The Liberal Abandonment Of Greta Thunberg
The Liberal Abandonment Of Greta Thunberg
The Swedish activist Greta Thunberg has been detained by Israel and reportedly maltreated by her Israeli captors after she was kidnapped, along with hundreds of other activists, from Gaza’s territorial waters on Friday.Nate Bear (¡Do Not Panic!)
like this
notsosure
in reply to davel • • •☂️-
in reply to notsosure • • •like this
ElcaineVolta e TVA like this.
ShinkanTrain
in reply to davel • • •like this
Rozaŭtuno e TVA like this.
goferking (he/him)
in reply to ShinkanTrain • • •like this
PinguinPliskin, Rozaŭtuno e TVA like this.
anomnom
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 • • •like this
TVA likes this.
PowerCrazy
in reply to ☂️- • • •cfgaussian
in reply to PowerCrazy • • •Dragonstaff
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.
NoiseColor
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.
chobeat
in reply to NoiseColor • • •like this
Rozaŭtuno likes this.
NoiseColor
in reply to chobeat • • •Sure. Skill issue. Says the skilled warrior changing the world.
Sure. Whatever you say.
chobeat
in reply to NoiseColor • • •like this
Rozaŭtuno likes this.
NoiseColor
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.
RenLinwood
in reply to NoiseColor • • •porous_grey_matter
in reply to NoiseColor • • •NoiseColor
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.
porous_grey_matter
in reply to NoiseColor • • •NoiseColor
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.
porous_grey_matter
in reply to NoiseColor • • •This stuff takes longer than a news cycle, that was two days ago.
Agreed.
causepix
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.
NoiseColor
in reply to causepix • • •RenLinwood
in reply to NoiseColor • • •NoiseColor
in reply to RenLinwood • • •RenLinwood
in reply to NoiseColor • • •causepix
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.
Shipping giant Maersk divests from companies linked to Israeli settlements
Yarno Ritzen (Al Jazeera)NoiseColor
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.
Jo Miran
in reply to davel • • •like this
TVA likes this.
https://forum.guncadindex.com/u/unexpected
in reply to Jo Miran • • •I don't think it is toxic, as much as it is almost always misused. Read the following and tell me how many people you know have been using the term correctly.
WIKIPEDIA: Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, the right to private property, and equality before the law.
political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)porous_grey_matter
in reply to • • •like this
TVA likes this.
frostedtrailblazer
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.
cecilkorik
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.
queermunist she/her
in reply to cecilkorik • • •porous_grey_matter
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.
cecilkorik
in reply to porous_grey_matter • • •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.
twinklefruit
in reply to Jo Miran • • •I completely agree.
The left needs to stop letting liberals define them.
reallykindasorta
in reply to davel • • •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.
like this
Rozaŭtuno e TVA like this.
RizzRustbolt
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.
like this
Rozaŭtuno e TVA like this.
nfreak
in reply to RizzRustbolt • • •like this
Rozaŭtuno e TVA like this.
🍉 Albert 🍉
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
like this
Rozaŭtuno e TVA like this.
Quadhammer
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
Grapho
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.
Quadhammer
in reply to Grapho • • •Grapho
in reply to Quadhammer • • •Quadhammer
in reply to Grapho • • •Grapho
in reply to Quadhammer • • •Quadhammer
in reply to Grapho • • •KimBongUn420
in reply to Quadhammer • • •Shitlibs even too lazy for wikipedia
Quadhammer
in reply to KimBongUn420 • • •causepix
in reply to Quadhammer • • •Quadhammer
in reply to causepix • • •KimBongUn420
in reply to Quadhammer • • •Shitlibs even too lazy for wikipedia
Quadhammer
in reply to KimBongUn420 • • •KimBongUn420
in reply to Quadhammer • • •Quadhammer
in reply to KimBongUn420 • • •BrainInABox
in reply to Quadhammer • • •"I believe in personal liberty over economic system"
Quadhammer
in reply to BrainInABox • • •BrainInABox
in reply to Quadhammer • • •ZeroHora
in reply to Quadhammer • • •Quadhammer
in reply to ZeroHora • • •causepix
in reply to Quadhammer • • •You not wanting to understand what we're telling you does not make us the morons.
edit:
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.
Quadhammer
in reply to causepix • • •causepix
in reply to Quadhammer • • •Quadhammer
in reply to causepix • • •causepix
in reply to Quadhammer • • •Quadhammer
in reply to causepix • • •causepix
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.)
