this post was submitted on 08 May 2025

79 points (87.6% liked)

196

3297 readers

1917 users here now

Community Rules

You must post before you leave

Be nice. Assume others have good intent (within reason).

Block or ignore posts, comments, and users that irritate you in some way rather than engaging. Report if they are actually breaking community rules.

Use content warnings and/or mark as NSFW when appropriate. Most posts with content warnings likely need to be marked NSFW.

Most 196 posts are memes, shitposts, cute images, or even just recent things that happened, etc. There is no real theme, but try to avoid posts that are very inflammatory, offensive, very low quality, or very "off topic".

Bigotry is not allowed, this includes (but is not limited to): Homophobia, Transphobia, Racism, Sexism, Abelism, Classism, or discrimination based on things like Ethnicity, Nationality, Language, or Religion.

Avoid shilling for corporations, posting advertisements, or promoting exploitation of workers.

Proselytization, support, or defense of authoritarianism is not welcome. This includes but is not limited to: imperialism, nationalism, genocide denial, ethnic or racial supremacy, fascism, Nazism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, etc.

Avoid AI generated content.

Avoid misinformation.

Avoid incomprehensible posts.

No threats or personal attacks.

No spam.

Moderator Guidelines

Moderator Guidelines

Don’t be mean to users. Be gentle or neutral.
Most moderator actions which have a modlog message should include your username.
When in doubt about whether or not a user is problematic, send them a DM.
Don’t waste time debating/arguing with problematic users.
Assume the best, but don’t tolerate sealioning/just asking questions/concern trolling.
Ask another mod to take over cases you struggle with, if you get tired, or when things get personal.
Ask the other mods for advice when things get complicated.
Share everything you do in the mod matrix, both so several mods aren't unknowingly handling the same issues, but also so you can receive feedback on what you intend to do.
Don't rush mod actions. If a case doesn't need to be handled right away, consider taking a short break before getting to it. This is to say, cool down and make room for feedback.
Don’t perform too much moderation in the comments, except if you want a verdict to be public or to ask people to dial a convo down/stop. Single comment warnings are okay.
Send users concise DMs about verdicts about them, such as bans etc, except in cases where it is clear we don’t want them at all, such as obvious transphobes. No need to notify someone they haven’t been banned of course.
Explain to a user why their behavior is problematic and how it is distressing others rather than engage with whatever they are saying. Ask them to avoid this in the future and send them packing if they do not comply.
First warn users, then temp ban them, then finally perma ban them when they break the rules or act inappropriately. Skip steps if necessary.
Use neutral statements like “this statement can be considered transphobic” rather than “you are being transphobic”.
No large decisions or actions without community input (polls or meta posts f.ex.).
Large internal decisions (such as ousting a mod) might require a vote, needing more than 50% of the votes to pass. Also consider asking the community for feedback.
Remember you are a voluntary moderator. You don’t get paid. Take a break when you need one. Perhaps ask another moderator to step in if necessary.

founded 4 months ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Ruleducation (lemmy.blahaj.zone)

submitted 3 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

70 comments fedilink hide all child comments

We've reached the second iteration. There isn't a lot separating us from the third iteration. And the material conditions were bad enough, at the latest, sometime between the first and the second iterations.

People know socialism exists. People are experiencing sufficiently bad material conditions that they want change.

People have picked up neoliberal ideas from living in a neoliberal society. These ideas give people a framework to process their material conditions so that they do not rise up in sufficient numbers. People need to learn that these ideas are part of an ideology designed to enrich the owner class at the expense of the worker class. Things will continue to get worse unless people understand that everyone needs to own their work.

This education is work that still needs to be done after hypothetically defeating the current fascist dictatorships and is probably part of what will be needed to defeat them.

I keep having this conversation with people and seeing the accelerationist line of reasoning, so I wanted to address it with a visual.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 41 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Wait, you think THAT's the loop?

