«hallowed be thy Name, thy Kingdom come», that’s ‘the christians’ Aim’/Islam
The world is ugly sometimes
We(sterners), aggressors, are still the main(~only) obstacle to ‘world peace’/‘a union of diversities’
♪All we are saaying…♬(, are we even trying ? we could/should/must protect them&us)
- 186 Posts
- 261 Comments
Just a note on this :
While it is probably just that they werent counted yet
It’s unrelated to the rest of your comment, but i wanted to underline something here : California has 25.2M eligible voters(, based on the VEP column from the document given by @multitotal above). If we’ve only counted half of their votes, then it’s there that we’ll find most of the missing 15.5M votes.
Since California overwhelmingly votes Democrat(, appr. 66%-33%), then it may be fair to assume 8M more votes for K.Harris and 4M for D.Trump, and they’re separated by 4M votes.
In the end, Kamala Harris probably got almost as many votes as Donald Trump but i’ve yet to read a newspaper saying that. Even if it won’t change the outcome of the election obviously, and i was too young/uninterested in 2016 to say if newspapers correctly reported from the beginning that H.Clinton ended up with more votes than D.Trump, i think that something so obvious/easy should have been noticed, or perhaps that i’m mistaken again and/or that they don’t really care since the results stay unchanged.Just to add that a lot of people are focused on explaining these results by the votes of minorities, even if it’s mostly white people voting republican(, confirmations : 1, 2, 3, 4), yet when we look at it, it didn’t evolve that much between 2012 and 2020(, here’s for 2020, and here’s for 2024). I’m not saying that there’s nothing to say about the hispanic vote, but it just feels ‘less pertinent’/‘too simple’ once you see the ups&downs, i.d.k., there’s probably more pertinent infos, such as the inflation or something(, i.d.k.), here’s my 2cts on your election 🤷.
In any case, it’s too obvious to even point out, but journalists didn’t explained the results solely by the hispanic vote, so i can’t criticize some biases towards oversimplification here, and since i’ve checked i can confirm that the hispanic vote is indeed a noticeable change like we’re being told(, even if it doesn’t seem to be particular to D.Trump, but something that began ~20 years ago, at least here&there, but not here&there).
This seems like a good news for our instance though.
And if they don’t have the same source, it confirms the WaPo’s 65% with its 64.52%(, in the VEP_TURNOUT_RATE column)
we’re making some error somewhere
Yeah, you’re right, it’s too obvious, anyone can do 72.6M+68M+2.2M and easily see that it’s only ~143M out of 158.5, so we’re indeed making an obvious mistake somewhere. They’re probably simply not counted yet, as you said(, California is slow here).
It says those are expected vote totals for states where less than 97 percent of the vote has been counted
We may have understood it the same way, yet just to be sure : The turnout is counted normally, except for states where less than 97% of the votes are counted, in which case the reported turnout has been replaced by the expected turnout.
That sounds to me like a lot of Dem voters didn’t show up
You’re right, if they didn’t voted for third parties, if the votes are mostly counted, if the voter turnout is the same, and if republicans didn’t received more votes than in 2020, then where did these 14M votes went ?
Thanks for confirming that i’m missing something, don’t know if you or someone here have the explanation.
Ideally, stats by categories would be more useful to draw a conclusion, but at first sight it doesn’t seem so though :
At first, i agreed with the explanations based on the lack of cohesion of the democratic party, and the influence of Palestine, on the votes :
With most votes counted, the 2024 election elected D.Trump with ~73M votes vs. ~68M for K.Harris, compared to 2020 when D.Trump was rejected despite having the same numbers(, 74.2M,) and J.Biden was elected with 81.3M votes.
Furthermore, D.Trump would have received less votes without influent people like Robert Kennedy Jr. on his side, who still received votes apparently.
However, third parties like the libertarian party or the Green party received much more votes in 2016 than in 2024(, and the republican&democratic parties much less). Having gained 1M votes at most wouldn’t have that much of an impact.
(I’ve also sometimes heard(, mostly twitter, but here’s msnbc,) that the 2.5M muslim-americans voted D.Trump in opposition but that’s not supported(source), even if J.Stein should have obtained much more if these surveys were trustworthy).
While i can’t deny the influence of many pro-Palestine actors, i can’t really prove it by the numbers either, and some deny its importance. Also, the high voter turnout doesn’t favor the alternative of a boycott.
