this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2024
1203 points (98.1% liked)

World News

38836 readers
2135 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

“(With) today’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed. For all practical purposes, there are virtually no limits on what the president can do. It’s a fundamentally new principle and it’s a dangerous precedent because the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law even including the supreme court of the United States.”

Throughout his address, Biden underscored the gravity of the moment, emphasizing that the only barrier to the president’s authority now lies in the personal restraint of the officeholder. He warned vehemently against the prospect of Trump returning to power, painting a stark picture of the dangers such an outcome could pose.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

But is he wrong? From Nixon, to Reagan, to Newt GIngrich, to Mitch McConnell to Trump, the Democrats have been feckless and refused to halt this march to fascism. They are complicit by tacit acceptance. This need to adhere to some vague Status Quo (Capitalist Donor Class) is why we are in this situation. It’s time to wake up and realize the Marxists were right all along. You can’t compromise with Capitalism.

[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yes, he and you are obviously wrong. Even if everything you said was 100 percent true (lol) the people who failed to stop facism are obviously not the same as fascists themselves. Everything thinking person knows this , and Marx would too if he was alive.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

the people who failed to stop facism are obviously not the same as fascists themselves.

Superior Orders, or ignorance of what is happening, does not absolve one of responsibility.

Since the 2020 election cycle began, “fascism” took on a plethora of new meanings, none of which actually accessed the ongoing material conditions surrounding the rise of fascism outside of the Republican Party. In fact, one could easily conclude that “fascists” and “republican” were interchangeable words if they paid close enough attention to the elections. But they are not. The confusion around fascism, weaponized by liberals to drive people to the voting polls, has disallowed any inspection of the primary role the Democratic Party (with its neoliberal, populist, and austerity police state policies) has played by sheltering and coddling this current iteration of fascism. source

[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Again, that is not the claim that was made. You can't even stay on topic. I bet Marx could stay on topic .

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Marx abused alcohol, so not sure. The Republicans are capitalists. The Democrats are capitalists. To Marxists they are the same. Liberalism fails because it cannot address the contradictions inherent to capitalism, inequality and wealth accumulation. Capitalism requires inequality for wealth accumulation.

Social democratic reforms can alleviate the inequality and distribute the wealth more equitably, but, because it does not replace capitalism itself, it always falters.

So, although Democrats and Republicans differ on social policy, they both defer to capitalism. Capitalism rules both parties.

[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The Republicans are capitalists. The Democrats are capitalists. To Marxists they are the same.

Meaningful, important distinctions can exist even when Marxists are unable to recognize them.

Social democratic reforms can alleviate the inequality and distribute the wealth more equitably, but, because it does not replace capitalism itself, it always falters.

Explain? Because systems ultimately fail , it's no good? Longevity and risilience are worthwhile considerations when designing and economic system to govern a civilization, but uktimate fallibility does not invalidate them entirely. More to the point, what evidence is there that Marxists societies do/would last longer?

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Marxists recognize the distinctions. That’s why many, myself included, will vote for Joe Biden, despite him being a capitalist. Others take a more hardline stance and refuse to perpetuate the capitalist system. There are many ways to hinder capitalism.

Social Democracies are better than laissez-fair capitalism. It’s just that capitalism, and capitalists tend to monopolize wealth and squeeze out social programs for more profit. Don’t get me wrong, I would love it if America accepted social democracy. And many would be just fine with that.

Capitalism is a tool to shape society. Marxism is a tool to shape society. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. Capitalism is great at growing an industrial economy and Marxism is better at serving the people. Capitalism has run its course, and we need a better vision for the world and it’s 8 billion people. The instability we see across the world is because capitalism serves profit over people.

There are many examples of Marxists societies flourishing, it depends on how you measure. China uses Marxists doctrine and is doing quite well, as is Vietnam. And though some may see them as capitalist infused, their governments adhere to Marxists principles. The capitalist drive for profit and wealth is pernicious, and it will be interesting to see how it influences the Marxists governments.

Capitalism’s end is inevitable. We cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet. How it ends is up to us. Do we choose degrowth and sustainability, or militaristic fascist decay with war and death.

[–] TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Can't speak for previously, but recently, a good chunk of Democrats' failures have been because of a select few members holding out, no?

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] TheFonz@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Noooo please. Not that imbecile grifter....

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Attack the messenger if you don’t like the message. What did he say that was incorrect?

