• shaserlark@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    I understand your point about Realpolitik, but for me, it’s not about what’s pragmatic or what will change the situation on the ground right now. It’s about taking a moral stance and being clear about what’s right and wrong.

    I appreciate your honesty about the German government’s stance on the Gaza situation, but I think it’s still important to speak out loudly and clearly against genocide, even if it won’t change the situation immediately.

    As for compromises, I understand that the next EU elections are a ways off, but for me, it’s not just about winning seats or gaining power. It’s about building a movement and creating a sense of community around our values.

    I’m not interested in making compromises that would water down those values or make us complicit in systems of oppression. I’d rather be part of a smaller movement that stands for something real than a larger movement that’s willing to sacrifice its principles for power.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      It’s about taking a moral stance and being clear about what’s right and wrong.

      I’m not much for moralising, I find it ineffective when it comes to influencing the world… though I guess your kind of take makes sure that takes like mine actually properly flesh out the strategic rationale.

      I’m not interested in making compromises that would water down those values or make us complicit in systems of oppression.

      If I were to chose to not be complicit in systems of oppression then I’d have to boycott parliamentary democracy and no I’m not going to effectively hand my vote to Nazis by refusing to vote. That kind of refusal works on the small scale, on the larger scale, well. Compromises have to be made regarding means/ends unity to protect what has already been achieved. Meanwhile, properly means/ends unified action has to be insulated against getting besmirched by those compromises, that means acting, in addition, outside of the parliamentary system. Uncompromising, universally perfect moral action is only possible in a world full of perfectly moral actors in the mean time we have to wear different hats in different places.

      So to circle back: If Volt can make a dent into New Labour and Christian Democrat acquiescence with ultimately quite unchristian things, popularise a liberalism which isn’t crypto-feudalism, then yes I wish them all the best. They, too, will need to be overcome but that’s a topic for the future, currently they’re convenient. In principle my stance to Diem is the same but politically they’re rather stale. As in: Too much smell of Soviet mothballs, the parliamentary left will have to re-invent itself before it’s able to inspire masses, again.

      • shaserlark@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Based on your reply to this and to the other thread I think I understand now where you’re coming from and I think it’s fair enough. Thanks a lot for taking the time to flesh out your thoughts! Don’t know what else to say except that I enjoyed sharing opinions and that I agree with your views on the system.

        Eventually, whether it makes more sense to try and do a slow transition from within in order to stop the current Nazi threat, or if it makes more sense to try and push for radical change at the very high risk of simply being ignored, I honestly don’t know. That being said I think I have nothing to add to your other post and agree with it.