111
Why do they say "there's no true Left in the US"?
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2024
111 points (84.0% liked)
Ask Lemmy
26672 readers
1786 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics.
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
To an extent. They might artificially thrust some people into the game, and the system is clunky, but as far as votes go when votes are offered, they are listened to. If the person in charge was a cheat, it would technically prove my point even more, because it would imply it's not a true game of representation and that those of us who may be considered adherents to "left" streams of thought are on more street corners than the "they're a demographic minority" view might suggest.
The only options people have to vote on are what are offered to them. The problem is, that in the US, you need money to become an option. That money comes mainly from corporations. Corporations won't back a left wing party or politician.
I can name several examples to the contrary. Google is the most successful business in the entire nation, and they've been 100% consecutively in favor of "left" choices, often even promoting logo imagery of people whom a decade ago would be considered radicals. Don't forget corporations in the modern era have sacrificed face to make completely meaningless changes to their marketing that they knew would put them in the path of the opposition to cancel culture (Aunt Jemima, Budweiser, etc.). The idea that corporations don't have at least a little sense of "left" is false.
Nothing Google does or supports is actually a leftist anything. You're making the same mistake all Americans make - buying into the propaganda that left/right is about social permissiveness. It's actually an economic spectrum, and every meaningful company or organization is either far right, or extreme right.
So Marxism isn't left? Alrighty then.
You think Google doodles are advocacy? Yeesh.
Doodles from a very long time ago too lol
Where would you draw the line between a gesture that implies advocacy and a gesture that doesn't?
A gesture is meaningless. Advocacy is action and is intended to generate meaningful change. A corporation does everything for money. The only actual advocacy a corporation like Google is doing is to benefit its bottom line. Y'all look at giant corporate entities who provide some meaningless lip service to a marginalized community and think that means they are on the side of the left? That's some truly delusional pea-brained shit right there. If you'd quit getting your panties in a wad about this dumb-ass culture war crap, you'd realize that class solidarity is the only meaningful way any of us can actually change society for the better, but all the right wing chucklefucks are too busy trying to punish some group or another for some trumped up crusade created by rich dudes to keep y'all busy. Pea-brained shit.
So literally attempting to flip voter turnout... is meaningless? Why do you think I asked where a line was? It's not some deflection.
First off, Democrats are not leftists - this is literally capitalism in action, and supporting a moderate right wing party over an extremist right wing party makes sense for many businesses. Second, those claims all come from an entirely biased source - the Media Research Center is a partisan organization with an axe to grind. Actual studies by researchers don't show the same bias.
All you're doing here is exposing how propagandized you are.
Also, if Democrats were anywhere remotely close to being marxists, I would actually support them. Anyone claiming that Democrats are leftist marxists doesn't legitimately understand any of the words they are using.
Marxists =/= ideological Democrats =/= People in the Democrat party =/= Right wing =/= Objectively defined =/= Capitalism
There were a number of sources there. I wasn't saying Democrats are Marxists (all the things listed above are unlike each other), we were talking about Google's inner mechanisms. For the same reason though, none of the entities mentioned are right wing. The influential ones are arguably more left than Humanists (who aren't associated with America), and you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone well-studied who sees Humanists as right-wing even despite their own monetary connections. But anyone who speaks in wings thinks in a more linear way anyways, especially when they draw the line where capitalism starts/stops supposedly being capitalism, which ignores the three-dimensional range of ways capitalism can befall a political entity.