You're viewing a single thread.
The harsh reality is that leftists, in their outrage over Gaza, are being manipulated to serve the very forces they claim to oppose. Netanyahu, with the same calculated cynicism as Putin, is using this moment of crisis to bolster his own political survival by helping Trump’s re-election bid. AIPAC, already firmly in the Republican camp, is actively working to secure Trump’s victory, just like the leftists—though they may wear different masks. At the core, both groups are contributing to the same outcome: Trump back in power, where Netanyahu and his far-right allies can continue their genocidal wars unchecked.
Leftists may express moral indignation and feel superior in their righteous anger, but at the end of the day, they are playing right into the hands of Netanyahu, Trump, and Putin. They are weakening Kamala Harris, who has a precarious balancing act between Jewish and Arab-American voters, and ensuring that Trump and his cronies can capitalize on this division. Despite their different emotional reactions along the way, both AIPAC and the leftist protesters are on the same side when it comes to the pragmatic analysis: they’re both paving the way for Trump’s return to power. And that’s all the Republicans, Netanyahu, and Putin truly care about—using anyone, even their critics, to achieve their goals.
It’s deeply ironic that a group that prides itself on its materialist analysis can’t seem to distinguish between what they think they’re fighting for and what they’re actually enabling. They claim to oppose imperialism and oppression, yet their actions are directly aligning with the interests of Netanyahu, Trump, and their right-wing allies. For all their talk of understanding power dynamics, they’re blind to the fact that they’re advancing the very agenda they claim to detest.
Or, you know, Kamala could just come out and denounce the Israeli Genocide.
This oft repeated spin straight out of the Political Propaganda 101 book that it's all the lefties' fault for not supporting the Democrat Party whilst their leaders unwaveringly support what is well on its way to become the 21st Century Holocaust rather than it being the fault of the Democrat Party leaders for unwaveringly support what is well on its way to become the 21st Century Holocaust hence they risk losing leftie votes, would be hilarious if it wasn't such an obvious insult to the intelligence of most people.
That the argument always boils down to "these very important people can do whatever the fuck they want no matter how evil and any consequences of that will be the plebes' fault since should have supporting them" (the kind of "logic" an abuser uses) betrays the tribalism hypocrisy that it really is (hence its obvious subservient mindset) rather than the well intentioned advice it tries to pass itself as.
If the objective was truly and only to Stop Trump, the everybody would be equally pushing for it, but apparently it's not as the Democrat Party leadership refuses to stop supporting what's the biggest evil in this century (so far) and instead send their minions around to parrot the abuser's Book Of It's Your Fault You Made Me Do It claiming that the fault for the consequences of the choices the Democrat Party leaders is really of everybody else but them.
This response reeks of naive idealism wrapped in self-righteous moralizing. It’s easy to demand that Kamala Harris "denounce genocide" as though it’s a magic wand that will instantly change the geopolitical landscape, let alone the electoral map. To put it bluntly, if she does that, she will almost certainly lose the election. Would that it weren't the case, but the world (and the United States) doesn’t work that way, and acting like it does betrays a complete lack of understanding of realpolitik. The Democrats are navigating a complex minefield of domestic and international pressures, and while you sit on the sidelines demanding moral purity, your actions are doing nothing but helping the very forces—Trump, Netanyahu, and the far-right—that thrive on division.
Claiming that it's somehow more virtuous to tear down Harris for not meeting your purity test while ignoring the consequences of a Trump re-election is either willfully ignorant or disturbingly reckless. You cast aside the actual stakes—continued authoritarianism, eroded democratic institutions, and worsening conflict—because you're too blinded by your own self-congratulatory sense of moral superiority. If the goal really is to stop genocide and halt far-right imperialism, then, no matter how you cut it, your tactical ignorance is making you an unwitting ally to the very people perpetuating it.
This response reeks of naive idealism wrapped in self-righteous moralizing. It’s easy to demand that Kamala Harris “denounce genocide” as though it’s a magic wand that will instantly change the geopolitical landscape, let alone the electoral map. To put it bluntly, if she does that, she will almost certainly lose the election.
That utter nonsense. If she stops the shipments she gets progressive votes. And she wont get nearly from the "center" gun nuts and frackers. The only options she has are to wait and see if she magically gets the numbers somehow, or flip halfway on the genocide issue and stop the shipments. She doesnt even need to go to the palestinian side, she just needs to stop the shipments and the outrage on the AIPAC side will make it look like she made some firm stand. She just needs to give a tiny smidgeon. Or she loses.
And to follow up, let’s cut through the noise: the actual revolutionaries are not on the left anymore—they’re on the right. While leftists sit in their echo chambers, recycling the same tired rhetoric about the "deep state," "holocaust," "seizing the means of production," or the "oppressive system," the right is using that very system to achieve real, tangible victories. You know, that whole "praxis" thing you've only ever read about. You call out the "deep state" in theory, but the right is actively bending it to their will, infiltrating and reshaping institutions while you’re busy hashtagging your outrage. You talk about class struggle, but the right is recruiting the working class and mobilizing them into a political force while you alienate them with performative virtue-signaling and elitist condescension.
Decentralized organizing? The right has mastered it. You talk about decentralized resistance, but they’re doing it with militias, grassroots movements, and local networks that bypass traditional power structures. You fantasize about armed resistance, but they’re the ones arming up and preparing for real-world conflict while you rage from behind your keyboard. They’ve taken leftist tactics and have weaponized them effectively—moving the political discourse to their advantage, recruiting new members, and pushing their radical politicians into the mainstream. Trump? SCOTUS? They didn’t come out of nowhere—they're the result of decades of long-term grassroots organizing by the right that you probably mocked, dismissed, or ignored. Now they're reshaping the entire political landscape, and you’re too busy whining on social media to see it and too busy applying purity tests to everyone and everything to stop it.
The so-called revolutionaries on the left, with their gaming-chair activism and social media campaigns, think they’re going to change the world with retweets, downvotes, and think pieces. Meanwhile, the right is out there in the real world, moving mountains while you move Lemmy posts. The so-called left is getting beat—badly. And the worst part? You don’t even seem to notice. It's both incredibly sad and very frustrating. There’s a real revolution happening, but it’s not yours. The left are not the ones changing the world—they're the ones losing it. And anyone trying to find ways to blunt the tips or create a tactical opening you dismiss from your self-constructed throne of high-morality. How's the weather up there on your high horse anyway?
When the left tries to organize to effect change:
Chalking Bans and ID Checks at Protests Repress Palestine Solidarity on Campus
There’s a reason the right has no problem organizing. It is tolerated, and condoned. Why?