Online left-wing infighting seems to me to be about applying labels to people because they argue or have argued one thing on a particular topic, and then use it to discredit an unrelated argument topic or paint their overall character. I know there are pot-stirring trolls and compulsive contrarians, but I do witness users I personally judge to have genuine convictions do this amongst each other.
Within US politics, CA Gov. Newsom is an illustrative example (plenty of examples exist too for other countries and around Lemmy/Fedi). I don’t particularly like him, he has done things I think are good, some things I think are funny, something things I think are bad and some things I think are downright horrible. Yet I have encountered some users online who will say they can’t ever applaud a move of his if one specific other policy or set of other unrelated policies crossed a line for them. I’m not asking people to change their mind on what they think of a person because of an isolated good thing they do, but to at least acknowledge it as a good thing or add nuance describing what about it you like or don’t. I can accept saying “I don’t think this is a good thing in this circumstance”, “this person will not follow through with this thing I think is good thing because ___”, or “they are doing a good thing for wrong and selfish reasons” too. But to outright deny any support for an action because of a wildly extrapolated character judgement of the person doing it, when that user would support it otherwise, vexes me greatly.
I know this is not every or most interactions on Lemmy, but these are just some thoughts I have to get out of my head. You don’t have to agree with me. I’m using ‘left-wing’ because the definition of ‘leftist’ or ‘liberal’ is wide-ranging depending on who you talk to. And on the side of the spectrum I’m calling left to left-centre, we seem to let the fewer things we disagree with get in the way of the many more things we would agree with each other. That’s all, thanks for reading.
This is the problem with leftist mobilisation on the whole and basically always has been. The right is mostly made up of single issues. Things like opposing LGBT+ rights, reproductive rights, racial integration, social welfare etc. Any one of things are your main bag and Conservative it is. All the others basically aren’t deal breakers. For example, you could be closeted homosexual but also an ardent racist, you’re definitely not going to vote left.
On the flip side, all the left has are deal-breakers. Leftists will constantly come up against purity tests for a myriad of different factions, interest groups, loud parts of the Internet etc etc.
As an example, you may be the scion of the left in terms of your electoral ability but if you say women’s sport should be protected from those born with a potential innate advantage of a higher amount of testosterone, you’re pissing off a part of your base who now would rather anyone but you got into power.
Look at how the different sides (socialists, communists, anarchists, Basque and Catalan nationalists etc), descended into infighting during the Spanish Civil War even while on the brink of victory against Franco’s Nationalists. (who for example brought together the anti-Catholic and anti-monarchist Falangists and the pro-Catholic and pro-monarchist CEDA because they could all agree on wanting to destroy the Reds).
edit: added word for clarity
As an example, you may be the scion of the left in terms of your electoral ability but if you say women’s sport should be protected from those born with a potential innate advantage of a higher amount of testosterone, you’re pissing off a part of your base who now would rather anyone but you got into power.
Absolutely. Because we still have principles. And copying right-wing talking points is not one. The whole toilet and sports discussion are complete BS to get themselves angry about stuff that doesn’t actually happen in real life.
Maybe this puts us at a disadvantage but giving up our principles for a common goal is not really how this works. We’d be giving up too much of ourselves. We don’t live by anger and hate that unites us. And I don’t believe in being told what to do/think. I guess for a lot of conservatives this is less alien a concept because they have been brought up in churches which do exactly that.
Personally I also don’t have any loyalty to a political movement. I temporarily align myself while our goals are the most similar but I feel free to flip whenever I feel (or when they do something I don’t agree with). I used to be a member of the socialist party in Holland but they did a few things I didn’t agree with (like firing their entire youth movement for being too left) so now I joined the animal party. Which is also progressive.
On the subject of ‘giving yourself up.’
Escaped slave Frederick Douglas backed Lincoln over a candidate who wanted abolition. Lincoln’s Republican Party was anti-slavery, but wasn’t committed to an immediate end. Douglas figured that it was better to win, and have the President’s ear, than to lose and be completely out of the picture.
