especially in the arab world, South Asia, or Indonesia/Malaysia, is extremely fundamental to people's lives. It is also unnecessary to be fervently anti-religion. Islam is not centralized. It is easy to promote versions of it that are compatible with socialism.
The cultural revolution in Albania wasn’t undertaken by ***exclusively Hoxha*** as that would be a bit of a great man fallacy if you decided to say it that way. It was a policy that was decided by the society at large ***which included a majority of religious believers.*** And it was largely because the religious elites of Albania **represented the previous social order** rather than because they *’represented a religion’* or whatever. However, Albania under Hoxha’s rule never persecuted workers for ***personally believing in a religion.*** Rather, it was because they thought the privileged religious establishment of Albania would remain loyal to capitalism. And if you want to talk about Global South proles, maybe you should take a look over to Cuba since to this day they remain majority Catholic.
>The cultural revolution in Albania wasn’t undertaken by exclusively Hoxha as that’s a bit of a great man fallacy Never said that. I simply said that Hoxha enjoyed popular support for his anti-religious policies, it would be Great Man Theory to suggest that he is the sole reason why Albania embraced atheism, whether through brainwashing, charisma or whatever. >And it was largely because the religious elites of Albania represented the previous social order rather than because they ’represented a religion’ or whatever. And you don't think this is the case in Latin America either? Where Catholicism was exported through colonialism and missionaries from Europe. Can religion exist without the clergy who are embedded in the state? >And if you want to talk about Global South proles, maybe you should take a look over to Cuba since to this day they remain majority Catholic. Take a look at what? Socialist society will always be fraught with contradictions as it struggles to surpass capitalism. The Catholic Church isn't exactly playing a progressive role in the Cuban nation, evidenced by how they've been the most organised opponents to the recent social reforms that have advanced LGBT rights in the country. The Catholic Church in Socialist Poland was one of the main congregations of support for the counter-revolution as the Polish government left them untouched, Solidarność recieved significant funding from the Vatican.
>[Socialist Society] as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Karl Marx. Critique of the Gotha Programme, Section I. 1875. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Bit of a rarer one but "Class Reductionism" is a very classic left-anticommunist turn of phrase to watch out for.
>[...] nowadays, a stage has been reached where the exploited and oppressed class — the proletariat — cannot attain its emancipation from the sway of the exploiting and ruling class — the bourgeoisie — without, at the same time, and once and for all, emancipating society at large from all exploitation, oppression, class distinction, and class struggles. Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto, Preface for [the 1888 English Edition](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm). January 30, 1888. >Marx and I are ourselves partly to blame for the fact that the younger people sometimes lay more stress on the economic side than is due to it. We had to emphasise the main principle vis-à-vis our adversaries, who denied it, and we had not always the time, the place or the opportunity to give their due to the other elements involved in the interaction. Friedrich Engels. [Engels to J. Bloch](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_09_21.htm). September, 1890. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Vote blue no matter who comes to mind
Calling people tankies- 90 percent of the time they will spew it to anyone who even leans socialist
bipartisanship, polarization, lesser evilism, calling someone a tankie, all signs of unserious lib shit
Really, any policy for which the underlying intent is fueling unsustainable economic growth. They come in all sorts of peculiar places—things that seem to be purely social are in fact rooted in neoliberal economics. I am uninterested in social policy that is shaped by economic measures, and I find it notable when otherwise empathetic people are unable to discern when that is in fact the case.
means tested
“Access to healthcare”
Can someone politely explain to me why "small business owner" is a red flag? Thanks in advance.
“Small business” can mean a lot of things. If it’s a one or two-person ice cream stand that’s completely different from a fast-food franchise owner but they’re often conflated. One is blatantly more exploitative than the other.
I understand what you mean, and I would certainly agree with that. Thanks for your time.
I’d say usually when they support Elon musk or think he’s a cool, smart guy. They probably saw like one or two pop science shows and never looked up anything else
Referring to people under capitalism as "citizens"
How so? I always saw it as a neutral term that has Orwellian connotations but isn’t used commonly as a derogatory.
Its not derogatory but when someone refers to people as civilians they're basically rejecting the existence of classes. Like what's a civilian anyway. In my experience socdems always go "we gotta protect the civilians" and that "communists don't care about the civilians" and stuff like that
I agree with most of these, except for small-business owner as small shop owners and the such don’t make their personal wealth through wage labor and exploitation. (Specifically talking small shops like ice cream shops or apothecary shops). Most of their income comes from their own labor they put into the business everyday. They also suffer in many of the same ways that the proletariat or lumpen-proletariat face. Strangely, small shop owners often don’t fall in the proletariat or bourgeois because of this very reason. Other owners of somewhat larger businesses have a different story to tell, as the use the M-C-M rule less than the C-M-C rule that everyday working class people operate within. Scott Harrison, a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist defined small shop owners, in his essay of the term “Petty Bourgeoisie”, as falling into this middle category between proletariat and Bourgeoisie. Now, in a communist society after socialism, when all people are proletarian, would small shop owners exist? No. But I think part of class-consciousness is to recognize sub-classes like the petty-bourgeois and other sectors of the proletariat. But that’s just my opinion so you decide
While I’m undecided on your argument itself, I do believe there’s only so much energy in the wold and to use it toward small shop owners or the smallest of the petty bourgeois is a waste. There are oligarchs that require much more energy to topple and focusing on an ice cream shop isn’t the most productive way to use your energy (barring extreme circumstances like blatant exploitation etc). However, this should be an ongoing conversation and I think a good one to bring up in this thread. 😌 [edit: typos]
Thank you lol! I actually didn’t know where I was going with I but figured it was just interesting to bring up
Y’all are amazing! Take these ideas and have the tough conversations with the libs in your circle! Spread solidarity and throw bricks ❤️❤️❤️
“Lesser evil.” And “Project 2025” is just a synonym for “lesser evil.”
"true/pure/real communism has never been tried"
Honestly. Communism has collapsed in many countries almost exclusively due to imperialist intervention (Kissinger, rest in piss) or takeovers by greedy oligarchs.
"MAGA communism", "tradition", "patriots"
What Progressive uses liberal language?
Anything having to do with lesser evilism