Salta al contenuto principale


The Liberal Abandonment Of Greta Thunberg


in reply to davel

It just shows that an ambassador for one topic doesn’t have to be successful for another.
in reply to notsosure

.
Questa voce è stata modificata (1 settimana fa)
in reply to davel

They abandoned her around the time her environmental protests started being a little too effective. I mean disruptive.
in reply to ShinkanTrain

Wasn't that also when she started being critical of the impact of capitalism on the environment? 🤔
in reply to goferking (he/him)

It’s going to always come down to wealth inequality, which is bred by unregulated capitalism, which is bribed into existence by money in politics.

And getting politicians to reject money is impossible since they don’t want to end up on the eating side of the inequality gap.

in reply to ShinkanTrain

.
Questa voce è stata modificata (1 settimana fa)
in reply to ☂️-

When did she do that? I've lways thought of her as liberal with rich parents who get's to do high-publicity protests that achieve nothing and distract from the economic problem.
in reply to PowerCrazy

That might have been the case some years ago when she was very young, but it is clear that her political consciousness has evolved significantly since then. How many of us can say that we held the same political views as teenagers as we do now?
in reply to PowerCrazy

Y'all got to take the word "distract" out of your vocabulary. Israel is not committing genocide to distract from the Epstein files.

I don't really know or care much about Greta Thuneberg. But I wouldn't criticize her unless my activism was objectively more effective than hers...and I don't think that describes either of us.

in reply to ShinkanTrain

Effective? Come on.

I mean she's great, gave a voice to what a lot of people have been thinking for decades before she was born. Maybe what most people think today.
But there is really nothing that's effective. It's not dissing her, it's just that the machine is too strong and it's able to even use the opposition to itself for the machines purpose, like the article says.Usually. It didn't work with Greta, so she's just ignored.

in reply to NoiseColor

Everything made by humans can be destroyed by humans. No social system is forever. The rest is just skill issue.
in reply to chobeat

Sure. Skill issue. Says the skilled warrior changing the world.

Sure. Whatever you say.

Questa voce è stata modificata (2 settimane fa)
in reply to NoiseColor

I actually teach how to plan, execute, and assess political and social impact, beyond practicing it in my orgs. Are you aware there are plenty of disciplines working exactly on this? Your rethoric is just a way to justify your inaction. If nothing can change, it means you're exempted from your responsibilities. Too easy.
Questa voce è stata modificata (2 settimane fa)
in reply to chobeat

Your teach? Wow. I thought you are a psychic since you know everything about me from one Lemmy post lol.

I hope you aren't such s duche with you students.
Anyway, in any case it makes sense to asses effectiveness every now and then. For academic purposes of nothing else.

Questa voce è stata modificata (2 settimane fa)
in reply to NoiseColor

Dumb take, we have abandoned many an undefeatable system in the past, and giving people's feelings a voice is what got us there
in reply to porous_grey_matter

We have also not abandoned many systems many times, that's not an argument.
Show me the effect and disruption. I'm not against it, just right now there isn't much there.

You can say she was the head of that flotilla and without her it would be at least much smaller and you are right, but in this case, considering what Israel did to them and there is still a lack of any real effects.

Questa voce è stata modificata (2 settimane fa)
in reply to NoiseColor

It's incredibly hard to prove things like this so if you don't believe it you don't, but I don't think the effects are just meant to be directly bringing food to Gaza. If that were the only way to measure it you'd be right. But the only thing which could possibly stop Israel is strong political pressure from the West and we are getting closer to that, the world is angry about it in a way they weren't before. Even Germany, the most hard-line Israel supporter is changing its stance. These massive protests in Italy wouldn't have been like this otherwise. Yeah maybe I'm wrong because these things are nebulous and slow but that's how activism is and I think those things are real changes.
in reply to porous_grey_matter

I am thinking of the political effects. I'm surprised that there doesn't seem to be any after what they did to her and others on the boats.

But on the other hand, the world has stood by for more than half a century of torture of Gazans, so it shouldn't be surprising.

in reply to NoiseColor

I'm surprised that there doesn't seem to be any after what they did to her and others on the boats.


This stuff takes longer than a news cycle, that was two days ago.

