Liberal Death Cult

There is this wild concept called "two things existing at once"

You can simultaneously blame the fascist for their actions while also holding the liberal establishment accountable for theirs. The two are not mutually exclusive.

No, sorry, there is only one thing, and all divisions are imaginary. You. Me. The ocean. Alpha centauri. The concept of corrugation. These are all the same thing.
Since we're on the topic of nuance, would you also say it is possible to support the liberal establishment in defeating facism while also pushing for change within the party?
- No, I wouldn't, explicitly because of the nuanced differences between leftist ideology and the right-wing, neoliberalist establishment that make them fundamentally oppositional. Their interests as owning class citizens means they have fundamentally vested interests that are diametrically oppositional to our interests as working class, and will never truly change beyond offering mild concessions to prevent systemic collapse. If we want left wing progress, it won't be from within the current party. We need a fundamentally new party that actually holds the interests of the working class at priority.
  Though, personally, as an anarchist, I do not believe change will come from within the system. It is structurally designed to force internal actors to capitulate to the interests of the economy, essentially tying their interests to the strength of the capitalist economy as a means to strengthen or maintain their own political power once in a seat if authority. Thus, will never be allowed through internal means to exert the will of the working class.
  That isn't to say we shouldn't build dual power to protect our interests, just that our focus should be at local and state level, not the federal. It doesn't matter what the federal agency does or says, they still have to be able to enforce their rule. If the local communities are banded together so that when push comes to shove, we can actually do some shoving of our own, they won't be able to enforce their authority over us.
- would you say it is possible to support the liberal establishment in defeating facism
  Not if their past or current behavior is any indication.

Scratch a liberal...

As opposed to Tankies? Lol

Fascists are bad, they don't listen to criticism.

Liberals are less bad, and claim to listen to criticism.

So why not try to criticize the people who are "fighting" Trump for better plans and actions? One person alone has a good idea but not a great execution. Gathering an idea and people to fight for it is worth doing.

Plus if you think no one here is calling out fascists, you're hella ignorant and blind. We call out the people who enable and slow roll fascists. We can blame Biden for not arresting Trump because he wanted two wins in a roll.

No but see you spent an entire minute not calling out fascists while you responded to liberals saying we should accept the proper party submission position© for the fascists. So you're basically the same as a fascist. Sorry; i don't make the rules, i just fetishize and enforce them only on my ideological enemies.
Because a lot of the people in here didn't vote last election.
- Most people here did. I did for Harris. Somehow everytime someone says that, they're saying it to people who voted.
  Non-voting democrats were further to the right. https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/democratic-nonvoters-policy-preferences/
  You can probably drop this trope now that there’s plenty of data showing that. It was largely moderate, working class Democrats who didn’t vote, not online leftists.
  
  Okay but what if i really want to feel sanctimonious, but believe in nothing but empty shibboleths of virtue?
  It seems like if those things were true, dropping it would be super against my best interests! Maybe consider other people and their feelings sometime, jerk. The left are so cruel.
  Wait, now i can drop the first thing.
- I was homeless so i didnt get the mail, and in jail literally that day so i couldnt try to vote in person.
  Not that i would have, but it was dem policies responsible for both things.
- I'm sorry I don't live in a swing state.
Because the better plan has historically always led to a failed state and all of our enemes are cheering it on.
When Anarchists and Tankies are capitalising on a situation the outcomes are as predictable as the Trump Agenda.
- That was also the widespread belief about democracy until the 1700s.
  
  Not really, Greece practiced democracy for hundreds of years and it was pretty well documented.
  
  Pah, Greek democracy was interesting, but very limited given how narrow their Deimos was with women, foreign residents and slaves not counting.
  
