Cuz baby, I'm an anarchist

Idk I feel like liberals are responsible for enabling people like trump by always trying to maintain the status quo of capitalist growth and the illusion that access to marketplaces = rights. In the case of women, of lgbtq folks, of brown people, etc. I feel like they are half the whole problem. They are also in service to capital, and perpetuate the myth that you can serve your community with integrity while also taking in loads of cash from large organization as a politician

I’d say liberals are less responsible for Trump than the people who voted for him or decided to not vote.
I do know women, LGBTQ folks and people of visible minorities were getting better treatment until Trump and the GOP stepped it back twice rather severely.
While I’m not against McCarthyism-Lennonism I don’t see it working on a large scale.
- Those are fair viewpoints. I'm no marxist-leninist. But I will say, capitalism doesn't work on large scale either. So why keep it around?
  Edit: in other words I think what you say is accurate but doesn't address the problems I brought up about liberals
  
  Because capitalism does work well for many countries but you have to keep the population educated much like you have to vaccinate against diseases.
  America stopped doing both effectively a while back and now we’re seeing the consequences.
  
  If every couple of decades you get a right wing faux populist uprising somewhere, then it's not an abberation of the system. It's how the system cycles around.
  
  That’s why I used the vaccine analogy because education is supposed to train the population to deal with issue like that before they get elected president.
  
  And yet, here we are. And not just in America. In much of Europe, they're celebrating being able to keep their right wing faux populist parties at bay. Just the fact that it got to the need to do that means something went wrong.
  
  capitalism does work well for many countries
  At the expense of others, and usually only for a while.
  
  The thing though is that, capitalism, when followed to the letter, causes this decline in education.
  
  Agreed but captialism must be strickly counter-balanced with things that empower people, like strong unions, higher taxes on wealth, and so forth.

Liberals are the true enlightened centrists here of course.

Where are these progressives that are trying to kill each other?

Same place as the ones building an effective party or have a seat in government I guess.
- Nice moving the goalposts. I assume you're from the US, where is your effective liberal party? That has a seat in federal government that is able to effect any legislative change?
  Leftists, especially social democrats, but even socialists have been in government and have passed legislation that created systems like universal healthcare, unemployment insurance, family allowances, pensions, maternity leave. Just not in the US. The reason you don't have all that is because you spend more time fighting against progressives than doing anything else.
  And gloating as a liberal that "well, progressives just can't get into government" after making such a shitshow of governance and campaigning that you got Trump elected twice is ghastly.

They say never meet your heroes and they’re right.

I never thought SMCF would be spineless.

Pro tip for you adults: You have to actually win elections once in a while.

Idk what made you think they were radical
This is more about who you’re choosing as heroes.
I would love to see progressives start a party or take over the DNC but that would require them to do something besides removed about democrats.
- Be the change.
  
  Luigi strain?
- Progressives have been doing the most out of any political bloc, and certainly more than establishment Democrats. If the DNC leadership weren't acting as a barrier to getting anything done then progressives wouldn't have to split their time and efforts between fighting them and fighting the fascists.
  If you think that the only thing progressives have been doing is "removed" about Democrats you need to pull your head out of your ass (or perhaps Chuck Schumer's) and look at reality.
  
  MAGA took over the GOP and progressives can’t take over the DNC?
  
  Liberals haven't been as easy to radicalize. Establishment dems had strong support and to a lesser degree still do. When MAGA took over the GOP the establishment Republicans were the least popular they had ever been.
  
  The establishment Republicans were often behind it. Just look at the leadup to the 2009 Tax Day protests:
  https://web.archive.org/web/20090414225410/http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2228277/posts
  At the Atlanta State Capitol, you got Sean Hannity. In New York city, Newt Gingrich. San Antonio, TX had Glenn Beck. Many of the others listed were right wing talk radio personalities at the time.
  The Tea Party liked to pretend it was grassroots, but you look at that speaker list and it's obviously astroturfing. This was basically day one for the movement, and they somehow have all these high level people. They would go on to get rid of the few moderate Republicans around and called them "establishment", but Gingrich is as establishment GOP as they come.
  The right has long courted its wingnut base for ideas and put a plan into action to put those ideas into legislation or court precedent. Even when they've had a small or non-existent majority in Congress. Democrats are not nearly as interested in doing that. They know their base is clamoring for proper government funded healthcare, but haven't done a thing to help that along in over a decade.
  