But on the other hand, the world has stood by for more than half a century of torture of Gazans, so it shouldn't be surprising.


Agreed.

in reply to NoiseColor

"We live in capitalism, its power seems inescapable – but then, so did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings." Ursula K Le Guin

It's been done before, even under more oppressive conditions. It can and will be done again.

in reply to NoiseColor

I get it. You find it comforting to believe there's nothing you can do to change things, so you refuse to consume anything that would challenge that notion. Otherwise, you might feel obligated to do something you aren't willing to do, like join a cause or think critically about how you might make change.

I suppose ignorance is bliss, after all, but if you did want to challenge that notion, I'm happy to share the following:

That's only what I could name off the top of my head

It is in this context alone that we see serious peace talks taking place, with Trump and other US negotiators getting directly involved, and Israel actually seemingly motivated to engage in negotiations on Hamas's terms (i.e. their demands for a permanent ceasefire, unrestricted humanitarian aid, full IOF withdrawal, prisoners exchange, resisting the disarmament of their people, etc). That deal most certainly won't be enough, but it's a start. We both know that Israel wouldn't even come to the table without overwhelming pressure to do so. The cracks in the empire are showing and the empire is desperate to close them, but the thing about cracks is they tend to permanently weaken the structures that stand on them.

Questa voce è stata modificata (2 settimane fa)
in reply to causepix

Yes, that's all great, but you have completely the wrong assumptions about me and about what I said.

Nevertheless I appreciate that you gathered all that information together.

in reply to davel

The term "liberal" is toxic. Liberal's are disliked by "the right" and by progressives. They are truly useless snowflakes that do nothing but virtue signal and sell everything and everyone out that threatens their convenience and comforts.
in reply to

For leftists that's exactly who we're talking about when we say liberals. The right to private property and equality and the consent of the governed are logically incompatible. Right liberals (e.g. US Republican party) emphasise the former, and moderate liberals (e.g. US Democratic party) pay lip service to the latter while only actually protecting the former. It's really only about property in the end.
in reply to porous_grey_matter

I wouldn’t say those three things are inherently logically incompatible, but there would be a lot of grey areas.

The power structure of the federal government doesn’t make it any easier to actually exercise the federal government to accomplish helpful objectives, but making things worse is a relatively easy exercise.

The focus on state level politics seems much more meaningful to actually accomplish any goals, since at least there is not as big of a hurdle where land and money have more power/representation than real people.

in reply to porous_grey_matter

They are not logically incompatible, but we will have to make clear and specific decisions about where one ends and the other begins.

Unless you are asking me to live in a society where I must share my toothbrush with others because I am not allowed to keep any private property.

I do believe in private property: with modest, reasonable limits. Which we can and will discuss the details of over time, and I understand that will likely become a heated discussion at times, but I believe it is an inevitable and necessary one. Does that disqualify me from being a leftist? Does it make me a liberal too? Let me know.

in reply to cecilkorik

Private property in this context means things which generate/are used to generate capital, not just any kind of object which people might have and use. The important distinction is that capital is social, it is a means of coercing others to do work for you. That's true for a factory, where people work for the owner, or for a rented property where the tenant must work to pay the owner. It's true in a way even for wages - when you spend money you are buying the products of people's labour (which under capitalism was not produced in a just way). It's not the case for your toothbrush.

The distinction that liberalism made was that everyone should in theory be allowed to own private property rather than royals appointed by divine right and hereditary nobility they delegated some power to. Not that in the 1700s we were suddenly allowed to have our own clothes for the first time in history.

Questa voce è stata modificata (2 settimane fa)
in reply to porous_grey_matter

It’s not the case for your toothbrush.


Isn't it though? I didn't make my toothbrush. It came from the toothbrush factory. In fact, it's an electric toothbrush. Which presumably requires a lot of somewhat high tech inputs and resources to create. Would someone have developed this innovation without some economic pressure to do so? I'm not totally convinced. I think there is some role for capital in that sense. Maybe I'm wrong.

Thank you for taking my somewhat tongue in cheek comment so generously though. My humor is not always placed appropriately and doesn't always come across well, but it sometimes provokes people to respond, and I'm simply trying to learn and keep an open mind, and I appreciate your time and effort in sharing your knowledge.

in reply to Jo Miran

I completely agree.

