• BathtubJoe@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    SRA represent. For those who aren’t in the know, here’s a news story from the Elm Fork chapter of JBGC.

    Also fuck the Dallas express, they use pretty sickening language (vagrants? Really?). Look through the lens of protecting your community (homeless included) to read what really happened.

    • WabiSabiPapi@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      those individuals who promote the dismantling of capitalism, rejection of heirarchical systems of power, and wish to share in discussion with others of a similar radical liberatory philosophy, particularly on the subject of armed defense of the self and the community.

        • grus@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          A better version of the SRA that hasn’t been taken over by the PSL

          Someone explain please, I’m curious.

          • jcq@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            Socialist Rifle Association and potentially the Party for Socialism and Liberation, unless they mean Pumpkin Spice Lattes, which is very possible

          • animist@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The SRA is the Socialist Rifle Association. It started out as a group of all flavors of leftists (anarchists, MLs, demsocs and everything in between) working together to create a positive gun culture for leftism and to train people to defend their communities and themselves during the rise of the alt-right and Donald Trump-style fascism in the States.

            However, many branches of the PSL (Party for Socialism and Liberation, a strongly ML political party in the States) decided that the SRA was the perfect vehicle for them and so instructed their members who were also members of the SRA to do everything they could to push out the anarchists and demsocs. Now it is just another branch of the PSL.

            • grus@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              instructed their members who were also members of the SRA to do everything they could to push out the anarchists and demsocs

              HA. At least they’re keeping it historically consistent.
              Hurr durr muh leftist unity, hurr durr.

              Thanks for the explanation, I appreciate it!

              • animist@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                yep, tankies never change

                I’m not American myself and this was just explained by a few American friends of mine who were formerly in the SRA and even had leadership roles in their chapters; one was a demsoc and two were anarchists. In my own country there are almost no MLs; they came to power back in the 60s and 70s as part of our national liberation but then they just ended up being power hungry, as all MLs eventually become (or were in the first place). Nobody has faith in them anymore so anybody who is leftist is pretty much anarchist or at least demsoc.

                And anybody who praises the government of North Korea has absolutely zero moral high ground on which to stand

                • grus@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Well, our MLs have been in power for a couple of decades, led to us having a disgusting state-capitalist dictatorship with a poor socialist veil that corrupted our society to such a degree that we haven’t recovered from it not even 3 decades after the regime fell.
                  What’s even funnier is that western MLs aren’t fond of our so-called communist dictatorship because it happened to oppose the soviet dictatorship.

                  But yeah, to put it mildly, I’m not exactly fond of these kinda people.

          • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Like the Mises Caucus takeover over the Libertarian party; hardcore fringe edgelords took a thing over for optics and reach and have done everything possible to homogenize message and content

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

            Socialist Rifle Association and potentially the Party for Socialism and Liberation, unless they mean Pumpkin Spice Lattes, which is very possible

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

      I’m not one of these guys masturbating over my dream revolution or anything, but armed minorities are harder to oppress, and are less tempting targets for individual or group violence.

      I’m a queer guy in Portland. There are violent extremists in my town who want to kill me, and are organizing and rallying. I’ve seen them in the streets, and they’ve attacked people and places I care about because they know that the left wing is broadly non-violent, and that cops are on their side.

      Looking at the political climate in the US, I don’t think it’s too unreasonable of a reaction to buy a gun and learn to defend yourself, just in case.

    • IgnoreKassandra@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’m not one of these guys masturbating over my dream revolution or anything, but armed minorities are harder to oppress, and are less tempting targets for individual or group violence.

      I’m a queer guy in Portland. There are violent extremists in my town who want to kill me, and are organizing and rallying. I’ve seen them in the streets, and they’ve attacked people and places I care about because they know that the left wing is broadly non-violent, and that cops are on their side.

      Looking at the political climate in the US, I don’t think it’s too unreasonable of a reaction to buy a gun and learn to defend yourself, just in case.

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

    joined! im really a firearms enthusiast, but im prepared in case the right wing-nut militias start getting out of control

    • IgnoreKassandra@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Amen. I don’t like guns, I don’t feel comfortable around them, but if those fucking lunatics get them I guess I have to have them too.

    • WabiSabiPapi@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      neoliberalism is a conservative philosophy which seeks to perpetuate an unjust and unsustainable capitalist hegemony.

        • admiralteal@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s not actually that crazy, it’s just that all these words like “liberalism” are thrown around in an utterly meaningless way.

          The pillars of liberal philosophy are (1) fundamental rights are inviolable by the state (2) the right to privately own property that is exchanged through markets (3) egalitarian democracy (one vote per person) (4) the rule of law cannot be ignored and due process must be pursued.

          People on the left see these as the policy points “conservatives” obsess over in their rhetoric, so they call it conservative politics. Entirely ignoring the fact that conservatives throughout history care little about fundamental rights, egalitarianism, or rule of law… Ignoring the fact that the original “right” opposed a “left” that WERE the liberals, when liberalism was the new progressive politic.

