Yeah tbh I also don’t know what to think about the parts regarding Ukraine/Russia and I’m against the genocide against Ukrainians. I don’t think they endorse that or do any mental gymnastics to justify it, at least I didn’t see that. They are anti-war and while I don’t necessarily agree with everything that entails for them, it’s consistent.
For me, genocide is a red line and there’s barely any political party positioning themselves openly against the Gaza genocide or even calling it a genocide in the first place.
And now I don’t want to sound like a dick or twisting your words against you, but to pick up on this
Are you, by any chance, letting the perfect be the enemy of the not completely evil?
Imo being pro Ukraine but also pro Israel is just a warmongering position driven out of selfish, geopolitical interests. And I won’t support any party like that. Again I don’t necessarily agree with everything that Mera25 wants but they draw a red line where I would draw it. Btw being apologetic about Russias invasion would also be a red line. Anyway, here’s me making a compromise and I hope you just think about if you’re making your compromise at the right point. Again, really hope I’m not sounding like a dick here because I think our opinions aren’t so far away from each other.
Speaking Realpolitik: Currently, nothing is going to change Israel’s approach. They already are practically cut off from German arms productions (still able to get replacement parts for radar systems, air defence, such stuff), they could be cut off from US military support and be sanctioned and still continue. It wouldn’t make more Israelis demonstrate on the streets, there’s already plenty of those, it won’t make the Kahanites become any less genocidal.
…and what I just slipped in implicitly there is that the German government, as in at least the ministerial level, does consider the Gaza erm situation a genocide. At least a potential one. Because otherwise the export licenses would match the defence attorney tone before the ICJ, which it doesn’t. (“Your honour, it is true that my client commits plenty of war crimes but genocide, no, genocide requires intent and… shuffles papers intent cannot be established without a sound mind and they are acting out of PTSD, to wit, we caused it. My client pleads temporary insanity”). It also doesn’t get said openly, again Realpolitik: It wouldn’t change anything on the ground and have potentially negative effects when it comes to Germany’s ties into Israeli civil society. And, of course, if Scholz is good at anything then it’s at sitting things out.
It sucks but the whole thing will have to play out. It may even end in an Israeli civil war, what’s certain is that there’s going to be a hell of a hangover. The US could have stopped the whole thing, but that would’ve required a) quick thinking directly after the October attacks and b) a better understanding of Israel than the US has. The US would have had to dock that aircraft carrier they sent to Israel, unloaded a battalion of marines, and go Hamas-hunting themselves. Side-line the IDF, keep an eye on them, witness directly what’s happening.
As to compromises: Why the hell are we talking about this the next EU elections are when, 2029. Both parties are going to be basically irrelevant on a member state level, maybe some municipal or even state seats but that’s it. Effectively this is some BSW-level “let’s make state elections about federal politics” shit, why didn’t Wagenknecht talk about brand-new state-owned ore mines to create new jobs for all those coal miners. About expropriating means of production. About fixing green fuckups by investing in district heating. Stuff, you know, state governments actually have the power to do.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah tbh I also don’t know what to think about the parts regarding Ukraine/Russia and I’m against the genocide against Ukrainians. I don’t think they endorse that or do any mental gymnastics to justify it, at least I didn’t see that. They are anti-war and while I don’t necessarily agree with everything that entails for them, it’s consistent.
For me, genocide is a red line and there’s barely any political party positioning themselves openly against the Gaza genocide or even calling it a genocide in the first place.
And now I don’t want to sound like a dick or twisting your words against you, but to pick up on this
Imo being pro Ukraine but also pro Israel is just a warmongering position driven out of selfish, geopolitical interests. And I won’t support any party like that. Again I don’t necessarily agree with everything that Mera25 wants but they draw a red line where I would draw it. Btw being apologetic about Russias invasion would also be a red line. Anyway, here’s me making a compromise and I hope you just think about if you’re making your compromise at the right point. Again, really hope I’m not sounding like a dick here because I think our opinions aren’t so far away from each other.
Speaking Realpolitik: Currently, nothing is going to change Israel’s approach. They already are practically cut off from German arms productions (still able to get replacement parts for radar systems, air defence, such stuff), they could be cut off from US military support and be sanctioned and still continue. It wouldn’t make more Israelis demonstrate on the streets, there’s already plenty of those, it won’t make the Kahanites become any less genocidal.
…and what I just slipped in implicitly there is that the German government, as in at least the ministerial level, does consider the Gaza erm situation a genocide. At least a potential one. Because otherwise the export licenses would match the defence attorney tone before the ICJ, which it doesn’t. (“Your honour, it is true that my client commits plenty of war crimes but genocide, no, genocide requires intent and… shuffles papers intent cannot be established without a sound mind and they are acting out of PTSD, to wit, we caused it. My client pleads temporary insanity”). It also doesn’t get said openly, again Realpolitik: It wouldn’t change anything on the ground and have potentially negative effects when it comes to Germany’s ties into Israeli civil society. And, of course, if Scholz is good at anything then it’s at sitting things out.
It sucks but the whole thing will have to play out. It may even end in an Israeli civil war, what’s certain is that there’s going to be a hell of a hangover. The US could have stopped the whole thing, but that would’ve required a) quick thinking directly after the October attacks and b) a better understanding of Israel than the US has. The US would have had to dock that aircraft carrier they sent to Israel, unloaded a battalion of marines, and go Hamas-hunting themselves. Side-line the IDF, keep an eye on them, witness directly what’s happening.
As to compromises: Why the hell are we talking about this the next EU elections are when, 2029. Both parties are going to be basically irrelevant on a member state level, maybe some municipal or even state seats but that’s it. Effectively this is some BSW-level “let’s make state elections about federal politics” shit, why didn’t Wagenknecht talk about brand-new state-owned ore mines to create new jobs for all those coal miners. About expropriating means of production. About fixing green fuckups by investing in district heating. Stuff, you know, state governments actually have the power to do.
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.
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.
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.
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.