You must log in or register to comment.
“Ally? That’s a funny way to spell FASCIST!”
-the American left during the 24’ election
Yeaahh, american left needs to learn how to accept an imperfect ally.
The one that wants to provide universal basic income based on a wealth tax.
I know this is a meme but i fundamentally disagree with what lots of other people call “left politics”. I’m against immigration (for purely economic, not for racist reasons!), and i think that “men are the root of all evil” is a false and meaningless statement. It creates unnecessary tension within society and in my opinion provokes a civil war. It’s literally that meme:
“men are the root of all evil”
I’ve never heard this claim, only “money is the root of all evil”.
Patriarchal society is profoundly harmful, but that’s not an issue that divides sex or gender - patriarchal culture also directly hurts men. Men aren’t immune from its problems simply because patriarchy systematically positions them above others. We can generalize this false-attribution error to other identity conflicts like sexuality, race, ethnicity, appearance, etc., it’s easier to notice and then blame the tangible benefactor rather than identify the underlying system and its roots.
The love of money is the root of all evil.
I’m against immigration (for purely economic, not for racist reasons!)
I really hope you are being sarcastic here.
No, i’m sick of being lied to.
I’m not a nationalist in the sense that i think my country’s any better than any other country.
But I do comprehend the significance of borders. Imagine people had no skin. They couldn’t survive. When you go to a restaurant and ask for a glass of apple juice, you wouldn’t expect a server of another restaurant to give it to you. Because one server is associated to one restaurant, and not to the other restaurant.
That has exactly nothing to do with thinking you’re superior. It’s just a concept to help organize the world. I hope i’ve made my point clear enough.
You lost some of us at the presumption of restaurants and servers.
Maybe imagine no countries (nothing to kill or die for, etc. etc.)
Presume that everyone is a person and has all the rights you do.
apart from the issue with borders. states also serve a second purpose:
the state is the only thing that restricts company’s powers and protects the people from companies. at least that’s how it works in every sane country (which includes the US). how do you avoid company-towns if there’s no state? do the physical violence yourself and threaten companies to treat the people not completely shitty? would you really do that?
Actual democracy and collective decision making solves that
I am not anti-immigration because I prioritize social factors in my country’s situation, but that is a real position that people make valid arguments for.
Immigration is a real economic factor used by the owning class to lower wages. It exploits both local and immigrant workers. Look at Trump voters complaining in the news about how anti-immigration has ruined their workforce - they were exploiting immigrants to save money instead of paying local workers a (…relatively) reasonable wage.
Except this is not true. Immigration does not depress wages. It boosts the economy.
What do you mean by boosting ‘the economy’? GDP (PPP) per capita? Median wages? Labor productivity? A nebulous all-encompasing concept of a country’s production, distribution and trade? It’s not a meaningful term on its own, it’s usually just a rhetorical trick in mass media to make it sound like shareholders making more money is somehow good for the country.
I was not talking about the abstract grand scheme of things, like benefits from their diverse experiences and overall population benefits, I’m talking about the direct immediate effects on worker wages. Due to social circumstances, companies can, and often do, save wage costs by replacing local labor with immigrant labor they can underpay, and with the special case of illegal immigrants, even pay illegally small amounts. Immigration increases the reserve army of labor that compete for lower wages. This is happening in my workplace, actually, not with immigration but with outsourcing, the human resources department are replacing trained capable local workers with undertrained workers in countries with lower labor costs and regulations (e.g. India) purely to cut wage costs. But the principle is the same, outsourcing like this only applies to work capable of being done remotely (e.g. call centers, graphic design, tech work), for manual labor then immigration has a similar benefit to a business owner.
Once again, I’m not talking about whether immigration is beneficial, (and like I said, I believe it is) I’m talking about how immigration is used by the owning class to reduce wages and enrich themselves.
If you have a country that’s below it’s replacement rate then you need net positive immigration to compensate for this. Likewise if your above replacement rate and have problems with overpopulation then you need net negative immigration. This is fairly straightforward demographics and economics. Being too far below replacement rate without immigration leads to an aging population, and even countries like China which used to have serious overpopulation issues can fall fowl of this. Aging population is the root of a lot of economic and cultural issues. Saying immigration is bad is not just wrong, it’s the exact opposite of what the situation calls for in most European nations, the USA, Japan, and South Korea.
