• asterisk@lemmy.world
    171·
    1 day ago
    1. Theres is no far left in the US, Bernie and AOC are run of the mill social democrats
    2. The extreme left and right both lie to get to power, once there is the same shit, I was born in a country freshly out of a far right dictatorship and grew up in another that got themselves in a far left dictatorship. Same thing, extreme poverty for the people, opression, censorhip, persecution, murder. The message was good , they’ve promissed unicorns and rainbows and now here we are, my family had to run away and is now spread across the globe. Fuck the extremes, they are the same fucking thing exactly.

    I myself become a hard core social liberal, but can get along with social democrats, classic liberals and conservatives, other than that steer clear

    • Glide@lemmy.ca
      31·
      23 hours ago

      Bless.

      The extreme left wants state managed fascism to the benefit of in groups, and the extreme right wants wealth managed fascism to the benefit of in groups. We’re just so used to choosing between the mild right and the extreme right that we’ve begun to confuse the mild left - the political group who wants to meet everyone’s basic needs - for the extreme.

      I’m tired of seeing run-of-the-mill social democracy paraded around as “the far left.”

  • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
    68·
    2 days ago

    The left will feed a thousand people, in fear that one may starve. The right will starve a thousand people, in fear that one is undeserving.

        • Hawke@lemmy.world
          4·
          23 hours ago

          Ugh…

          Yes, kind of. Problem is that from the right-wing pov “undeserving” is a euphemism, almost a dog-whistle for “brown” or in reality closer to “low on their made-up hierarchy”

          Right-wing POV: Why are they undeserving? Because they’re not white. Why do we feel that non-whites are undeserving? Racism. Why do we care about who deserves what? Hierarchy/“god’s plan” which put us on top and them on the bottom.

          You start out in 1954 by saying, “removed, removed, removed.” By 1968 you can’t say “removed”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “removed, removed.”

  • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
    143·
    1 day ago

    No no, they pretend (even to themselves, I think) that they can’t tell them apart, but they can and like what they see from the right more. They deny it because it’s not politically/socially expedient, but this is why when push comes to shove they invariably fall in with the right.

  • Sanctus@lemmy.worldEnglish
    301·
    2 days ago

    Watching centrists talk to the far right like they’re some sort of sensible:

  • saltesc@lemmy.world
    253·
    2 days ago

    lol. In America “fat left” is getting basic needs met.

    i suppose it’s something.

    • baines@lemmy.cafeEnglish
      112·
      2 days ago

      the alternative is concentration camps, I’ll take basic needs please

  • JazzlikeDiamond558@lemm.eeEnglish
    31·
    1 day ago

    The sole concept of having a political option whose basic program, purpose and goal is NOT to allow everyone equal rights, is nothing but WW2 german Nazism and should be met with contempt, disgust, unacceptance and SEVERE resistance, even violent one if necessary.

    Equalizing such option with any other (left?) option whose goal IS to provide everyone equal rights - is also nothing but intentionally shaming and devalueing that (left, socialist) option and intentionally supporting the Nazism option.

    Whether posts, such as this one, come from being (politically) illiterate (as almost 55% of USA is below 6th grade literacy, which puts them in the cotegory of huge crowd of useful idiots) or simply because one is (momentarilly) safe from being endangered by any political stream, is trivial in the matter.

    This is not the issue of politics. It is the issue of common sense.

  • cogman@lemmy.world
    1611·
    2 days ago

    Wish it was this mild. Centrists are more like “Hmm, how can I get the votes of the bigot? A riddle for the ages.” And “Why can’t those assholes complaining about affording healthcare shut the fuck up, they’re breaking my concentration on how to win over the bigots”.

    Centrists hate the left but will take their vote. They are horny for the right and will abandon any left principle of it’ll get their vote.

    Hence Kamala running a Republican campaign.

    • Monkey With A Shell@lemmy.socdojo.comEnglish
      36·
      2 days ago

      Much more like we would love to help with these leftist plans, but when the people asking for them storm off in a huff if they don’t get promised a day 1 soviet utopia they’re seen as entirely unreliable. When the ‘left’ run off because ‘you blue maga are no better than fascists’ how is anyone meant to even try and help them?

