like dominos
Does he mean fascism?
Magyar? No.
Fortunately liberalism isn’t inevitable either.
Fuck the Epstein Atlantic.
Liberalism is inherently allied to fascism. Both ideologies worship profit and property ownership so have a vested interest in opposing socialism and class struggle.
Protest-non-voters won’t believe this one simple trick.
Sorry I forget genocide and mass imprisonment is okay if it might give you benefits.
Well if you don’t vote, you just get all those things (and worse) happening anyway.
Or you know organize outside of electorlism or if you must vote for someone opposed to genocide at the very least.
Organize to do what outside of electorlism?
Asking because I’m genuinely curious what you feel is more affective than voting in how we can each contribute to avoiding genocide.
Within legal means of course. Because I’m certainly in support of deposing fascists and oligarchs.
Taking Orban as evidence, this can certainly be achieved through voting in even the most rigged of elections.
Orban was replaced by another far right racist imperialist just one m ore friendly to NATO and the EU than Putin.
One small improvement like this one, made every voting cycle, will eventually lead to wherever you want to move those goal posts.
Do both. DO BOTH. One does not preclude the other. In fact by building the best future you can with your vote you leave space to do the other.
Yet another one who doesn’t understand primaries or getting better candidates on the ballot of a major party. Not believing this one simple trick: confirmed.
Reality is not all rainbows & butterflies. Systems operate according to rules we don’t control no matter how much we stubbornly refuse to accept them until we work the system to change it. Denying the system exists doesn’t change it.
Fact: the US voting system (plurality voting) lacks the sincere favorite criterion[1]. Fact: that means strategy exists to optimize outcomes, and not following it with protest(-non)-voting can functionally help elect the candidate you like least, directly backfire, and cause worse real-world outcomes for your own values. Fact: that means lesser-evil voting is necessary in close, high-stakes races to minimize losses.
Voting in a way that backfires has real-world consequences. Denying it is like denying the consequences of pulling the trigger when a loaded gun is aimed at your nuts. If you have to vote against getting your nuts blown off & don’t (in a cute little protest), then you’re still getting nuts blown off. Protest(-non)-voting to blast your nuts off every time doesn’t lead anywhere.
The only viable way to reform this system is to elect your candidates to other offices (local, congressional, etc) to build popular support, get your candidate to run as a major party in national partisan races, and vote lesser-evil in national partisan elections until your candidate is on the ballot as a major party. Then they can reform the system.
Anything else is blasting yourself in the nuts. Worse, it’s blasting off your neighbors’ nuts & ovaries, too. Your neighbors don’t want to vote lesser-evil either, but they’re not stupid enough to pretend that other moves won’t blast off their nuts.
It’s straightforward mathematics: plurality voting violates independence of irrelevant alternatives, majority loser criterion, independence of clones.
↩︎There is, therefore, a simple way to affect the outcome of a plurality election in your favour without having to convince anyone else to support you. If you introduce a clone of an opponent then the vote for your opponent may split between your opponent and their clone, meaning that you require fewer votes to win. In practice, this fact is well known and some people in British elections do not vote for their preferred candidate because they do not want to split the vote against the party they dislike.
You did it, you saved Gaza!
deleted by creator
And we’re back to: see article and protest-non-voters won’t believe this one simple trick.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1993-2000/oslo
Here’s President Clinton establishing the Oslo accords helping Gaza exist as a recognized nation in peace with Israel. Specifically,
Israel accepted the PLO as the representative of the Palestinians, and the PLO renounced terrorism and recognized Israel’s right to exist in peace. Both sides agreed that a Palestinian Authority (PA) would be established and assume governing responsibilities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip over a five-year period. Then, permanent status talks on the issues of borders, refugees, and Jerusalem would be held. While President Bill Clinton’s administration played a limited role in bringing the Oslo Accord into being, it would invest vast amounts of time and resources in order to help Israel and the Palestinians implement the agreement.
Just making sure you’re aware that voting helped establish Gaza’s existence.
And voting is also is the reason it could have been saved from genocide.