          Socialism is a quite different thing from liberalism. Both liberalism and socialism are opposed by conservatives (the right), but liberalism and socialism have some serious, fundamental tensions and reasonable people may argue they are fundamentally incompatible. I personally think they mostly are, though tools from each are going to be part of making a more just world.

          • spaduf@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            To be clear, neoliberalism differs from classical liberalism (the french revolution kind) in that it tries to fundamentally associate these values with a free market capitalist system.

            • admiralteal@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I am not the one who substituted neoliberalism for liberalism. Take it up with them and don’t be an asshole.

                • admiralteal@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Does it now?

                  Explain to me what version of liberalism does not include property rights and markets to exchange that property.

                  The other guy waved his hands and cast all of liberalism into neoliberalism. I didn’t. I pointed out the word was being abused, and I did so correctly and with context. And you’re calling it “incoherent”. Stop being an asshole.

          • DreamerOfImprobableDreams@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It’s also not some all or nothing divide like some socialists try to make it out to be, there’s a huge spectrum of opinions between “totally free market” and “totally socialized command economy”. The vast majority of liberals/progressives support a mixed market, where the damage markets can do is kept in check by strong regulation, and there’s a robust safety net to catch people who fall through the cracks.

            • WabiSabiPapi@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              the actual criticism by those on the left is that private ownership of the means of production necessitates an inequitable heirarchical relationship between an ownership class and the working class.

              this relationship is enforced by the state, which is essentially an abstraction of capital, by inflicting violence in order to protect the interest of the capital owning class.

              neoliberalism is conservative in that it functions to conserve this status quo, offering incremental material improvement as a social pressure-release valve, but liberal democracy can not deliver liberation to the working class because of its primary function of enforcing private capital.

              most liberals don’t consider neoliberalism conservative because the coloqial usage in US contemporary politics is referring to the reactionary position of the christo-fascist right.

              • Lols [they/them]@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                even internationally, the divide between left-wing and right-wing is rarely “do they believe in completely abolishing private ownership”

              • DreamerOfImprobableDreams@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                the actual criticism by those on the left is that private ownership of the means of production necessitates an inequitable heirarchical relationship between an ownership class and the working class.

                I have to strongly disagree here. Human nature results in inequitable hierarchical relationships between upper and lower classes-- not just between the rich and poor, but between the dominant racial / ethnic group and minorities, between men and women, between cis heterosexual people and queer people. No matter what kind of economic system we use, assholes are going to try to game it to cement themselves and their cronies in power, and the out groups they hate at the bottom. It happens in capitalist systems just as often as it happens in communist systems.

                The only way to counter it is by building safeguards that prevent people from accumulating too much power, and prevents those who do have power from abusing the power they have. (That’s why I’m personally skeptical of anarchism; removing all safeguards that prevent power-hungry people from consolidating power is deeply concerning to me.)

                this relationship is enforced by the state, which is essentially an abstraction of capital, by inflicting violence in order to protect the interest of the capital owning class.

                True. The state is also the abstraction of minority groups, inflicting “violence” in order to protect minorities from having our rights trampled by the majority (although I’d personally go with “arresting fascist motherfuckers”). It’s both at the same time, because in a democracy the state is a giant organization made up of thousands of legislators and literally millions of bureaucrats. Oh, and they’re all divided into dozens of factions with completely different goals that are at each other’s throats all the damn time. Attributing one set of motives to such a diverse group of people doesn’t really ring true to me. Especially when you’d need literally millions of people to be in on this evil plot for it to work.

                neoliberalism is conservative in that it functions to conserve this status quo, offering incremental material benefit as a social pressure-release valve, but liberal democracy can not deliver liberation to the working class

                When my grandmother was my age, here in the US she couldn’t legally open a bank account, divorce her husband, or pursue charges against him if he r*ped her. Jim Crow was a thing, and gay marriage was illegal in all 50 states. Liberal democracy has already delivered liberation to us-- except I don’t like that passive voice, we the people fought for a better world, and thanks to millions of people’s hard work and sacrifice, we won. There are still huge problems, don’t get me wrong, and there’s a huge amount of work left to be done. But I can’t help but look back at the legacy of my ancestors and feel inspired, energized to take up the fight and keep working for a better world.

                most liberals don’t consider neoliberalism conservative because the coloqial usage in US contemporary politics is referring to the reactionary position of the christo-fascist right.

                Definitely true, but even in Western European countries true Reagan / Thatcher style neoliberals are considered center-right, and “neoliberals” in the modern Democratic party sense are considered center-left.

                • Sparking@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’m not even going to read this. The differences between these ideologies have litigated and re-litigated continuously for the past century. Whether you agree with them or not, you have to recognize at some point that some people have a slightly different perspective and you don’t have to word vomit every time that comes up.

    • borkcorkedforks@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s probably a good idea to cast a wider net but I’m not mod or anything. In the US the term “liberal” is used to just mean “leftist” in most everyday conversation. People aware of actual meanings might get annoyed but no one seems pay attention to those people.