The left needs to stop letting liberals define them.

in reply to davel

This isn’t at all to say her original stance was misguided. It is to say that she recognises genocide and ecocide come from the same root. Systems of power that destroy ecosystems also destroy people, also destroy planets, also destroy worlds. She is in many ways simply displaying a logical consistency, as much as a moral one, about the interconnected nature of the evils that plague our civilisation. And this is where she broke with a liberal class who see evils selectively and in terms framed and dictated by empire.


hear hear! Too many people who love the “first they came for” poem who still think Palestine is a pesky wedge issue being used against their boys in blue.

in reply to davel

She's not that rowdy little girl anymore. Now she's a fierce young woman.

So of course they abandoned her.

in reply to RizzRustbolt

They dropped her the very moment it became clear she's an actual leftist and wasn't just this little kid talking about climate change.
in reply to davel

Greta could have become a very rich liberal grifter.

keep them Davos cheques coming in.

instead she's risking her life to help those humanity has abandoned.

respect

in reply to 🍉 Albert 🍉

And you got leftist piling on liberals for some reason

Edit: oh shit I'm in .ml my bad(not really) lol hey at least you don't ban dissent I guess

Edit 2: Leftists once again can't see the forest for the trees with your ideological purity test pitted against defeating a common enemy. For people so smart you really need to understand that your power lies with NUMBERS

Questa voce è stata modificata (2 settimane fa)
in reply to Quadhammer

Wym some reason? Y'all get off too easy imo.

Stop with the woe is me shit, you know perfectly well how complicit y'all are.

Questa voce è stata modificata (2 settimane fa)
in reply to Grapho

Wait so Greta is a liberal and doing right but other liberals are enables but leftists are ... checks notes... circle jerking themselves to completion over a captured "ally"? Make it make sense
in reply to Quadhammer

Greta is very clearly not a liberal. She's been very vocally anticapitalist these past few years.
in reply to Quadhammer

Sure, if you ignore the meaning of both of those words.
in reply to Quadhammer

Economic liberalism is associated with markets and private ownership of capital assets. Economic liberals tend to oppose government intervention and protectionism in the market economy when it inhibits free trade and competition, but tend to support government intervention where it protects property rights, opens new markets or funds market growth, and resolves market failures.[2]


Shitlibs even too lazy for wikipedia

in reply to Quadhammer

You quite literally cannot. Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism.
in reply to causepix

No, it's not. It means I believe in personal liberty over economic system
Questa voce è stata modificata (2 settimane fa)
in reply to Quadhammer

Economic liberalism is associated with markets and private ownership of capital assets. Economic liberals tend to oppose government intervention and protectionism in the market economy when it inhibits free trade and competition, but tend to support government intervention where it protects property rights, opens new markets or funds market growth, and resolves market failures.[2]


Shitlibs even too lazy for wikipedia

in reply to KimBongUn420

People who call themselves liberal are not economic liberal you completely dense morons. In the sense that the government can't seize your shit for no reason well ddduuuuhhhhh MOST people are going to feel that way that doesn't mean we can't tax the shit out of billionaires or drag them out into the street
in reply to Quadhammer

Anti-capitalism is when you tax billionaires. The more you tax them the more anti-capitalister you are
in reply to Quadhammer

that doesn’t mean we can’t tax the shit out of billionaires or drag them out into the street


"I believe in personal liberty over economic system"

in reply to Quadhammer

A millionaire with 999M$ is a person but +1$ make him not a person anymore? How you judge that? Where is the line in this shit ideology that the personal liberty above all stops people to gain more riches?
in reply to ZeroHora

The line is their riches do not supercede other people's rights
in reply to Quadhammer

you completely dense morons


You not wanting to understand what we're telling you does not make us the morons.

edit:

In the sense that the government can't seize your shit [...] that doesn't mean we can't tax the shit out of billionaires


Doesn't it? Where do you draw the line between taxes and government seizure, especially in the context of capital owners? Also, wouldn't it be far more effective for the government to simply own the means of production and operate at the behest of the people? Does taxing capitalists more while still allowing them to have full control over the means of production - which they'll use to influence the people and government in their favor - not simply set up the same situation we find ourselves in now, just some amount of time down the road?

