No, I am serious. If people have an ethical concern about voting in the US, this is my response. It’s comparable to no ethical consumption under capitalism. Vaush explained the idea in one of his streams.
We need to change the United States into a socialist country with unimpeded majority rule before it is too late. Our only chance to do that is by delaying the fascist takeover for another four years. The United States becoming a christo-fascist dictatorship would be disastrous for everyone not just the US. Authoritarian dictatorships would start carving up the world into spheres of influence. Millions of people would die from dictators enacting genocide and ethnic cleansing in their spheres of influence.
I think the Democrats are not a great political party. I’m registered independent. They are the only mainstream political party for pursuing progressive change that we have at the moment. We have to take our chances with the Democrats because it’s the clearest path to a better future that we have.
We do need to adopt socialist policies as a country in addition to that though. If we stick with neoliberalism then we are going to keep having this problem. The fascist movement will inevitably grow as the wealth disparity gets worse in the US. People are going to be looking for solutions to their problems, but neoliberalism inherently denies them the tools to fix the systemic issues they face. Neoliberals cling to civility politics and value property over justice for people to name a few. Fascism will provide them with easy, but incorrect, solutions in the form of out-groups to hate. The answer to our problems is socialism, but we need time to convince people.
I know it’s a long shot, because people are effectively conditioned from living in a neoliberal society to reject socialism without any evidence. But we have to try. The only way this gets better is convincing people that socialist ideas have merit while neoliberal and fascist ideas do not. People’s lives depend on nations developing and maintaining inclusive political and economic institutions. We are going to need to have this ideological reckoning at some point, so we might as well have it sooner rather than later.
Trying and then failing presents the same consequences as not trying. So we might as well do it now.
The Democrats are not going to get us out of this, but we need time to convince people that socialism is the answer to our economic problems. We are going to have to elect socialist politicians. We need our democracy, as flawed as it is, in order to do that.
Vaush isn’t perfect, but no one is arguing party loyalty is what is important here. There are no ethical choices in FPTP voting so we have to make a decision that reduces the most harm.
It is harm reduction. Fewer people will be harmed if we elect the candidate that will do the least harm.
Stop co-opting real leftist terms for this crap.
I am a social democrat which is a leftist political position. This is a real leftist term. Gatekeeping won’t get rid of this idea. Internalize it.
edit: To be clear, I’m referring to: There are no ethical choices under FPTP voting. I hope that clears up any confusion.
The USA has always been fascist and will always be so until it is destroyed.
There has been a fascist movement in the United States since the 30’s. Hitler and the Nazis copied off of the US’s Jim Crow era laws. But the US as a nation state has never been fascist. If Republicans win this November then the US will become a christo-fascist authoritarian dictatorship for the first time and probably for a long time.
You people won’t learn till you get all of us killed for the little bit of privilege afforded to you thru this colonist imperial hellhole
The people who are going to get us all killed are the privileged accelerationists who think they stand to benefit from sacrificing us all to fascism. They think they going to accelerate social change, but there won’t be anyone left to benefit from it.
This sounds like you want to implement social changes within the existing system. This is the lie of progressives and radlibs. It will never work.
No, I want to radically change the system. Doing that of course involves using the system. We need to move from liberal democracy to social democracy. And our democracy must be fixed to have majority rule. It can work, but nothing is guaranteed. This is no different than how a revolution can succeed, but has no guaranteed outcome. As long as we have a democracy we might as well use it.
We need to dissolve the United States of America. There is nothing here worth salvaging, save the people.
Dissolving the US will result in the death of hundreds of millions of people. People have to eat. When societies collapse, their populations tank with them, because the people lose the state centralization they are dependent on to get basic necessities.
There is no saving the people without inclusive political and economic institutions. If we value people then we must fix the systems they depend on to live.
Social democracy is a farce. That’s exactly what I mean. It’s a fairy tale told by progressives and radlibs
It’s a political ideology with a set of ideas and policies. Social democracies have existed in Nordic countries for decades. How they have done is debatable, but they do exist.