Bayard Ruskin was a gay man who was Martin King’s right hand. Ruskin did a lot of the hands-on work to get the March on Washington organized. He didn’t push an LGBTQ+ agenda because he knew that 1960’s America wasn’t ready for it.
Maybe this puts us at a disadvantage but giving up our principles for a common goal is not really how this works.
I struggle to square the statement in the scope of “democracy”. It reads like you don’t want to compromise to reach a solution at all. That’s not democracy. There will always be people who hold positions different to yours and one side is going to have to bend their principals to reach a compromise.
I’m not asking you to accept any particular position here, but if we take a step back from the actual policies of our current time it sounds less like you want a democracy, a system where different views are blended together, and more like a system that only meets “your” views.
Again not an attack on “you” but if everyone has this staunch viewpoint, how can we ever get to a workable system for all?
I struggle to square the statement in the scope of “democracy”. It reads like you don’t want to compromise to reach a solution at all. That’s not democracy. There will always be people who hold positions different to yours and one side is going to have to bend their principals to reach a compromise.
No, I’m not an active part of politics. My only input is to vote. Hence I vote which party aligns with me the most.
The actual compromise happens by politics, I’m not involved of that.
I’m not asking you to accept any particular position here, but if we take a step back from the actual policies of our current time it sounds less like you want a democracy, a system where different views are blended together, and more like a system that only meets “your” views.
To be honest I don’t know what I want. I’m just trying to make the best of the shit we have now. I do know one thing: When it comes to the extreme-right (like the PVV in Holland where I live or the republicans in the US), there is no way to make any kind of communication work. My vision is purely to live alongside them with as little interaction as possible.
As much as I despise the idea of getting a Newsom presidency when he’s about as “mediocre centrist” as politicians in the US come; it would still be leaps and bounds better than four more years of Trump, Vance, or whatever corrupt fuck crawls out from under the MAGA movement in 2028. I’m hoping primaries mean we get an actual candidate, so we could, I dunno, win on a progressive platform for a change – but being realistic, if we’re driving off a cliff and turning around is not an option, pumping the brakes is still better than stamping down on the gas.
This all, of course, assumes we still have free and fair elections come 2028, which is looking like an increasingly fanciful idea.
You’re on the right and have no clue.
Lol… You’re in this post elsewhere stating if literally reanimated Hitler was running against Newsome you’d still not vote Newsome… And you reckon this person is a clueless right winger?
Look in the mirror. You just stated you’d equally support the epitome of fascism over a centrist. A non-vote is equal support for candidates, and the sooner the useful idiots work that out the better.
I’m going to not vote for Gavin Newsom even if you resurrect Hitler himself and tell me Gavin is the lesser evil.
And you’re mad about it.
Not voting Kamala either. Nerd.
🤡
Yes, Gavin Newsom is a clown and the idea you would vote for him makes you right-wing regardless of whether you’ve studied political theory or not.
yeah, you’re right, if my choices in 2028 are between a mediocre centrist and a literal nazi, I should just stay home and not vote/vote third party so it doesn’t count (in the US presidential election, yes, they functionally do not count; no, this is not up for debate). I’m sure that won’t have the same effect it did in 2024 and get the Nazi elected! thanks, .ml user, what would we ever do without your peerless authority and insight on True Leftism™?
now run along and go be a 🤡 somewhere else.
Go vote for a genocidal maniac. Go on. Put up Gavin Newsom and see what happens. Blaming leftists won’t save you.
The rest of us will sit here watching you. Judging for history.
🤡
You lost. Clownposting won’t save you.
Lesser evilism is a race to the bottom. While it’s easy to tut tut about how you’re the most reasonable person in the conversation, it’s plain to people with either memory or the werewithal to study ancient history that you and Gruesome Newsome are defending positions that were considered extreme far right 20 years ago. This is called the ratchet effect. The dems bravely hold the line against the mean, critical, STERN left, who are committing the worst crime of all (demanding results), laud themselves for being less Hitlerian (sometimes), and then the next brownshirt aficionado turns the heat up further
Okay, I can understand your opinion. My question to you is then, how do we reverse or break this cycle? Asking earnestly.
