• umbrella@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Yo we should stop it though. Its part of the reason they can get stuff done and we can’t.

    • lugal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      No! We can’t work together with people who want something else just because they call themselves leftists, too

      • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, I’m a leftist, I just think landlords have their place, billionaires are job creators, and if we disrupt the status quo too much the global south might stop giving us resources for nothing- A Great Mind

        • umbrella@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          At that point they don’t work with us. Doesn’t necessarily mean we have to be rivals.

          • Dewded@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think exactly that way and am as left as you can be in the Finnish mainstream party system, with the exception of small sub-1% parties like the Communist Party.

            Landlords & Billionaires = living, breathing taxation waiting to happen

            Even if we were to tax a billionaire by 80%, they would probably still be a billionaire. However, they would also indeed be creating jobs, wealth and sustainable growth. School systems, medicine, hospitals, city infrastructure, job placement programmes, you name it, they fund it.

            Corporate tax is also grossly under-utilized.

            Capitalism isn’t bad if you tax it hard and use the money for the welfare of citizens.

            • umbrella@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              However, they would also indeed be creating jobs, wealth and sustainable growth.

              Not really. They don’t create jobs, at best they are the organizers. And since they are usually heirs, there might be much better people to manage such a large organization. We don’t need them at all.

              The best course of action is to remove the possibility for people concentrating such vast amounts of power in the first place. Billionaires can always buy legislation back, which is why that tight regulation or taxation will never really happen under capitalism.

              I mean just look at how inactive democrats are at office compared to current conservatives at passing the things people actually want. We have been trying this forever already, but they are most probably in the pockets of bigger fish at this point.

              None of that stops you from, say, joining an union though.

              • Dewded@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m answering from the perspective of living in a country with functional democracy, so it’s hard to see the power the wealthy have over it.

                Lobbying and representative campaign funding are more transparent here. No party has majority seats alone, coalition governments are a necessity. Legislation is consensus driven.

                Finland is very much operating in a capitalism driven economy while still supplying its citizens socialism driven security.

                Capitalism is like fire. It’s a good tool, but a bad master. With appropriate legislative checks in place, it won’t get out of control.

                In the States it already has, but that doesn’t mean that capitalism is bad. Just that nobody was tending the fire.

                • umbrella@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Don’t be mistaken, the billionaires still rule in there too, they just somehow allow you a better life. Usually this comes because they have neocolonies abroad to exploit intead of you. This is usually the case in europe. The only real masters of capitalism are the burgeois and how they are choosing to use it.

                  Finland seems to be the one exception in the world where I dont think you’ve been that historically aggressive with fucking others over (at least compared to the rest of europe), but theres probably some neocolonialism over africa to mantain it, I’m not that familiar with Finland to say much for sure.

                  In any case we can’t base our assumptions around an exception when the overwhelming majority of capitalist “democracies” never really worked for the common people.

                  edit: China seems to be implementing a bit of both, as an example.

                  • Dewded@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    On a global scale you’re right.

                    If we’re discussing the scope of a nation, strong enough tax laws and safeguards for unions prevent ludicrous growth within its own contained system. This can allow people to experience a reasonably fair society.

                    Finland definitely is still benefiting off of cheap labour from poorer nations though. How to solve that especially if our country wants to retain its status, I would not know where to start. World domination?

        • VonCesaw@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          If we don’t support the landchads, the wagies and rentoids might take control and believe they have rights

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        We can’t work together with people who want something different …

        This is why free markets are important, incidentally

      • umbrella@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Most of us have common goals and common methods. We should act in that overlap whenever we can. We do have strength in numbers

        • lugal@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          There are people I agree with from different leftist traditions, but then again there are people I disagree with on all these traditions, too. I even have overlap with some (lower case) conservative people when it comes to ecological questions

          • umbrella@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Thats what I mean! Work together when you can, but fellow workers are rarely actual enemies all the time.

    • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      No. Leftie infighting is important. Thats why I’m gonna say Thought Slime is sussy af and actually the most annoying leftist of all time.

    • VonCesaw@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Considering the Right has a unified goal (complete removal of “them” and codifying perceived hierarchy into law), they don’t care about the process

      The Left does NOT have a unified goal OR process. Off the top of my head, the Contrapoints/Hasanabi “millionaires are ok, thinking otherwise is immature and envious”, the Maupin/Coffin Red Browns, the Vaush/Xanderhal “it should be codified that I should be able to say the N word”, the “all theft should be legal” webcomic artists, the Sinfest “feminism went too far when it allowed trans/queer people”, the tiktok “any intercourse information made public should be an assault charge”

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        the tiktok “any intercourse information made public should be an assault charge”

        You and I have very different FYPs lol

      • AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I agree. What we call the “Left” in the US is a largely heterogenous group of people separated by decades of infighting and a mountain of conflicting interests. There’s the types you mentioned, then there’s the trans activists, the eco activists, black/BIPOC activists, socialists, anarchists, liberals, feminists, and on and on.

        Suppose you are a Democratic House or Senate candidate. To actually win the election, you need two things, votes and funding. You know there are things your voter base cares passionately about, that they have no hope of ever getting from Republicans, but unfortunately they are also things the big ticket donors despise. So, what do you do? You’ll have to steer away from policies that will break the coalition and split the vote. You’ll have to steer away from topics that will frighten the donor class. When faced with that challenge of keeping the Left (mostly) united AND getting that sweet donor cash, most mainstream Democrats tend to pivot away from wedge issues and policies, and focus more on process. Y’know, uncontroversial things like bipartisanship, decorum, and compromise. And while we’re all sick of the lack of these things in DC, they’re not things Democrats can make happen all by themselves, and more importantly, none of them are results, they’re means.

      • umbrella@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Lol no way. They are eroding workers rights, putting kids to work on many states, deepening inequality, allowing more oil than ever before to be extracted and burned, financing a genocide… Take your pick. They probably already have a plan drawn up for their next term chairing the executive branch.

        And most of the so called " democratic" party in your country (including the president) seem to be helping them out, or letting them do it because they are covertly siding with corporations too. The difference is they are not as outwardly fascistic.

        From the perspective of someone from outside the US, their policy towards us is exactly as shitty too.