[–] graphikeye@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

there's always going to be different spoilers within the democratic party because they are created.

This is a straight lie. It's just feelings.

A democrat representative from West Virginia represents a completely different electoral base than a democrat from California. So when the House is a slim d majority there are going to be spoilers. Labor reform (and others) has passed many times when Democrats had opportunities. Hassan has a political science degree and knows this. Unfortunately, he is captured by his audience and has to pander to them so he lives in conspiracy land. It's all feelings and no substance.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Like party whips don’t exist. They’re supposed to offer concessions to get bills passed. Pork Barrels are a thing. Stop defending these people, the planet is burning.

"I've never been a liberal in any way," said Manchin, adding that "all we need to do I guess for them to get theirs... is elect more liberals."

Polling has shown the Build Back Better plan is popular nationwide--and both political commentators and progressive activists have warned that not passing the full package could negatively impact Democrats at the ballot box next year.

When a Majority of Americans support progressive policies such as higher minimum wage, free college, it’s not because of red states, it’s because the donor class doesn’t want those policies to pass.

[–] graphikeye@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'm also glad we can pivot away from what a joke Hassan is.

I think you're reinforcing my original point: with just a slim majority a big party tent won't accomplish much. These are just facts. I'm not defending the democrats -- this is just reality.

On another note: I'm curious about this prevalent binary invocation that happens on this site. You accused me of defending these people. I'm not interested in defending anyone --just discussing the facts. Why is everyone on Lemmy.world so intent on ascribing a team/position to everyone so earnestly? What is being gained with this tactic?

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I'm also glad we can pivot away from the fact that a Majority of Americans support progressive policies such as higher minimum wage, free college, even Republicans, but they can never get passed.

I think you’re reinforcing my original point:

The "party of the people" will pursue policies that may produce some minimal reforms for workers and the oppressed, but only as a by-product of its historic role to save the capitalist system from its own excesses in order to preserve the status quo. source.

On another note : We are discussing the fact that Defending Democracy Through Elections Won’t Be Enough to Stop Fascism.

Why is everyone on Lemmy.world so intent on ascribing a team/position to everyone so earnestly?

Just a guess, but it might have something to do with immanent critique

[–] graphikeye@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Ok, I see what's happening. Listen, I'm glad you discovered Marxist-Leninist theory and you feel the urge to re-contextualize everything through that narrative. It's cool -I'm happy for you. I was there ten years ago. It's good to have multiple perspectives to analyze history. What's not good is to adhere to an exclusive narrative. I'm not here to discuss marxist-leninist theory though, I'm here to discuss the facts of the matter. It's very simple and comfortable to sit here and reduce everything to class warfare. The real work happens in the details.

If we analyze each bill that was blocked we can understand what were the causes. We can also analyze when progressive bills did pass and how that work happened. The real work is in the details. My initial statement stands true: with a slim majority in either house or senate, it's going to take moving mountains to pass very progressive legislation. The reason is not class warfare or capitalists enforcing the status quo etc.

Majority of Americans support progressive policies such as higher minimum wage, free college

This is true. But the voting block that actually shows up to polls is actually venn diagram that overlaps partially. Also, while democrats are busy constantly purity testing each other, Republicans have been able to refine their messaging and impose their draconian policies with impunity. I'm tired of hearing about this both sidesing and upholding the status quo constantly when none of you have any clue about the work or process involved in changing policy. Go participate in local politics and become involved so you can get first-hand knowledge and become more effective. Or sit here and keep telling me about the capitalist class. Maybe that's easier --dunno.

immanent critique

Nah. Immanent critique has nothing to do with why people on Lemmy are so eager to ascribe labels to others. I think it has to do more with the fact that many users on this site are probably younger and can't handle nuance. If they are confronted with an internal critique, then their first reaction is to categorize interlocutors as diametrically opposite. If you point out a flaw in Hamas's warfare you are automatically a Zionist. If you bring up critiques of Marxist-Leninist theory, you are automatically upholding the status quo of capitalism. It's a way to have chilling effect on discourse so as not to be confronted with an internal critique because when you are young, and your entire worldview depends on one exclusive framework you can't risk shattering it. My desire for you as you grow is to learn to accept internal critiques (of whatever world framework you choose to adhere to) without resorting to otherising and also not be afraid to look at the facts of the matter. History is both in the micro and the macro. Don't stick to just the macro.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)