Does the US just have to wait for a golden goose like an American Greta Thunberg who checks every box for you? Since painting every good thing with the brush of bad things doesn’t appear to inspire anyone to improve. And if your answer is there is nothing that can be done about it, then what’s the problem with at least trying to slow it down, by shaming bad things and cheering good ones?
Lol, awaiting the American Greta Thunberg like the Dalai Lama. This is gonna crack my buddy up oh man
No, ceding to the greater evil because the lesser evil isn’t good enough is a race to the bottom. Lesser evilism is a gentle stroll to the bottom.
It’s easier to slow that gentle stroll to a stop, and subsequently turn around and head back up, than it is to slow down from a sprint.
Vote strategically to secure the best conditions the Overton window will allow, and use that period of deceleration to make a difference through direct action. Progressive change is easier to accomplish under mealy-mouthed liberals than under full-throated fascists.
Big talk abt lesser evil when the dems are more likely to suck up time and energy from ur parents only to funnel that money into a “based Republican” in a race where they lost so badly it’s red versus red
Btw my local government is now basically replacing the state level government. You guys are basically living in the fucking dark ages vro
.ml moment
Amazing how people are more willing to embrace/forgive, even revise history of fascism than communism who saved the world from fascism repeatedly.
Thank you for displaying perfectly the point I made with my other comment ITT. Based on barely more than zero, you declared me your political enemy.
Fascist apologia projection. Again.
Block feature is good.
The main issue for leftists is that both of your two parties are full of corrupt unabashed neoliberal capitalists who are so far to the right they would make even Margaret Thatcher blush, the main difference being that one party is more openly racist and fascist than the other. That’s not a purity test, it’s a fundamental difference of values.
Are you really living in a democracy when only one of two parties can ever win, and both are 100% commited to neoliberal economics? Nothing is gonna get better in the long run under a system that is designed to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. No war but class war.
I get your point about the rise of neo-liberalism and the helpless feeling of having no good choices. But there’s a mindset that stems from “differences in values”, that could lead to someone today self-describing as a communist who would reject class-war opinions from a resurrected Karl Marx, because of his 19th-century patriarchal views, him not talking enough about the oppression of women transgender and non-binary folks, he may view Indigenous culture as a barrier to social progress and collective power, or because modern-day Russia attacks Ukraine or whatever. I’m not saying this is you, but I hope this illustrates what frustrates me with the online progressive movement.
If one has to wait for a perfect vessel before anyone can start agreeing on policies, then we will never find a vessel that everyone finds perfect and never get started organizing around the policies we want.
Riddle me this
Where did all these people go who were so supportive of the Green Party and PSL and all that? During the election, there were super important parties to vote for, who represented a chance of real change not these dumbfuck Democrats, and a bunch of people on Lemmy were rallying behind them and saying they planned to vote for them and basically never shutting up about it. What happened to those parties and all that advocacy for them? Why, after the election, did it pivot right back around to focusing purely on the Democrats (or on how important it is not to vote just in general as a general rule)?
Also, there are people existing outside the two-party system, Bernie Sanders is one. Do you support expanding out efforts like that to try to break into the two-party oligarchy fest?
Where did all these people go who were so supportive of the Green Party and PSL and all that?
Dunno, ask them.
During the election, there were super important parties to vote for, who represented a chance of real change not these dumbfuck Democrats, and a bunch of people on Lemmy were rallying behind them and saying they planned to vote for them and basically never shutting up about it.
I do remember a few brave souls encouraging people to vote Green during the last election, but they were mostly drowned out and hounded by enraged Dems for “throwing away their vote” or for “effectively voting for Trump”. But no rational analysis of the voting patterns from the last election suggests that leftists were responsible in any way for the election loss.
Criticisms of the Democratic Party, the DNC, and the broken two party system are valid and need to be heard. If the Dems keep losing elections, that’s on their terrible candidates, rigged Presidential candidate process, terrible policy choices (e.g. wrt Israel), uninspiring election campaigns, and (mostly) because they are a party of the corporations and for the corporations.
What happened to those parties and all that advocacy for them? Why, after the election, did it pivot right back around to focusing purely on the Democrats (or on how important it is not to vote just in general as a general rule)?