Trump was supposed to save Gaza according to large portions of people here on Lemmy that told me voting for Kamala would be voting for genocide in 2024.
Now we live in a world where the actual truth is much more obvious - that Kamala would have obviously protected Gaza more than Trump. (Simply because she’s not politically compromised by Israel the same way Trump is).
So now you want to tell me voting doesn’t work to prevent genocide. Despite the current outcome being very clearly AVOIDABLE through voting. Just that option wasn’t taken - largely through the encouragement of many here on Lemmy to not vote for Kamala.
If more people didn’t vote for Trump the genocide wouldn’t have happened. Period. That is just not the outcome we have now. That doesn’t mean voting failed. It means most people failed to vote for the person who could have stopped it.
The Oslo accords weren’t a good thing what world do you live in, they were an entrenching of Israeli colonialism and Palestinian disfranchisement.
deleted by creator
It’s grading on a curve.
Biden/Harris were weak on Israel, barely managing to occasionally wag a finger at them for misbehavior, but continuing to provide some support to Israel. This was bad.
Trump’s admin has been all in on it and has been ride or die for everything Netanyahu wants. This is even worse.
I think you meant to send this to the other guy.
I did! Apologies about that! 🙌 Completely missed the thread I was supposed to be responding to.
That’s cool and everything, but these people don’t actually care how many people die in which scenario.
It doesn’t matter if they care, it matters what they do. Because that’s what decides the outcome in each scenario. Their actions. Not their feelings.
Trump ended up encouraging the genocide, planning to build a resort on top of mass graves. Kamala just didn’t verbally attack Israel openly.
Those actions are not the same, and would have lead to a different outcome despite both candidates not caring.
By ‘these people’ I mean people who didn’t vote (because they don’t care how many die), not the politicians.
Kamala was an active participant in the genocide as VP what are you talking about?
The Democrat Party in the US is not anti-Fascism as their support for Zionism and plenty of other Fascist ideologie abroad as well as their unwillingness to stand fast against Trump shows.
The situation in the US is akin to a decades long one-two tactic being played by two of the same team (team Oligarch) on their way to score for them and against everybody else, which has NOTHING AT ALL to do with anything in Europe, except for what’s going on in Britain.
B-b-both sides same!
No, the good cop is clearly different from the bad cop to anyone who has eyes.
PArTY A GoOd oNLy DOeS gOOd, pARty B evIL OnLY dOEs bAd.
(Switch A and B around for the other group of tribalist simpletons)
Nu uh, both sides same!
For some of the people here who are going to yell out “but liberalism is bad and should die anyway!”
I’ve posted several comments in this thread, but I’ll do one top level comment now, not directed at anyone in particular.
Liberal in this instance means socially progressive. Illiberalism as Orban called it, was about stopping the “liberal gay agenda”. This is from American politics, where conservatives have started calling all progressives liberals. It has caught on in at least some Eastern European countries because our far-right leaders love mimicking the American far right Republican party. Putin is also spreading this shit, I’ve got a link somewhere to one of his quotes about liberalism destroying nations through “multiculturalism” or whatever. Essentially “liberals import the blacks and they destroy everything”.
Illiberalism in this instance doesn’t mean getting rid of the market economy or electoral system (necessarily). It means being bigoted.
funny is orban has funded at least the last CPAC, as intermediary from putin.
Liberal in this instance means socially progressive.
Incorrect. The Atlantic is a zionist publication. Socially it’s very regressive.
https://hrnews1.substack.com/p/the-atlantic-editor-in-chief-jeffrey
More importantly there’s nothing to be gained by conflating liberalism with social progress. That’s probably why they used the term “illiberal” in the first place - to muddy the waters. They don’t want to talk about fascism because The Atlantic literally supports fascism.
Wouldn’t that require actual elections? Russia does not have that.
He’s not actually very liberal from what I’m reading. He’s pro EU and not a Putin puppet but other than that his policies aren’t all that different from Orban’s. He was even in Fidesz until a few years ago.
I wonder if there will be much improvement for the LGBTQ community there.