Nah, what's happening is the edges of neoliberalism are moving right. They are absolutely checking out from the neoliberal agenda, they are just becoming fascists in the process.

The disaffection is there. They are rising up in sufficient numbers.

To vote for Trump and other fascists.

Accelerationism doesn't make sense because the loop is pushing people right. Do that faster, they keep going right faster. There is no steam buildup for left-wing revolution here. If anything the left has been lazy and the longer this goes the more ground they have to make up. There is no socialist revolution coming, there is a fascist dictatorship takeover at the end of that process. Russia is the model, just... different year.

The question is why the left wing is failing to divert that flow of dissatisfaction towards its political side with anywhere near that amount of efficiency. Call it education if you want, I call it weak propaganda. Bad political action either way.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

it's because fascism is easy, simple, and feels safer than stepping out of learned helplessness

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Right, and if you have a minute I may tell you about the tragedy of Darth Plagueis.

This is not about the dark side being easier and more appealing, this is about them having weaponized social media. It's a material problem, not a moral one.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm afraid some ideas really are just easier to accept. In every field I've studied or worked in, people very rarely accept unfortunate truths, instead believing that which is easier to stomach.

For example, you believe that leftists just aren't "trying hard enough," when the reality is that leftism doesn't have access to the same tools that its opposition has. Fascists, tankies, or liberals can use the powerful forces of group identity and hierarchy to win. At the end of the day, they all function as similar machines that seek to gain the most amount of power and control for themselves as possible. They inevitably entangle with national identities, bureaucracy, religion and cultural values in whatever way they need to.

Social media is not the problem; you're just blaming technology because it's easier than thinking leftism is uniquely unsuited to take control in this ecosystem. It has the "authenticity" every system markets, but it can't just allow itself to become a competitive machine without just becoming Marxist-Leninism. It can free people from the machine, but the machines compete better with each other by mechanizing us.

It's not about morals holding leftism back, but morals being incompatible with welding power over your opposition. It's the will to power of societal constructs making everyone's lives hallow and miserable. Our happiness is instrumental in forces larger than ourselves and always has been. Our freedom isn't at war with other people's freedom, but the success of things that aren't individuals.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I call BS. Leftism isn't a minority stance by necessity. There have been plenty of popular and populist left wing movements. Many got to power. Some kept it. Some even did all of that under representative democracy.

There is no reason left wing stances should be harder to communicate over social media than they were through newsletters, often while being outright outlawed.

I refuse to be so self-indulgent to think my elders were able to put out left wing media with an illegal printer while being persecuted but mastering Facebook was beyond us.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You're not wrong, but the game leftism needs to play isn't gonna look the same as right wing ideologies. It can do things the right wing can only maintain off of hype, which is enough for the right to ascend, but not to maintain.

The biggest thing leftism can do is kneecap systems without the systems ever fully getting rid of them. It was heavily co-opted and redirected by liberalism, but with liberalism dying, it can reassert itself.

I'm sure the opportunistic tankies will waste a lot of time and energy, but anarchy is the real way forward. It probably can't serve as a status to be reached, but as an ultimate check on the power of whatever system is in control. It needs to assert people as goal of society, not the means. Organizations cannot be seen as allies ever, only monsters to restrain and keep watch of forever.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Well, the idea is you ascend this way, you maintain by being actually competent at governing using solid policies that improve things for people.

That should be an advantage, you know? Actually having a solid framework for economics and social policy. It should take care of that whole "maintaining" part once the ascendancy is dealt with.

I think a lot of leftists, and particularly terminally online lefitsts, have grown used to not having to deliver that part and are more comfortable feeling like morally superior underdogs. I have no interest in those. Like I was saying elsewhere, the only leftists that are real leftists are the ones that hold some political power.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The problem with "real political power" is how the power itself can do the thinking for you. Your tribe or ingroup as an inhuman entity has no desire for anything but winning. If you're not careful, it convinces you to take the realist path to victory.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

We can worry about the dehumanizing nature of political power once we have the political power.

