this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2024
948 points (98.5% liked)

Political Memes

5432 readers
3161 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 2 months ago (27 children)

Funnily enough, many online leftists think something similar is true for the right.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 84 points 2 months ago (24 children)

The right may not have great organization, but they have an astounding ability to put their blinders on for the Ten Minutes' Hate when it's called for. The right's problem is that when they smell blood in the water, THEN the unity falls apart. It's power games for them.

Parts of the left, or what passes for it in this country, would prefer martyrdom to cooperating with heretics.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (23 children)

This is because "the left" tries to unite groups that ultimately are at odds with each other. Anarchists of all types work very well with each other usually, but not with Auth left because they have bad praxis and care about being in control of the movement. Likewise it's difficult to align with social democrats who think electoralism and reformism is a solution and stifle direct action.

Likewise Auth left and social democrats tend to infight, even within themselves, because their hierarchical praxis causes power play friction.

[–] j_overgrens@feddit.nl 9 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I take great offense in you saying that tankies and socdems infight, lol. (I mean, I get it, they are both statists, but I feel on a emotional level most socdems feel more for anarchism than for leninism.)

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I would be an anarchist if I weren't socdem. The problem with anarchism is that it only works on a very small scale, where people know each other well enough to work on mutual understanding. That wouldn't work on a very large scale due to people having their own ideas. I was told before that anarchism is basically the norm for most of human history and thus it could be implemented. Well, look around, aren't we already living in anarchism under the nation-state model? Even though there is the United Nations, most of their power is non-binding and could easily be ignored by a more powerful member. And thus we are already living in anarchism; and it's not working as idealised.

[–] Crismus@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

I'm more anarchistic in personal beliefs but am willing to embrace social democrats to get some benefit.

The idea of the greatest social good for the largest group is more important than trusting everyone to follow the correct policies when given power. I also personally think that state power is incompatible with anarchist beliefs.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 months ago

anarchism isn't the lack of rules. Nor is it many little kingdoms.

[–] cacheson@piefed.social 2 points 2 months ago

Generally speaking, anarchy isn't some lost golden age that anarchists want to return to, it's something new that we want to create. Both past and present societies have anarchistic elements that we can draw inspiration from, but none of those societies really live up to our ideals.

There are some that characterize anarchism as equivalent to direct democracy. I disagree with that, but I do think it can be categorized as a further evolution of democracy. Autonomous democracy, if you will. It retains the idea that everyone is equal and that we don't need monarchs to govern us. However, where democracy sets up a centralized apparatus for majoritarian, society-wide rule-making and enforcement, in anarchy the rules are created and applied in a decentralized fashion where they are needed, by mutual agreement.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Well if meant to in the context of the occasional big tent movements. I don't think most socdems think much about anarchists at all except when it comes time to scold us for not voting.

[–] j_overgrens@feddit.nl 6 points 2 months ago

Yes, and I think that when together in a big tent, socdems would associate more easily with anarchists than with leninists. Especially with syndicalists, for example.

[–] snekmuffin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Was under the impression that most anarchists are aware that voting is still important. like it or not, we are still citizens of some state for the time being, but we can use that to promote useful change or to exercise damage control, as part of the overall praxis arsenal. especially with some organization within your local groups, it can be a good tool.

[–] cacheson@piefed.social 2 points 2 months ago

We are, surprisingly enough, not very unified on that point. I used to be a non-voter, annoyed at the anarchists that would harangue me to vote. Now I'm a grudging voter, annoyed at the anarchists that harangue me *not* to vote. xD

Both then and now, I maintain that anarchists should either vote or not, and then shut the hell up about it. The whole argument is just a lot of pointless bikeshedding about the most marginal effects.

I think there's a lot more agreement among anarchists that we shouldn't get involved in or donate to electoral campaigns. We have better things to do with our time and resources.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 2 months ago (2 children)
[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

How does one then answer the question “If you think elections don’t work, then why do you participate?” by a non-anarchist?

You've made plenty of good points throughout the article about the problems with the system. I don't see why that can't be your answer. There's no contradiction in acknowledging major problems and still exerting what little influence you do have.

But if they “work a little” for an anarchist, certainly they would work a lot for a non-anarchist.

How does that logic follow? Assuming you both have the same values and are trying to achieve the same thing, then a solution that works for one person will work just as well for another. The difference in opinions is on which solution will work, not on what you're trying to achieve.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 months ago

There’s no contradiction in acknowledging major problems and still exerting what little influence you do have.

I just disagree this is any sort of influence instead of a palliative.

How does that logic follow? Assuming you both have the same values and are trying to achieve the same thing, then a solution that works for one person will work just as well for another.

You are quoting a rhetorical question. The point I'm making here is that if someone isn't an anarchist and therefore doesn't do direct action, then seeing even anarchists take part in elections, reinforces to them the idea that elections work well enough.

[–] AlexanderTheDead@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This post borders on sovcit levels of delusion.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 months ago

well what's important is that you get to feel smugly superior.

load more comments (20 replies)
load more comments (20 replies)
load more comments (22 replies)