But at least the Ukrainian payments stalemate is broken.
hes CENTER right at most i believe.
It’s probably part of why he succeeded though. Right enough to pull those voters, but not too right (pro eu etc.) so he could pull the centrists and left-leaners as well. Since as far as I understand there aren’t really leftist parties going strong in Hungary right now
Look, fuck Orban, but y’all aren’t even waiting to see how Magyar pans out, before hailing a new era. Fascism and anti-fascism aren’t just like a Zeitgeist or something. They require concrete actions. Not understanding this means that elections will just keep bringing you back to fascism.
deleted by creator
Boy is this lively. I certainly have my concerns as Magyar is former Fidez and of a Minister Portfolio and by all accounts is very much a conservative politician.
But as far as EU policy is concerned his win is likely to finally get Hungry to be in line with the rest of Erouope.
Also remember Trump sent Vance over to try and election campaign against him so that tells you how the people of Hungry feel about that.
All and all consider this winning a battle but the war continues
someone mentioned hes mostly center right.
Conservative is fine. Being Putin’s lapdog is not.
deleted by creator
We are living in a world where both the US and Russia support the same piece of shit. What the fuck
US and Russia were always aggreeing on basically the same thing. They might disagree on who is going to be the leader of the fascist world, but they very much aggree that the world should be fascist and have a leader.
So, while I’m not too knowledgeable about politics in Hungary, this may or may not be relevant…
In Canada we used to have the progressive conservative party, and the reform party. The reform party was the religious / right wing nut jobs, and the PC’s were, well I’m not really sure what i was too young to follow it to closely, but they weren’t like the reform party. How progressive they were though I don’t really know, it could have just been a name… The reform party would be closer to MAGA than what the PC’s were.
The right wing parties were losing elections though to the Liberals, so Harper managed to bring both the PCs and the Reform together under 1 party, with their sometimes very wildly different views. As much as he was damaging to Canada, Harper was an excellent politician and he managed to keep control of these 2 factions within the party as Prime Minister for almost 10 years.
Once Trudeau came into power after people had had enough of Harper, these two factions in the federal conservatives have been in a sense fighting each other. We had Erin O’Toole as one of their leaders, and he was trying to be more middle on some topics, and the nut job part of the faction threw him out.
I’m saying all this to say… Maybe, just maybe, Magyar has thrown out the bad seeds in the party. Yes, it’s still going to be a conservative government, but maybe we can get back to what politics was like before the crazy right wing nut jobs infiltrated all the conservative parties around the world and made things much worse.
I would love to see our conservative parties here throw out the bad seeds. We just had a merger of right leaning, and nut job parties like this in BC, but we narrowly shut them out in the last election, and watching what has happened within that party since, has been a gongshow.
Is Liberalism good?
No.
Read: State and Revolution by Vladmir Ilyich Lenin
Thanks for the recommendation; I’ve opened the audiobook in my YT window, so I’ll eventually give it a listen (~4-5 hours is quite a chunk of time, and I don’t want to run it as background noise - give it an actually fair shake, you know).
is freedom bad?
Depends on the freedom.
- American freedom to use and abuse anyone under you in the capitalist hierarchy. Bad.
- Freedom to get cared for at any hospital of your own choosing without having to sell your kidney? Not bad.
- Freedom to masturbate to incest porn? Not bad. (Looking at you UK)
- Freedom to kill people as long as you’re operating a multiple ton heavy vehicle with practically 0 consequenses. Bad.
In this instance we’re talking about the freedom to be a sexual or racial minority. Orban was notoriously against that, much like Putin and Trump. The narrative usually is that liberal policies (allowing LGBT and minorities to exist peacefully) result in LGBT and minorities taking over every aspect of life, so the average person will be forced to be gay or trans and their daughters will have to take black husbands or whatever.
In Eastern European politics, liberal doesn’t mean economic liberal generally, at least not for the last decade or so. It literally means not being a hateful bigot.
Which is why I’m finding it funny that there’s a tankie (not you, Tolc) going on in this thread about how all forms of liberalism are bad.