Sounds like you desperately need to read some theory. This is some liberal shit
I recommend Why Nations Fail. It’s been really good so far, but I’m still only half way through. So far, they seem to have missed that capitalism is inherently extractive and thus always at odds with an inclusive political institution like democracy. Private corporations are inherently incentivized by profit margins to undermine democracy. To remove regulations, oversight, taxes, etc. This is the contradiction of liberal democracy that social democracy solves. By adopting socialism, so the workers own the companies they work for, workers are included in both the nation’s political and economic intuitions. Since only the worker class exists, there is no one being incentivized to undermine the people’s institutions.
I hope neoliberals like Biden starts saying stuff like that, that would be awesome.
What population of people outside of your country is going to be “saved” by a round-2 Biden ticket exactly?..
People living in Ukraine, Gaza, and Taiwan to name a few. Also everyone in countries in Europe besides Ukraine. In fact most of the countries of the world, because authoritarian dictatorships will carve the world into spheres of influence. To be clear, dictators will be killing millions of people in their spheres of influence with genocides and ethnic cleansings.
You can’t possibly believe in the man taking >$5.5M from Israel to run the Palestinian state into the dirt, right?
Do you mean giving to? If we’re still talking about Biden then I believe he will do the least harm.
You Can’t Be Neutral on a Moving Train
This supports my argument as I am arguing we need to pick the side that will do the least harm. There is no way to be neutral with FPTP voting.
No, Russia will conquer Ukraine if someone doesn’t support them. Trump isn’t going to support Ukraine. Biden will.
The Palestinian genocide will continue regardless.
No, Trump will encourage Israel to finish the genocide.
Taiwan isn’t under any threat of being killed by the millions at the moment, so I’m not even sure how he would “save” them?..
From China who famously wants to invade Taiwan.
No 😂. Look up a list of the most “donations” taken from Israel by any political candidate. Did you genuinely not look into things like this before defending him with a shitty Sonic meme?
Oh, you meant donations he received. Yeah, most US politicians have through AIPAC. I had no idea what you were talking about.
This is also wrong. You are allowing genocide to continue by agreeing with the current status-quo. Acting like voting in the same man taking in millions to kill over 100,000 brown people (most of which are women and children) will somehow SAVE Palestine (I noticed you used “Gaza” there by mistake, nbd I fixed that for you) is so painfully ignorant it just has to be on purpose.
No, Trump will encourage Israel to finish the genocide. All Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, and Israel will be killed. Gaza is just one part of Palestine, not the whole thing. edit: typo
I finally figured out what some people were concerned about. Apparently there is already a phrase called harm reduction or harm minimization that I wasn’t aware of. This phrase specifically refers to reducing harm around drug and sex related activities. This is a naming collision on my part for the title of the meme.
However I stand by my usage of the words for the title. I was using the words harm and reduction together because that is what makes sense to me for the topic based on the definitions of those individual words. I wasn’t referring to harm reduction the phrase and I think that was clear to most people. Also, it’s just for the title of an internet meme. No one is co-opting the phrase harm reduction or using that phrase incorrectly. I hope that clears up that confusion.
Social Democracy isn’t Socialism, it’s Capitalism with safety nets.
It is is a form of socialism. The fact it has a market economy does not mean it is capitalism.
Workers do not own the Means of Production in Nordic Countries.
I didn’t say they did. Like most countries they have a mixed economy. No one has yet abandoned capitalism entirely. The fact they haven’t adopted every socialist position does not mean they aren’t socialist. I am saying social democracies need to adopt that policy. Workers owning corporations as apposed to share holders is not incompatible with social democracy, but a logical inclusion.
I believe reading Leftist theory would do a lot for you.
You know this stuff isn’t just theory right? It has practical applications in real life too.
No leftist theory of which I’m aware seeks change (at least, not the bulk of its change) through the existing system. This would be absurd in that it is true that there will always be inequities inherent to capitalism. Take the most socially democratic state in the world, and they’re still relying on wage inequities, forced labor, and worse.
Theory is great, but we have to apply the theory to our real lives as best we can. As I said, how effective existing social democracies have been is debatable, but they are a working model of some, but not all, of the ideas and policies. Grassroot movements seek to radically change the system using the system. That’s the modern progressive experiment. The only way to find out if it works is to do it. Like anything else I believe success is possible, but not guaranteed.
In the US, people are attempting grass roots movements to enact progressive change. To do this we need as many people to vote as possible for the most progressive candidates available to correct for the overrepresentation of Republicans. To get more people to vote for progressives we have to convince them that progressive and socialist ideas have merit.
