Hence divide and conquer.
And even more people under the same social class should band together that would have a much bigger majority
That’s not how that works.
That’s what intersectionality is about, and why fascists focus on driving wedges between groups
Not everything is about fascists.
This specifically is though.
You’re right, it’s also about the capitalists who put them in power.
Capitalists don’t really benefit under Fascism, so I don’t see why a true Capitalist would support a fascist and help them gain power.
There is no such thing as “true capitalism”. The perfect company sells no product, pays no tax’s, and employees no one, yet continues to make money anyway. These greasy fucks don’t want to be competitive in the market, they just want money. And will use gov forces to crush it if possible.
Capitalists advocate against Government intervention in the markets. To a capitalist the only laws that should exist are those that protect people, property, and assets allowing for free and open trade amongst individuals and corporations.
Not only do capitalists benefit from fascism, as history has consistently shown, but fascism is the end result of capitalism.
Capitalism is an Economic structure, Fascism is a Political ideology. Fascism does not benefit a Capitalist because it imposes heavy regulation on the free market to benefit themselves which is anti Capitalist.
Who on earth told you the free market had anything to do with capitalism? LOL.
Thank you for demonstrating your lack of good faith early.
Yeah but the choice is between socialism and fascism, and capitalists stand to lose a lot under socialism.
Capitalists lose under both Socialism and Fascism. Neither Political structure benefits a pure Capitalist because both systems impose heavy regulation on the free market which is anti Capitalist.
Capitalism and Fascism do not work together. Capitalism and Socialism do not work together.
The prior because Fascists impose heavy regulation on the markets to benefit themselves, and the latter because Socialism is a Socioeconomic ideology which replaces the need for Capitalism within it.
Fascism still has rich business owners, at least until it collapses, and most of them just move to safer waters when that happens. Whether it not they are actual capitalists is the question. They were at the start, but then once in control of a market most of them are aimed at becoming monopolists, and fascism is cheapest way to get to a monopoly.
fascism is cheapest way to get to a monopoly.
Tell that to communism.
Why do you think the fascists try so hard to keep them divided and fighting each other?
Why do you believe fascists are the only parties working to, and actively benefiting from, division in human populations?
Because the companies and ultra rich contribute financially to fascists to take away our rights, and drive wedges between people. What are you talking about if not oligarchy and fascism? Like, some kind of softball league?
Not everyone is a fascist. There are many types of far right ideologies
They all want the same thing, control of what you can do, say, think, and believe. And will do anything in their power to get it. Regardless of their particular flavor of fascism, it’s still fascism.
Because the companies and ultra rich contribute financially to fascists to take away our rights, and drive wedges between people. What are you talking about if not oligarchy and fascism? Like, some kind of softball league?
I am talking about all minority groups without basic human rights working together to achieve rights for all of them as a singular unit. Which I made very clear in the OP.
If you want to start a fight with someone, go elsewhere.
My hyper coalition an-cap-com people’s democratic uniparty dictatorship will save the west.
This assumes the minority groups can all agree on things in order to “come together.”
They’re deliberately being divided.
Everyone is being deliberately divided. It’s not specific to minority groups. I guess my issue is that the post is vague and assumes minority groups act as voting blocs which is pretty simplistic. OP is basically saying what everyone already knows: that there are more people making up “minorities” than there are making up the “majority.” I would argue that your local community has a higher impact on your vote than your ethnicity or race. For sure, those play a part, but they don’t singularly define your vote. Also, various minority groups skew quite differently. Latinos typically skew more conservative than, say Jews or blacks.
This assumes the minority groups can all agree on things in order to “come together.”
Do you know what a moot point is?
I do, and my point wasn’t. Not all minority groups agree on everything just because they’re minorities. The world is a tad more complicated than that. Besides, what are they “coming together” to do? Overthrow the “majority?” Does that automatically assume that the majority is wrong and minorities are right just because they’re minorities? Again, the world’s just not that simple.
This was about rights, not agreeing on every single subject. For minority groups without, or lacking in, basic human rights in the same population it is more productive to try and attain them as a singular group.
Everything you have said is a moot point in regards to what I am saying.
I suspect you’ve never hung out with enough different minority groups to understand the scope of difficulty. I mean FFS the Latinos vote against immigration, The poor vote against social services. Even when you run into a minority group that is doing things in their best interest, they’re not inclined to stick their neck out for people outside there subgroup. Nobody else is taking care of them so they take care of themselves and they give no F’s about the other minorities
The concept that all the minorities together aren’t a minority anymore is true at some level, I think you’ve got a better chance of having white leftists stand up for them then them standing up for each other.
I suspect you’ve never hung out with enough different minority groups to understand the scope of difficulty. I mean FFS the Latinos vote against immigration, The poor vote against social services. Even when you run into a minority group that is doing things in their best interest, they’re not inclined to stick their neck out for people outside there subgroup. Nobody else is taking care of them so they take care of themselves and they give no F’s about the other minorities
You should reflect on why your rhetoric and beliefs are a major part of the problem.
Your inexperience and own beliefs do not make the experiences of those talking to you invalid; furthermore, calling other people’s experiences rhetoric and belief is frankly rude.
Your inexperience and own beliefs do not make the experiences of those talking to you invalid; furthermore, calling other people’s experiences rhetoric and belief is frankly rude.
Saying “the latinos vote against immigration”, “the poor vote against social services”, and assuming all groups are out for themselves is bigotry.
Your constant personal attacks and bad faith arguing is what is rude, and assuming I have never “hung out with enough minorities to think right” is another huge helping of bigotry from you.
That said, I’m out.
Welcome to the radical left.
Well, unless you’re some kind of Democrat. In which case, get your bougie, genoside lovin’ ass outta here. Only the real leftists will be allowed under the banner.
I see what you did there.
I’m uhh a Democrat in name only. My father was a Democrat and my voter registration says Democrat, but I don’t believe in their neoliberal values
How do you define a “real leftist”?
Good question!
What are you talking about?
I find it to be a more centrist position considering the amount of purity testing required to pass on either side of the political spectrum in the modern age.
The oppressive class usually isn’t a majority (capital owners/rich, religious fanatics, morning people), but they dictate so much more of our lives, what to feel, who to hate - so much so that they make the majority work for them against the minorities (that don’t affect the lives of the majority in the slightest - but that’s just how the oppressors retain control & power).
This doesn’t really change, or add, to my point does it?
Change no, but it was my humble intention to add a little bit.
Understanding things/humans & why we behave bad is important imho.Basically banning minorities together is in a lot of ways how the majority is made. And those never behave in the interest of most.
Main problem: agreeing on a banner design. Also a fair amount of hating each other.
Getting every group to do one thing together is harder than you think.
Does that change my point?
Hey, I just realised that if Brownian motion carries all the water molecules away together, I won’t need a towel after my shower.
Sorry, what? Your point? I suppose not.
I wish I could have the courage to collect downvotes like you
And in your own thread!
Thank you for caring about a metric that doesn’t matter for me. Do you worry about everyone’s down votes or just the pretty ones like me?
This is a lesson that the religious fundamentalists currently running the USA have weaponised.
This is a lesson that the religious fundamentalists currently running Turkey have weaponised.
Probability not relevant under a dictatorship or first past the post elections, but…
See also electoral alliance
UK has FPTP and had a coalition from 2010 to 2015.It’s unlikely to work in the US where the non-rep/dem parties are basically negligible.
That’s a good point. Even though the voting system makes it harder, it doesn’t make it impossible.
I don’t really see the parallel you are making.
In some countries you can even have coalition governments. Imagine a parliament made of at least 5 parties.