I'd rather have that conversation about the non-fascist guys at our leisure than take solace in the moral harm the fascists are suffering from their abuse of power.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

It's not a problem of moral purity, but simply being another standard agent of the system. All efforts by well meaning activists in my country failed to resist being another pawn, or not gain substantial power. Capitalism effectively neutralized left wing threats by keeping the working class unwilling to question power. Bolder action with more urgency was necessary, but team blue held everything back.

Now that the liberal democratic order is dead, the rules are different, and bolder action is necessary for anyone to hold power. The threat level is higher, with state violence escalating faster than even I expected. You need to utilize violence to have any chance of resisting fascism, even if it's the "non-violent" mass movement strategy of MLK Jr (although i doubt we have enough time for that)

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

It doesn't read much like she necessarily supports accelerationism. If she does then the post will be removed as it is a harmful ideology.

The left is growing worldwide, especially among the youth (I only included some stuff on the US, but you see similar trends in quite a few countries). Remember most people in the US would vote democrat if they voted, which while not socialism is certainly left of the republicans. They just have a major problem with believing that voting will not matter, with gerrymandering, and with anti voting schemes.

The statistics in my country aren't quite the same in that we don't have a geriatric fascist party, but there is a trend of polarization with people moving away from the center towards the left and the right.

Though I do agree that we really do need to be doing a better job of reaching out to people. Here in norway the left seems to be struggling because our arguments are less emotion based, because unlike the populists we aren't throwing everything behind a small number of emotionally charged topics and we don't have disingenuous gurus or other big social media influencers lying to kids on our behalf. We don't do a good job of telling people the benefits of leftist policies in a way that really hits them and we don't have enough outreach for what we say to reach them. There's a clear bias in the news and in social media against the left which hampers us as well, both within norway but especially on international platforms.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

That is a depressing chart, honestly. A few percentage points at best in the same timeframe when the neofascist US right went from a radical wing of the Republican party they were hesitant about tapping into and into running the entire country. Twice.

During Trump's first term the positive view of socialism among Dems actually went down two points before recovering to five points up? That's rookie numbers. Trump went from reviled to actually becoming an outright felon and then to a landslide victory handing him control of every branch of government in the same time period.

And that's even more shameful once you remember that for Americans "socialist" includes "social democrats".

There are left wing parties that have marginally better elsewhere, and some are even in government, largely as junior parties in colaitions within parliamentary regimes. The only exception would be Latin America where there have been bigger swings back and forth, but that wasn't that rare there in the first place.

I don't think it's about "telling people about the benefits" or "outreach". I think traditional powers have what's left of the information gatekeepers, the alt right has dominance of online discourse and the left has no idea how to use the Internet for anything other than arguing amongst themselves and no idea how to pierce the old media in any reliable fashion.

It is genuinely depressing, and threads like these show zero self-awareness and very little self-criticism. Ascendant neofascists come from some mix of hostile propaganda and radical actors prodding at the information weaknesses of liberal regimes very consciously and very aggressively. The left has never been able to keep that sort of decentralized coordination going for any amount of time without decomposing into niche groups all over again.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It could be better yes, but most right wing parties are doing rather well because of old (read dying) people, while young people are overwhelmingly leftist.

the left has no idea how to use the Internet for anything other than arguing amongst themselves

I disagree heavily with this. That's mostly a thing pushed by tankies, the ones we argue with. But then arguing with tankies isn't productive either, it is a distraction at best.

It is genuinely depressing, and threads like these show zero self-awareness and very little self-criticism

What exactly do you propose if not outreach? You seem to criticize the idea of spreading awareness in general. Did you read the parts where I also said the same stuff about what you call information gatekeepers? I should note I am also heavily in favor of direct action and unionization, but doing those things also requires outreach. I think really the best thing to do is irl word of mouth, irl political participation, and establishing good leftist spaces online (without tankies).

