Edit: It’s funny how many people are interpreting this as about unity or working together. I interpreted it as about dreaming big and working long term to make the dream dream happen.
I mean, look at abortion. I was born only a few years before Roe v Wade. For most of my lifetime, people were saying Roe v Wade was settled law. I remember people saying it was impossible to make abortion illegal, that there was no reason to worry about it, that the politicians fighting to make abortion illegal and the protesters in front of clinics were just the dying embers of a dead branch of conservatism, and so on and so forth. The conventional wisdom for decades was that the Supreme Court precedent set by Roe v Wade was unassailable and conservatives should just give up and fight the culture war on other battlegrounds.
But you know what conservatives did? They didn’t discourage each other. They didn’t tell each other it was a useless fight. They didn’t tell each other it was a waste of time. They fought for literal generations. They knew the only way to make abortion illegal again was to make the Supreme Court overturn their own precedent. So they fought for fifty fucking years to take over the Supreme Court.
Only a handful of the first anti-abortion crusaders lived to see their victory. Generations of people fought against abortion, lived and died, with victory seeming as far away as ever. But in the end they didn’t give up. They sacrificed. They voted. They donated. They protested. They beat their heads against a brick wall until the brick wall broke. And they fucking won.
Compare that commitment to the people hanging out on this instance who think not eating beef on Fridays for the sake of the environment is too much work.
A policy banning something is infinitely easier to implement than a policy creating something.
Banning abortion without exception is one line. Ensuring everyone has access to affordable healthcare requires changing how entire industries function. Banning puberty blockers without exception is one line. Switching energy generation to be entirely sustainable requires changing how entire industries function.
Let’s ban copyright.
Let’s ban cars.
Let’s ban opening fossil fuel mines.
Let’s ban misgendering.
Let’s ban money.
Let’s ban police.
Let’s ban slavery.
Half of those are stupid, so you’re proving OC’s point. Or was that the intention? Sarcasm is difficult online.
No, those are all extremely reasonable policy positions for an anarchist to have, and we are currently on slrpnk.net
Banning burning fossil fuels is one line.
And just like all the other horrible, one-line laws, it has catastrophic consequences. If you care about the people who will suffer those consequences, you have a hard time doing those things.
If you could just declare “no more fossil fuels starting now,” and the whole world just listened (problem 1? They would not), you would immediately eliminate every nations military, the internet would shut down, there would be massive, world-wide famine (no way to transport food or store it reliability) , no hospitals, fire fighters, police or ambulances. I’m sure there’s a million other knock-on effects as well.
That’s the real difference…leftists tend to think about how policy (even well-intentioned policy) can cause harm. If the right is thinking about those kinds of harms, which I tend to think they are not, then they are clearly more comfortable with making the world worse for large swathes of the population. They either never considered or didn’t care about the consequences of making women carry non-viable fetuses to term. They never considered or didn’t care about the people impacted by their bathroom bills (both trans and cis individuals).
It helps that they are supported by a majority of those in power or with wealth or influence
not just supported; made. it is a means to control poor stupid people and make more poor stupid people.
How is this a meme
I put a tex on imeage
Checks out
When people tell you who they are, believe them.
Oh, I’m sure it has nothing to do with the more progressive left not working with people in the center. Definitely nothing to do with that at all.
How’s all that Biden hate shaping up for the next election!
Are you aware that there are other places than the so-called USA? Its really annoying when people pretend every little thing is somehow about their election, even though the rise of the far right is a thing in many places around the world.
Also just something I thought about: If you think that its important for progressives to work together with the centrists, maybe stop antagonizing them at every opportunity and instead try to something more constructive.
I’m starting to thing lemmy.world is subject to liberal astroturfing campaign. Didnt beehaw defederated from them for this reason?
Are you aware that this meme is about the United States? Did you miss where it said united states in the 15 or so words on here?
Yes did miss that, did not connect 50 states with that
🤣 it happens
“Fascists are winning because non-fascists are not fascists enough”. We get that a lot on our side of the atlantic.
Thank you for driving that point home so well. “If you are to the right of me, you are fascist.” I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Well first step is to admit it buddy :)
Remember 1939 when liberals sided with nazis against communists?
👌👍
Fuck you, Mugi, and your eyebrows!
You’ll never be forgiven for the strawberry incident.
It’s kinda ironic to chastise other leftests for having too much internal conflict.
Yep lets lift each other up and focus on how to do that. Its not helping when we talk down on our friends, comrades and allies when they share their dreams.
They regularly lose elections. That it’s, they’re not winning. They’re certainly not always winning
No, they’re winning because they have the support of capital. Under capitalism, money = power. And capitalists will always be far right (see their widespread support of Nazi Germany).
I think this is a little confused.
“Capitalists will always be far right” is true, but only because the left-right political scale is largely defined by its relationship to capital (there are obviously other uses of the ‘far right’ label, but I’m speaking from a poli-sci perspective).
This also happens to help explain why the Democrats also have tons of money, but do very little ‘left’ governing: because capital invests in the part of the democratic party that runs against leftist reform.
You’re making the right observation, but I think you’ve attributed it to the wrong lables
It’s almost like linking an economic model to social policies on a single axis is a deliberately flawed system.
No argument, though i’d point out that capital has no problem investing in pro-social politics (Democrats have quite a bit of financial support for progressive social policy); but because capital is in opposition with progressive economic reform (particularly of the anti-capital bent) there is greater tension within the Democratic coalition when there’s a bigger push for economic reform from within the base.
Which is also why you see so much shade thrown at ‘libs’ from the leftist camp, too, because even though they may agree with leftist reform in principle, they functionally run defense against it on behalf of capital (“x, y, or z reform just isn’t popular/realistic”, ect)
“Hitler at least had good economical output” is something I heard from my teacher in highschools lmao.
The level of brainwashing in America that good economy = good times is truly absurd. Hiring 100,000 men to build mountains and then tear them down again has much better economic output than war does, because your workers don’t all die constantly, while still keeping all those people employed and spending money. Hitler wasn’t exactly an idiot, but he wasn’t even smart enough to understand that A) being evil is really stupid given how important teamwork is to human successes, and B) he literally could have gotten better results for the German economy by building and destroying mountains.
Are you really trying to argue that the Democrats are poor? Seriously?!? What an ass backwards take. Both sides have insane amounts of capital. Your comment is meaningless and just more standard “Republicans are bad, mmkay?”
They’re also simply more united; they have a certain ‘team spirit’ that I find lacking in the left. (I’m generally quite left myself). Not just in the US, but also here in the Netherlands.
Voters on the right will say: “I don’t support policy X and Y, but since my candidate is the only one talking about Z, that’s who I’m voting for”
Meanwhile on the left, voters tend to want their candidate to exactly match them on not only X, Y and Z, but other issues as well.
Basically, plenty of left voters hold out for a perfect candidate, when voters on the right will generally support their main guy regardless. This leads to people being effectively self-disenfranchised from the political process.
The reason that conservativism is easier to maintain than leftism is because it’s a race to a central point in the past versus an exploration into the future. In conservatism, everyone knows what the mission is.