Convincing people is essential to the modern progressive movement. This is because living under neoliberalism inherently conditions people to reject systemic change to political and economic systems and thus by extension they are conditioned to reject socialism. If you’ve ever talked to people in person about socialism you’ve undoubtedly heard the phrase “socialism doesn’t work” without any supporting evidence or maybe a reference to the Soviet Union collapsing.
This is what socialist theory gets wrong. A person’s material conditions do not suddenly make them a socialist or any other ideologue. Ideas have to be internalized and adopted one at a time by a person. All a person’s material conditions do is make a person look for answers to their problems. On their own, a person attempts to solve their problems with the tools they’ve been given by the system they live under. In the case of the US, that system is neoliberalism. They work three jobs, work overtime, work themselves sick even. I’ve heard people quoted as saying something along the lines of, “I did everything I was supposed to.” As in they played by what they thought were the rules of capitalism and don’t realize that the extraction of their wealth is the goal of the system.
Fascists understand this need to educate people. They rush to exploit desperate people who are losing everything under capitalism. They present them with their ideas, primarily that some out-group is the source of their problems. They blast the airwaves with propaganda to brainwash people by trapping them in information silos. They get out the vote to advance fascists causes. This is how the fascist movement, that has existed since the 30’s in America, has been growing in America since Regan.
Neoliberalism makes people desperate enough that they will try anything, especially fascism when presented with it. It’s easy for people to think other people dying is the answer to their problems. When in fact our future depends on us adopting better economic and political ideas. Also, neoliberalism tends to obsess over civility politics and a strict adherence to law and order. Thus even people who aren’t fascists themselves don’t balk at the totalitarian and/or authoritarian nature of the fascist regime they end up in. They either won’t notice the difference or if they do assume it was a natural correction to what our society is ‘supposed to be’. While living in a neoliberal society, people end up thinking that either the systems they live under can’t be changed or even that they shouldn’t be changed. Rather than convincing people to change the system, the fascists convince people to remove other people. Thus they bypass people’s acquired resistance to societal change. No where in this, do people naturally internalize and adopt socialist ideas. People who believe in progressive and socialist ideas have to get these ideas in front of people’s eyes so that they have a chance to mull them over.
We need to reach out to people by taking advantage of the Internet 2.0, social media, which is not something that was available in the 20th century. We need to convince people that fascism is a self-destructive ideology. That neoliberalism, in a vacuum, inevitably leads to fascism because of the societal and material conditions it imposes. People double down on what they know and make a more extreme and worse version of it, instead of radically changing it. And that socialism is the answer to people’s economic problems.
What I don’t understand is your fixation with claiming that people aren’t what they claim to be. I’ve seen it in this comment section. You did it with another anarchist. I am a social democrat. I don’t know any neoliberals who would say any of the things that I believe in and tell people about.
You’ve said many times that you’re an anarchist on lemmy. I don’t see why you would lie about that. But I really don’t get why you engage in this discourse this way. You are by no means the only person who does this by the way. So, it’s been nagging at me. I go around telling people about my socialist political views in my day to day life when politics comes up.
You are an anarchist in real life right? You tell people something to the effect of “I’m an anarchist and I think we should live in some form of stateless society” when discussions of politics come up. Your political views as an anarchist are not some internet persona you adopt for fun right? This isn’t some kind of fictional fan wiki page you like to maintain? You actually want to live in a state of anarchy IRL? I am genuinely asking, this is not a rhetorical line of reasoning.
If social democracy is to out there for you to see working in real life, I can’t image you wanting to be an anarchist. We don’t have a way to make a true stateless society work at the scale of 8.1 billion people. It would be cool if we did. I think it’s possible. I just don’t know how to make that work yet. Hopefully someone actually figures it out one day.
We have concrete ideas and policies to purse with social democracy so that is why I purse creating that system. If I had a better system to pursue I would do so. I believe social democracy is not the end all be all of political and economic inventions. Just a strict improvement over liberal democracy.
I think the worlds nations adopting social democracy is not detrimental to anarchism. If anything, I think it would broaden people’s horizons to the possibility of some kind of stateless society. So I don’t see why an anarchist would be against social democracy. It’s probably not an anarchist’s ideal society, but I don’t see why it would necessarily be something to oppose. There is a progression to any technology. Political and economic ideas are no different. We have to crawl before we can walk.