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

It's not just tankies, beyond Lemmie's specific local rift.

It's left leaning liberals with social democrats, social democrats with gramscian leftists, gramscian leftists and classic marxists, all of the above with tankies, or with whatever cosplay anarchists dwell in places like these. And much more, depending on the local political landscape.

Neofascists don't even feel the need to agree with themselves, they'll argue one thing and the opposite as long as they get to stir some stuff up online, "own the libs" and win some arguments. There is nowhere near that level of propaganda discipline and willingness to row in the same direction at any point of the left. They broke feminism in two (three or four, really, but a few of those chickens are still to get home) with the slightest of propaganda pressure. They didn't even need that much to make most left and center-left political coalitions crumble. At this point I assume they're trying to be gentle when making frustrated leftists stay home in elections because there's no challenge in it.

My proposal? Take a page from their book. Prioritize wining arguments and mobilizing over practical policy, get to the policy once you've consolidated power. Complain that you're not allowed to deploy the full policy because of the other guys and the establishment all the way up. Never disagree with anybody willing to agree with you on anything. Never agree with a political rival. Never own the failures of the system. Find a scapegoat that works and push it.

None of those things are ideological. But nobody on the left will suspend their purity tests to play in the playground we've built for ourselves.

I'm all for dismantling that playground. It's toxic and grotesque. But you won't do that with "outreach" and "spreading awareness". You do that with hard, consolidated institutional power. They know. The left doesn't.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Me oh my. Yeah no there are other ways than "consolidating power" and lying to people. You can engage people emotionally without being manipulative and still push good policies.

Also, that all sounds very US centric and honestly a bit wrong. It is usually the libs that deplatform and refuse to cooperate with socialists. That's certainly the case within the democratic party. Same here in norway, with liberals not working with socialists (and rather the populists instead), and with the soc dems only ever reluctantly cooperating with us. It was announced, to my joy, a few days ago that LO (a big union) will finally give some money to the red party (a socialist party) because the reds getting enough votes is the only way the social democrats will win.

Edit: This is also my general understanding of politics everywhere. That centrists and right wingers (libs) have no interest in working with anyone left of them. It's certainly how fascists have won elections all around the world.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I'm not in the US, let's start there. I am in a territory that is generally left-leaning and has a left-leaning government, let's set that next.

And no, there are no other ways than consolidating power because a leftist without a government position is not useful to me at all. A leftist without a seat does not push good policies. They don't push any policies at all. Governments push policies. The only leftists who push good policies are in government.

There is no need to lie to be engaging, but you do need to convince people. You need to present arguments and you need to win those arguments in the eyes of people. You need to show the alternatives are doing poorly and create an image that they are incompetent and the cause of the current set of issues. Which should be easy, because they are, by and large.

But that's not being done. The perception is that the left is deluded, splintered and naive. Those are all perceptions pushed by the right onto the left that the left sucks at dispelling. The implication in your response that popular, effective campaigning and grassroots political action is inherently immoral or requires immoral behavior is itself part of that problem. Hell, we are doing the thing right now. If we were on the fascist spectrum we wouldn't bother with this nitpicky argument and would just wait for whatever point of contention we can agree on and rally around it. We just suck at this.

Look, it's ultimately a technical problem. The other side saw the communication tools had a flaw and exploited it. Not because they're smart, but because they had a million monkeys on typewriters tucked away online and they randomly figured out they could influence real world events for a laugh. And then the nazis caught wind.

We missed that boat and then bought into their narrative that this was something they own that is evil and only they get to do, and so we're laying out a red carpet for them to own mainstream culture. It's excurciating to watch.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The perception is that the left is deluded, splintered and naive. Those are all perceptions pushed by the right onto the left that the left sucks at dispelling.

You were pushing this earlier on in the convo

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah, no, we suck at this, like I said.