      • cogman@lemmy.world
        131·
        2 days ago

        So better to go court the racists right? Because the plan of setting up concentration camps is so concrete and easy to achieve.

        But now, let’s just talk about how disingenuous this argument is. Most leftists aren’t asking for the world and most of the the leftist demands can boil down to “Give use social programs, pay for it by taxing rich assholes”. Most leftists aren’t asking for a communist utopia and plenty of leftists are also anarchists.

        Yet all we hear from centrists is “Oh, it’s just so pie in the sky, It’ll never work. We couldn’t begin to work on this!” All because they don’t even want to acknowledge “tax the rich” or “expand workers rights” for fear they’ll scare off a donor or two.

        I would accept pretty much ANY social program being pushed by dems paid by taxes. One that is absurdly popular is single payer healthcare and it’s real easy to achieve because we already have these programs in the form of medicaid and medicare. Making the program literally is just expanding the programs to everyone. You could even phase it in over years, much like SS is slowly being phased out.

        • Monkey With A Shell@lemmy.socdojo.comEnglish
          12·
          1 day ago

          There’s bo courting of bigots, and no want to engage with them. Every notable push for progressive policies has come from the dem side, shocking ad that may be for those watching from the fringes. The nearest we’ve been able to manage so far is the ACA which started out with more substance but you can’t exactly upend the whole system in one go.

          This last time around even if a day one rewrite was ready to go people where so hell bent on ‘punishing dems’ for Isreal’s actions that they where willing to let the current show take over and make things far worse.

          • cogman@lemmy.world
            2·
            20 hours ago

            There’s bo courting of bigots, and no want to engage with them.

            Then why did Kamala spend her entire campaign with Liz Cheney? Why is Gavin Newsom currently inviting self avowed white supremacists onto his podcast to agree with them? Why is it that most Democrats have abandoned the notion of humane borders and instead they are pushing for strong criminalization and empowering ICE? Why did a significant number of centrist Dems support the Lincoln Riley act which prioritized deporting people ACCUSED (not convicted) of crimes?

            That’s courting bigots.

            Every notable push for progressive policies has come from the dem side, shocking ad that may be for those watching from the fringes.

            Because progressives are part of the democrat caucus, not because centrists are actually secretly progressive.

            The nearest we’ve been able to manage so far is the ACA which started out with more substance but you can’t exactly upend the whole system in one go.

            And why didn’t the ACA go further? Hint, it wasn’t because progressives in the dem caucus fought against it.

            But further, the ACA was by and large a bad bill. It was based on Heritage foundation principles and it’s ended exactly how you’d think an arch conservative thinktank bill would end. The good part of the ACA, patient protection, wasn’t the major portion of it. The major portion of it was a sweat gift to insurance companies by trying to force people to buy health insurance and a sweat gift to hospitals by making it easier for them to merge. Ever wonder why it is that all hospitals are now basically catholic hospitals? That was part of the ACA that reduced restrictions on mergers under the auspices of making things cheaper.

            The only other semi-progressive thing was Medicaid expansion, and even that was passed as an “opt-in” rather than just a mandatory requirement. Which, many states didn’t opt into and now states like my own are currently passing laws to undo ballot initiatives that opted in.

            The ACA was as neutered and whittled back as it was precisely to try and appease both centrist dems and republicans. Obama worked hard to try and get republicans onboard with the bill and made huge amounts of compromises that ultimately didn’t get any of them signing on.

            ‘punishing dems’ for Isreal’s actions

            No, it was punishing dems for dems actions. Where did Israel get most of it’s munitions? Did any of the centrist Dems try and slow the roll of sending US military aid? Did Biden or anyone in his admin even HINT at condemnation of ANY of Israel’s actions?

            And why not? Because they were actively courting bigots who view Palestinians as subhumans and terrorists that deserve genocide.

            But yeah, obviously it’s progressives that are being unreasonable and pie in the sky. Fuck us not wanting to support genocide, the gestopo, or for wanting affordable healthcare.

            Since Bill Clinton, the playbook of dems has been to run to the right while blaming election losses on progressive.