1938: Dialectical and Historical Materialism
www.marxists.orgRenLinwood
in reply to Quadhammer • • •Quadhammer
in reply to RenLinwood • • •RenLinwood
in reply to Quadhammer • • •WizardofFrobozz
in reply to Quadhammer • • •“For some reason”
Liberals in the US are MAGA enablers. To the last individual.
Quadhammer
in reply to WizardofFrobozz • • •WizardofFrobozz
in reply to Quadhammer • • •Quadhammer
in reply to WizardofFrobozz • • •causepix
in reply to Quadhammer • • •Quadhammer
in reply to causepix • • •causepix
in reply to Quadhammer • • •Quadhammer
in reply to causepix • • •causepix
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.
Quadhammer
in reply to causepix • • •causepix
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.
Quadhammer
in reply to causepix • • •causepix
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
Source: marxists.org/history/cuba/arch…
:::
Fidel Castro speaks on Marxism-Leninism 1961
www.marxists.orgRenLinwood
in reply to Quadhammer • • •m532
in reply to Quadhammer • • •Galactose
in reply to Quadhammer • • •Quadhammer
in reply to Galactose • • •RenLinwood
in reply to Quadhammer • • •Quadhammer
in reply to RenLinwood • • •RenLinwood
in reply to Quadhammer • • •Quadhammer
in reply to RenLinwood • • •RenLinwood
in reply to Quadhammer • • •Quadhammer
in reply to RenLinwood • • •RenLinwood
in reply to Quadhammer • • •Quadhammer
in reply to RenLinwood • • •RenLinwood
in reply to Quadhammer • • •Quadhammer
in reply to RenLinwood • • •nullpotential
in reply to Quadhammer • • •how much time you got
Zachariah
in reply to nullpotential • • •prole
in reply to Quadhammer • • •RenLinwood
in reply to Quadhammer • • •Quadhammer
in reply to RenLinwood • • •RenLinwood
in reply to Quadhammer • • •Quadhammer
in reply to RenLinwood • • •RenLinwood
in reply to Quadhammer • • •DancingBear
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
like this
Rozaŭtuno likes this.
SupremeDonut
in reply to DancingBear • • •like this
Rozaŭtuno likes this.
RememberTheApollo_
in reply to davel • • •like this
Rozaŭtuno e TVA like this.
krooklochurm
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.
like this
TVA likes this.
magguzu
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.
eldavi
in reply to krooklochurm • • •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?
krooklochurm
in reply to eldavi • • •Better late than never?
Would you rather the kind of politician that just lies constantly?
like this
TVA likes this.
BrainInABox
in reply to krooklochurm • • •eldavi
in reply to krooklochurm • • •causepix
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.
like this
TVA likes this.
FlyingCircus
in reply to krooklochurm • • •like this
TVA likes this.
BrainInABox
in reply to krooklochurm • • •prole
in reply to RememberTheApollo_ • • •This is where there really is a distinction between "liberal" and "leftist" or "progressive."
I would not call any of those three people "liberals."
like this
TVA likes this.
Don_alForno
in reply to RememberTheApollo_ • • •like this
TVA likes this.
BrainInABox
in reply to Don_alForno • • •Galactose
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)
- YouTube
www.youtube.comlike this
TVA likes this.
RaivoKulli
in reply to davel • • •spoopy
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.
like this
TVA likes this.
GnuLinuxDude
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.
RaivoKulli
in reply to spoopy • • •spoopy
in reply to RaivoKulli • • •NoodlePoint
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.
like this
TVA likes this.
Echo Dot
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.
bankimu
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.
Gold_E_Lox
in reply to bankimu • • •PumpkinSkink
in reply to bankimu • • •twinklefruit
in reply to davel • • •Liberal is a dirty word.
They're conservatives who have gay and black friends.
like this
TVA likes this.
Echo Dot
in reply to twinklefruit • • •like this
TVA likes this.
SabinStargem
in reply to davel • • •like this
TVA likes this.
buttnugget
in reply to SabinStargem • • •Echo Dot
in reply to buttnugget • • •like this
TVA likes this.
_cryptagion [he/him]
in reply to Echo Dot • • •like this
TVA likes this.
Garbagio
in reply to davel • • •Sam_Bass
in reply to davel • • •