Inclusive political and economic intuitions like democracy and socialism are about people deciding how to run things for themselves. We use representation in democracy to make it scale, not because we want some absolute authority to dictate to use how to live our lives. We want leaders not rulers. We want freedom so we create and maintain systems that include the people who live in them so we can all make decisions about our own lives. But the systems have to work for the hundreds of millions or even billions of people who live with those systems. The answer to our current societal problems cannot be, let almost everyone die, so the survivors can live under a more ideal system that scales to their smaller population. People matter. edit: typo
Democracy is the best political system that we have and it has been the most effective system we’ve ever had. Populist grassroot movements have fundamentally challenged the notion that only political parties can raise money. Trump is going to end up raising a ton of money because of he made Truth Social public. His supporters are going to end up driving up the stock price like Wallstreetbets did with GameStop stock.
but that they are susceptible to them
This is what I’m saying the flaw in the theory is. It’s the reverse of what we would want. Neoliberalism makes people susceptible to fascism and resistant to socialism. That’s why people have this knee jerk reaction to socialism and are sleep walking into fascism. We have to actively correct for this before the fascists complete their takeover.
Also, I like reading theory. But I want to apply what I learn to my life.
Social Democracy is not Market Socialism. Social Democracy is Capitalism with expansive social safety nets, not Worker Ownership of the Means of Production. This is fundamental. Again, Social Democracy is not a transitional state towards Socialism nor Socialism itself, but welfare Capitalism.
This is a description of current working social democracies which have not fully adopted socialism and still have potential in that regard. Social democracy is a collection of ideas and policies. Workers owning companies as opposed to share holders is not incompatible with social democracy even if it’s not something that’s being done currently at scale. Again market economies are not inherently capitalist. Welfare is also a part of the picture, but it’s not enough it’s own. Welfare is covering for systemic issues that have to fundamentally fixed.
Leftist theory does in fact have practical applications. Being confidently incorrect as you have been is impractical, hence the importance of theory.
Yes, it does have practical applications. I have nothing to do with the veracity of the ideas I espouse. Theory can only take us so far. I’m not interested in being limited by our current iteration of social democracy or our current definitions of socialism or social democracy. If we go with the description of social democracy in your argument, then that will be insufficient to fix our current societal problems.
Okay, I don’t follow. But please answer my question. It wasn’t rhetorical. If me just asking you this bugs you so much, so you wouldn’t answer the first time I asked, I don’t get why it would be a go to option for you to say to other people. Is this just gatekeeping then?
You’ve been telling me what to do for a while now. I think reading theory is a good idea. Please read a US history book. I also recommend reading Ur Fascism.
Social democracy in the US is a center left position in the year 2024. Fascism did not exist before the 20th century. Genocides did. A county doing genocides does not mean they are a fascist country. We did that as a democracy. A flawed democracy, that suppresses majority rule, but as a democracy.
Believe me, I understand what Capitalism is and isn’t, what Socialism is and isn’t, and what Social Democracy is and isn’t. Social Democracy isn’t Socialism, and the Nordic Countries are not Socialist, nor are they moving towards Socialism.
Social democracy is a form a socialism. Social democrats in Nordic Countries apparently are aligning themselves with groups on the right. I am saying we need to move to socialism.
Yes, Social Democracy is insufficient. We need both leftist theory and practice. You are attempting to reject what leftists have learned and built on to do what has already failed, a mistake no leftist should be making.
I think we are talking past each other at this point. I’m very much saying we need workers to own corporations as part of social democracy.
What form of Democracy? In what metric is it the most effective? The US isn’t particularly democratic, but absolutely helps the ruling class.
The kinds that exist currently. Compared to all other forms of governments that exist currently. Yes US democracy is flawed. Yes, the owner class benefits immensely from our current liberal democracies.
Please explain why it is a “flaw” in Socialist theory, and not just something you dislike. Neoliberalism does not make people susceptible to fascism, crumbling Capitalism does that. People have a knee-jerk reaction to Socialism in the US because they are a part of the Labor Aristocracy, a status that would not change even if the US became a Social Democracy.
You said it yourself, you have also experienced people saying “socialism doesn’t work”. There is a reason for that and it’s not that people are more susceptible to socialist ideas. I don’t like that reality either, but it is reality as we have observed it. It directly contradicts socialist theory. If socialist theory was correct people would respond with “tell me more” when they hear socialism.
