If they're exclusively supporting the right wing candidate, they're not a centrist, then
this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2024
4 points (100.0% liked)
Memes
45657 readers
1768 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Centrism within the context of an exclusively right-wing overton window is always going to functionally be right wing.
The overton window shifted more left than right, unless said centrist lives in Turkey or Russia
What do you mean by that? Where is the Overton Window sliding to the left?
This is misleading. Most people do not actually know what Socialism or Communism are in the US (including people on Lemmy.world and other more liberalized instances) that think they know. What we are seeing is increasing polarization, fascism and Socialism are rising as a response to decaying Imperialism in the American Empire, as a consequence of decaying Capitalism.
Party-wise, the Democrats are running on the GOP platform of 4 years ago, while the GOP is running on overt fascism. American politics is more right-wing than ever before.
Under the asumption I am most people, can you give me the definition of socialism you prefer?
Socialism is, put at the most simple statement, Worker Ownership of the Means of Production. It is also, more abstractly put, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in a transitional status towards Communism.
People often confuse Capitalist governments doing stuff for Socialism, and Socialist governments retaining Capitalist elements as the entire system being Capitalist. It requires class analysis of who is in power.
Do you have a different idea, or is this in line with what you currently understand?
It ends the same way. An authoritarian dictatorship of a small group that seizes total political power. It always ends this way, and no amount of people power will change that
Why? What are you talking about?
Anywhere that companies will cater to the left, why would they throw away profit otherwise? You're the majority now and they'll market accordingly
What do you think "left" means? Communists and Socialists are not the majority, nor are they being pandered to. Right-wingers like Liberals make up the majority.
You're kidding me, by your definition I'm center right
Yes, you are, presuming you support Capitalism.
That is not leftism, that is socialism
Don't redefine what leftist is just because you don't consider culturally left to still be leftist
Leftism starts at Socialism.
France is speedrunning this right now. Any time a liberal claims to be antifascist, ask them to explain why they think fascism exists and where it comes from, materially.
To be fair, if liberals were capable of material analysis then they would no longer be liberals.
What does "material analysis" means in this context? What should I search to know more? I searched the term and only came up with chemistry topics.
Simply put, materialism — as opposed to idealism — is the idea that everything we do and experience as a society (our history, culture, politics, etc) is shaped by the material reality around us, rather than ideas.
"Material analysis" in this case therefore means analysing politics and history through this lens. And it's a fundamental component of socialism/marxism.
⠀Simple diagram of how our material reality shapes our society
Yogthos is insulting liberals because liberalism is an idealist ideology that always eventually gives way to fascism when a capitalist state is (inevitably) in decay.
My original comment is meant to refer to the concept of Materialism, which contains the concepts of Marxist Dialectical and Historical Materialism. Materialism is a "reality-focused" branch of philosophy and analysis, contrasted with Idealism, which is idea-focused.
The connection to liberalism and fascism is because Liberalism is Idealist as opposed to Materialist. The Liberal answer to "where does fascism come from?" Would be "demagogues like Trump rising to power, racism, xenophobia, etc," yet when you ask why those ideas are present or not present, the Liberal cannot answer genuinely.
For Marxists, fascism is a consequence of Capitalism's decline, resulting in the Petty Bourgeois elements of society, ie the "Middle Class," sliding into worse conditions and allying with the Bourgeoisie against the Proletariat. In the Weimar Republic, Capitalism was declining and genuine Communism was gaining steam, with the KPD at the forefront and the SPD representing the moderate Socialists, so fascism gained power as a reaction. Communism and Socialism gained appeal among the Lower Classes while fascism gained power among the Liberals, ie the Middle and Upper Classes.
The other works listed by other commenters are great, but my personal favorite work on the subject is Elementary Principles of Philosophy.
You're very good at strawmanning arguments. I think most libs would just say that racism and xenophobia are inherent to tribalism, which is inherent to the human mind as an evolutionary trait. It can and should be overcome, but that doesn't change its innateness in our psyche.
I think most libs would just say that racism and xenophobia are inherent to tribalism, which is inherent to the human mind as an evolutionary trait.
This is still Idealism. The concept of "Human Nature" is nebulous, and changes throughout history. Materialists assert that what is considered "Human Nature" is reinforced and created by Mode of Production, Liberals just claim Capitalism to be natural and the default state of humanity. The difference is that Materialists have historical evidence, whereas Liberalism stands against historical evidence.
You're strawmanning my argument. I never said anything about human nature. I said that tribalism, as a psychological principle, is inherent to humanity.
Here is an article which details some studies supporting this concept from a pop-sci website:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/brain-reboot/202307/the-neuroscience-of-tribalism
Also, for somebody apparently on the side of historical evidence you seem to be ignoring the mountains of genocides and racially-based conflicts throughout our species' history.
I'm not saying racism is good. I'm saying that every time we see fascists come to power they have roughly a third of the population that supports them... is that just a coincidence or could there be a reason that the data is the same every time? I posit the reason that the data is the same every time is due, at least in large part, to human psychology.