I would say it does set that up (in fact it has in the past, just look at what was in the new deal and how it's been eroded since it was signed. Assuming you're familiar with US history...), and that is why liberalism is incompatible with anti-capitalism.

Questa voce è stata modificata (2 settimane fa)
in reply to causepix

No, liberalism means INDEPENDENT of the economic system I believe in personal liberty. Billionaires shitting on everything INTERFERES with my and my peoples personal liberty therefore it must be destroyed
in reply to Quadhammer

You might feel that way, but committed ideological liberals would strongly disagree with you.
in reply to Quadhammer

Oh you know, only the ones making the laws.
Questa voce è stata modificata (2 settimane fa)
in reply to causepix

So which neoliberal dems are referring to themselves as liberals? No, it is a derrogatory perjative to both the nazis and the leftists at this point, by design. Most of the dems are going to claim to be either progressive or conservative
in reply to Quadhammer

lol that's not what I'm referring to. What they call themselves doesn't matter, what matters is whether their policies/laws and/or philosophy/ideology align with neoliberal principals. In other words; we only care about the material reality of the matter. This is because Marxists follow a framework called dialectical materialism.

Words, especially those which a politician or lawmaker uses to market themselves to the public, are not material. They can't be measured in any meaningful way and they don't necessarily reflect reality. (You can, however, measure the material indications and effects of those words if you're inclined to do so, but that's besides my point.)

Questa voce è stata modificata (1 settimana fa)
in reply to RenLinwood

What do you want me to read "the extensive guide to felating Carl marx while ignoring real life and confirming my own bias"? Okay
in reply to Quadhammer

“For some reason”

Liberals in the US are MAGA enablers. To the last individual.

in reply to WizardofFrobozz

Yeah what and you're going to resist the us gov with what percent of the population?
in reply to causepix

I'm not a fascist enabler. I believe in personal liberty above all
Questa voce è stata modificata (2 settimane fa)
in reply to Quadhammer

"Personal liberty" is what allows capitalists to exploit us. They have all the "liberty" you think you have. The "liberty" to put lies in the media, to pay you less than the value of your labor in order to extract a profit, to charge extortionist prices for healthcare and other basic needs, to influence politics and to crush competing public industries. These are all the things that "liberty" gets you under capitalism. "Personal liberty above all" != working class liberation.
Questa voce è stata modificata (2 settimane fa)
in reply to causepix

So there's no liberty under communism? I'd say class freedom is extreme liberty
in reply to Quadhammer

Communism operates under what was referred to by Marx as a 'dictatorship of the proletariat', which we regard as complete liberation of the working class, because it allows the public to have control which is simply not possible under the liberal framework of "personal liberty for all". Under the liberal framework, even the smallest most democratic intervention is decried as "government overreach"; that is, if it is even made democratically possible in the first place.

Which isn't totally incorrect, because what you're talking about isn't "personal liberty for all". You exclude billionaires. Us socialists/communists exclude capitalists as a whole, because the sole interest of a capitalist is to enrich themselves at the direct expense of the working class and our liberty. Billionaires are certainly the worst and most visible offenders, but a materialist lens allows one to see that each and every capitalist serves interests that are fundamentally in conflict with those of the working class. To operate any other way would be to betray their own interests, and wouldn't make for a very effective result.

Liberation will only come when the working class has the power to decide collectively how our resources will be used, which will only come when we have majority control over the means of production, which will eventually lead to the capitalist class becoming completely obsolete. Liberation means being able to provide for our needs above anything else; for the sake of our humanity alone, and from the work that we are already doing; rather than our labor power being extracted for private gains and our needs provided only to the extent that it serves capitalists' profit motives.

Questa voce è stata modificata (2 settimane fa)
in reply to Quadhammer

Why is that? Have you ever spent time thinking about how that would be any more or less possible under the current system than, say, seizing the wealth of billionaires and socializing it back to the working class? How would the latter ever be possible by any means short of revolution, especially now if Trump gets his way? What will you do when the ruling class doesn't put that kind of relief on the table? How much oppression and destruction will you consent to, if you believe liberation is not possible and things can only get worse from here?