People have a knee-jerk reaction to socialism because they know it involves systemic change and wealth redistribution. As part of living in neoliberalism, people are told they are living at the end of history. That change comes in incremental steps and our institutions are fundamentally good and just need good people in charge of them. If anyone is struggling, it’s an issue of personal responsibility. And that wealth redistribution is theft. That they would be denied having wealth and the little wealth that they have would be taken from them. When in fact capitalism is inherently about wealth extraction. We would all be making more if owned the companies we worked for instead of them being privately owned or owned by share holders.
To Republican evangelicals who don’t know better, Trump is that good man who is going to make a supposedly good system work for them. They think if he can just be allowed ‘to do what has to be done’ removing the people who make up the out-groups they’ve been told to hate, things will get better for them. This is of course a fascist lie. We have to work to correct this.
I understand that you like to read theory, I am just curious why you are intent on rejecting all of it in favor of your personal vibes. Have you read any Anarchist or Marxist theory, or just liberal theory?
I’ve read the Communist Manifesto and Zimmerman. I have not read the Anarchist and Marxist theory that you are referring to. I think I’ve read some stuff on the anarchist library before though. I know enough about political science, history, and current events to have informed opinions on current political and economic issues. Gatekeeping is counterproductive. edit: typo
Alright. I still think what we believe is not in conflict with each other. But I am going to agree to disagree on what we should do about the election.
The social democracy I am describing in my arguments would do away with capitalism but not market economies. The fact this doesn’t exist yet or isn’t in the theory you have read about social democracy isn’t relevant. The US has never had true majority rule. Our democracy overrepresents some people and thus underrepresents others. This must be fixed. The US is still fundamentally a democracy despite its flaws. That’s why the fascists want to do away with our democracy, so they can have total power, as just being overrepresented is insufficient for their aims.
To be clear, I’m using this meme to address ethical concerns I see people have with voting. Namely that we should ignore those concerns. I think we should vote for Biden in 2024.
I saw your comment further down and I wanted to address any potential confusion where it can be seen. I think we fundamentally agree that people should vote.
But the sonic meme says voting is unethical
No, just that there are no ethical choices under first-past-the-post voting. For example, abstaining from voting is a choice even if it’s not voting. Voting for the candidates, not just the president, that will result in the least amount of harm to people is what is optimal. People use ethical concerns as a reason to not vote, but no matter what a person chooses, even the least bad choice is still unethical. Therefore these ethical concerns should not weigh into our decision making process.
This is comparable to no ethical consumption under capitalism. Steve Shives made a good example in his video on Don’t Look Up, so I’m going to steal it here. We shouldn’t dismiss Hollywood out of hand for making movies like Don’t Look Up even though everyone who works in the film industry benefits from capitalism in unethical ways. Even though it is true that they benefit in unethical ways, this line of reasoning would silence everyone. We all benefit in unethical ways from capitalism. It’s the nature of living in a capitalist system that we cannot escape as long as we live under capitalism. Even the least bad consumption is still unethical. So these ethical concerns shouldn’t weigh into our criticism of a movie like Don’t Look Up.
There is no ethical consumption under capitalism. There are no ethical choices under FPTP voting. So, these ethical concerns should not weigh into our criticism of capitalism or our decisions about who to vote for. We should vote even if the choice of who we vote for isn’t ethical. The goal should be to reduce the most harm to people.
I’m describing what I’m describing. This is social democracy as I see it. I am arguing workers owning companies is not at odds with social democracy and is a policy that should be pursued as part of such a system.
No, people have been trying to fix US democracy to be more inclusive for centuries. Black men got the right to vote in 1870. But of course people of color are still facing voter suppression to this day. Woman got the right to vote in 1919. People fought for these rights. We need to keep fighting until majority rule is established in the United States. Then we will need to fight to keep it that way. I’ll name a few things that we need to do, but this is not a comprehensive list. We need to abolish the electoral college, and make both the House of Representatives and Senate proportional to the population. The House of Representatives is currently capped at 435. And every state in the union needs to agree to change the Senate to be reflective of the population from the current two senators per state. As long as our democracy has these and other flaws fascists and corporations alike are going to have undue leverage over our democracy.