Besides that, let's take this outside the concept of liberalism and capitalism, as race-based conflicts and genocides have occurred long before the creation of capitalist or liberal systems, which are truly an advent of the modern era.
You're strawmanning my argument. I never said anything about human nature. I said that tribalism, as a psychological principle, is inherent to humanity.
"I didn't say anything about Human Nature, I spoke about the Nature of Humanity!" What on Earth?
Also, for somebody apparently on the side of historical evidence you seem to be ignoring the mountains of genocides and racially-based conflicts throughout our species' history.
Not in the slightest have I ignored them. What's considered natural changes alongside Mode of Production.
I'm not saying racism is good. I'm saying that every time we see fascists come to power they have roughly a third of the population that supports them... is that just a coincidence or could there be a reason that the data is the same every time? I posit the reason that the data is the same every time is due, at least in large part, to human psychology.
You would be wrong. Fascism is a result of Class Collaborationism between the Petite Bourgeoisie and Bourgeoisie against the decline in Capitalism. Due to their class interests, as the Petite Bourgeoisie is proletarianized, it collaborates against the Proletariat as a response to Socialism. Your position is, again, Idealism.
Besides that, let's take this outside the concept of liberalism and capitalism, as race-based conflicts and genocides have occurred long before the creation of capitalist or liberal systems, which are truly an advent of the modern era.
Yes, again, Human Nature changes alongside Mode of Production.
Please provide some form of example or evidence for any of your points rather than fancy sounding words :)
The Weimar Republic saw small business owners and large corporations collaborating against the rising Communist and Socialist movements. It wasn't random or genetic selection, it was specific classes acting in their class interests.
What do you mean by human nature changing with Mode of Production? We have quantitative psychological data for a reason, and many of the fundamentals haven't changed since long before the industrial revolution, with many people still ascribing to classical Greek and Roman philosophies or philosophies first found in the Vedic Texts or Dead Sea Scrolls. Clearly then, if these philosophies are still so valuable to modern man, man's psyche cannot have changed significantly, even over such a vast amount of time and even vaster amounts of lifestyle change. I understand that when there is less competition for resources that people tend to be more generous, but that is always true regardless of the mode of production. A surplus is a surplus is a surplus, but when a large portion of the population becomes poor/impoverished, regardless of the state of the elite, that is when tribalistic tendencies most arise. I often see ideas that the elite somehow controls the narrative, which may very well be true today, but was much less so true in the early-mid 20th century.
What we had in Germany was a portion of the population that was predispositioned towards hatred/tribalism/xenophobia/whatever. These are the people that supported and voted for Hitler. Without them, Hitler doesn't have any chance of coming to power. By and large, these people were not bourgeois nor petit-bourgeois, but proletariat, often poor and uneducated. This is the most vulnerable psychological state to the type of culture war that Hitler waged, just as Trump does now, or Netanyahu. These ideas aren't simply implanted into people, but come as a result of hardships. When people are doing poorly, they are more likely to form small groups and turn on the whole. That is a constant throughout history, as it is generally more sustainable to be in a small group, even if it forgoes other luxuries.
To be sure there is often class collaborationism, but to say that is always how fascism arises is ridiculous. For example, Toussaint and Dessalines would return the freed slaves to forced plantation labor. Plantations the generals (and later king for Dessalines) now owned as a result of the war. Another example would be Modhi in India, where there's no real threat of class consciousness because of the historical prevalence of racism/casteism. Similarly, there's no communist threat to Netanyahu's government currently genociding Gazan Palestinians.
If we're taking a more historical definition of fascism rather than my more casual usage that's fine, but I'm gonna need to brush up on specific examples bc this is not entirely my area of expertise.
What do you mean by human nature changing with Mode of Production?
Cultural values, ideas, and what's considered Human Nature change alongside Mode of Production. "Humans are naturally greedy" is wrong, Capitalism expresses that trait.
What we had in Germany was a portion of the population that was predispositioned towards hatred/tribalism/xenophobia/whatever. These are the people that supported and voted for Hitler. Without them, Hitler doesn't have any chance of coming to power. By and large, these people were not bourgeois nor petit-bourgeois, but proletariat, often poor and uneducated. This is the most vulnerable psychological state to the type of culture war that Hitler waged, just as Trump does now, or Netanyahu. These ideas aren't simply implanted into people, but come as a result of hardships. When people are doing poorly, they are more likely to form small groups and turn on the whole. That is a constant throughout history, as it is generally more sustainable to be in a small group, even if it forgoes other luxuries.
By and large the Proletariat supported the Communists and Socialists, while the Petite Bourgeoisie and Bourgeoisie supported the Nazis.
To be sure there is often class collaborationism, but to say that is always how fascism arises is ridiculous
Far from ridiculous, it's factual. Fascism isn't genetic, and it isn't just an idea thst randomly pops up. Fascism has been studied thoroughly and we know why it exists and where it comes from.
If we're taking a more historical definition of fascism rather than my more casual usage that's fine, but I'm gonna need to brush up on specific examples bc this is not entirely my area of expertise.
I suggest you do. It's even happening in the US right now, Capitalism is crumbling, and as a result small business owners and corporations are aligning along nationalist lines.