Stop dividing the left!

You don't understand, their support of lesser fascism is necessary to avoid the greater fascism, so by opposing them you're actually supporting the greater fascism
- Yup. We need lesser of two in red districts and vote for our ideals in our safe districts to move the part as a whole.
- I'd accept a viable alternative. Wake me up when we have one.
  
  whoops, world ended

The only actual job of the DNC is to suck up all the space and oxygen that a real left needs to grow, and rubber stamp every oppressive police measure they think they have to in order to secure the profits of the rich at the expense of all other life on Earth. The best of them are self-deluding soft exterminationists at this point, and the bulk of the party has apparently dispensed with even that fig leaf and embraced a kind of haughty, blue fascist schadenfreude regarding the people it failed to browbeat into supporting genocide. It's genuinely the most disgusting thing I've ever seen in my life after the killing itself. The Democratic party is pathologically incapable of taking any responsibility for it's action, has no desire to change anything, and is actively, dangerously hostile to all living beings, first and foremost human beings outside America. Nothing better will be allowed to grow unless it is thoroughly dismantled alongside the Republican party and most of the rest of the US government.

Not dividing the left, just consolidating the right

Fuck the lesser of two evils. I choose good.
- DEMS: You have to understand we need to eat the shit. If we dont eat the shit the other guy is going to smear it on your face and the faces of your children. So, you see, eating the shit is necessary so that we dont have to smear it over more people's faces.
  Me: how the fuck are the only choices shit? Why dont we just not eat the shit and not have everyone horrified of us?
  
  "Purity politics and single issue voters are so toxic! All I said is we need to support an active genocide, fund more wars, keep kids in cages, ignore COVID, and do nothing about the cost of living going up with wages going down. Why does the left want to alienate people like me?!"

True. Sorry, your ideology lost so hard that half of it was Trump's 1st term policy. Concede to the left for once in your god damn lives or suffer liberals.
- Concede to the left for once in your god damn lives or suffer liberals.
  They'll choose suffering. They love Trump, its why they didn't arrest him. He doesn't hurt the bottom line, just the poors, browns, and queers.

"Erm acturally thats tankie propaganda, dont you know our Good Guy Candidate™ isnt Fascist he's actually Fascist Lite™ which is totally different. Yes he's going to blindly support genocide, yes he's going to support imperialism, and no he wont do a damn thing to help the workers, but you see these silly graphs we made up say the economy is going and therefore our guy is qualified. Now blindly support the candidate and the party or I'll downvote you and call you a Tankie or a Russian bot."
Average .world user

In their moral justification, the argument of the lesser evil has played a prominent role. If you are confronted with two evils, the argument runs, it is your duty to opt for the lesser one, whereas it is irresponsible to refuse to choose altogether. Its weakness has always been that those who choose the lesser evil forget quickly that they chose evil.
-Hannah Arendt
- Edit: replied to the wrong comment
- This is such a rigid and literal way of thinking. This mentality explicitly idealizes and romanticizes black and white thinking. Life has shades of gray, no matter how much you wish it was as simple as good versus evil
  
  Life has shades of gray is usually said by those who are 100% evil
  Shades of gray dont exist irl. There's humans, and there's the inhuman creatures who genocide humans
- I think everyone should pick the best person for the position. But if the only two realistic options are evil and lesser evil. Then I think it’s better if the lesser evil wins than the more evil one.
  As seen in last US election, voting for the ideal candidate meant the worse candidate won.
  
  You could easily argue that the guys constantly chosing the lesser evil brought that catastrophic discourse shift over us, that made the lesser evil of this election worse than the worse evil of former elections.
  I am not from the US, so my insight there might be limited. But here in Germany I started to hate the lesser evil fraction so much. The lesser evil here is now openly representing far right ideologies, activley supporting genocide, made it borderline illegal to critizise genocid, killing refugees at the borders, deporting people into regions were they face immediate lethal threats, initiating harsh social cuts while demonizing the poor and are discussing cooperation with open fascists. They are constantly normalizing open fascism, everday a little more. If Germany slights into fascism again, it will be mostly the lesser evils fault.
  Fuck the lesser evil. They became more dangerous than the fascist themselves in many respects.
  It was also Hindenburg and von Papen back in the 1930s, the lesser evil, who was paving Hitler the way to power.
  edit: Lol, I startet this meaning to write 2-3 sentences, seems the lesser evil caused a writing frenzy in me.
  
  It's amazing to me that you could read that quote, and your take, unironically, is exactly the sentiment that Arendt was warning about.
  
  Stop acting like only having two political parties is the only way we can do things. I invite you to step outside the box you are trapped thinking in.