If you don't believe in it, you won't fight for it. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. That's exactly why our system does everything in its power; both to obscure revolutionary working class history, and to inflate the state's ability to repress dissent. So I'll repeat this until the day I die: it's been done before under worse circumstances.

Russians and Cubans were under brutal dictatorship. Haitians were completely enslaved by one of the most powerful colonial forces in their time. Vietnamese guerillas successfully fought off invasion by the single most militaristic nation in the world, and they aren't alone in having done so (see North Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, so on). If I could speculate, I'd say China's political and economic situation in 1950 is a pretty reasonable outcome for the direction we're heading now in the US. Regardless of how you feel about what came after each of these struggles, the factual reality is that these weren't armies sponsored by any state. These were working class people fighting directly against the states that profited from their exploitation.

All of those people got organized and won liberation from their domestic oppressors, doing their part to weaken the empire, despite what would seem as insurmountable odds to a disorganized worker. It's on us now to organize ourselves against our own oppressors, to get them off both our backs and theirs, and we can't do that without maintaining optimism about our ability to win should we fight. We know that Fascism can only exist for so long until it cannibalizes itself. As a collective we are capable of beating it long before that comes to pass. If we allow the state to beat that optimism out of us then we are only greatly delaying our liberation and doing the ultimate disservice to our people.

"We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art, and very often in our art, the art of words." - Ursula K. Le Guin
in reply to causepix

I hear you and I don't want to diminish your hope because I do think the younger generation sees the benefit of it. I just think you'd have to convince the right it's a good idea
in reply to Quadhammer

I don't think we should waste our time trying to convince fascists of anything (most of whom are the wealthy elites we outnumber anyways), other than by carrying out the consequences of their actions. Their interests are simply not aligned with ours.

That's okay though, because threshold number of people required to disrupt the system and make real change is much smaller than you would think. All it takes is coordination between those of us that believe in upholding the dignity of the working class, and we gain that coordination by organizing and spreading class consciousness.

The thing is that most of the everyday people in the US already agree with us. Even Republican voters. Most people believe that housing, food, and healthcare should be affordable; that there should be real solutions to homelessness and crime; even bodily autonomy (pro-choice, gender affirming care) is popular among the people. It's just that neither party puts up real solutions, both of them make excuses for why those things are not possible, and the Republicans are really good at making up scapegoats and creating non-solutions that sound really good to someone already conditioned to accept them, which the Democrats generally play along with and split the difference rather than putting up any real challenge or counter-argument.

As for the aesthetics of socialism, even Castro eventually had to spell out that it was, in fact, socialism that was responsible for all the gains they had made since their revolution - that the bogeymen they were so afraid of were simply projections made by their former oppressors. Working class consciousness doesn't have to be 100% before anything can ever happen. It can grow as a result of our success after the fact.

::: spoiler Excerpt from Fidel Castro's Speech on Marxism-Leninism

Formation of the ORI

These forces were called upon to unite in a single organization, and we organized the ORI. It was not easy, it was also a lengthy process; but, in the end, we organized the Integrated Revolutionary Organizations.

Sectarian attitudes are gradually disappearing; so are the attitudes of exclusivism. In the same way, people are no longer being excluded because they are socialists, and, consequently, sectarianism and similar attitudes are disappearing. Some attitudes of extremism are also disappearing. Extremism, which is often called "the measles," should, of course, not be confused with revolutionary firmness. Extremism is another manifestation of the petit bourgeois spirit in the revolutionary movement which we must fight against just as we have to fight against sectarianism.

There are many things our people have already had time to learn. They have had time to get rid of some of the prejudices that many people had who depicted socialism as something terrible something inhuman, something harsh, something enslaving, which is exactly all that imperialism is and which it accuses socialism of being.