The narrative usually is that liberal policies (allowing LGBT and minorities to exist peacefully) result in LGBT and minorities taking over every aspect of life, so the average person will be forced to be gay or trans and their daughters will have to take black husbands or whatever.
Which never actually happened like ever. We just want to be who we are. There’s no movement to make everyone gay, that’s insane to even think that.
Same as the republicans getting their knickers in a knot over trans athletes. Which are few and far between and aren’t actually that successful because HRT makes you a lot weaker if you are MtF. It’s just an imaginary issue.
Same as the toilet thing they get all worked up about. The men molesting women are cis men.
deleted by creator
Sounds like you should run for office under those talking points. Good luck.
You seem to have a problem with my comment?
There’s certainly good things about it
Which liberalism?
Liberalism in the classic sense I’ll leave to you to decide.
Liberalism in this instance almost certainly has little to do with the market economy and is instead the catch-all term conservatives use for being socially progressive.
Orban himself claimed he was building an “illliberal regime” and that was almost entirely about the “gay agenda” and the liberal “attack on Christian values”. Putin also more or less said liberalism means letting in black people who destroy your country. So this is likely what the article is referring to.
liberalism must be defeated, international proletariat must rise up against this sick ideology.
Yes, death to LGBT folks and other minorities. Here, have a white cloak.
death to LGBT
One of the best LGBT rights in the world is in cuba (a communist country) and that happened democratically without any electoralism bullshit so keep your bs to yourself, I guess.
Cuba is on the other side of the world. Liberalism in Eastern Europe generally means tolerance for others. Not being a bigot.
and liberalism in other parts of world means western imperialism, capitalist enforcement, pro rich anti evironmentalism.
Sure, if you collapse capitalism, neoliberalism, and western foreign policy into just ‘liberalism’
deleted by creator
Yeah exactly. Liberals here are right wing capitalists. And often conservative.
They are kinda the same as the liberals in the US but that’s because US doesn’t really know any real left wing. So it’s right wing democrats or extreme-right republicans.
That makes liberalism seem somehow progressive but it isn’t really.
Haven’t heard it used for economic liberalism in over a decade, but I’m also not from western Europe.
I can’t see shit oudda this thing!
deleted by creator
Which means in modern political parlance you’re not just a communist, but also a liberal. Especially in Eastern Europe.
deleted by creator
Okay, but that’s what the word means now. Socially progressive and liberal are almost synonyms for years now, and the amount of people this has spread to is increasing.
Outside of your own narrow circle, you say you’re against liberalism, and people will think you’re going to be joining the KKK or something. So you can go on and say that you’re anti-liberal, but to an increasingly big amount of people that means you’re a bigot.
Something something dictionaries should be descriptive, not prescriptive.
I’ll link another comment I just made, which highlights this. There’s articles quoting three bigoted Eastern-European politicians (including the one this article is about) talking about how liberals and their gay agenda are ruining the world.
The usage of the word liberal has thus shifted. As the likes of Putin, Orban, Trump, etc, use the word liberal to describe someone they perceive as “woke”, “SJW”, whatever, basically just non-bigoted people, the people being described as such have largely adopted that label as their own. Largely, the word “liberal” where I live now means you’re accepting of other people, and your economic stance usually may be anywhere from center to left - as liberalism now carries the connotation of being a progressive, empathetic person, usually most people who call themselves liberals are pro taxation, social safety nets, etc.
This is why, and I’ve said this in a few other comments now, I propose that the original word “liberalism” for the most part should be replaced with “neoliberalism”, “capitalism”, or “marketism” to reduce confusion. Not a single one of those could in any way be confused for progressivism at least.
Or, lets just do a post-scarcity economy.
Why do you want some old ass ideology like communism when we can just do fuckin Star Trek?
Nah
If I were to Americanize it: This is essentially if Ted Cruz, or better yet Chris Christie, beat Donald Trump in the general election. Undeniably a good thing as it’d mean no more Trump and it’s kinda humilating for him.
But it means… yeah. One of them at the helm.