"you're hurting your cause!!" whines liberal who hates both you and your cause
- I started asking questions whenever some right winger would start in with the whole “here’s what you’re doing wrong” routine. “And you think this will help the far left succeed?” or “So you believe that’s the best way to get people to vote for the leftist candidate?” Just messing around since they are obviously not providing legitimate feedback.

Democrats are center right these days.
- Always have been.
  
  I'd argue them being centre-left between 1929 and 1973, from the start of the great depression up until the petrodollar agreement and Bretton Woods II, out of fear communism winning during that time.
  
  I don't think this is correct. There was a marked post-Reagan shift to the right. Sure, they were never socialists, but decades ago they at least tried to do something for the working class.
- More like very much into the right
- Us politics isn't about economics anyway, especially when you've got Republicans raising taxes sky high and restricting free trade. It's about social and cultural issues more than ever these days.
  
  It’s about social and cultural issues more than ever these days.
  Because those do not threaten the 1%s stranglehold on power.
- Center right? You're giving them too much credit

When a casual acquaintance asks my political leaning, I say Democrat to keep things simple. But, really, I'm a Bernie guy. I don't want to talk politics, and trying to explain that Democrats are actually center-right is just too much effort to put into... well, just about everyone nowadays.
- Okay, but Sanders isn’t on the left, either, despite calling himself a socialist. Sanders will say that It’s OK to Be Angry About Capitalism, and he’ll complain about “crony” capitalism and “über” capitalism, but as a liberal he’ll never question capitalism as such. He’ll never question private ownership of the means of production.
  
  Socialism != Communism though
  It's okay to say you're a socialist but too not like communism.
  I for one really like socialist policies like national healthcare which I get in the UK etc. But I don't think full communism is the way to go for a modern society. Plus the track record of every time a country tries to head towards full communism, the door is left wide open for a dictator, and someone takes it.
  
  Because he's a politician and he understands that his rhetoric has to ramp up slowly to convince his audience. Go to your local pub/bar and say that to someone that isn't a terminally online ML, see how they react.
- Why don't you just say progressive then seems to sum it up

no notes

Dividing the left wouldn't matter if we used a more representative voting system. One that gave people the freedom to vote how they want and still have their vote count if their preference didn't win. Voters should be able to transfer their vote how they wish and stay represented. To have their vote count no matter what.
Why don't blue states switch away from First-past-the-post voting? Republicans aren't in power, they could easily make this change. Don't they believe in democracy? Or do prefer this undemocratic hostage situation that hands the republicans power repeatedly?
- Alternative voting systems have in practice been proven useless, whether in South Korea, Japan, Australia, and many other capitalist dictatorship countries that use it. It might make bribery a bit more expensive, since there are more candidates to buy off, and more political advertising necessary, but it hasn't fixed anything.
  The root problem is capital standing above political power. And that can't be undone using it's own platform.
  
  You're right that it doesn't solve much but the two party system in the US is particularly terrible. Fundamental change is a lot harder to achieve than changing voting systems and even with a socialist state we'd want one of these, so I think there's no point opposing it even if it isn't a panacea
  
  They're useless because the capital powers that be actively try to misinform the public on preferential voting (As part of a larger attack on education to keep a complicit population)
  If I had a dollar every time I heard someone tell me I'm throwing away my vote for preferencing a minor party that has no hope of winning I'd probably have enough money to bribe a politician into making some decent fucking policy

I'm not American but I probably would have voted Democrat if I was.
However, Democrats who are more mad at leftists voting third party than they're mad at republicans or their own fucking party that simply could not be bothered to stop bombing children to gain the left-wing vote: Go fuck yourselves.

Good thing they lost the elections then, right?
- I'm not sure I understand what point you're trying to make.
  Democrats are not the left. It's bad that they lose so often. If they weren't so clearly beholden to their corporate donors they would win more.

- That happens no matter who you vote ... So yeah sure, pretend voting 3p means you're doing anything other increasing the chance of oppression
  
  Wow I didn't know that "Glass Gaza Now Donny G" was the better option. You almost got me convinced, Eepy Joe was so much worse than "Remove the Gazans, let's build a resort" DJT
- heeheehee! if only the world was as simple as the mind that made this meme
  
  Heeheehee! If only not voting brought us further away from fascism
  
  It's not as simple as this meme. But it did, however, basically happen back in 2016
- They said the same thing about every Republican as what they say about Trump. If you live your entire life in hyperbole people get desensitized.
  
  No, no they didn't. I've been through a number Republican presidents... Well 3 others .. And not one of them was said to be a threat to democracy, not one of them was said to be a threat to the rule of law, and not one of them was it questioned whether they would leave office if they lost election.
  It is a bullshit statement to say Trump is a standard Republican and what Democrats are saying is just hyperbole, and this is what they always say. The only way you can possibly think this is if you've only been exposed to Trump presidencies.
  