Well, we are in a socialist regime. How different is this socialist regime from everything that had been said about socialism So much so that even those who have had problems, like the reactionary clergy, who have had problems with the Revolution, can't blame the socialists for them, can't say the socialists tried to close the churches, prohibit and persecute religious ideas. On the contrary, Aware that religious sentiment is a part of the feelings of some people, revolutionary power must respect the religious sentiment of that part of the people. It does respect it, and gives it every facility. It was those who waged war on the revolutionary regime who said that they would be deprived of parental authority over their children. And the people have learned the truth. Who were they who took away parental rights? Saboteurs who murdered young men and women, counter-revolutionary criminals who murdered a 16-year-old teacher and deprive his mother forever of parental rights, of affection, of warmth and the hope of having her son at home again.

Not only did they murder him; they tortured him. Why did they torture him? Did they torture him, as the Batista secret police used to do, to force a secret from a revolutionary? No, they did not torture him to get any secrets out of him. They tortured him because they were sadists, because of their love of torture, because that boy was there teaching. What secret could he have had? Thus, it was not to squeeze out any secrets. They stabbed him fourteen times. They stabbed him simply to torture him, to fill him with anguish, to make him suffer, to sow terror in the hearts of all mothers. We found out that what robbed people of their parental rights was exploitative - capitalism, which dragged peasant girls away from the countryside to put them to work as servants, to force them into a life of prostitution. We found out that it was capitalism that condemned the daughters of workers and the daughters of peasants to that fate. And it turns out to be precisely socialism that wipes out illiteracy, that educates a million Cubans, that makes plans to rehabilitate prostitutes, to teach typing and shorthand to domestics, to wipe out unemployment, to bring teachers to the remotest corner of the country, to fight and die defending the country from the claws of imperialism, to bring hospitals, to bring roads, to organize social activities, to organize children's activities, to organize youth activities, to develop culture and to struggle for the happiness of the people. That is what we have given our people.

Socialism behaves very generously toward its enemies -- too generously. The social system which captured over a thousand mercenary traitors -- paid by and serving the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon, and who came here escorted by foreign ships -- the system that captured 500 counter-revolutionaries -- among whom were many murderers who had already committed blatant crimes against the peasants -- without even applying the maximum penalty on them, the social system that sees with anguish its calm and generous attitude repaid by the cowardly and vile murder of a 16-year-old youth -- that is socialism.

In other words, with all its power, socialism does not abuse it. It is calm. It is conscientious. It struggles to overcome all its defects. It struggles to overcome-extremism, sectarianism, abuses, injustices, simply because it is socialism, simply because it is what Marx and Engels conceived of, what Lenin and all the revolutionaries fought for -- a better life for man, a happier life for the people, a freer life for the people, that replaces the regime of class oppression, the regime of an exploiting class over the workers, with a workers' democracy. In Marxist terms, this is known as the "dictatorship of the proletariat". (applause).


Source: marxists.org/history/cuba/arch…
:::

Questa voce è stata modificata (1 settimana fa)
in reply to Quadhammer

I am 100% correct and you already know it, any hope you have for liberals engaging in meaningful resistance is pure delusion
in reply to Quadhammer

Liberals are not leftists or allies, you object to "purity tests" because you know you'll fail them
in reply to davel

Liberal ‘leaders’ abandonment. There needs to be an understanding that leadership is no longer following the will of the people in the United States. On either the left or the right. This fact is more of a cause of why things are so crazy than anything the people are doing or wanting

At least in the United States

Also: Israel is currently a terrorist state

Questa voce è stata modificata (2 settimane fa)
in reply to DancingBear

Also Israel now owns tiktok for a propaganda machine
in reply to davel

The liberal establishment always abandons effective fellow liberals. Sanders, Mamdani, Thunberg…they’re actually trying to do something. That makes the established neolibs look ineffective and upsets their donors. So they turn their backs on the rabble rousers.
in reply to RememberTheApollo_

The current anger with Sanders appears to be, from an outsiders pov, that he didn't criticize Israel by calling it a genocide soon enough.

That appears to be it.

I mean. To dismiss everything because one mistake, even if that mistake is massive, and then correcting that mistake, if belatedly, to me, says something very positive about that politician.

