From a distance he looks like Keir Starmer with dyed hair.
I trust my heart into Jeremy Corbyn, Your Party, and the Greens
A limey told me that Corbyn’s party is a shit show, there are two factions and they are at each other’s throats, Corbyn being the more economic populist while this other lady like social justice warrior. The curse of the left, infighting, exacerbated by the oligarchy and their tools helping to play us off of each other surreptitiously.
Corbyn is great, but he doesn’t have the killer instinct. We need someone that can build and run a political machine. The greens are milquetoast, we need a true populist.
The way I view it, both factions should complement each other; it isn’t merely social or economic justice that improves our wellbeing, but both. And that is where I think the focus of all must lie: to spread among those that incline towards fascism, that their enemy is the capitalist; to spread among those that incline towards neoliberalism, that their enemy is unfair and authoritarian government.
Let us not view good as the enemy of perfection, yet build on the good to advance it further on perfection. Let us set aside the wrong sources and read and spread from proletarian media, that being Jacobin, die Tageszeitung, Freedom, and so on. Let us band together in trade unions and parties, in mutual aid, in trained arms, that we protect one another. I think it’s crucial that we learn from the lessons of Mamdani and Mette.
For the left to gain votes, we must have a group that has an anti-immigration stance, a socially more conservative one; that way, they can snoop away votes from fascists; and a group that is socially more progressive.
My perspective is that without queer’s and worker’s liberation, there is neither liberty nor safety in the world.
Sure, all of that. But we can’t win with just that. We need true populism, don’t let the fake populism of the right discourage you from the term, we elect leaders by popular acclaim, to reject populism is just dumb as shit but that is where the left is.
Immigrants are fake popular, they aren’t the cause of the problems. The oligarchy is. We know it, most voters do not. We need a strong leader to promise to set things right to voters. It’s not complicated, without seizing control of a major party or launching a populist campaign, an aggressive one, with organization to protect us from dirty tricks and the establishment, we will lose.
Under the current dynamics, we lose. We being freedom and prosperity.
The oligarchy is indeed the source of problems. But a thing I recognise with a lot of those who vote for fascist parties, is that they misalign the “elite” on which they blame things, with immigrants and queer people. So we have to make use of that frame of an elite, to turn it toward that of the oligarchs.
And another issue, is the media control. A lot of people unknowingly are influenced by algorithms from tech billionnaires - and those are directed towards ever furthering extreme views, because that gives clicks. So we as a collective have to stop clicking on anything that fuels those polarising views. Those with radicalised parents could try - if they can keep themselves safe that is - to use DNS blocking of fascist and oligarch-owned content and search engines. It’s all about what they get exposed to. At the same time, we must spread the left message, share it, and give absolutely no platform to fascist views. Kick 'em out.
I disagree with needing a strong leader. We can have an elected, directoy recallable face for the press and media, but as Occupy Wall Street managed to seize the streets for a while, just as the Rojava and Zapatistas managed to liberate themselves, just as can we liberate ourselves. We do however, need to be armed and trained (while at the same time, be civil in public), because otherwise the fascists will kill us. Speak softly and carry a big stick.
Either we give the people a strong leader, or the right does.
How do you not see that?
As if we don’t need a strong leader, things are shit, and nothing but a strong leader could change it.
Multiple approaches exist, but I have no faith in centralisation of power. That only enables further authoritarianism. Just look at Bush and his deep-state-behaviouristic “PATRIOT” surveillance Act. At the time, there was widespread criticism, but also a feeling of “if it protects democracy”. It however, undermined democracy.
Another example is Reagan, the proto-oligarch, who had employed “COINTELPRO”, a program to sow terror, to repress left-wing activists, trade unions, labourers, the free and anti-oligarch press, and so on.
Or for another parallel, look at the Bolsheviks and their suppression of the free soviets (worker’s councils) during the Kronstadt insurrection. They refused to include socialists and anarchists within councils.
The Ukrainian anarchist Makhnovishna managed to capture large territories, and so did the Rojava. The Rojava do have a “police/military” (Asayish), but those who serve must be approved by the people’s councils and are overseen by them. All citizens are trained for security, so that eventually the Asayish can be disbanded. That is very different from police/militaries in most states, where they are not only unelected (being appointed by lawmakers instead, who are not even directly recallable), but also have more power than others due to being more heavily armed, well-prepared, and so on. They are rife for abuse.
I prefer to say: let us take the guerilla warfare lessons from the Zapatistas and the Vietnamese: being able to withstand imperialist powers such as the French, American, and Chinese.
So, no, l believe rather that all who wish for a classless, moneyless, and stateless society, should create it without the foundations for autocracy. I do not believe in a state to disband a state. If we must use strength, then must this strength not be available to all?
Sheep please. Gtfo. Seriosuly, get the fuck out.
this other lady like social justice warrior
Are we again going to enter a period of rapidly changing prime ministers?
The 1760s were coming back.