  Yes really, it was considered a failure despite those well-documented centuries.
  "Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
  — James Madison, Federalist Papers 10 & 51
- Oh look, blatant historical ignorance to the reasons that led to a failed state. Of course it was intrinsic to the philosophy, absolutely not due to outside interference and manipulation from decades of concentrated effort by the capitalist hegemony.
  Look, the state itself as a concept has its issues, but your perspective of the situation is just flat bullshit.
- historically always led to a failed state
  Failed state (USSR) is when you turn a feudal backwater country (Russian Empire) with a life expectancy of 28 years into the second world industrial power within 50 years and provide universal free healthcare, education, pensions for retirement, eliminate unemployment and homelessness, and you don't exploit the resources and labour of the global south. Oh, and you save Europe from Nazism
  
  In this hypothetical also get to starve millions of people to death and your legacy gets to be sending out late night death squads to kill dissenters. Well, not you. You would never be in charge. You will never be Joseph Stalin, somebody else will be and you will suffer with the rest of the peasants.
  
  Millions of people routinely starved in pre-Soviet Russia and you don't seem to have a problem with it. Soviets ended hunger after WW2 through the mechanisation of agriculture, as all countries which eliminated hunger did. Suffering famines during civil wars, during Nazi invasion of your territory, and during mass collectivisation processes, isn't exclusive to the Soviet Union, it's a rather common thing in preindustrial societies as the Soviet Union was at that time. That's in opposition to England murdering many millions more of Indians in the Bengal famine during WW2 by purposefully extracting essentially all food from some regions of India.
  your legacy gets to be sending out late night death squads to kill dissenters
  Thats just, like, your opinion, dude. The legacy of the Soviet Union (a project much greater than a single man who was president for less than 3 decades of the project) saved Europe from Nazism (saving tens if not hundreds of millions of lives in the process), industrialised 300 million people without abusing colonialism and extraction of resources and labour from the global south, rose life expectancy from 28 years to 70, guaranteed free education to the highest level to all women and men of the country, produced the lowest historically recorded levels of inequality in the region, and eliminated homelessness and unemployment.
  Stop swallowing and spreading western anticommunist propaganda, the evil is the western empire oppressing billions in the global south, not a country that suffered famines during land collectivisation.
  
  No that's not accurate. Centralized agricultural planning in pre-soviet Russia was still better than what the Soviets implemented, this was all very well documented that more people died as a result of the changes made.
  
  Centralized agricultural planning in pre-soviet Russia was still better than what the Soviets implemented
  Life expectancy was 28 years old before the Bolsheviks, after the land reforms and WW2 life expectancy rose dramatically to 60, what on Earth are you talking about
  
  In 1845 it was 29, in 1920 it was 25, in 1945 it was 23.
  They didnt beat 50 until the USSR had been around for 30 years.
  
  LMFAO you literally went to the first google link provides on "life expectancy of Russia historic", the Statista website, and purposefully cherrypicked the two lowest points in the history of the USSR, which coincide with wars they famously didn't start (first being the civil war, second being WW2).
  Why not pick 1930, the second year since land collectivization began, with the 37 years of life expectancy already (higher than at any point during Tsarism)? Why not pick 1940 with 41.5 years of life expectancy before Nazis invaded the USSR and murdered 27 million people?
  You're a fucking joke lmao trying to lie to yourself by cherrypicking the lowest values coinciding with wars imposed on the Soviet Union
  
  People would have lived longer and healthier if the USSR hadnt starved them.
  
  isn' RSA better than aes? i thought aes' keyspace was only like 56 bits or something.
  edit: i looked it up. aes can take a 256 bit key. i was thinking of DES.
- Yeah. If we had all just fallen in line president delacruz would be fixing shit right now. She was electable if these fucking anarchists would have voted for her!
  
  Who?
  
  Clearly didnt even read your ballot. Fucking shameful. This is why we're being ruled by fascists.

I think its possible to blame one group in this meme and another group in another meme.

Hey, remember all the time the blues defended red team by taking all the momentum, monopolizing possibility, and then just throwing as hard as they possibly could at the last second, up to and including surrendering a presidemtial election that they won?

Remember when they murdered the concept of hope for my entire generation?

If you didn't vote delacruz, you clearly didn't take this electoralism stuff seriously.

I don’t wanna blame anybody. I want to criticize the people that I think have the best chance of actually being influenced to do the things we need them to do. And guess who that is?

The royal we while you literally advocate against a united left and democracy
- Do you wanna explain to me where you’re seeing me “advocating against a united left and democracy“?
  
  No, I am honestly at a loss as to how you don't see the subtext of our conversation.
  
  You know it’s pretty outrageous to insist that you know what I think better than I do, especially after exchanging only a few sentences
  
  Skill Issue

We're well past identifying the source of the problem. If aliens invaded and everyone was debating how best to fight back, you'd be sitting there saying "Why is nobody blaming the aliens!?" Everyone who would understand that the country is falling into fascism already does. Anyone who doesn't simply hasn't yet admitted that they like fascism.

Yes, fascists exist, and are to blame for a large chunk of the failures of society. Now is the time to figure out who's going to help fight against them in a way that keeps them away for as long as possible, and who's going to claim that they had some good points, setting the stage for their expedited return.

Alright but you're also additionally alienating the party who majority aligns with your supposed policy stances as well as the people who vote for them, unless you dislike accountability, democracy, and worker solidarity.
- If you think the Democratic party in any way, shape, or form supports leftist (especially anarchist) ideology, then you are so politically illiterate that it isn't even a joke. It's just sad.
  
  then you are so politically illiterate that it isn't even a joke. It's just sad.
  They've previously defended Nazis and continue to claim they never did so, they're amazingly politically illiterate and refuse to learn
- Devotion to capitalism and the status quo will certainly complicate forming a unified front based around against changing the economic system.
  
  I've yet to converse with somebody who has any realistic plan to do away with capitalism unless their definition of capitalism is "western nation".
  Let's just tax the rich and regulate the markets.
  
  And what's your plan to get that done? What, you're going to convince wealthy politicians to give you those things, and piss off their donors, just out of the goodness of their hearts? What about when they don't do that, are you going to find your backbone and criticize them directly instead of turning all of your vitriol to the left of you?
  No, of course not. Your plan is to vote harder and throw up your hands when the things we desperately need as a class are explicitly left off the table; spoiling the vote, btw; because the things that would really get people out to vote, across party lines, just happen to be things that go against the interests of the ruling class. Then you'll shout at the rest of us for "dividing the left" when we point out the fucking obvious that those who derive power from capital are not going to give up that power voluntarily and the whole thing was smoke and mirrors to keep you invested in the system that affords them that power.
  We as a class will need to organize and build class consciousness so that we can pull our collective power together and use it to force the hand of the ruling class. That's what a realistic plan looks like. That is the only way meaningful change has ever been wrought about in this country.
  
  Fair democracy with an educated populace to minimize all human suffering and avert maximum harm.
  Don't like wealth hoarders? Tax them.
  Don't like shady businesses? Regulate them.
  If something needs to be overthrown it's a wannabe despot, not the concept of goods traded for legal tender. Constant progress has occured for hundreds of years. Theres hardly ever a time in the past better than this decade in the USA.
  
  Capitalism is not only "the concept of goods traded for legal tender", it is an ideology that wealth accumulation is the one true moral good to strive for above all else, no matter who or what you have to exploit for it. It is a system where power and capital are one and the same.
  Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, fascism is imperialism turned inwards. It's a corporate capture of government to remove all obstacles for wealth accumulation, private growth at the expense of the working class using the out-group as a scapegoat. It's not only a really bad guy getting into power, it is the natural progression of capitalism.
  Theres hardly ever a time in the past better than this decade in the USA.
  This is laughably false. Holy shit you're brainwashed.
  If anything you suggested worked, we wouldn't be here. We have had all of that in the past, and it didn't solve the core problem that allowed all of it to then be taken away.
  It's a great thought experiment, but it's not a plan and it doesn't help anyone who was already struggling before the last decade.
  
  Dictionary says:
  capitalism
  [ kap-i-tl-iz-uhm ] noun
  an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
  Also called "free enterprise", "private enterprise", an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, characterized by the freedom of capitalists to operate or manage their property for profit in competitive conditions Compare socialism
  An economic and political system characterized by a free market for goods and services and private control of production and consumption. ( Compare socialism and communism .)
  Some people will use this term to describe the USA and EU but not China. They will say they want to destroy capitalism (but not China).