            And, crazy as it sounds, I’ll give it to you. Biden was one of the most progressive Dem presidents in probably 50 years. Yet when it came to campaigning, both he and Kamala ran from every single progressive position of their administration. Even to the point of talking about firing appointees that “went to far” such as Lina Khan. Even though she was wildly popular with both Dems and Republicans, just not big business.

      • wpb@lemmy.world
        92·
        2 days ago

        Yeah allowing even a single Palestinian speaker at the DNC, with vetted speech, and a promised endorsement of Kamala is really a lot to ask, what were those tankies thinking? Even the smallest step in the direction workers rights or not doing genocide was one too many for the Kamala campaign. The democrats rightly lost by pandering to billionaires and oligarchs rather than courting voters.

  • blaue_Fledermaus@mstdn.io
    1713·
    2 days ago

    @FenrirIII
    That’s more like “center left”.

    At least some definition of “Far Left” would be more: “we’re gonna get everyone’s basic needs meet by exterminating entire social groups because they’re impure”. It’s not the only one, but it’s the one that “centrists” would say it’s no different from the “far right”.

    • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
      164·
      1 day ago

      At least some definition of “Far Left” would be more: “we’re gonna get everyone’s basic needs meet by exterminating entire social groups because they’re impure”.

      What the hell are you talking about? “Exterminatidg entrire social groups because they’re impure” sounds very right-wing to me.

      Are you trying to peddle some weird horseshoe bullshit?

      • blaue_Fledermaus@mstdn.io
        24·
        1 day ago

        @Prunebutt
        China? Khmer Rouge in Cambodia?

        I know the horseshoe theory is problematic, but it’s fact that some nominally “left” groups in practice resemble the “far right”; today’s China specially in practice resembles more Nazism than Communism.

        • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
          31·
          1 day ago

          I don’t consider China to be very left. It’s a capitalist country. The same goes for other state-capitalist projects.

          While there are authoritarian leftists, I think it’s wrong to act as if these where the only part of the so-called “far left”. How many genocides were committed by anarchists?

          • ahornsirup@feddit.org
            4·
            24 hours ago

            There are more figures on the far left than anarchists. You can’t just No true Scotsman Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

            • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
              1·
              24 hours ago

              Did those people try to deconstruct existing power structures while in office? That makes them counter revolutionary. The state is counter revolutionary.

              You can’t abolish maters by using the master’s tools.

              • ahornsirup@feddit.org
                2·
                22 hours ago

                That’s just a No true Scotsman argument. Their (alleged) end goal was the creation of a classless, stateless communist society. They haven’t achieved that, and they wouldn’t have claimed to have achieved that. But they would’ve claimed that their crimes were a necessary step towards that goal. You can’t just brush aside the people most associated with the “far left” label, regardless of whether or not you personally feel like they are “undeserving” of it.

        • monarch@lemm.eeEnglish
          101·
          1 day ago

          People choose to be exploiters. They do not choose to be born into a class but they do choose their futures.

        • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
          61·
          1 day ago

          Yeah, you’re still talking no sense. What do you mean by “social group”?

          Get your strawman out of here.

            • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
              6·
              1 day ago

              I didn’t use the term “social group” anywhere.

              Ok, let me rephrase the question, then:

              Why do you engage in a conversation that you weren’t a part of, if you’re going to ignore the context of the conversation? That conversation contained the following, two comments before you entered:

              exterminating entire social groups

              Come back when you’re sober.

              No reason to get rude.

              • proletarians_must_suffer@lemmy.world
                15·
                1 day ago

                Why do you engage in a conversation that you weren’t a part of, if you’re going to ignore the context of the conversation?

                You asking me what did I mean by social groups when I didn’t mention social groups is “ignoring the context of the conversation”. Just admit you were a lil bit drunk and took me for the wrong person.

                • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
                  3·
                  1 day ago

                  I think it’s fair to assume that you were the one who wrote “social groups”.

                  Even if you didn’t yourself say that term: You accepted the terminology, so I’ll ask you: how are landlords a “social group” that the “far left” wants to “exterminate”.

    • Nursery2787@lemmy.mlEnglish
      7·
      1 day ago

      That’s why there is a political compass. Which is actually a political cube. Which is actually a political tesseract. /s

    • mhague@lemmy.world
      92·
      1 day ago

      I didn’t think voters had access to “exterminate the rich” type representatives though. I can vote for neoliberal with a dash of mildly left (the Radical Left™)… or GOP which are actually far right.