This is from the trivia section of the Nether wiki page. I remembered it being different too in the past. I think I played on a small or classic world where the ratio was only 1:3.
In Legacy Console Edition, the size of the Nether is limited, with bedrock walls surrounding it on all sides. The Overworld-Nether ratio varies depending on the world size: it is 1:3 for Classic and Small worlds, 1:6 for Medium worlds, and 1:8 (the same as Java and Bedrock editions) for Large worlds.
Edit: Removed link to outdated wiki to avoid SEO pollution.
When Bill Clinton was in office in the 90’s, after the Democrats lost three presidential elections in a row to Republicans, he did not adopt socialist policies. Bill Clinton and Democratic party declared they would no longer fight Republicans on economic issues. The Democratic party shifted to the right, not the left, in response to losing elections. They opted to grab moderate voters from Republicans rather than try to win over more progressive voters.
If Democrats see moderates voting in the next election, but not progressives they will move to the right to grab those voters. They aren’t interested in chasing nonvoters or third party voters. So, the choice is not between averting fascism and driving the Democratic Party to the left. Those options are one in the same for progressives. The choice is between driving the Democratic Party to the left and averting fascism or allowing fascism to take hold in the US and allowing the Democratic Party to drift to the right. Of course if we lose our democracy, which way the Democrats shift isn’t going to matter, but I think it’s important to make this clear. There is nothing to be gained for progressives by not participating in elections, only things to lose.
This is a clear cut decision, but unfortunately people on the left are not framing it that way. We need to choose the option that delays fascism for another four years. We need time to give ourselves the opportunity to convince people that socialism is the answer to fixing our problems not blaming out groups. Considering the consequences of a fascist dictatorship in the US, voting is the thing everyone should want to do.
Since Bill Clinton until Trump the choices were between neoliberals and neoconservatives. Neoliberalism leads to fascism, so if we stick with neoliberalism it’s going to become harder and harder to delay fascism. We need socialist candidates like Bernie Sanders to win the presidency and Congress. But we’re stuck with the incumbent president for this election, which is typical of American politics. If our democracy lasts that long, we will have another shot at a progressive president in 2028.
Give the polling on progressive policies, it would seem the country’s population is more progressive overall than our elected representatives. Republicans are definitely overrepresented. That means it is essential that as many progressives vote as possible to give Democrats room to move the left. All the Democrats are interested is being where the Overton window is in order to gain the most votes. Progressives have to shift the Overton window to the left by voting Blue if we want to see change. edit: typos
The country is more progressive than our current representatives. Our democracy has many different flaws in it, that have been there since the constitution was written, that undermine majority rule. Our current government does not accurately represent the population’s views. Fascists are exploiting these flaws to perform their takeover. We need more people voting, especially progressives, to correct for these flaws. Mother Jones did a great job of reporting on this topic.
And if progressives don’t move to the flyover states en masse it won’t matter how much they vote.
There are progressives in every state. The margin of victory in swing states is so narrow that every vote counts. And even in non-swing states, there are plenty of races where progressive voters can make a difference. But more importantly, even if a progressive is in a non-swing state they should still vote, because it’s important for Democrats to see that progressives make a sizable portion of the electorate and specifically their voting base across the country.
Being more progressive than our current representation isn’t hard, and doesn’t make them “progressive.”
No where in my argument did I say that being more progressive than their representatives make them progressives. Just that the current state of affairs in the United States with its current policies is not representative of the people. Whether that issue is abortion, trans rights, the minimum wage, universal healthcare, or whole host of other issues. The majority is not being represented properly at present on these issues. By assuming that where we are now as a country on these issues is reflective of the people is to miss an incredible opportunity. There is the potential to shift the Overton window to the left and radically change the US for the better. edit: typo
who the fuck mentioned Jews here? I’m talking about Israelis, cut your equivocating antisemitic bullshit.
If someone refers to Israelis as a race I would assume they are confusing Jews, an ethnic group, culture and religion as a race as opposed to confusing Israelis, a nationality, as a race.
we didn’t stop Nazism because we didn’t kill enough Nazis, on either side of the ocean. the fuckers who got social media in on it can be traced back to that. if we’d killed more Nazis then, we wouldn’t have these problems now.