This conversation is not winning the culture wars. This is the exact purity argument that keeps the left from power.

Find me a solution and I'll take it. But the solution can't be to keep doing what we're doing.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

This convo isn't infighting, even if it isn't very productive. Neither of us are denouncing any leftist ideologies and we won't be voting against the left if I'm reading you correctly.

You are correct that something needs to change, and that thing is how we communicate with people. Deceit isn't necessary. It's the things you described that I had already described earlier that you for some reason then said was ineffectual before then suddenly supporting it when you were the one saying it?

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago

You need to show the alternatives are doing poorly and create an image that they are incompetent and the cause of the current set of issues. Which should be easy, because they are, by and large.

Well yeah. This we agree on, but it really did not sound like this is what you meant by what you wrote earlier.

The implication in your response that popular, effective campaigning and grassroots political action is inherently immoral or requires immoral behavior is itself part of that problem.

No? You read me wrong then.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago (10 children)

Here's a party doing exactly what you suggest. Notice how the party isn't exactly soaring in the statistics and is disliked by leftists as a result of all the bigotry.

load more comments (10 replies)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

This is an anti-accelerationist meme. I thought that was mostly self-evident, but I suppose I should have spelled that out. Any ideology can be susceptible to accelerationism. The point of this meme was that socialists seem to still arguing that the material conditions are not bad enough. They've been bad enough for a while and there's not a lot of room left for them to get worse before we get death camps. edit: typo

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

I haven't met a lot of socialists into accelerationism, but then I stay away from tankies

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

My point is even if you get a person to stop being a fascist, they don't also lose the neoliberal ideas that they have in their head. Once a person rejects fascism they still have to reject neoliberalism.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You're thinking of neofascism as a compound form of neoliberalism there, which I think is a mistake.

The people migrating from US-style neolib views into protofascist veneration for a strongman aren't stacking one thing on top of the other. They are breaking with a neoliberal scheme that didn't do much for them and into a fascist mindset that presents itself as revolutionary.

Had the left done a better job of channeling that disaffection they could have broken leftwards. They didn't, so they abandoned neoliberal views for neofascist ones.

I am very skeptical that the conversion path for those fascists is back to neoliberalism and then from there to a more leftist stance. The left isn't competing for the people already radicalized right, they are competing for the people that keep shedding off the husk of the liberal establishment.

And they're losing.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Also, I should add, the loop I'm referring to is that no matter how bad it gets this acceleration principle always states things need to get worse. This is not the neoliberal to fascist pipeline. edit: although things getting worse is what's pushing people to choose between fascism and socialism

And when a neoliberal becomes a fascist, they are adopting fascist ideas. However, those neoliberal ideas aren't rejected. The neoliberal ideas are what lead the person to reject socialist and progressive ideas in favor of fascist ideas. It's not that we failed to channel the dissatisfaction, but failed to challenge the underlying framework for internalizing their dissatisfaction. Instead of blaming the system people are blaming the people living in that system, like immigrants and trans people.

If a fascist rejects those fascist ideas the neoliberal ideas will be what they fall back on. For example, if a person believes systemic change is unnecessary, then rejecting the fascist alternative, removing people, doesn't mean they will question the underlying assumption that systemic change is unnecessary. The fact we need systemic change still needs to be learned.

It's not a path. People do not need to go through neoliberism. People are, usually anyway, not purely a fascist or purely a neoliberal. It's that people have a collection of ideas in their heads. In the case of our modern society, there are a lot of neoliberal ideas and increasingly fascist ideas in people's heads. All of these neoliberal and fascist ideas need to be addressed one at a time before a person can start accepting the progressive and socialist alternatives to those ideas. edit: typo

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

We have distinctly different ideas on how this works. Both hypotheses are untestable, though (at least to us).

Or, you know, to put it differently, "agree to disagree".

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

I think you both brought useful illustrations to the table.

