leftism is bestism

Liberals: We should compromise with the fascists and blame trans people for our incompetence

Leftists: DOWN WITH FASCISM AND DOWN WITH BIGOTRY

This misses the point. The point is no one, especially someone who has given back to society by preforming labor, should be left out in the cold.

I think the point is nobody should live in poverty. Fullstop. Addendum to that, workers should be paid a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. But the first sentence is the core of everything.
- They don't agree with that, they think that if you have a job you are more worthy of being allowed to live.
Consider an example of a women, who does not work but raises childern and perform other chores to support her husband.
She is quite important in contribution to the society, but when we talk just about working people, we overlook her.
And I am sure there are many such people who are critical for the function of the society, but do not "make money" (i,e wage labor nor even owning capital for that matter)
This is why, IMO, this distinction of "people who work" is counter productive. Everyone should be able to live without poverty.
- She is quite important in contribution to the society, but when we talk just about working people, we overlook her.
  ...even then, since her contribution is to her own household should that marriage collapse society decides that not only is she owed a share of their produced assets to date but also a share of his future production for her part in enhancing it to date (alimony), including the requirement that he must continue to produce at that level at a minimum (aka alimony is based on what a judge believes you can earn, not what you actually are earning). Sometimes this also includes a share of any future retirement income as well.
  Everyone should be able to live without poverty.
  Ultimately, what you would consider living without poverty requires the labor of some number of people to maintain, and eventually the question of why they do that labor for people who don't do that labor will be asked, by them if not by you. Usually the answer is that those people are doing other labor which benefits the first group, usually abstracted out to some generalized representation of debt (aka money).
- a women
  I will never understand why this particular error is so common, yet it seems no one ever makes the similar mistake "a men" when referring to a single man.
someone who has given back to society by preforming labor
These are two things that are often lumped together but don't really have anything to do with one another.
You can be employed and give absolutely nothing back to society (tbh, probably the majority office workers are in that category). You can even be employed and take from society (looking at you, people working in e.g. the tobacco industry).
And you can be unemployed and massively give back to society. Just look at the people who do voluntary work or at the millions of moms and dads who are raising the next generation that will keep society running, all completely without compensation.
I spend all day sitting in front of a PC so that numbers on the screen of some investor go up. That's not giving back to society.
- ... fun argument. Maybe someone else will want to engage it.
You missed their point.
No one, not only workers.
- Still not getting it. These people have sacrificed a substantial part of their life and have nothing to show for it.
Why especially?
- Why 'why especially'?
especially someone
This word is the issue that is grinding gears and it's carrying a heavy weight.
What's your take on handicapped people?
Is someone who has worked 20 years in a factory and got run over by a forklift and lost both legs somehow worth more than someone who was born without legs to begin with?
I believe a society can be measured by how it treats its weakest member. Or the actual quote:
the test of a civilization is the way that it cares for its helpless members
None of this prohibits anyone from making more money by working harder than others.
The moment when a society starts arguing over who is more eligible for welfare, that's when that society moves down to the lowest level that it's willing to offer.
- Youre dismissing the actual need to appeal to an audience. Even those who do not share your particular philosophy.
  Its simply an appeal to the capitalist or blue and white collar workers alike.
  Some have a living wage. Some take full advantage of the current system and have no qualms.
  If your point is that we shouldn't attempt to appeal to them because its fruitless that is fine. Just understand, the message was not for you.
- People with disabilities generally want to and can work, even if some can only do a reduced workweek and possibly need suitable workplaces and jobs (as we all do). Establishing full employment and guarantee of jobs to anyone who can work while accommodating the needs of the people who can't work to the same degree and providing equally for them, is the goal IMO.
But that would require empathizing with them and just ewe... /s
It is called the Nirvana falacy: rejection of anything that is not an immediate perfect solution.
A road is crossed in many steps, not one giant leap.
- Ironic.
  At no point in this meme or thread, has the argument ever been 'We should never go to the 1st step', it is entirely 'We should aim for the 2nd step, and don't let the Libs stop you at the 1st.
  The only people who reject anything, are the libs who reject the notion that you can work towards the 2nd step.
- It does not apply here to smth that is this fundamental. Living outside of poverty for everyone, is very fundamental and basic, not smth that should ever be compromised upon

Free humanity from the burden of unwanted labours.

I am a Leftist and agree with the Leftists take but the Liberal in this meme has a more effective message. The majority of people have issues neurologically with truly caring about things they can't at least imagine affecting them and there are a huge number of people working their asses off 40+ hours a week while struggling to get by. Not that we should abandon the elderly or disabled but we should be diverse in our messaging and who it targets.

The leftists have the easiest message, it’s provide for everyone. It can literally effect anyone.
The liberal messaging muddies the message up, making it unimaginable that it could effect people outside of the narrow scope it presents

While yes i don't want to slave away most of my time by effectively working 10hrs in my 40hr work week.

yet- he who does not work shall not eat.

We overproduce an abundance of food.
There are people who cannot labour or be materially productive members of society, they are no less important or worthy of basic humanity.
A persons value is not limited to what you can extract from them.
- i know my claim sounds confrontative, of course we should provide people with access to our abundand resources and some people are mentally or physically unable to work - you can't expect them to provide something to society as they rely on us to survive.
  but everyone who's able should provide something.
  no the abundance doesn't come from 40-80hr wage slavery done by billions.
  BUT the abundance comes from actual work done by billions.

I like the spirit but were not japan, we have to consider the antisocials.

There need to be requirments to meet to receive entitlements.

Also though capitalism is just bad at providing necessities, slapping a ubi on top wont fix it.

No.
No fucking requirements on human worth, and living is not a bloody entitlement.
- man existing requires work, whether we like it or not. freeloading hurts peoples interest in the common good.
Here's a requirement for you:
Be alive.
Literally nobody consented to be born. So everything needed to keep a living person alive should be a right.

What are you talking about? When i was born in the '80s, being unemployed for more than a few month was criminal offense in most socialist European countries. Leftism is beneficial in moderation, but definitely not every leftism is bestism if this is your only criteria for "bestism"

Which European countries were socialist in the 80s?
- Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Chekoslovakia, Poland, the whole USSR. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_parasitism_(offense) Yugoslavia and Albania were socialist too but I'm not sure if there was law against unemployment there.

Liberals: Works 40 hours a week.

Leftists: Whines 40 hours a week without working.

Conservative weirdo says what, what are you work-maxed
- If taking care of a family, working, and not demanding entitlements without putting any effort into anything like the billionaires and bottom feeders makes me conservative then I guess I'm conservative, even though I'd rather see conservatives thrown into the everglades one by one.
  Seriously though, what have you actually contributed to society other than Lemmy platitudes?
The funny part is the only reason I don't really want to work right now is because everybody fuckin sucks and makes it miserable. I'm a systems administrator and if all I had to do was computer work I would be perfectly happy I could work more than 40 hours. The problem is that 90% of my job is kissing ass to people that know literally nothing about computers desperately trying to get something halfway correct done while the retard in charge who hasn't understood computers for over 20 years now overrides and makes a dumbass decision that is guaranteed to cause problems, trying to preemptively get ready for when it inevitably causes the exact problems I said it would cause and having to deal with the cleanup and getting blamed for it even though I at every possible meeting made it clear that this was a bad idea.
So yeah I don't want to work , but that's not because I'm lazy it's because fuck other people lol
- You literally just supported my point.
Oh wow, I didn't know you were a socialist! The USSR famously had 40 hour working week and there was 0% unemployment rate. I'm glad to see more people supporting socialism <3

Both things can be true.
One step at a time.

Is our next step going to be passing conservative legislation and pretending its a win for 15 years again?
Yeah, splitting up isn't a great thing right now. Let's team up together and fight the nazis.
- Im willing to work with anyone who has a real backbone and is acturally willing to fight fascism. People who reject all fascism even a compromised fascism lite.
- It's almost like some people here desperately want to create division in the left.
  Glad to see it backfiring on one post.
- You're the only person in here talking about splitting up?
  Let's just make sure when this is over, that actual leftists are put in charge so we don't get a repeat of this in 20 years.
- Shitlibs can't do anything but blame the left for their failures and deny we exist. And suck Nazi dick. They can fall in line or fuck off–if a shitlib wants to volunteer as a warm body for something I'm doing without trying to subvert it I won't turn them away, but I doubt that would happen–i have seen zero interest in coalitions or opposing fascism.
  Please feel free to prove me wrong.
Specifically that first one, then we break your legs and shackle you to something so you dont get ideas.
Walking in the direction of only one.
Because the other is merely a stop on the way.
If you don't strive for the best option, you'll settle for compromise.
- That's what politics is, compromise. That's why "they" say to shoot for the biggest thing you want, because half way there is still better than when you first started.
- Yeah you get the compromise first, people realize that it's great, and push farther from that. Taking the big leap, while not impossible, is much harder and less likely to succeed the way you want.
  But you don't really seem to care about nuance and just want more excuses to insult people who aren't as left as you are. Obviously even liberals think ubi is the best option

damn right. in the US, performing labor is seen as more important than human life. that tells you a lot.

And most of them defend it.
- I guess it's some variation of Stockholm syndrome.
It is a super weird and self contradictory thing. Because yeah, the notion is that labor’s important because labor is how anything gets done, and without things getting done, how does anyone get to live a life at all? Entropy is real after all. So people who would do no labor yet get support from the rest of society are seen as execrable parasites.
And yet… the big goal is to become wealthy so that you can live on the labor of others. The whole enterprise of business is about playing the system so that you can get more for less personal labor. And the highest form of this is to work not at all yet receive even more than mere support: total indulgence.
So how are people at once shat upon for doing no labor but wanting basic support, while others are idealized for doing no labor but wanting total indulgence?

I’m “collectivize the farms and factories” left, and even I recognize that it’s a hell of a lot easier to get to the second state from the first state than from where we are now.

While that's true, I think by positioning ourselves at the 2nd state, it allows us to "negotiate" our way down to getting the 1st state. Its kind of like haggling. If you start at the more extreme position, opposition will (in an ideal scenario) try to find a middle ground to agree on. And that middle ground would look like the 1st state. It's a way of combatting the ratcheting effect.
I do wish the left broadly could unify under the idea that we need to make incremental progress.
A lot of people on this very site think there's going to be a glorious people's revolution any day now. I could spend hours describing how unrealistic that fantasy is, but I think more people rather live with their indulgent fantasies than go out and plant trees that they will never sit in the shade of.
- I do wish the left broadly could unify under the idea that we need to make incremental progress.
  That's literally been the last century + of western politics, and uh we've all seen how that's turning out.
  I wish centrists could unify under the idea that we need to make a complete and total overhaul. That they could recognize that the climate alone will kill us if we don't do, let alone the fascists and capitalists at our back.
- That incremental progress has been so slow its reversing into fascism, congratulations this is the enviable outcome of reformism.
- Welcome back Karl Kautsky. Excited for World War 1?
- The label we're gathering under is progressives, it's mostly leftists but you leave the praxis at home and recognize that no one is going to read a pamphlet
  Turns out, when you have good messaging, most people are on board with the practical changes we could make today. Mumdani is a rockstar at it
- Oh man am I ever with you. I’m absolutely an idealist, I agree with the OP’s sentiment. But I will absolutely support anyone with any ideology that gets us closer. Small steps are easier to take, this bullshit that everyone thinks we need the perfect candidate with the one weird trick.
  See what that got us. I have no goddamned idea where to go from here. I’ll support any ham sandwich that drags us in the right direction.
- go out and plant trees that they will never sit in the shade of
  I forget about this colloquialism, but find it a good description for how I try to be day to day
Well the only people who are talking about stopping at one state are the centrists arguing we must 'compromise' and accept the top only.
I fully support going to both..
- Uh...I don't think you've done a check up on where the centrists are lately. Centrists split the difference between the parties, they're over there going "well, healthcare is good, but who's going to pay for it? I don't like what ice is doing, they're hurting too many people while they look for the criminals"
  The abundance liberals also claim they want to do the first one, but they seem like a fresh wave of neolibs
  It seems like progrssives are the only ones serious about the first one, and they're largely on board with the second one
Are you aware of how many people starved when farms were collectivized in the Soviet Union?
- Are you aware of the “post hoc ergo propter hoc” logical fallacy?
- The Kolkhoz system in the Soviet Union is really not to dissimilar to modern farming practices.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolkhoz
  The system of petty/peasant farming is over. Successful farms are already "collectivized", and hire farmhands to do the work.
  https://www.epi.org/blog/how-many-farmworkers-are-employed-in-the-united-states/
- Are you aware of how many tens of millions of people were saved from Nazi genocide thanks to the industrialization that underpinned the collectivization of farms in the Soviet Union?
- It is possible to improve on the methods and priorities of previous attempts.

I feel like you hear the top line because those specific liberals are trying to convince independents, moderates, conservatives, and people on the right to agree on at least something. Many of the people they’re trying to convince would give a big “NO” if they didn’t include that 40 hours part.

The fact that there isn’t even a “YES” with the 40 hours part caveat is the bad sign.

I don’t think most of the people labeled as liberals would disagree with what the people labeled leftist are saying, but their trying to convince the other people that aren’t even bought in to the first step.

This is also an issue where the people that don’t want to help others have over 50% of the power in the US federal government currently.

Our energy should be focused on bringing these progressive help options to everyone at the state level right now to have the greatest chance of getting these programs implemented.

liberals are trying to convince independents, moderates, conservatives, and people on the right to agree on at least something.
the people that don’t want to help others have over 50% of the power in the US federal government currently
The problem doesn't just lie in that there is conflict between people who do and do not want to help one another. It's that there is a whole system in place that rewards the largescale harming of people.
Trying to convince people to want to help each other is a challenge and confronts people's individualism. That's not the issue.
But the notion of agreeing on something with people who actively require harming others is fundamentally destructive to that cause.
- The problem doesn't just lie in that there is conflict between people who do and do not want to help one another. It's that there is a whole system in place that rewards the largescale harming of people.
  I agree with you, the fact that there is an entire media environment geared towards fueling this as well does not help anyone. I feel that voting system changes and trying to implement a broader version of the Fairness Doctrine at the state level might help remedy some of the issues.
  Trying to convince people to want to help each other is a challenge and confronts people's individualism. That's not the issue.
  I agree, this is one of the challenges but not the main issue.
  But the notion of agreeing on something with people who actively require harming others is fundamentally destructive to that cause.
  These are partly the consequences of several things in one, many of them purposefully orchestrated and snowball. Namely, the defunding of education, a culture of superiority, the mass broadcasting of non-experts and personalities, and espionage to help prop up the worst and most divisive opinions.
  The unfortunate reality is that there are lots of people out there feeling hurt. This hurt that they feel can very often be entirely justified as well. Maybe their town has had a slump in well-paying, blue collar jobs. Jobs that were once guaranteed to the level of people working at the same job as one of their parents and grandparents. Some of those blue collar workers were frustrated and then here comes the snake-oil pitch telling them that they lost their job, promotion, or higher pay to immigrants -when in reality it could have been to many other things like automation.
  Many of those same people aren’t inherently against anyone, but when they feel lied to or taken advantage of then it makes their blood boil. Many of those same people could be convinced that it’s actually the billionaires taking their money and their jobs. From the sounds of it, Bernie Sanders has been having success with that message this year in rural West Virginia. There are a lot of voters out there with lower access to information.
  I believe that if we do get a campaign going with progressive leaders that we could make some real inroads even in these communities and make it clear that it’s the billionaires that are making life in their communities more difficult.

More and more I'm convinced most Americans have no idea what a liberal, leftist, or other terms actually are. They're just parroting the words they hear from their feeds.

'Liberal' is the funniest because both red and blue accuse each other of being them. My guess is blues think liberalism is laissez-faire and the reds think it's woke social freedoms. They're both slightly on the right track, but not at all.

And in the rest of the free world...

Liberals: No one should live in poverty regardless of their ability to perform labour.

Leftists: Yoooo, 40 hrs is fucked. What is this, the 1300s?

Liberals: Actually, yeah that is kind of fucked. An employer shouldn't be ble to encroach on an employee's life that much. This is an imbalance of liberties.

Leftist: Great! So what are we going to do bout it?

Liberals: Fuck all. We can't be sure employees don't want this too. Besides, someone will sort it out soon, they always do.

Leftists: I'll donate a union $5 so I can tell my friend I'm left.

And in the next five years, some prolific young gun politician swoops in the 35 hour work week. But due to cultural reasons, everyone keeps working 40 hours and gets plenty of overtime for it. This having the employer pay more and the employee see little benefit because the state haven't adjusted their now dated tax brackets. But along with very good minimum wage standards and an unemployment rate < 5%, both the leftist and the liberal never found the true source of the poverty and so continued using foreign corporations and large franchise to fulfill almost all of their needs. And everyone but their local infrastructures and communities lived happily ever after until the next global recession hit. The leftist and liberal "really meant it this time" when they said they'd support local and try to live more independently, but the inconvenience of it meant they silently did not.

"Rest of the world."
Let me introduce you to the Swedish political party, The Liberals. Their ideologies are things like
Muslims bad
Immigrants bad
We should collaborate with the Nazi party
We should monitor citizens private communication
Criminals should receive harsher punishments
They're socially very conservative, and historically have been economically liberal. There are weird outliers however, like the other year when they almost tore themselves apart debating the legal nuances around incest.
Liberals: Fuck all. We can't be sure employees don't want this too. Besides, someone will sort it out soon, they always do.
Leftists: I'll donate a union $5 so I can tell my friends I'm left.
The most real understanding of our political world tbh.
- My experience has more been along the lines of. 5 people are voting:
  1 votes to make things better
  2 don't vote
  2 vote to make things worse even for themselves
  I tried watching some right wing stuff and some interviews with right wing voters to see if there was a perspective I'm missing but often it was literally 'I know there's no evidence for this but I believe it anyway'.
The difference is liberals believe in a system of laws that can be tweaked and perfected for the greatest good but never fundamentally changed, leftists believe in change
Of course you're over there arguing over less hours or not, we're over here arguing if we should still have science
We don't have a functioning system to tweak
Hear me out here, maybe, the words mean slightly different things based on the cultural associations with those words?
I don’t disagree that they are used differently in Europe and the rest of the world, but those terms have regionally unique meanings in the US.
Liberal here means more pro-business/capitalism. It doesn’t inherently mean pro-unregulated capitalism though, nor pro-big corporations/billionaires.
Leftist here means supports left leaning policies. That can range quite a bit, and likely is more left-of-center.
I think your breakdown is an accurate representation of politics regardless. Lots of people saying they want this or that, but not a ton of action actually going forward to change things. Yet alone there even being big incentives for those in power to actually implement those changes.
To me, it feels like positive change has to happen locally and at a state level, since people don’t necessarily care to want what they are unfamiliar with.

Liberals watching fascism evolve in real time: "Fuck your guns! Give them over!"

Leftists: "Uh, hell no, are you crazy?"

Liberals: "You'll get KILLED!"

Leftists: "Yeah, that's going to be the outcome whether you fight or not."

Liberals: "Where my 2A people at?!" (got a burn in there. tee hee hee)

Me: "I have loads of guns, practice best I know how, several times a week. Tell me what you would have me do."

Liberals: FUCKING SILENCE>

Never heard a single word, not one reply to that question. Here's your chance to shine!

I haven't seen masked men in my town. None have come for my brown, legal, immigrant wife. As of this year, I am not outdoors unarmed. Indoors? You can't catch me shitting without a firearm in reach. Insane? Abso-fucking-lutly insane. No one should live like that. But this is where we're at in America.

Want to hear something nuts? I was just now showing my wife that I can buy all the gear these fascists are wearing on Amazon.com. Yes, POLICE patches, all of it.

So, to sum, they've demonstrated that they'll kill me. They've demonstrated that anyone can look like them. You go figure out how to take that information.

Ban for "inciting violence" in 3, 2...

You don’t get an answer because people get banned for typing the correct answer.
You want to do something? Start organising revolutionaries. Take your time doing so, as they key word here is "organise". Having a bunch of trigger happy gun hippies walking around helps nobody.
Find some very painful points to hit, then hit them.
Don't be deterred if the state starts calling you terrorists.
- I dont think organizing can be done at this time.
  I think it has to be a Franz Ferdinand type thing.

This is a bit like responding "All lives matter" when hearing about Black Lives Matter.

It's more like "End Slavery" not "End Debt Bondage".
One is clearly more serious than the other and it's not the 40 hr workers.
I'm sure you can get into the anti-confederate nature of that.

Ask the top to apply their thinking to retirement. That might make them think a little deeper.

"Oh it's different, we'll have earned our welfare" - Liberals

Progressive purity tests help the billionaires and right more than they help us make progress toward a future were common people aren’t treated like trash.

Nothing and no one will ever be good enough for some of these people, so fascists will continue to keep their power.
- Lots of people are good enough, they're just not lifetime DNC candidates with compromised allegiances and paid by lobbyists.
  Such a low hurdle will forever be insurmountable to some of these centrists.

OP doesn’t understand what these terms mean.

You think the democrats are radical leftists, don’t you?
- No? But you probably think Trump is since you’re comparing liberals and leftists.

that's not how it works though

No shit. If it worked a different way people wouldn't be talking about it.
Neither is how it works, the point is to change how it works so that we achieve these goals.
- that's way beyond the function of a meme pic though

X: We have a non-fascist competent party - ?

Y: No! Only leftism!

X: Well, howabout the fascist party.

Y: Only Leftism!

X: That’d be the fascist party then.

X: We have a non fascsist competent party.
Y: Do you oppose genocide?
X: Of course not, we are owned by AIPAC.
Y: Do you support the rights of Trans people?
X: Of course not, acturally we hate minorities and blame them when we loose.
Y: Are you at least competent?
X: Absolutely not, we will compromise with Fascism and give in to every demand like a wet napkin.
Y: So why should I vote for you?
X: Fuck you, you're dividing the left.
I don't know about your country, but our "non-fascist" party lost to a cartoon villain, so I wouldn't call them competent. All it would've taken was not treating their voters with disdain and acting like they cared, but apparently that was too difficult.
And before anyone tries to direct blame at the base that got demoralized by shitty leadership, actually consider why you never direct that blame at the people with all power to shape their campaigns; the people who are supposed to "represent" their constituents.
- I wouldn't call them competent.
  Well you’d be wrong. We’d have a functioning government for one. For two, it’d be in line with the Constitution instead of in direct opposition to it helped along by six corrupt justices.
  If that’s not competent, we might need to start with a definition.
  All it would've taken was not treating their voters with disdain and acting like they cared
  Ugh.
- I blame the people who voted Trump the most and the non voters the second most.
  The Democrat should have been able to run a half empty can of expired crab juice and won.
X: We have a non-fascist competent party - ?
Y: No! No parties, no state.
- Y: No! No parties, no state.
  Far out. Good luck! Watch out for human nature, i’ve heard it’s a real rhymes-with-witch.
- lol you're really leaning into the Democratic voter suppression the last day or so. What's got your jimmies so ruffled? You bitched up because Charlie Kirk got shot and taking it out on the rest of us?