I used to be an enlightened ‘the truth is in the middle’ centrist until I realized that the real world requires having actual ideals
Eventually you’ll reach the point I did which is that ideals are great but are rarely ever realized, thus, compromise is essential.
Or you’ll reach a point at which you develop real principles, such as “don’t compromise with fascists like the KKK”
Principled failure means dogshit. If half the country don’t even know their side supports the KKK, having a fucking conversation is a lot more valuable than preaching to your base. A reminder Trump fucking won on racism and your principles meant nothing to the people who voted for him. The “No compromise, no discussion.” left on Lemmy is fucking wild. You’re barely a step removed from Anarchy and Civil War and it’s a telling how fucking sheltered you all are for even suggesting it.
too many conversations, not enough action
Nobody gets from capitalism to socialism overnight without a lot of people dying.
More people die from starvation, homelessness, and avoidable diseases. These problems could be treated in an instant with a socialist system. The benefits outweigh any cost.
Uncritical support to comrade Cyber Ghost, for making posts that draw out the liberals so we can ban them.
Make sure to Photoshop enemies out of pictures as well, Stalin.
I don’t think you properly arranged your sentence, because it doesn’t make sense. I can get where you’re aiming for, but that was from inference and knowledge of the material, not the sentence itself. At least be able to have your insults make sense, liberal.
Being a centrist doesn’t mean that you have to compromise on everything or you are a conservative in disguise. In fact, I consider myself a centrist and I have very strong lines I won’t cross.
In my case it means that you are not torn into extremes, and that you prefer a way that respects most people rights without sacrificing basic rights or certain ethic values.
And the image there is quite low effort. It’s trying to convey a message that either you are pro civil rights, or you want to kill black people. I don’t think there’s even a middle ground there, or a fair comparison.
There isn’t a middle ground in a lot of discussions. It’s just that the correct and just course of action is intentionally hidden behind fear and prejudice. Have you ever wondered why nobody ever talks about policies as class interests (discuss who would benefit and why these policies are pushed) in mainstream media, as if it’s taboo?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=H4D1wI6wGjU
So if you call yourself a centralist, then sorry to say, but you are either intentionally or unintentionally ignorant.
So I’ll add the video to my list of TODOs. But I must admit that this discussion seems to be very USA centric. Here in Spain at least, lots of politicians and media do talk about which classes are affected by each policy and why. The same used to happen when I lived in Argentina.
Of course there are a lot of places where there is no middle ground. But there are a lot of places where there is. Do we abolish private property? I don’t think there’s a middle ground there. Do we privatize the education system completely? Lots of middle ground.
It’s as naive (and dangerous I might add) to think that there is no middle ground anywhere as to think there is a middle ground everywhere. Because again, both postures are extremes, and extremes are never good nor right.
Because again, both postures are extremes, and extremes are never good nor right.
That’s an extreme position in itself.
Hey, this video converted me from a “centrist” to a leftist.
aight love that you aint a centrist but
⛏
what does the pickaxe thing mean
Ice pick, the murder weapon used to kill trotsky (stupid ultra he deserved it lmao)
oh, ok. why did he deserve it, am i missing something? super new to leftism so forgive me if i am but I thought Trotsky was instrumental in defeating the white army?
It’s ok, we all gotta start somewhere!
Basically he was being a jackass and wanted to instantly achieve full communism even though the USSR had like no industry at the time. He escaped to Mexico later and was assassinated. Also iirc he didn’t have that big of a role in the revolution, but I could be wrong.
He had quite a large role in the revolution
As long as Lenin had him on the arm reach. Trotsky was pretty capable so he was one of the several guys being send to put out the crisises through the country, but despite usually doing good work he often screwed something and thus there are moments in the Lenin works and correspondence from that time, when he is like “Trotsky did WHAT” after reading reports.
ok, yeah that’s a little short sighted of him. he was a general during the russian civil war and his use of an armored train during said war led to some decisive victories over the whites. but i kinda get why he is seen negatively, i dont think he deserved to be killed over that though.
Even Marxist Leninists (who side on the stalin side of the stalin-trotsky controversy) praise the actions of trotsky during the civil war.
Otherwise he wasn’t all that. His politics were very suspect, especially his hatred and dismissal of the peasant class (that is my most major disagreement with him).
His critique of “socialism in one country” also becomes nonsense when you take into context the state of the USSR at the time. It was in no shape or form ready for a war with any nearby power (shown in the massive losses in the polish soviet war and the winter war, and those were mostly due to disorganization and unstable doctrines), its industry was in a shameful state, its population mostly illiterate, mostly cut off from the rest of the world, and there were saboteurs breaking everything left and right. Permanent revolution was not truly possible in any way. Socialism in one country also wasn’t a dismissal of internationalism like trotsky makes it seem. The Stalin era USSR took massive efforts to aid the spanish civil war and fund anti fascist resistance all over europe. Any further action would weaken the USSR to a point where it likely could not have fought off the Nazi invasion.
There is also the fact that Nazis peddled Trotsky’s ideology for the purpose of destablization during the Great Patriotic War. Of course that is not attributing trotskyism to any kind of fascism, that would be petty, but pointing out that it was mostly harmful to the Soviet Union.
Trotsky was also previously an anti-boleshevik from the menshevik camp, and, if I remember correctly, never changed the majority of his opinions from that time.
He was also no “inheritor of the soviet union”, to think that one such as Lenin would try to divinely bestow leaders upon the socialist democracy he created is against his every ideal. That and the legitimacy of “Lenin’s will” is called into great question, due to the suspicious circumstances from which it arose.
These are a few critiques off the top of my head, I need to read further on the subject to say anything else.