  Fascists will always be able to get the establishment on board while anti-capitalists and progressives will always be on their own. Anti-capitalists and progressives threaten their wealth and privilege while fascists seek to preserve it. That's why we're still stuck tying our laces while fascists are halfway down the street.
  
  All I see are excuses.
  They were able to make a change without complaining.
  
  Not excusing, just explaining. What are you doing to make a change? All I hear from you is complaining.
  
  I draw a distinction between "complaining" and "lodging a complaint", based on the subject and recipient.
  "Complaining" is when the recipient of the complaint is someone other than the subject (e.g. criticizing the actions of Democrats to online leftists). This doesn't really accomplish anything.
  "Lodging a complaint" is when the recipient is the subject (e.g. criticizing the actions of Democrats via direct correspondence, or criticizing online leftists in a space inhabited predominantly by online leftists). This is effective communication and has the potential to actually prompt a response to the complaint.
  SMCF is pretty clearly utilizing the second to bring attention to the problem of the first. And it is a huge problem. These leftist spaces are packed with ideological purists who favor moral superiority to effective action that requires strategy and compromise.
  
  That's the game plan...
  
  When?
  
  Right now. Every time a seat comes up. That's what the whole point of the "fight against oligarchy" tour, as well as phone campaigns and so much more
  We organize a voting block, and threaten incumbents. We primary seats of collaborators, run independent if we have to. We flip as many red seats as we can, threaten to replace Democrats who don't get with the game plan, and form a faction that can't be ignored
  And it is working, there's obviously resistance but we have even liberals breaking from the party line. A lot of it is performative, but they're signalling they want to make power plays

🎤 “…and you’re a spineless lib-ur-al” 🎶

Don't forget about making complex decisions about difficult moral quandaries such as whether or not to commit genocide. It's a real doozy. Is genocide good or bad? Or is it very complicated and is there maybe a middle ground such as 50% genocide? I'm glad liberals are here to reassure me that you cannot just label genocide a good or bad thing and that you can't make rash moral judgements on whether killing tens of thousands of children is a bad thing. Thanks liberals!

I’m not a single issue voter no matter how morally complex the situation is.
Is the world in a better state now?
How about the country?
How about your life?
- Liberals lost the farm betting there were enough people who felt strongly enough about nothing fundamentally changing to outnumber everyone else. You could only look at that gamble charitably if you thought it would win them the election against a fascist, but turns out it didn't. Now there's no charity left for them to hide behind.
  They collaborated in a genocide for nothing - that's on them.
- Yes, it's all very complex and whether or not to commit a genocide depends on many factors.
  
  Unironically yes.
  
  Uhh, what now?
  
  He's unironically a Harris supporter. Like not 'shes better than Trump,' but 'shes a good candidate for president.'
  There's no value in engaging with that rightwing genocide fan.
  
  I wouldn't call myself a fan of hers but I think during the last election she was the best choice.
  
  I'm still trying to wrap my head around what complexities might make genocide the right thing to do.
  
  I’m not a single issue voter no matter how morally complex the situation is.
  Is the world in a better state now?
  How about the country?
  How about your life?
  https://lemmy.world/post/29132313/16871246
  I laid out my reasoning here pretty clearly.
  
  Which one of those makes the moral justification for Genocide, specifically, complicated?
  I don't think there's anything clear about that comment.
  
  But the tankies are the genocide apologists, somehow
  
  I find the term 'tankie' is rude to tanks.

As a suicide-surviving progressive, you’re not wrong.