I love these three socialist lemmies. So I’m posting this here. Not sure how well or how mixed a reception this will get here. Not sure if the right place to post it. Plausibly shall step on some toes (with the bottommost instance of “not my left”) a bit. And I imagine there may be some responses nitpicking that 3 of the "not my left"s are more left than “my left” ~ to which I say, misses the point. Anyhoo… enjoy, or don’t. I strive to protect your freedom to receive things however you wish. Love that bitch called interpretation. ;D But I do hope it sparks some interesting thought, discussion, and maybe even is a useful tool. At the very least, it’ll help (a bit) to explain what I mean when I keep saying “not my left”, to those who misrepresent the authoritarian left as “the left”, or even really really misrepresent by calling the nowadays so-called “liberal” (left side of authoritarian right) as “the left”.
I wouldn’t say that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Moreso that I’d prefer to work in coalitions with others I don’t necessarily wholly agree with to achieve a common goal, rather than expend energy sowing division when the threats we face are so large
Taking this back to here, since the other chain of conversation seemed to fail, trying this other angle for consideration:
If defeating fascism’s the goal, then perhaps best stay clear of allying with and supporting authoritarians (especially right wing authoritarians). And so, in that, we should be talking sense to right wing libertarians and ancaps, building bridges there. Instead of hoping the preening nicer side of the purple party will magically save us, contrary to history and the present.
Oh, I just fell asleep lol
I think you’re right, there is an avenue where left libertarians can try to win over people who are nominally anti-state capitalists. I think part of the challenge there is two-fold:
educating them on how capitalism requires a state to maintain the economic structure, and
particularly in the US, the right-wing “libertarian” movement is really just a far-right movement that sees the state as a barrier to their “freedom” to oppress. It is a difficult task to pull people out of that
Well said.
There is a difficult tension between talking sense with them (like explanations how it takes money to make money, money is power, money and power consolidate to oligarchy and monopoly and the worst state abuses and total absence of freedom), and creating peace without aggravating any identification with their groupthinkified political philosophy.
… Gets me again thinking of what’s the 3rd dimension again, where there may be other common ground, and/or other ways around, dispelling that which keeps us locked in divide-and-conquer problem-reaction-solution crap…
and, or even without that, perhaps there’s still some compelling phrasing, that may help at least half of them cease their defacto (witting or probably not witting) allegiance with the corporate state, like offering an invite to how if they prioritise freedom first, rather than certify losing it from not prioritising it, that may have them voluntarily move just enough to the middle as to not slip into the right-wing-first dogmatic propaganda that gets injected in their media circles to prevent the freedomwards revolutionary stuff growing.
And yeah, it’s irksome (and worsening the difficult tension) that in USA, the word “libertarian”'s largely usurped and presented as entirely right wing. Ironic that they also have a lot of “ancap” too. Testament to how extra the orwellianisms are there, especially since the McCarthyianism, conflating (for many people’s conception) all left as solely the most totalitarianised forms of “Communism”, (which many elsewhere characterise as just another form of state capitalism).
^ All stuff why I think, despite its flaws and shortcomings, the political compass is very useful. … And, why many others reject it, not liking the head-pain it causes them, threatening the world view they identify with, not realising that the ignorance that dies is not them.
XD Tell my you’re doing “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” without telling me “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. LOL.
I honestly cant tell if that was an intentional joke, or if you did not realise that you were doing that. And for the very reason at [getting] play[ed].
Any successful movement requires broad coalitions, sometimes including uncomfortable bedfellows, and a diversity of tactics.
How do you propose accomplishing anything through strict ideological purity?
I don’t. I’m not. I wouldn’t. I am not in favour of strict ideological purity. Boggles my mind that this is even being asked (given the context of the original post’s image). Gets me wondering again (as I have for over 20 years) about the optimal third dimension to the political compass, to usefully tease out whatever it is that has people perceive the same point/portion of the political compass so radically differently.
~ Which reminds, earlier I had an epiphany of a sort, that perhaps some are rigidly identifying with their political philosophy, and projecting that same identity-based approach to political philosophy as if the ubiquitous norm (and, like the fish who does not know of water), failing to see the fluidity, hence the contentious replies and conversations following the post.
I’ll be honest, I’m really not sure what your point is. You seemingly criticized me for being open to working with others that don’t share my exact ideology, and then you say you are confused that I ask how we accomplish goals if we refuse to work with others that don’t share our ideologies.
Yeah, sorry, that was unnecessarily confounding of me.
I agree that fascism’s a serious issue needing resolved. I do not see this necessitating working together, nor do I rule that out. A variety of approaches may be more successful. And less prone to succumbing to usurpation [or oposaming our way into becoming fascists or totalitarians ourselves]. Much like resistance cells, but with a variety of approaches. Though this is still not without risk, that another group with an unwelcome philosophy manage to take over once defeating the incumbent fascist order, but it at least does not suffer the high probabilities of becoming them, or making the resistance easy to be defeated by being overly homogenised and consolidated and usurped, or by being fractured by divisions, since is already structured to be functional already diverse and dynamic. I hope that helps clarify, past any risk of over-simplified false dichotomy of work together or fail. Can also work apart. Diversity of approaches that may be irreconcilable and/or may escalate in-fighting, but apart, can still coalesce on the shared goal. Integrity retained, without wasting energy on infighting. Though again, I don’t rule it out either. … Obviously. Or I would not be here, engaging with everybody who responded negatively. Like I say, defy the false dichotomies (as much as defying any dire prognosis). Always a better way. We can still mend this. No (self-defeating self-fulfilling prophecy of the road to hell paved with good intentions from) chagrined lockstep necessary.
And, sorry again to have derailed clarity with that line of whimsical goading about “the enemy of my enemy”. That was just whimsical over-reach, purely for comedic fun.
… I don’t know. Probably didn’t make that any clearer, did I? My higher aptitudes suffer having to be expressed through a over-stretched sub-par verbal aptitude. Really not doing the ideas justice [Edit: and so, earlier, I really thought the image would have helped. Doh. That failed too.].