      Tax the rich, restructure police, equality at a snail’s pace. That’s the far left in reality for voters. Centrists really are bastards.

      • blaue_Fledermaus@mstdn.io
        11·
        1 day ago

        @mhague
        The problem with the US political system is that it’s so far skewed to the right that the moderate right Democrats are called “far left”, and by hearing “far left” people will associate it with Stalin and Mao…

  • Denixen@feddit.nu
    211·
    1 day ago

    While what the far left want is to “get everyone’s basic needs met”, what they tend to end up doing is exterminate entire social groups because they are impure… So really they are the same, just different roads to the same hell.

    • deaf_fish@lemm.ee
      4·
      22 hours ago

      Can you explain to me how single-payer healthcare leads to exterminating social groups?

      Like I understand there’s some wacky left people out there just like there’s some wacky right people out there. But like what has Bernie Sanders done to spook y’all?

      • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
        5·
        21 hours ago

        Not the OC, but I think it’s a difference in definition. The U.S. thinks that things like single-payer health care are “far left,” while in the rest of the world, that’s a centrist policy. Bernie Sanders is a centrist; the Democratic Party is center-right. The far left is utterly unimaginable for Americans.

  • ABetterTomorrow@lemm.eeEnglish
    36·
    1 day ago

    This is a bad meme and is actually toxic. It’s far from being logical. If you just add another line to explain what they mean by that, there wouldn’t be a center or far right confusion. If you want to continue this joke, go deeper. Logical jokes sting harder.

  • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
    1614·
    2 days ago

    If by “far right” and “far left” you mean people that prefer authoritarian forms of government over democracy, then yeah, it’s not all that much different. From my discussions with MAGAs and tankies I’ve concluded they’re the same kind of people, they just quote different talking points.

      • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
        1·
        15 hours ago

        People that think the world is flat exist. But what they believe is nonsense and the usually have an agenda of making money from gifting people. Or they’re just idiots that don’t understand how anything works and refuse to learn.

        It’s the same thing for people pushing weirdo ideologies.

      • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
        65·
        2 days ago

        Do you want democracy or do you want to impose your idea of a utopia onto others through authoritarianism?

        • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
          7·
          1 day ago

          Okay I’m not a socialist so I don’t really have a horse in this race, but democracy is a central tenet of socialism. Socialists hate tankies as much as you do, and anarchists probably hate them more.

        • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
          71·
          1 day ago

          What kind of democracy? Liberal democracy or the one where people have a proportional say in the matters that they’re affected by?

      • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
        711·
        2 days ago

        Nah I’m not bound by political “categories” because I’m actually capable of thinking about issues. But sure go on believing the complexities of humanity can all be placed onto some arbitrary one-dimensional line. Come up with as much terminology as you can to make that sound like a smart way to understand the world LOL.

        • Mearuu@kbin.melroy.org
          144·
          2 days ago

          You seem to be incapable of seeing your argument as an exact example of the centrist category.

          You simple bro lol

        • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
          61·
          1 day ago

          Nah I’m not bound by political “categories” because I’m actually capable of thinking about issues.

          “I can think about issues” - continues to argue literal horseshoe theory.

          • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
            1·
            15 hours ago

            There is no line, no horseshoe, not dodecahedron or whatever shape you might want to invent where you will conveniently put yourself as far away from Nazis on that shape.

            Human minds are hard wired for tribalism. Political groups will always have a tendency towards tribalism and ideology only exists to recruit more members and keep existing member loyal to the tribe.

            This is why you’ll notice a lot of hypocrisy in any political group. Why people will support the same thing they were previously against depending entirely on whether someone within their group is promoting it. Ideology isn’t the primary motivator for a political group, tribalism is.

            Most of the comments I see from leftists here could be copy and pasted directly into a MAGA forum and they would be well received. Leftists and Trumpists are really only different in some very minor differences in terminology they use. Just find and replace “late stage capitalism” for “globalist agenda” and many more comments would work with MAGAs. And of course leftists won’t like Trump (he’s not in their tribe) but the majority of comments from leftists aren’t against Trump, they’re against liberals.