Even if we had killed everyone who was a Nazi, the ideas could be still be spread by people who are not Nazis and then internalized and adopted by a new group of Nazis. Ideas outlive the people came up with them and believed in them. The best that would do is kick the can further down the road, but we still have to deal with this problem eventually.
Typically when people are saying Jews are a race, they referring to the idea that Jews are not White, as in they cannot be White. Jews can be White, but they can also be Black, Native American or Hispanic. Jews are not in a racial category that excludes them from being part of these groups. That’s what I was referring to when I wrote race.
That’s not really the main point, I was agreeing with the person I responding to and adding some clarification. It seemed to have distracted from the issue at hand.
Killing people isn’t how we stop the spread of fascism in the modern day. We need to spread information, for example, that fascism is a self-destructive ideology that will destroy hundreds of millions of lives and that the Republican Party is controlled by fascists. I think most people know that on lemmy, but there are plenty of people who will check into politics in the months leading up to the election and form their opinions then. A misconception I see on lemmy is that some people assume we can defeat fascism with guns alone. That isn’t going to cut it. We have to reach more people with true information before fascists reach them with misinformation. Once a person forms an opinion they are unlikely to discard that opinion when presented with new information in the short term. That short term can easily last until the election, so these months leading up to the election are crucial. edit: capitalization
Yes, I am Jewish, but not Israeli. I assumed most people referring to Israelis as a race are referring to Jews a race. It seems weird to confuse nationality with race in the 21st century.
Many Jewish people hate Israel.
I don’t hate Israel, because hating Israel is more taxing to me than it is to Israel. I think Israel is an apartheid state that’s committing genocide and war crimes in Gaza, Zionism is a fascist ideology, the current Israeli government is dominated by fascists, and that the concept that we need a Jewish ethnostate in order to be safe is ridiculous. Israel needs to change radically and it needs to change as soon as possible.
don’t think I referred to tfem as a race but I could have. I’m not super likely to bother scrolling up for a hezbarite though.
I was referring to the poster above you.
the ideas could have been spread by people who weren’t Nazis, but were I’m this actual extant timeline spread by actual Nazis.
My point is that killing all Nazis wouldn’t have prevented Fascism from spreading.
american civil war was the same. every one of those slaver families needed to die. every adult, and possibly the children, if they weren’t adopted out
Killing all slave owners wouldn’t have stopped the Lost Cause of the Confederacy myth which is responsible for the confederate sympathizers we have today. The myth is an idea and can be spread by people who don’t own slaves.
hard disagree. it would have stopped. maybe somebody would have dug it up later and started it back up, but it would have stopped.
People who weren’t Nazis knew what fascism was. Fascists wrote books and gave speeches. Fascism would still exist in peoples’ minds as a concrete idea that can be communicated to other people even if no Nazis survived the war.
I met them. their grandchildren and great children, at family reunions. they worked hard to craft and propagate these myths. they were proud of it. expected their grandchildren to keep it up.
People who didn’t own slaves spread the myth as well. Killing entire families of slave owners would not have stopped this.
The fascists and confederate sympathizers of today aren’t necessarily direct biological descendants of those in the past. They are ideological descendants.
it might have been restarted later, but it would have stopped first
Fascism doesn’t stop until everyone internalizes that fascism is a terrible ideology. And then keeps teaching that to new generations.
this happened. it was real. it likely still is real. atop denying history to spare fucking Nazis.
Killing people won’t kill their ideas. The myth of lost cause would still have been spread by non-slave owners. It just would have taken longer. People don’t have to directly learn about fascism from a 20th century fascist to become fascists. Even if every living Nazi, fascist, and confederate sympathizer dropped dead right now we would run into this problem sooner rather than later. Ideas and information are freely available on the internet. They circulate faster than ever before. If we don’t defeat these ideas then we will keep having this problem no matter how many people die.
Cursed rule (sh.itjust.works)
Harm Reduction Rule (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
There are no ethical choices under first-past-the-post voting. We must instead make a decision that reduces the most harm.
Spotify rulecommendation (beehaw.org)
Darude Sandstorm
Rule (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
Nether Rule (lemmy.ca)
62 percent of Biden voters want to replace both candidates on the ballot: Poll (www.thehill.com)
Cursed Rule (pawb.social)
Israeli missile has struck Iran, US officials say - BBC News (www.bbc.com)
An Israeli missile has hit Iran, two US officials have told the BBC’s US partner CBS News....