2% of workers produce enough agricultural output to provide for 200% of society. And it’s similar in other branches of the economy. We’d be able to live well with a significantly lower number of workers. The reason why people still work so much is because we’re not actually working for the wellbeing of society, but mostly towards the pockets of the rich. That’s what causes a shortage of workers.
There’s not actually a shortage of workers if society produces for the wellbeing of society, instead of for the pockets of the rich.
On top of that, if AI replaces workers in the near future, we’d have the opposite problem of a mass unemployment crisis. Having fewer people in the country is then a good thing because there’s less workers to fill the remaining workplaces.
Note that it doesn’t matter whether you think that AI can replace workers. What matters here is what companies think. And we’re already seeing mass layoffs due to AI.
I mean this is full of stuff that dosen’t pass the sniff test.
Modern society has a lot more than just agricultural workers, and in western countries much of the food is imported anyway which I am not sure you have accounted for. If you want modern standards of living your going to need a lot more workers than that.
As for the whole thing of us working for rich people. You are exactly right that they have the most money. That doesn’t mean they actually spend all that on themselves, and it certainly doesn’t mean they consume the lions share of physical goods requiring work for their personal pleasure. If you look at someone like Elon for example, as evil as they are most of the money they spend will be in investments to public companies. Things like the development of SpaceX rockets, new electric cars, data centers to push AI, and so on. Very little of that is spent on their personal needs. Still way more than we could ever afford, none of us are getting rides in private jets, but since there are only so few people at that level it doesn’t add up to much in the scheme of things. Even if we got rid of Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and so forth we would still have to fund R&D somehow, and all those scientists and engineers still want to be paid or taken care of. Things could potentially be made more efficient by combining the efforts of some of these companies, but that doesn’t mean you ask scientists to go home, it just means innovation happens that much faster. Heck sometimes competition can be good for innovation, so you might still keep around competing teams even if they are all technically funded by the same government or public institution.
If anything we might need to work harder for a time after capitalism to repair the damage done to people and the planet. Certainly all oil and gas infrastructure needs to be replaced, and that means lots of new stuff needs to be built and research needs to be done at break neck pace. Ending economic exploitation doesn’t magically fix everything that’s wrong with the world, it would only be step 1.
It’s also unlikely that capitalism is going away soon anyway, so this is all moot. It is after all the most efficient system we have built to date, even if it’s crazy bad in some areas, and coming up with something to replace it that wouldn’t just be worse is a tall order. Many have died trying.
flexible on range of solutions for dealing with the billionaire problem
I’m a mid 90s Liberal Party OF Canada Leftist. That used to mean center left and right leaning on a few fiscal issues. I have no idea what it means by today’s standards.
not one
a rare sighting on lemmy
Somewhat yeah, but I think there are a few others, just mostly not people who are that vocal about it
Yeah I’m not really either but you just get attacked so I tend to stay out of politics here
Other day I tried explaining to lemmy why it’s disrespectful to hang a LGBT flag on the side of a mountain and just got a bunch of hatred lol
I’m sorry about that you got attacked. Also I’m not trying to restart it, and not trying to attack. I am genuinely curious what’s disrespectful
I think protesting is great but not on El capitan in Yosemite. That’s just plain white people behaviour. It’s not just a rock, it’s an incredibly sacred place that has a great significance in human history and it transcends religions
I’m a pantheist and I just personally find it super offensive which is why I bothered getting into it I guess. I know the demographic here doesn’t actually go outside or have a love for the mountains so I knew it would be a losing battle but damn man there’s just no fucking respect for nature anymore
Mother Nature is literally going to make us extinct in the near future due to how we treated her yet white people still treat it like Disneyland
think protesting is great but not on El capitan in Yosemite. That’s just plain white people behaviour. It’s not just a rock, it’s an incredibly sacred place that has a great significance in human history and it transcends religions
That’s totally fair. I didn’t here anything about it so didn’t know the situation at all. Yea that can be kinda disrespectful.
