dil [he/him, comrade/them]

I don’t think Trump gets elected if the white dipshits are content with their material conditions, though?

I think there’s real discontent in America in 2025, even with how privileged Americans are globally. I think that discontent is ultimately a result of getting squeezed by capitalism, and that most folks aren’t aware of that. Trump won by acknowledging that “the system” is broken, which most people know- he just pointed them to bigotry instead to protect capitalism.

That’s not to say that American’s material struggles are comparable to Burkina Faso’s - I think white folks in America are soft as shit - but I don’t think people feel like they’re doing well, and that’s ultimately what drives their actions.

Yeah I only made it through the first few paragraphs before it became clear this was antivax propaganda.

“I asked why she regressed, doctor says it’s common”

“RFK Jr says…”

“I got her vaccinated”

Just right in a row.

So gross.

I think they meant “fetishizing”

I’m not trans, and my vote goes to whatever the trans community prefers.

In your opinion, what’s the leftist line that will most motivate the masses in the US?

For the greater good

we ended up designing and fabricating them in-house

Tariffs will bring manufacturing back to the US!!! /s

I can definitely acknowledge that graph aesthetics aren’t as important as the real-world implications of the underlying data. I did not start the thread about graph aesthetics, though.

You asked miz about their graph aesthetic preference, and I answered bc it’s a common preference. I assumed that you were asking because you wanted to learn, and I answered in good faith. If you didn’t want to talk about it, just don’t ask questions about it?

I ignored your criticisms because I don’t really care about other people’s graph aesthetic preferences, because it’s not important and they’re my preferences.

If you had said “what flavor ice cream do you prefer?” and I said “many people prefer chocolate because <whatever>”, it would weird if you got upset and said “actually vanilla is better because <whatever> and also why are we even talking about ice cream preferences it’s not important”.

At any point, you could have said “I think this representation is appropriate, given the severity of the situation, but I understand the other perspective.” and that would have been the end of the conversation.

Clearly, we just had two different interactions.

My perspective is that you asked a question (how would you prefer it?) and I answered your question.

It seems like you didn’t like that. Why?

Correct. Some folks, myself and miz included, would prefer that.

Probably bc it’d be friendly fire

Exciting!!

I’d be remiss if I didn’t suggest looking into local leftist orgs (just search “[city] socialist orgs” and see what comes up). If you’re on social media, I’ve noticed The Algorithm starts suggesting new ones after you follow a couple. Most will have regular intro events - try a few out and see what you like!

More importantly, though - what do you like to do? Is there stuff that you’d like to try? What’s important to you? Where do you want to be in… six months? A year?

Woah there, I’m just trying to answer your question, not attack you or try to downplay the severity of the situation. It’s strictly about how data is presented.

Graphs with a Y axis that don’t start at zero is a common gripe for anyone presenting any graph, not just this.

The reason it is done is to make changes look more dramatic (stock market CRASHES with a graph showing a huge-looking decrease… of 0.5%).

Wanting graphs to start at zero is just about trying to remove spin from data presentation.

Generally, having the Y axis start at 0 gives a better sense of the magnitude of a change relative to the previous value.

The graph you showed isn’t dishonest, but at a glance doesn’t give an intuitive understanding of the how significant the increase is. It would be nice if the graph provided a visual answer to “what is the percentage increase vs pre covid?” As it stands, I need to do the math myself :(

E.g. if the exact same graph had the Y axis from 5,000 to 5,100 (instead of 5,000 to 8,500), it would still show an increase, but a significantly less severe one. By starting the Y axis at 0, the change is put into context much more intuitively.

I think a bit more scientific method would be great in economics, and I think we’ve seen that with the CPC, e.g. in having local experiments before rolling out broader changes, and in accepting when something doesn’t work.

Contrast with trickle down economics with tons of experiments and evidence that it doesn’t work (Kentucky), and economists still push for it. Obviously in the US the goal isn’t that things work better, so naturally the conclusion will be that we need more concentration of wealth.

But approaching government policies scientifically, based on gathering data, hypothesis, experiment design, peer review, etc all sounds pretty reasonable.

Where things gets yucky is when STEM brains decide that they know better than other folks, and hopefully that’s kept in check.

Mentioned elsewhere, but reaching out to known safe people is a great place to start. The feminist collective and antifascist guy from ig sound promising.

