ReadFanon
- 4 Posts
- 24 Comments
It helps because it signals to the DNC that they will not simply automatically win by default with their shittiest, most rightwing nominees because the other option is slightly worse on a couple of fronts.
It shows that people do not see them as a viable alternative to the GOP unless they actually become an alternative to the GOP.
There’s a reason why Trump won last time and it’s this attitude of entitlement that you’ve embodied which is at the core of this.
If you’re so set upon preventing another Trump presidency then recent history is a lesson for you, or at least it should have been, and attempting to browbeat people into voting for detestable DNC nominees is a failed strategy when you should be pushing the DNC for compromise with people further to the left of you rather than demanding that people further to the left of you capitulate simply because you feel that they ought to because you have a false sense of moral righteousness.
You want my vote for the democratic nominee? Then uphold the values of bourgeois electoralism and earn it.
Not voting for Biden means that Biden is one vote further away from being president.
Now it’s your turn.
Not voting for the furthest right party is the same thing as voting for the furthest right party 🤓🤓
From a pragmatic point, what good does voting for Biden do?
Does ranked voting in other countries undermine their two-party system though?
I’m sorry but the math on this doesn’t check out.
You’re saying that we must join coalitions whose intent is to change the system or we must vote for the Democratic nominee, otherwise we are supporting the GOP?
If not voting for the Democratic nominee is support for the GOP then how isn’t joining a coalition to undermine DNC power support for the GOP?
I don’t understand this logic.
11·3 years agoYep. Chuev conducted a series of lengthy interviews with Molotov over the period of 1969 - 1986 and he kept extensive notes about what Molotov attested to.
While I can’t seem to find an English language translation of 140 Conversations with Molotov, his other work, Molotov Remembers, is frequently cited as a primary source by historians.
Given that it’s testimony from something which was said many years prior to the interview I’d hazard a guess that Molotov was paraphrasing because the chances of it being an exact quote are vanishingly slim but such is the nature of historical work; often the eyewitness testimony is going to be somewhat hazy, especially long after the fact.
I personally would feel comfortable in saying that Stalin had actually said something to this effect, if not exactly word for word, to Molotov.
It’s according to Molotov’s recollection. From Сто сорок бесед с Молотовым by Felix Chuev:
Stalin himself, I remember, said during the war: “I know that after my death, my grave will be piled with rubbish. But the winds of history will ruthlessly dispel it!
Huh… that’s odd. This is the exact same names and order as a list which I’ve got.
5·3 years agoReddit has been banning accounts who are using the API exploit, just fyi
“Honestly, my stance on this isn’t gonna change. If people felt like we weren’t taking care of them, yeah, I would feel like we failed. If you wanna interpret that as a bad thing, you can, but you’re reaching pretty hard.”
Yeah, I’d say it’s about time for LTT staff to unionise.
I think that “taking care of people” smacks of the same rhetoric as “we’re like a family” and “I like to think that all staff are considered equals here” and just about any other lie I’ve heard from exploitative upper management types.
Honestly, I think that Orwell’s quote about Hitler is even worse when you expand it to encompass more of the context:
I should like to put it on record that I have never been able to dislike Hitler. Ever since he came to power – till then, like nearly everyone, I had been deceived into thinking that he did not matter – I have reflected that I would certainly kill him if I could get within reach of him, but that I could feel no personal animosity. The fact is that there is something deeply appealing about him. One feels it again when one sees his photographs – and I recommend especially the photograph at the beginning of Hurst and Blackett’s edition, which shows Hitler in his early Brownshirt days. It is a pathetic, dog-like face, the face of a man suffering under intolerable wrongs. In a rather more manly way it reproduces the expression of innumerable pictures of Christ crucified, and there is little doubt that that is how Hitler sees himself. The initial personal cause of his grievance against the universe can only be guessed at; but at any rate the grievance is there. He is the martyr, the victim. Prometheus chained to the rock, the self-sacrificing hero who fights single-handed against impossible odds. If he were killing a mouse he would know how to make it seem like a dragon. One feels, as with Napoleon, that he is fighting against destiny, that he can’t win, and yet that he somehow deserves to.
103·3 years agoJust move to a different instance which isn’t so banhappy. There’s plenty of instances which aren’t so heavy-handed with what they ban.
This is even funnier if you assume that those messages were sent at 3am
The worker’s councils were recreating the basis of capitalism and interfering with regional and national interests in favour of their own petit-bourgeois aspirations. They wanted to become a labour aristocracy and they threatened the economic foundations of proletarian democracy with their narrow, self-interested trade union consciousness. Yugoslavia’s model is a perfect example of what would have happened if this was allowed to proliferate and to threaten the revolution.
If the Mensheviks didn’t want to get outlawed then maybe they shouldn’t have aligned themselves with the interests of the aristocracy and the Kadets over the proletariat 🤷♂️
Imagine being salty that the October Revolution overthrew the bourgeois Provisional Government. The soviets had established themselves as the legitimate organ of proletarian power and they seized political power because the Mensheviks and the Constitutional Democrats did not represent them.
Lol, I’ll bite. How do you think that Lenin strangled the revolution in the cradle?
Do you mean libertarians, or “libertarians” as per Murray Rothbard’s quote:
“One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . ‘Libertarians’ . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over…”
Nah, I didn’t do that. I just pointed out that they are either a supporter of capitalism (or reactionary politics) or they support revolutionary/evolutionary socialism, all of which are inherently authoritarian in their own ways.
The material conditions that give rise to authoritarianism is a different question altogether. I was specific in my choice of words for a reason.
The past tense is in reference to the historical event, it doesn’t refer to the present state of Finland’s economy.
If someone had a post titled: “How Trump caused a rift within liberalism in the US” the past tense would not imply that Trump no longer exists or that he is no longer a politician, it would simply be referring to the political rift as a historical event.