I know the demographic here doesn’t actually go outside or have a love for the mountains so I knew it would be a losing battle but damn man there’s just no fucking respect for nature anymore
XD yea fair. My philosophy is very much human supremacist. Maybe some animals. But I don’t really care about nature other than it its useful and valued by people. But its also fair to have a different position.
I’m a Democrat.
Most of Lemmy: EAT THE RICH!!!
Me: Idk, liberal democracy with reasonable social safety nets, some wealth anti-accumulation, and a robust education system? We should get there by showing up to city council meetings.
Most of Lemmy: LINUX!!!
Me: but I want a computer where I don’t have to troubleshoot the wifi driver every 3 months…
I think you’re reading the room accurately. Nothing flops here like exposing childish extreme views to reality. If you’re not an extremist for their side, you’re worse than a monster.
I don’t think anyone here is an extremist I think they’re all so pigeonholed in their respective flavors of progressiveness that they forget other people have slightly different views.
Anyone who supports communism is an extremist relative to the rest of society. At least this is the case in the whole of USA and Europe.
The ‘Libertarianism is better than whatever this shit is supposed to be’ leftist.
marxist-linuxist
Arch Communist
Anarcho-transhumanist. I believe that you just can’t trust humans to govern each other, so the best solution is give them all the tools to survive independently.
How does that work for disabled people? Where do these tools come from?
Really good film. He nailed his role. So much so it was a little scary how good he was.
Jesse Plemons needs more lead roles. He reminds me of Phillip Seymour Hoffman.
This scene really got to me, this was the first time I really felt how awful war is
If they hadn’t done “east west” instead of some other cardinal directions, it would probably be prophetic
The moment I heard “alliance between California and Texas” I was detached from the movie. That is literally the least likely alliance I could think of
The point of the film is to show how horrible war is in a context Americans can relate to. If they made a more realistic alliance, down some sort of real life right / left politics the message would be lost and it would be held up as some sort of propaganda film by one side of politics with the other side using it to justify why they’re correct.
So, yes the “alliance between the California and Texas” is a very deliberate choice.
It was a bit much to work with, but once I realized that the civil war itself and the whys weren’t what the movie was about, I went with it. This scene was the most disturbing of them all. Maybe because it’s not that hard to imagine some people going this far. I’m sure there’s some veterans of various conflicts that would agree and saw it happen.
There are pluralities of leftist in Texas, and wrongists in California. There would probably be two alliances between them, one on each side.
You could hear a pin drop in the theatre when this scene dropped, it was just too real.
Nah bruv, this is bullshit. I’m straight up a centrist. It’s just that anyone who isn’t goose-stepping fascist swine is “leftist” these days. Shit has just moved so far right, it’s fucking insane. Back in the day, repubs would agree with me about minding your own fucking business and let people live the way they fucking want. They’d agree with me that you need to pay for shit, instead of just charging it to your kids. Which also means you need to prioritize shit, and it better nothing be for fucking moneybags over there. Bring back fucking Eisenhower-era taxes, FFS. Those cunts used to believe in free speech and freedom FROM religion. There used to be some common ground. These days? Fuckem. They can all choke to death.
Never ask a Lemming what kind of leftist they are, or what is the best Linux distro.
What kind of leftist are you and what is the best Linux distro?
Post-left anarchist, Arch obv
I don’t use Arch but that wasn’t the question
Well, um, whatever kind you use and whatever kind you are, of course.
That’s your favorite distro of linux now, but what previous operating system do you come from?
What if he’s a Gentoo user? He’ll mock me for using Archlinux, I’ve got to play this hand carefully so as to not blow my cover. There’s always the chance he’s a Mint user and I have nothing to worry about, but then, he could be one of those users that says ricing is a waste of time, who uses his OS professionally, but then, he might be a Fedora user… how do I approach this issue without seeming like a pleb?! Based Stallman, help me!
NixOS
How about that vaporwave aesthetic of Garuda Dr460nized edition?
LFS
Windows 2000. I feel like that’s reasonable. It was honestly pretty solid kit.
That was not my experience with 2000. Either 98 or XP (post-SP2) were more solider, from memory.
I think you might be confusing Windows ME with 2000.