I see the op as describing more of a layering of neoliberalism and fascism than an outright fusion.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

People know socialism exists

I'm not sure they do. I think most people have heard the term and think that it basically means high taxes and high govt intervention (basically social democracy). Or they think it means that the government controls the economy and all companies would become nationalized. I was effectively a socialist for a couple of years before I realized I was. A lot of people need to know what socialism even is before they can erase the stigma in their minds.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Absolutely. And even worse people often believe it is incompatible with democracy or is somehow otherwise innately authoritarian :/

I really am rather tired of how well capitalists and tankies have ruined peoples perception of the term

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago

it's great, because they really are saying the opposite of the truth often enough that people take it as common sense. Capitalism is incompatible with democracy, yet democracy creates the stability capitalists crave. They want a free lunch; constantly trying to get rid of the foundations while expecting to be properly sheltered.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

They at least know it exits enough to learn more about it in theory. The issue is that when trying to explain socialism to other people, it is often rejected out of pocket. Neoliberalism is a major culprit in this. People often say things like, socialism doesn't work or the Soviet Union collapsed.

People will still need to learn about socialism in more detail, that's not in dispute. But neoliberal ideas are acting as a blocker for people to even want to learn more about other ideas like socialism. People can be placated by the incremental progress offered by neoliberals, when they don't realize we need systemic change and wealth redistribution if we are going to fix problems like climate change and wealth inequality. edit: typo

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I am too dumb to understand what this means.

[–] ICastFist 11 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I prefer to think OP didn't put enough thought or effort in the comic, making it hard to understand/follow

[–] JackbyDev 20 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I genuinely thought this comic was mocking leftists for not making good points and just wishing things would get worse until neoliberals convert to their like of thinking. Imagine my shock when I read that OP is a leftist and not mocking them in this post. It's like when someone makes propaganda that ends up supporting the other side.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

It's mostly a critique of the accelerationist streak I see in other socialists. So it's supposed to anti-accelerationist. When people talk about median-voter syndrome I think the ideas that most of those people have in common are neoliberal ideas. Of course that's not to say it's exclusively neoliberal ideas, just that it's probably the most common. So neoliberals are probably the largest pool of people to recruit from.

As socialists we should be working to figure out the propaganda that will help to get people to reject neoliberalism en masse. That's what I wanted to start working on with future memes, but it felt like it was important to explain why. I was hoping this would be a useful starting place to point people to if they ask me why I'm trying to make anti-neoliberal memes in the future.

But yeah, this my main critique of the arguments I encounter from socialists on lemmy. I think it benefits us to really examine this assumption, because the material conditions are really bad, but people are still saying they need to get worse.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

Job done.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

People know socialism exists

Most people are only vaguely aware of the word 'socialism', and they don't know the difference between 'socialism', 'marxism' and 'anarchism'.

And for many socialism simply means either "European style capitalism with free healthcare" or "USSR under Stalin".

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Knowing that there are alternatives should, in theory, be enough for the purpose of getting their foot in the door to learn more. People do need to learn more, but the issue is that most people seem to have little interest in doing so despite knowing there is an alternative they could learn more about.

And for many socialism simply means either “European style capitalism with free healthcare” or “USSR under Stalin”.

This is the roadblock that stops people from going further and it's not an accident. People have been subjected to neoliberal propaganda that pushes an owner class first economic model. There are underlying assumptions people have that the extractive economic institution of capitalism is the only model that can work. When, in the US, we have known since monopolies starting forming at the start of the 20th century that capitalism is a zero-sum winner take all system that isn't sustainable. That's why we regulate anti-competitive practices to try to prolong the inevitable. edit: typo

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

Mainly the second one and people saying the nazis were socialists. And cuba

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

Given the options of being beaten to death by fascists or being chastised by a communist while you beat them to death, people choose the latter. You will face severe hardship by moving left, but will face less hardship by moving right. Naturally, then, people will shift in the direction that makes their lives the least difficult in a given moment.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments