I'll go first. I had a take that if you see a bunch of advertisements saying to vote no on prop x, and nearly none saying yes on prop x, you should probably vote yes. Because if big money is behind an effort to sway towards no, there's probably corruption in the ranks.
At the time, much of the disdain for Obama was because he was black. There's an effort now to make it sound like it was solely based on his inability to make conditions materially better - and yes, that was part of it. But a lot of it was because he's black.
sexism with clinton too. she was a fucking awful candidate and human being, but let's not pretend that some people didn't hate her just because of that
A large majority of the mainstream right-wing either tolerate or outright support fascism.
I'll go one further
If backed into a corner liberals will tolerate or outright support fascism
How can they say communism was an economic failure while citing “economic growth” for Pinochet and Franco. I’m positive the USSR had way more growth, like an unprecedented level Of growth historically.
Chile didn't even have decent growth until after Pinochet left
Soviet Union was an economic miracle and it's something even the bourgeois at the time acknowledged
With the distance of time it's now important for the bourgeois to place in everyones minds the food queues, food shortages and prostitution of Russia during capitalist restoration and place this blame at the foot of the communists
Listen to the great newspapers. They have a bitter pill to swallow.
Le Temps in its number of January 27th, 1932, says: “The Soviet Union has won the first round by industrializing itself without the aid of foreign capital.” The same paper, some months later, in April, observes: “Communism seems to have leaped in one bound over the constructive stage which in a capitalist regime has to be crossed very slowly. To all intents and purposes, the Bolsheviks have beaten us in this respect.”
The Round Table: “The achievements of the Five-Year Plan constitute a surprising phenomenon.”
The Financial Times: “There can be no doubt about their success. The Communists’ exultation in the Press and in their speeches is by no means without foundation.”
The Neue Freie Presse ( Austria): “The Five-Year Plan is a modern giant.”
The Nation ( United States): “The four years of the Five-Year Plan show a really remarkable series of achievements. The Soviet Union has devoted itself with an intense activity, more appropriate to war-time, to the construction of the foundations of a new life.”
Forward ( Scotland): “What England did during the war was a mere bagatelle beside it. The Americans recognize that even the feverish period of the most intense construction in the Western states could offer nothing comparable to it…a degree of energy unprecedented in the history of the world. A brilliant challenge to a hostile capitalist world.”
Barbusse, Henri. Stalin. New York: The Macmillan company, 1935, p. 215-216
Communism bad because it helps the poorest. Fascism good because it enriches the already rich.
I think it depends on what the fascism is against.
Communism? Yes, they would.
Socialism? I don't think so, but I could be wrong.
Social democracy? I think they would just bite the proverbial bullet and support this.
Socialism? I don’t think so, but I could be wrong.
When Allende came to power in Chile he came to power as a democrat first and foremost. He was a Marxist but he emphasised again and again he held democracy high and that he was merely representing the factions of the left which had united
When Castro told Allende (referring to the counter-revolutionary feeling developing amongst the right/the military and traditionalists) to "get these people under control" Allende instead insisted he had found a 3rd way between the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and capitalism
Allende claims that this is Chile's historic oppor tunity to open a “second way” to socialism without the human costs of revolutionary violence.
https://www.nytimes.com/1972/12/17/archives/the-opposition-in-chile-said-castro-to-allende-if-you-dont-get.html
Marx and Engels developed the theory of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and why Marx famously remarked they'll be "no apology for the terror". Because if you walk up to the bourgeois meekly bowing your head and asking politely for reforms they'll do what they did in Chile - run a ruthless dictatorship of the bourgeois in which people are disappeared, executed and incarcerated for having ever walked on the same side of the street as a communist/socialist or trade unionist
Perhaps I should have clarified, I was more talking about rank and file type voters who would consider themselves more "liberal" than "conservative", not liberals who are wealthy and/or powerful.
Liberals dislike fascists because fascists are dirty, thuggish boors who make loud noises.
Liberals HATES communists because communists wants to take away their tootbrush.
That there is no contradiction between free speech and punishing racist propagandists. Even by liberal debate nerd standards racism, which threatens minorities with death and violence, has no place in public discourse.
The west should leave Africa and it's 54 countries and 4 dependencies the fuck alone. I've added "and they should pay out of their ass to their former colonies for all the shit they did." but otherwise it's remained unchanged.
I'm sure they would manage just fine without IMF loans and other western debt traps.
Lesser-evilism is a valid voting strategy. What has changed is that I no longer believe you can just vote for change. It has to be fought for.
This is my big one, but I still believe that "vote for the one who is least bad" is something still worth doing.
No, it isn't going to change anything significant, but also it takes like half an hour of your time and it can prevent genuine fascists from getting power.
Lefty protest movements should be better organized and optics matter.
That if some eggs dont get cracked, this omelette’s never going to be made.
And some are way oveedue.
left then, left now: i couldn't care less about free speech, talk shit get hit
lib then, lib now: "checks and balances" stuff are good and no matter which kind of philosophy of governance you choose(socialist, liberal etc.) they assure that one man or a small group of people can't derail the system
Honestly most of what I believe hasn’t changed. I’m just no longer naive and think the blue team is going to accomplish any of the same goals I have in a society and I’m aware how they are actively working to protect imperialism and fascism.
All anglo people should shut up about other former empires, with the exception of Belgium, i guess. (Unless they are a historian).
Nah all empires should be talked about and slandered from everyone.
No countries should be getting off for what they've done.
As a German, i absolutely do not want Anglos to shut up about what my ancestors did to the Herero and Nama in Namibia, or how they brutally crushed the Maji Maji uprising, or how von Lettow-Vorbeck used indigenous forced conscripts to fight the Brits in WW1, or how Germany participated in the colonial subjugation of China. I also do not think anybody should shut up about the colonies of the Dutch, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Italians, or France, or the Austro-Hungarian empire, and would not let anyone off the hook who is trying to excuse these. Yes, the British empire was, all in all, the worst due to sheer scope. That doesn't excuse anybody else, though.
What is the difference between Belgium and other imperial countries (apart from the extra-gruesome shit)?
That what Leopold did in the Congo (or the native genocide by the brits/americans) was horrific even by other imperial standards (in my opinion).
So why shouldn't Anglos also talk about genocides committed by their people?
Found the person who accidentally voted "yes" on legalizing baby seal clubbing or whatever.
I always instinctively knew at some level that corporations were the bad guys. Too many 90s kids movies where a CEO would have to be stopped from his nefarious scheme by a talking dog, I think.