I don’t care if you vote or don’t vote, because it won’t make any difference to where the country is headed unless major political reforms are made to address poverty, break up the two-party system, and stop corporate abuses. And major reforms like that are simply not gonna happen via the shambles that is the existing US political system. As I said before, nothing is gonna get better in the long run under a system that is designed to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. And the Democrats are just as responsible for that system as the Republicans. Making the rich richer and hating on leftists are the only two things they can both agree on.
Also, there are people existing outside the two-party system, Bernie Sanders is one. Do you support expanding out efforts like that to try to break into the two-party oligarchy fest?
Yes, absolutely. Anything to break the stranglehold of the two party system would be good. While I don’t think Bernie is perfect, I would totally be enthused to vote for him (if I lived in the US) because he is consistently on the right side of most issues. I’d support Mamdani too. That fact that neither of those people are “acceptable” representatives of the Democratic party from the perspective of the DNC is very telling though. They did everything they could to stop Bernie’s campaign, and are still doing everything they can to stop Mamdani. Anything to stop the Overton window from moving left an inch or two, right?
I don’t care if you vote or don’t vote
Why do you ban content from your server that says it’s a good idea to vote, then?
Honestly, this argument has been going on for 100s of years…
The argument for voting against left-wing or socialist candidates on the grounds that they can’t win and are therefore helping the right wing into power has, of course, been a time-worn argument in the United States against bucking the two-party system. Engels, in an 1893 letter to an American colleague, pointed out that in the United States, the formation of a workers’ party is hindered by the “Constitution…which makes it appear as though every vote were lost that is cast for a candidate not put up by one of the two governing parties.”
What’s changed? I’m with Rosa on this topic:
People who pronounce themselves in favor of the method of legislative reform in place of and in contradistinction to the conquest of political power and social revolution, do not really choose a more tranquil, calmer and slower road to the same goal, but a different goal. Instead of taking a stand for the establishment of a new society they take a stand for surface modification of the old society.
As Luxemburg points out, the debate is not about whether socialists are for reforms or whether socialists should turn their backs on the electoral system. As socialists we fight for all reforms that improve the conditions of life for workers under capitalism and give workers the confidence to fight for more. But any real fight for reforms requires struggle to achieve them. Reformists tell workers to sit passively and rely on elected officials. By doing so, they weaken and demobilize the class struggle that makes real reform possible and prepares workers consciously, organizationally and politically to overturn capitalism.
And to answer you directly…
Why do you ban content from your server that says it’s a good idea to vote, then?
Because of all of the above. I do sometimes remove comments promoting electoralism in leftist communities if I think it’s getting disruptive. From a leftist perspective electoralism is really nothing more than hope-mongering peddled by the State to keep the masses in check without threatening the system as a whole, and which only results in status quo outcomes. Or to put it another way, it works as a sop for the masses so they feel like they are control somehow, despite only ever being able to vote for one neoliberal party or another more openly racist neoliberal party. All this effort to try to get people to vote for a party that doesn’t align with their values and clearly couldn’t give a damn about them is a complete waste of time. If folks instead spent that energy protesting in the streets, disrupting ICE operations, protecting immigrants, and organizing for candidates who aren’t part of the status quo (like the Bernies and Mamdanis of the world), then leftist votes would naturally follow.
The argument for voting against left-wing or socialist candidates on the grouns that they can’t win and are therefore helping the right wing into power has, of course, been a time-worn argument in the United States against bucking the two-party system. Engels, in an 1893 letter to an American colleague, pointed out that in the United States, the formation of a workers’ party is hindered by the “Constitution…which makes it appear as though every vote were lost that is cast for a candidate not put up by one of the two governing parties.”
What’s changed?
Glad you asked. Most countries of the world have abandoned the kind of “51% take all” approach that the US uses, with its inevitable collapse into two and only two parties, each one a hair’s breadth from the center on one side or the other as a mathematical certainty. Voting was a nice idea but the US framework for it is shit. And that’s even before you factor in the fact that “the center” is defined in wildly distorted half-Nazi terms by our corrupted media to an indifferent and uneducated populace.