Windows 2000 was built on the Windows NT kernel which was business focused so absolutely rock solid.
Windows 98 was a good jump in stability from the 95 kernel bit still very prone to crashing.
I agree XP was good but it was the successor to 2K so built on it and I moved to Linux as soon as the 2K directx support would have forced me to move to XP which wasn’t as lightweight.
For clarity there were two development branches within Microsoft at the turn of the millennium: one that was based off windows 3.1 (and became 95, 98 and ME) and one that was based off windows NT 3.1 which was solid as fuck and eventually became 2000 then XP.
Edit: Here’s a decent graphic: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Microsoft_Windows_versions#/media/File:Windows_Version_History.svg
Oh shit, I think you’re right!
Now that a stretch my memory back decades, I seem to recall I never extensively used 2000, it was ME.
I agree XP was good
I seem to recall something about XP not being good at the start, and it wasn’t until about SP2 that it reached it’s famed quality. But now I can’t seem to find anything about it.
Ah the naming was terrible in fairness… Windows millennium edition and windows 2000. I mean c’mon like. Haha.
And yeah I was gone by SP2 but I remember my gaming friends holding tight to that for as long as they could. There were even various really lightweight editions of SP2 that you could download if you had the balls to install a hacked together operating system from some randomer on the internet. And they all did.
Different times!!
Edit: also what’s up Dave on the far side of the world!
Me: a disillusioned Liberal who runs Fedora, because I’m a basic bıtch and I ain’t got time for this shit anymore.
Fedora is the Todd Howard meme of Linux: it just works
I don’t subscribe to an ideology per se, but I believe we should give everybody everything, and that the government should take care of every one of our needs, every last one.
Even social needs?
I wish there was a test.
Not a bullshit CosmoBuzzfeed quiz, but an actual “if you answered A on these three questions, you tend towards MarxoCapitalist. Here’s a community full of people who mostly agree with you about political stuff.”
We’d still have Home and Local and All, but it’d be nice to know who my people are instead of needing a college degree to navigate the bullshit everyone says about everyone else.
I don’t think anyone knows what socialism is.
I’m glad there isn’t, sounds divisive
- Hot Dog or Hamburger?
- Pepsi or Coca-Cola?
- 2 wipes or 3 wipes?
https://leftvalues.github.io/ Is kinda like that but not exactly. Fun test to take either way.
I’m a Democratic Socialist, apparently.
Marxism-Leninism: 0%
Good.
Im apparently an eco-anarchist.
socialism is whatever country owns the most state owned companies and gives you the cheapest housing I think /j
What kind am I?
Not a neo liberal or a Tankie.
I’m in-between. I’m caring enough to not agree with Conservatives and want a change to the status quo. I’m educated enough to know how the world actually works and that things can’t be free and other people won’t do stuff for free. Capitalism has its place, but needs to be highly regulated.
Even Adam Smith was pretty clear what happens when capitalism is unregulated:
We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate. To violate this combination is everywhere a most unpopular action, and a sort of reproach to a master among his neighbours and equals. We seldom, indeed, hear of this combination, because it is the usual, and one may say, the natural state of things, which nobody ever hears of…
The liberal reward of labour, therefore, as it is the necessary effect, so it is the natural symptom of increasing national wealth. The scanty maintenance of the labouring poor, on the other hand, is the natural symptom that things are at a stand, and their starving condition that they are going fast backwards.
I am not going to prod you the minutia with questions and then try to guess precisely what ideological camp you might fall into, but from what I can gather from your comment, you could either be a social liberal or social democrat. But practically speaking, there is hardly any difference between the two.
The “socialists expect people to do stuff for free” trope only exists in capitalist strawman rhetoric.
Cool. Never said that. I consider myself a socialist democrat. I was referring to a conversation I had with a Tankie claiming both sides and said, “Businesses should not earn a profit.” And in a later sentence said, “Everyone should be on universal basic income.” In those exact words.
You literally, almost word for word said exactly the argument laid out in his comment. No slinking away. You were not referring to a conversation and even your rendition of the conversation is nonsensical as if the other’s arguments should lead to some conclusion about the very same argument, the one you ran away from…?
