Political discourse

it is very clear you don’t live in a small southern county

True we have the resources in theory. The problem is that the necessary structural change to do that right now is so great that it can only be done by literally nuking civilization out of existence and starting over again. Seeing as that might not actually be a good option, we need to slow walk it because the other ways have been tried and they don’t end well

And yes I’m exclusionary because everyone else is. I would love to hop on a plane and move to somewhere in Spain right now. But guess what? They don’t make it that easy. That’s what I meant earlier when I said something about everyone being on the same legal framework. I couldn’t find th right words but the gist is that unless every country on earth has open borders then no country on earth should have open borders.

Nope. Other countries having bad policy is no excuse for our country to. We’re the fucking wealthiest country on Earth. Oh, and people like you who insist that structural change is impossible is the reason change is impossible. You are a self-fulfilling prophecy that continues our country’s policy of commiting social murder. You are the problem.

I’m too uneducated on politics (read: stupid) to even know what left and right means. Where do I land

Right: in favor of privately owned means of production.
Left: in favor of publicly owned means of production.

It’s weird that all countries have the same policies if they are so bad. But here’s the fact: the stronger your safety nets, the more difficult do you have to make immigration lest the system collapse. And allowing immigrants that cannot access the safety nets is a sure fire way to increase your crime rate because now you have a underclass that wouldn’t have existed. So yes the US should have laxer immigration policies than other countries, but not full blown open borders. Not unless there is a practical reason to do so, which there isn’t.

I never said it was impossible, I said we need to slow walk it because it can’t be radical, not unless you are willing to commit literal murder. I’d advocate for accelerationism first before I advocate for killing people who oppose you ideologically.

The ratio is not enough.

Let’s be honest, the Nazis and Tankies align on like 98% of policy. They both support Donald Trump, for example. They both enable ethnostates to send minorities to camps. They believe in a nation ruled by one supreme absolute leader.

I think they’re interpreting your response to the meme as “centrism bad” while the meme in question only offers Nazi, Tankie, or Centrist. These sort of mixups happen in these discussions where the implied context is just so massive.

I think that the Tankies are not left, like at all, but there is absolutely a concerted and even state funded operation to create any and all destruction and violence that they’re capable of causing.

Youtube Video

And they are both downvoting you haha

There is literally only 1 downvote

tankies are such a small niche group, i dont think theres enough of them to have a significant on policy, unlike right wingers have real numbers on thier hands.

also the usa has never had a true left to begin with, being the most right wing of the western countries should be telling.its most like right on right-lite violence/rhetoric

The left largely fights by arguing, which can lead to better ideas if people are open to listen. That isn’t always the case, but it’s a possibility. The right is fighting with homicide.

They both support Donald Trump, for example.

lmao what?

They both enable ethnostates to send minorities to camps.

lmao what?

They believe in a nation ruled by one supreme absolute leader.

Dictatorship of the proletariat doesn’t mean total rule by one dude named proletariat, it means total rule by the people.

Liberals perceive criticism for enabling the right and opposing the left at every opportunity as left in-fighting.

The left identifies the liberals as part of the right.

Well they are slightly vague terms, so please don’t feel stupid. A shocking amount of people who think they know, don’t know.

Left wing politics are generally about a rejection of hierarchy of people. Consequently, they tend to be interested in an international community because we are all the same and deserve the same. As freedom is something that everyone wants for themselves, the left tend to be in favor of an equally free community, e.g. freedom to love.

Right wing politica are generally about hierarchy of people. But not because the hierarchy is necessarily the point, but it tend to be in favor of maintaining the current state, Which just happens to be hierarchical. And usually everything get viewed from a hierarchical pov. E.g. nationalism is a hierarchical view of country and people, your country and its people above other country and their people.

Obviously you could point at the historical stance of us republicans that they want a small government and argue that a small government creates less of 2 class citizens, the law markers and the citizens. But the left would point out that a small government just enables the powerful people to exploit the weak people and create more 2 class citizens.

On the left: The strong hierarchy in the previous attempts of “communism” is the reason why some people will say that true communism was never tried. Other will argue that you need a little bit of authority to run a communustic state.

So the whole thing is a little more complex than “freedom” and “restrictions” and who supports what “restrictions” when.

Who over at .ml is trying to start a civil war?