I'd prefer it was immediate, and it's gross that it took him so long, but all the other stuff isn't cancelled out by that. He's still a net positive. And he DID criticize earlier than any other us politician I can think of, and sure it
Could have been even earlier and harsher, but like. Fuck. If you hate politicians for being open to changing mind based on new evidence, or reforming beliefs you don't like, or admitting mistakes, you are AGAINST them being rational and it plays right into the hands of neoliberal propagandists.

in reply to krooklochurm

There's more, he criticized protests against ICE in LA turning into riots, and had some nice things to say about Kirk after he was killed.

That said I think it's really unproductive for people to turn on him after he was a big spark in a movement and is still outspoken. He has irritated me a few times lately but he's still one of the most influential leaders.

in reply to krooklochurm

I mean. To dismiss everything because one mistake, even if that mistake is massive, and then correcting that mistake, if belatedly, to me, says something very positive about that politician.


even if it's clear that he's been doubling down on that mistake when presented with the evidence and then only switched it's become clear that the tide has begun turn?

in reply to eldavi

Better late than never?

Would you rather the kind of politician that just lies constantly?

in reply to krooklochurm

You mean like how he lied about the number of civilians killed on October 7th?
in reply to krooklochurm

that's what i'm getting at, he's lying (either to himself and/or to the rest of us) and will go with whatever will cause the least friction; aka a follower, not a leader.
in reply to krooklochurm

They specifically mentioned the liberal establishment. You're talking about criticism from people that probably abhor the liberal establishment even more than they do progressive liberals like Bernie.

Also I think this kind of criticism is important and I don't know why it bothers people so much. It's okay to be critical of things you ultimately support, either for ideological or simply for tactical reasons. It's called critical support, and I think people should do it more often. Even if the criticism isn't ultimately supportive, that doesn't mean all of a person's hate is directed in that single place. There may be more than just the surface level WHAT, like the WHY of it all and what that implies, that you are missing (or dismissing).

You have to stand for something or you'll fall for anything, and refusal to engage in critical analysis - pretending any politician can do no wrong (or the contrary case; can do no right), getting defensive, and outright rejecting any investigation to prove or disprove your conclusion - does not fall into the category of 'standing for something' to me but rather overzealous team sports.

We have to practice more critical thinking, despite how badly our political class does not want us doing that. Whether it helps any specific politician win an election or not (which you can still do even with criticisms). Especially considering that it's this kind of criticism that has made it untenable for a growing number of politicians to deny the genocide in Palestine; it's pretty clear that the only needle that uncritical support will move is that of the progressives, towards the liberal end of the spectrum. After all, it's our criticism of the current system and its complicity in human suffering that makes us progressive in the first place.

Questa voce è stata modificata (2 settimane fa)
in reply to krooklochurm

He has also consistently voted for Iron Dome rearmament packages, which materially supports the genocide.
in reply to krooklochurm

He didn't "change his mind based on new evidence", public opinion just shifted to the point where he couldn't get away with not calling it a genocide. The whole time he has always taken the most Israel friendly position he can get away with without losing credibility. Hell, in the very first line of his statement calling it a genocide he still insisted on repeating Isreali lies about October 7th.
in reply to RememberTheApollo_

The liberal establishment always abandons effective fellow liberals. Sanders, Mamdani, Thunberg…


This is where there really is a distinction between "liberal" and "leftist" or "progressive."

I would not call any of those three people "liberals."

Questa voce è stata modificata (2 settimane fa)
in reply to RememberTheApollo_

These three people and neoliberals don't have anything in common. They'll stand at opposite ends of almost every political spectrum imaginable.
in reply to Don_alForno

Imagine not being able to imagine any political spectrum beyond one that has Neo-liberalism at one end and moderate Soc-dems at the other. Communists? Anarchists? Fascists? Never heard of them.
in reply to davel

On the other hand look at the Right wing Clowns celebrating the kidnapping of Greta.

I may not like Greta, but credit where credit is due, She's brave. (Also Fuck NuxTaku you zionist pig, I heard your family is in Israel)

Questa voce è stata modificata (2 settimane fa)
in reply to davel

I just felt like people got tired of her and didn't read as much about her, so not as much reason to feature her
in reply to RaivoKulli

Nah there's a pretty stark shift right when she started to talk about Gaza.