Undeniably a good thing
Actually it’s quite easy to deny that Ted Cruz or Chris Christie would be a good thing.
This is like some real Dem thinking.
That’s why there was a whole rest of the sentence.
Someone on Bluesky said it was like if the Dems had lost to Trump 4 times and then ran Mit Romney and won by a historic landslide
That’s a better comparison, actually. Mitt very publicly doesn’t like Trump, but voted with him like 80% of the time.
then ran Mit Romney
Dems wouldn’t go that far left.
It’s beyond me that any modern democracy would even allow someone be PM/President for 16 years in the first place, and then allow them to run again. For all that’s fucked with America rn, that one they’ve done right (for now).
Well, only for the presidency. The zombies in congress are entirely unaffected.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
How is denying the right of the people to reelect whoever they want to office more democratic than fulfilling their right? Claiming democracy restricting such liberty is somehow more democratic is impressive mental gymnastics. Even with modern democracy the guiding philosophy is to restrict government to promote & protect individual liberty, not undermine liberty of the people.
Why the reluctance to call a fascist a fascist?
Because the whole world is fascist and the leaders of fascism don’t like to be called it, so no mainstream media or news will call it such.
Also it can be confusing for some people. For instance, in WWII the fascist USA helped Russia defeat the fascist Nazi doesn’t have the same ring to it.
Most operate like Fascism = Bad instead of Fascism = Corporatism.
Altlantic has, diacussed here by the author
Wild headline and no I’m not reading the Atlantic.
Who won the election and what are his politics?
Guess you’ll have to read it to know.
No, I don’t lol. I know where the Atlantic stands.
The words in the article are what we’re talking about. Not whatever your fake anger is about.
Based on the article’s headline I can’t imagine much of substance was said.
Believe it or not, they had the opponent’s name.
I feel the same way about your comment
Too woke for you I guess. Rupert Murdock probably owns something more your speed.
You know Wikipedia is free, right? You can look up Magyar and see that he’s a fascist, right?
Takes one to know one I guess
Péter Magyar won the election in a blowout making Orbán’s party practically irrelevant. He is an ex-Fidesz member that broke off and is heading a broad grassroots party.
He himself is old-school conservative coded, but his party is very broad and includes everyone from racial justice activists to members of the military to quite literally random people. Most of his party is brand new to politics and made up of working class people, most new representatives were like the town doctor or engineers before.
The party’s policies are a working social net including investments into education and healthcare, an independent prosecutors office and EPPO membership, a special office to prosecute corrupt politicians, adopting the Euro and contributing to a stronger EU and stronger voices to the Eastern EU in Brussels, support for racial, sexual and other minorities and so on.
So in the meantime he clarified that while he invited everyone and their cats to the anniversary of the revolution against the Soviets, he kinda made a mistake, and he won’t block sanctions against Israel and will rejoin the ICC and prosecute Netanyahu.
It was more of a gaffe than an actual policy position.
I appreciate the follow up but sure seems like you’re falling for it in real time.
Victor Ghoulash and his Paprikash Party beat out Orban’s Fedora Party. Ghoulash wants to instate caps on rent, oil, and produce prices and align Hungary strategically with Turkmenistan.
I was making a point about asking for internet commenters to educate you because you don’t trust journalists.
The Atlantic does not do journalism lol it’s a neo liberal rag. Case in point, pretending that swapping a far right politician for another is somehow proof that “illiberalism is not inevitable”
If the Atlantic is praising him, you already know what is his politics.
So, a polite fascist
A
conservative“centrist”.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-atlantic/ “Left-center bias”
So what are you, some kind of far-right?
He was Orbanz guy until a few years ago when he saw which way the wind was blowing.
It seems illiberalism is indeed inevitable then
This has been headline news all over the world for the last 24 hours. Go read your news source of choice and quit yer bitchin
I have. He was a member of orbans party. Not really even a liberal lol.
Them why did you ask that question
Lol me pointing out that the Atlantic is a neoliberal rag. It was rhetorical.
I take it back, he is indeed a liberal
