You're viewing part of a thread.
I agree that neither party is preferable in the sense that the democrats should be praised or idealised and i definitely agree that the democrats and in my opinion "modern progressives" have no ability to combat facism. As they are both the product of eating with a silver spoon for too long and both dont want to change the system of power, they just want to seize control of it and weild for themselves.
The left today is just too scattered to compete with facism. Either you're a social authoritarain who seeks power but cannot take any tangile steps like facism or you are leftist like many people on this plastform and get stuck in semanticallyu intel;ectualising bygon theories and hyper spefici idealogical labels
I am focused on solutions, not ideology. I do my best to not flaunt the label that most accurately aligns with my ideals (unless relevant) and my ideas generally resonate with Democrats and even some Republicans. People want change and people want progress, no matter where you fall on the political spectrum.
Everybody, regardless of ideology, should be able to focus on solutions and the change we'd like to see — on what kind of world we want to live in. I want to live in a free and kind world, preferably without slavery. The vast majority of people likely feel similarly.
Even authoritarian socialists tend to resonate with that. They want to forcefully centralize power, resources, and control so eventually a more gentle world is born and the state is shed. They think force is necessary, I'm confident we can convince them otherwise.
Maybe it's naive, but I can see a world that unifies under the banner of change and common sense solutions — a world that is able to cut past the propaganda and polarization and moves forward.
Yeah sorry i didnt intent for any of that to come accross like it was targetted at you.
To clarify i dont mean authoritarian socialists - i mean modern progressives who focus on social issues (not socialism) being overtly authoritarian within the realm of social dynamics in society.
I do think you are naive, but i think its a comendable mindset and just because i think you are naive does not mean anything other than that i dont share the same faith in people as you do. Maybe im too nihilitistic.
No, you're perfectly fine, even if it were targeted at me I wouldn't take it personally. I'm attempting to respond to you and also represent my own viewpoints for the thread — and I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
I just think that without non-polarizing idealism and unity, the alternative is modern horror, a revival of barbarism, and destruction on a scale that the world has never seen before.
I don't want to believe that will be the outcome, though. But it still won't stop me from doing everything in my power to open and soften hearts so such a reality never comes to pass. I don't think anybody really wants a world of renewed violence and suffering, when there already is so much suffering and violence.
I'm well aware of the realities of this world. Too aware, I'd say. Most people escape and distract themselves — or they are simply uninformed. I'd rather be the person who knows and still chooses to be perceivably naive, seeing the best in others — even if it's not obvious or readily apparent on the surface.
In my opinion and view of it all is that of violence being intrinsic to human nature. I mean we come into this world through pain and blood. Nature itself is violent, a rule of biological life is that it must consume other life to sustain its own, we may be intelligent but we are still products of nuture and also its subjects. We exist wihthin a universe where violence and life are directly linked.
I dont think that means you shouldnt strive for what you are striving for, but its also about probable change as much as its about possible change and in my view all change requires a degree of violence.
I disagree with your assertions that humans are intrinsically violent and that all change requires violence. Your perspectives are valid though, thanks for responding.