I do think that advocating for reforming or overthrowing that system is a better use of time than urging people not to vote in it (or to vote for a more palatable candidate than the two-major-party dogshit on offer, which is functionally the same thing). That was my question – why not more time spent on that? I think that is badly needed. I genuinely don’t get why people who claim to be anarchists or similar spend so much time talking about the election specifically within the two-party system and talking about Democrats specifically.
From a leftist perspective electoralism is really nothing more than hope-mongering peddled by the State to keep the masses in check without threatening the system as a whole, and which only results in status quo outcomes.
I mean… yeah. That’s what they do. Communists in power use the idea of socialism as a falseness to justify their mandate. Fascists in power use the idea of virtue and strength of character as a falseness to justify their mandate. Democrats (small d, democrats) in power use the idea of voting and the voice of the people as a falseness to justify their mandate. It doesn’t mean that socialism, strength of character, or voting become these horrible things that we have to avoid because corrupt politicians used them as a way to justify their tyranny. That is just what people do once they get in power: They lie to make it sound reasonable the way they cheated their way in. Is this your first day visiting Political Science Adventureland?
If you are saying that you don’t support the current US voting system with all its corruption and naked fascism / oligarchy, then sure, I 100% agree. We should fix it, although I am going to sort of disagree with you there that just not participating in the system will suddenly make it crumble instead of just making things worse. If you are saying that you don’t support voting as a concept (which, given “electoralism,” it sounds like you don’t), not worth subjecting to any kind of improvement to make it represent the will of the people, then… IDK, I guess you are in good company on Lemmy sort of speaking. I had the revelation recently that a lot of these Lemmy communists really do want just seizing power at the barrel of a gun, they really don’t like non-authoritarian or non-tribally-based systems and that is the root of a lot of their politics.
Not saying that’s you. I am slightly curious about which camp you fall into (reform voting camp or abolish voting camp)… let me ask this: How will refusing to vote produce any reduction in the power of the US government and institution of a better life for people in the US government-wise or tyranny-wise or oligarchy-wise? What do you see as the progression by which not voting at all could lead to better things in the future?
I think we probably agree on the general principles. But i feel like you are missing the point a bit. I’m not advocating for not voting, per se. I’m just pointing out that voting is not a real solution to the problems we face. Because reforms to the two party system are basically impossible to achieve by working from within the system, by design. The quotes I provided clearly articulate that idea. By all means vote, but let’s not pretend it will achieve any sort of meaningful change in the economic status quo. I mean, sure if voting for the Dems stops the deportations and shuts down ICE completely then that’s worth a go in the meantime. But even then, conditions for US workers are unlikely to change materially. Wealth inequality will be just as bad as before and the Dems will do nothing serious to address it. We all surely recognise that.
The problem I have with electoralists is that there is an implicit and sometimes explicit suggestion that one can simply vote fascism and oligarchy away. I’m more of the view it will take a revolution or mass protest movement of some kind (like a general strike) to achieve any serious reforms to the economic and political status quo.
I’m just pointing out that voting is not a real solution to the problems we face.
Correct
Because reforms to the two party system are basically impossible to achieve by working from within the system, by design.
Correct
By all means vote, but let’s not pretend it will achieve any sort of meaningful change in the economic status quo.
Correct
I’m more of the view it will take a revolution or mass protest movement of some kind (like a general strike) to achieve any serious reforms to the economic and political status quo.
Correct
The problem I have with electoralists is that there is an implicit and sometimes explicit suggestion that one can simply vote fascism and oligarchy away.
I have literally never heard anyone say this. Not once. There seems like there is this strawman that somehow people who are saying you should vote are also saying that you should not do any other thing, but in my experience the correlation is the exact opposite: The people who are strongly minded about voting tend to do other work in and out of the system to try to make things better.
But even then, conditions for US workers are unlikely to change materially. Wealth inequality will be just as bad as before and the Dems will do nothing serious to address it. We all surely recognise that.
I more or less agree with this. It’s a pretty big fucking problem. How does refusing to vote help solve it?
For what it’s worth, Biden did the first reduction in income inequality and the biggest increase in people’s take-home pay in decades after making a huge corporate tax increase to pay for it. Almost no one knows that that even happened. I get what you mean, it’s a drop in the bucket compared to the kind of change that would be required… but in my experience, the people who are anti-voting just as a general rule also often tend to be negative even about people like Bernie Sanders who are trying to fight to fix all of this on a more fundamental level, and generally unaware of when things change or what is happening in the places where big rules that could affect the oligarchy get made or unmade.
If you can’t be bothered to support people who are fighting for you, by putting in an hour of action once every couple of years, how would you expect any progress to happen? Organizing outside government is needed also yes, but it’s going to be so much harder than supporting people inside government (the tiny handful of them) who are actually fighting to make things right.
Like if you organize a general strike to enforce better working conditions, but then congress is 2/3rds Republicans because no one on the left was voting, doesn’t that make it harder for the general strike to accomplish anything? I don’t get this value proposition where voting is not a good use of time simply because it is not enough on its own (let alone affirmatively a bad thing that people should be banned for advocating for).
I mean, sure if voting for the Dems stops the deportations and shuts down ICE completely then that’s worth a go in the meantime.
I know multiple people personally who were not deported because of Obama-era reforms. ICE would probably not exist if Al Gore had won his election. And, of course, “anti-electoralism” to whatever extent it impacted the last election has had a massive impact on people’s safety and food safety and all the rest in the present day. Just because they were already hanging by a thread under the current system which urgently needs to change doesn’t mean it suddenly makes sense to let Trump in and cut the thread and let them just fall.
deleted by creator
Yeah it definitely won’t be the fault of the Dems for putting forward yet another corporate stooge up for election, and sticking with their unpopular policies, no matter what their own voter base actually wants. They will be blameless, as always.
By “no matter what their own voter base actually wants”, you mean “some bizarre envisioning of the Dem voter base as far-left”
https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-want-party-move-right-poll-2030713
The poll of 1,001 adults nationwide, conducted January 21 to January 27—just days after Trump returned to office—found that more Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents want the party to move toward moderation rather than becoming more liberal or staying the same.
It found that 45 percent of Democratic respondents wanted the party to become “more moderate,” compared to 34 percent in 2021. The poll also found that Democrats are less satisfied with the state of party politics, with 22 percent wanting the party to stay the same, down from 31 percent in 2021.
Meanwhile, 29 percent of participants want the party to become more liberal, compared to 34 percent in 2021.
The breakdown of the vote percentage shows that 50 percent of nonwhite participants support the party becoming more moderate, compared to 42 percent of white participants. The shift also trends higher among higher-income earners.
I have an overwhelmingly negative view of Newsom, and let me tell you: most of the people shitting themselves in fury over Newsom on here are the kind of people who celebrate their ‘principled’ advocacy of nonvoting in order to allow literal fascists to murder American minorities. They do not want to express approval of any good policy from ‘the Dems’, because that would weaken their argument that no one in the current system is capable of doing anything to improve anyone’s life, which justifies their total abstention and visceral hatred for participation in ‘electoral’ politics.
And on the side of the spectrum I’m calling left to left-centre, we seem to let the fewer things we disagree with get in the way of the many more things we would agree with each other.
The problem is the same issue that leads to right-unity, but in reverse.
Most people do not make political allegiances based on policy opinions.
The right doesn’t agree on anything, despite how it appears to many who are unfamiliar with right-wing discourse. But they define themselves as a community, largely defined in objection to modernity.
The left defines itself as many communities, and what ends up being important is not policy, but in-groups and out-groups. It doesn’t matter what policy would help the working class, or minorities, or establish a more just or even more left-friendly situation going forward. What matters is the in-group being opposed to the out-group.
There are people on here who literally and openly decry ‘turbolibs’ as worse than literal Nazis. There are many who equate liberals with literal fascists (and they would spare not an instant reminding you that Bernie Sanders is a liberal).
They don’t care about the people they claim to champion. They don’t have actual policy concerns, though they might express opinions on policy in the abstract. All they care about is in-group and out-group.