It's a pretty common trend, anyone that doesn't tow the Israeli party line is pretty quickly outcast or opposed.

in reply to spoopy

It's sort of like Malala, and how she remained committed to socialism and Islam. I think ten years ago for a while the western boosters who brought her to international attention thought she'd flip and be a useful stooge. When she turned out to not be, we heard less and less of her.

Same deal with Greta Thunberg, who is something more dangerous than someone who can be bought: she's someone who is principled for climate justice and human rights.

in reply to spoopy

I thought that happened after the biggest interest in her had already faded but I might be misremembering it.
in reply to RaivoKulli

She definitely had peaked before then, and already had started to lose some media favor due to her criticism of capitalism w.r.t. climate change. So yeah, it's not all due to Gaza, but Gaza was still an infection point.
in reply to davel

The left is pretty much splintered into different types of ideologies, levels of hostility towards conservatism, and having wildly different objectives to accomplish, so they could not agree with each other and thus rarely ever win over the right.

The right-wingers? They have unanimous hatred towards the left and seemingly united until once they defeat the left, they'll fight and kill each other as to who gets the biggest slice of the pie.

I'm saying this because much of the left are split over this personality.

Questa voce è stata modificata (2 settimane fa)
in reply to NoodlePoint

This is how I feel about Jeremy Corbyn in the UK and his stupidly named political party that will go nowhere.

Obstensively he is fairly radically left wing, he's just not radically in favour of actually doing anything. Basically he sits on the sidelines and mutters about genocide being bad (hot take I know) but otherwise just sits there. The only reason he's considered a threat is because his party might actually take votes away from labour but if he won an election nothing would change.

Short of an actual uprising against the corporate elite nothing is going to improve. You can certainly not rely on politicians to be your saviours. That's true globally not just in the US in the UK.

Questa voce è stata modificata (2 settimane fa)
in reply to NoodlePoint

I am unsure about that.

Although I am not exactly right-winger. I do not believe there is a God, for example.

Long ago - at least that is how it seems now - "right-wingers" were laughably and infuriatingly wrong. They tried pushing evolution in schools. They were against gay rights. And so on.

Now I find that it's the "left-wingers" who are laughably and infuriatingly wrong. They have even managed to malleate how science is defined socially. And science is not the only example - they've lost their minds in crime, immigration, sexuality, racism - everything - and they changed (or tried to change) all definitions. I will not go into any examples because it always starts a debate. But I will say this. If we think math is a "white supremacist construct", then there is something that has gone very, very wrong.

in reply to bankimu

you have been talking to people participating in the culture war, not leftists.
in reply to bankimu

I used to be a scientist and I'm a science teacher now, and science is 100% a social construct. I could go through examples of how our modern interpretation of science is based on western philosophy that is a few thousand years younger than science itself as a practice, and how this limits the scope of modern science in a materially significant way. I could go into other examples too. But you really should just go watch Dr.Fatima's two videos "Gravity is a Social Construct, and That's Okay", and "Astronomy has a Colonialism Problem" on YouTube, because she does the most phenomenal exploration of the topic, and I could only (poorly) approximate the quality of her work here.
in reply to davel

Liberal is a dirty word.

They're conservatives who have gay and black friends.

in reply to twinklefruit

They have one black friend who they are moderately polite to, but by any real metrics they are acquaintances at best.
in reply to davel

As ever, centrists are just fascists when scratched.
in reply to SabinStargem

Calling these people centrists is insulting to centrists lol
in reply to buttnugget

The centralists would take offence, but you know, they kind of can't really.
in reply to Echo Dot

that would entail them taking a position on something, which gives them terrible heartburn.
in reply to davel

Look, liberals being evil is news. The good Greta brings to the world is news. Liberals abandoning people is not. Everybody abandons people that no longer reflect their political goals. Like, John Fetterman. Dude ran as a progressive economic populist and the American left loved him. Then he outed himself as some republican-lite zionist and now his entire former base hates him. And for good reason mind you; fuck that guy. But there is no unique sin in abandoning political leaders. Greta is simply more morally consistent and righteous than liberals.
in reply to davel

The attachment to Israel in opposition to humanitarian ethics is only going distance people from the god they constantly claim to follow. This is in the Book