  Thank you for your input my Gen Z pal, but I don't recall any other president destroying law firms for representing their political opponents, nor calling for blatant retaliation against journalists that don't jerk them off.
  Also don't personally recall a president deliberately destroying the economy through sheer stupidity, but maybe someone older can check in, it may have happened historically.

- They're certainly more trustworthy than Liberals and completely better in every way to that fascist orange pig.
- I'd argue that your average communist is moral and trustworthy right up until the moment they get any power, then they are just corrupt(able) politicians, ready and able to fuck over group A to benefit group B, who they happen to favor more this week (decisions must be made, after all!). No system is perfect, and definitely no individual.
  Big picture view: The scales will tip every now and then, but it's ultimately survival of the fittest system that wins, with none existing in isolation - there are always external forces at play.
  With that in mind, I'd put my money on more limited socialist-style-carve-outs like single payer healthcare in the US, more rent controls and housing subsidies, slightly better employee protections. Just enough to placate the masses, while the ruling class mostly continues as before. Even this will require a massive effort. Post-republicans, of course.

well its the most left wing party in the US that has a chance of winning
- Being left of reps doesn't make you left.
  
  no, but it unfortunatly is the only option for leftists in the US (or revolution cough cough)
- Even when the Democratic party does win, the working class still loses.
  📺 Why the Democratic Party CANNOT and WILL NOT be Reformed
  Democrats would rather lose to a Republican, to a conservative, to a fascist, to Trump, than address the material conditions of the American people.
- Democrats are pro-nazi, pro-genocide, pro-police, pro-prison, pro-concentration camps, pro-deportations, pro-tariffs, pro-landlord, anti-healthcare, anti-worker, anti-trans, anti-gay, and anti-women. In what world are they even remotely left wing?
  
  pro nazi? i think i accidentily entered a conspiracy sub, my bad chief
- Just like the pit of infinite despair and spiked dildos is technically different from the pit of infinite spiked dildos and despair; being to the left of republicans because you want to burn orphans for warmth instead of fun does not make you left wing nor a good choice.
- And they do nothing for the left when they do win - fuck them.
- Having a chance of winning means you are on the right, that's the whole thing
- You do realize that DSA candidates are fairly successful (to varying degrees of positive outcomes) regionally, and to a lesser extent PSL though they are further left.
  It is this mindset from liberals such as yourself that actually stops good things from happening.
  Also if the Democratic party keeps eating shit to/failing to accomplishing anything in the face of the open fascist party I don't trust them to do anything good ever. You also discount all the marginalized people actively harmed by their right wing policies (and they are very much a right wing party).
- lotta asterisks in that sentence lol

Anarchy is not left in the US unless they’ve all of a sudden come around on social programs.
- Welfare capitalism is not the left; it’s the leftmost part of the right. The left is socialism. Anarchists are socialists. Liberals are not.
  
  The American Libertarian sects tend to loosely regard themselves as anarchist, which is frustrating as all hell.
  Anarcho-capitalism is opportunistic enough to co-opt anything.
- come around on social programs.
  Wat.
  Anarchists are the ones who are consistently making social programs from scratch. Direct action is and has always been about feeding people as well as sabotaging bulldozers.
  https://foodnotbombs.net/new_site/
  
  i think they’re conflating anarchists with "anarcho"-capitalists
  
  Yup, mutal aid and communal efforts are the cornerstones of real anarchism.
- As an Anarcho-Syndicalist we dont support government owned social programs because we prefer community based and worker ran solutions to issues like housing, food, and education. Furthermore most social ills that exist today are a direct or indirect effect of capitalism, the problems that cannot be solved by simply destroying capitalism can be solved with more syndicates.
  
  This is why I love lemmy.
  I get all angry on someone's comment, and someone else has already made my point, and better. We're even doing mutual aid in comments!
  
  I generally agree with most of what you said, I’m not super familiar with anarcho-syndicalism But I am trying to have a genuine conversation
  So reading this I’m like yes, yes, ok, love it
  Then you say “furthermore most social ills that exist today…”
  I immediately thought, ok but the practical ills that exist today? Is anarchno-syndicatism also against or at least neutral I suppose, world trade? I ask because I had a bilateral lung transplant, and when I consider the level of social support beyond just financial but also that too and access to medical services, this means supplies, well educated doctors, nurses and surgeons, facilities capable of a bilateral lung transplant, medications which are manufactured all over the world, the need is very high, it feels like this particular perspective would leave a person like me high and dry? At what point do we make the call that community support is enough and how do we define community? Those are all very critical questions for someone like me, and many other disabled people. I guess I wonder, although I agreed a lot with your comment is arachno-syndicatism abelist? Could this ideology ever result in successfully running a world class hospital?
  
  I only intend to come across as ignorant (vice malicious) but what is a community/worker run organization of aid and coordination if not a government (at a small scale)?