I think there’s two flavors of actions to take, and you can decide a balance that’s right for you:

1. Don’t be an easy target. Your online/public persona is ineffective lib #resistance - you’re against Nazis, but Nazis won’t see you as a threat. Embed yourself in some community (e.g. a shared hobby), be friendly and likable, and tolerate (or just lightly push back on) the reactionary bullshit that will inevitably come out of people’s mouths. Your goal is to have a group people who know you and think fondly of you, who don’t want bad things to happen to you specifically. If you’re in a minority group, having some chuds think you’re “one of the good ones” is tactically useful. There’s obviously a balance with the emotional toll of being with chuds and hearing gross takes. You can probably at least play the “let’s not talk about politics” card, but hopefully there’s at least a group of #resist libs that won’t spout too much garbage? Obviously the best option would be like minded people - maybe have a weekly meetup or something with your art friends?

2. Punch Nazis. They are dangerous, and their ideas needs to be clearly denounced and challenged head on. Remove stickers, or cover with your own. Spread rumors about the folks you know in the groups. I’m 50/50 on what someone mentioned about getting a newspaper involved - that might backfire by increasing their notoriety. They’re in these groups because it makes them feel cool - make it clear that nobody thinks they are cool, and actually they’re disgusting and pathetic.

Please don’t feel like you need to be actively punching Nazis in order to be a good leftist. Nobody can tell you what the “right” balance is - some folks need to stay covert to survive, and few people are able to publicly advocate what they truly believe should be done about the rise of fascism (especially now).

The existing organizations in your area and your personal risk tolerance dictate what your course of action should be.

I highly recommend reaching out to the feminist collective! They’ll likely have local insight and advice that we don’t have.

Totally agree - the work we need to do now is the same for both anarchists and communists. We also have the same end goal in mind.

There are interesting ideas to pull from each ideology, and I just wanted to push back on a blanket dismissal of anarchism.

Thanks for the discussion, I really appreciate you sharing your thoughts!

they’re converging on similar types of power structures to the ones communists consider to be necessary

Yes, and anarchists consider them necessary too. We have the same end goal in mind.

Anarchists talk about “prefiguration”, building the new power structures in the shell of the old, and that’s what we’re seeing with the Zapatistas. They have post-revolutionary power structures now, without first dismantling capitalism.

That’s what I find appealing about anarchism - focusing on organizing people and building the new world now, in your community, in whatever ways you can.

Communism ultimately aims for an eventual withering away of the state, and anarchism aims to move there more directly.

unionizing helps build worker discipline, and teaches people to work together producing militant labor that has potential to be organized by a vanguard and liberate itself.

I brought up unionizing just to discuss organizing in general - most people don’t join a union because they want to go on strike, they join because they have needs. They stay engaged if they see the union make progress in addressing their needs.

Similarly, most people don’t want communism because they want to form a vanguard party, they want communism because they’re suffering under capitalism. They stay engaged if they can see communism make progress in lessening their suffering.

We’re not at a point where we need a vanguard party to organize unions for their own liberation, since the unions don’t have enough power (in the US).

We’re at a point where we need to get people organized at all, and the best way to do that is to start making their lives tangibly better.

Agree that retrenching isn’t a sign of things going well, but surely you also agree that there are material conditions outside of the control of the Zapatistas that influence things not going well? E.g. drug cartels a problem in many parts of Mexico.

The new Zapatista structure is more decentralized, pushing more power to local centers: https://enlacezapatista.ezln.org.mx/2023/11/13/ninth-part-the-new-structure-of-zapastista-autonomy/

The organization of those local centers into larger federations is where communism and anarchism start structurally looking the same. The primary difference is that anarchists promote bottom up organizations, and communists tend to advocate for more centralized power.

The methods that have been used by Marxists to successfully organized movements that overthrew capitalism. They differ from what anarchists do in having a unified vision and a professional vanguard.

Yes, anarchists don’t organize around a vanguard party taking control of the existing state. Honestly, I think that’s a bad thing to organize around.

Going on strike has historically been the best way to get concessions in the workplace, but union organizers don’t organize around going on strike. Workplace organizing is listening to people’s needs, giving support and reassurance, and empowering folks to apply the existing power they have to get concessions (even if they start small). Ideally, a workplace never actually goes on strike, and management realizes the workers hold all the power and concedes.

To me, that parallels broader political organization in two ways:

1. Most folks are unlikely to actually engage in a movement based on a high-risk action that requires a not-yet-reached critical mass
2. With collective pressure applied effectively, concessions can be won without violence (though there are obviously limits to what porky will give up without a fight)

Regular folks want their own specific needs met, and do not care about a professional vanguard. You can try to convince them that they should care, or you can just work on meeting their needs (even if you start small). And that means not having a unified vision beyond “organize people and empower them to make their lives better.” That may involve a vanguard party at some point, but only when it becomes a practical tool for improving people’s lives.

… Anyway. I’m sure you’re not convinced, and that’s fine. I hope we can agree that both approaches have merit as ways of improving people’s lives, even if we disagree on which is more effective in doing so.