I only took a superficial look, so i don’t doubt that there’re many americans here who could easily correct my mistakes if they want to
8·4 days agoYeah, and they’ll be like “but we don’t have a choice, we have to build these machines !”
Of course they have, we could stop wars and live in peace with our neighbors, united in diversity, ensuring everyone’s security, but we’re not even trying. And inside, we could enable a real/direct democracy(, e.g., sortition,) with efficient checks and balances to prevent a risk of deterioration.
Of course, we won’t, just that it’d always be false to say that we have no other choice than the current road.
4·5 days agoFor those interested : https://leftychan.net/leftypol/src/1622232510872-4.pdf
2 - ‘IMPERIAL SOCIALISM ’
Mutilation of class struggle can take another form : closing one’s eyes to the fate visited by capitalism on colonial peoples or peoples of colonial origin.
From the outset, calling attention to the ‘millions of workers’ forced to die in India, to allow capitalists to make modest concessions to British workers, Marx underlined the connection between the colonial question and the social question in the capitalist metropolis (see Chap. 2, Sect. 3). This was a demanding intellectual perspective.
In sharp contrast to Proudhon, Fourier was a champion of the cause of women’s emancipation. But it happened that, in the very years when Marx and Engels were expressing their hopes in the proletariat as the agency of universal emancipation with youthful hyperbole, followers of Fourier (and Saint-Simon) planned to construct communities of a more or less socialist kind in Algeria, on land taken from the Arabs in a brutal, sometimes genocidal war. 11
Later, utopian socialism mostly viewed the abolitionist movement with condescension or suspicion. After the February 1848 revolution, Victor Schoelcher and the new government proceeded to the definitive abolition of black slavery in French colonies, almost half a century after it had been reintroduced by Napoleon, who had thereby cancelled the results of the black revolution on Santo Domingo led by Toussaint L’Ouverture and the laws emancipating blacks enacted by the Jacobin Convention.
However, Etienne Cabet, an eminent representative of French utopian socialism, criticized Schoelcher for focusing on a narrow objective—the emancipation of black slaves—rather than committing himself to the universal emancipation of labour. 12
On the outbreak of the Civil War in the USA, Lassalle argued similarly, judging at least from a letter to Engels of 30 July 1862 in which Marx criticized the ‘antiquated, mouldering speculative rubbish’ of Lassalle, for whom the gigantic clash underway in the USA was ‘of no interest whatever’. Rather than developing positive ‘ideas’ for transforming society, ‘the Yankees’ confined themselves to mobilizing a ‘negative idea’ like ‘the freedom of the individual’. 13
For the two representatives of socialism cited here, commitment to the abolition of slavery in the colonies or the North American republic distracted attention from the social question, which remained a burning issue in the capitalist metropolis.
To the American Civil War—in Marx’s view, an epic event—Lassalle made only distracted, reductive references. Because of the blockade imposed by the Union on the secessionist South, and the consequent shortage of cotton for the textile industry of Britain, and Lancashire in particular, British workers were forced into unemployment and risked having to ‘emigrate to the colonies’. It was ‘one of the most bloody and horrible wars that history has ever seen’.
What was at stake in it was not touched upon. In fact, rather than the institution of slavery, Lassalle indicted ‘federalism’ and the self-government accorded states as allegedly responsible for the ‘absorption in particular interests’ and ‘mutual hatred’ of the contending parties, which were thus put on par. 14
The economistic or corporatist limitations of representatives of the labour and socialist movement were not unconnected with the initiative of the dominant classes, whose effectiveness was in fact underestimated by Marx and Engels. Having included ‘Young England’ in the ‘spectacle’ of ‘feudal socialism’ staged by ‘aristocrats’, the Communist Manifesto concluded: ‘the people, so often as it joined them, saw on their hindquarters the old feudal coats of arms, and deserted with loud and irreverent laughter’. 15
In fact, things turned out rather differently. The historically most important member of Young England was Disraeli. In him (as in the organization he joined) are to be found elements of the transfiguration of the ancien régime, but he may be regarded as the inventor of a ‘socialism’ more appropriately defined as ‘imperial’ than ‘feudal’. Far from meeting with derision from the popular classes, this was socialism that often enchanted and ensnared them.
In the same years as The Holy Family and The German Ideology proclaimed the irreducible antagonism between proletariat and bourgeoisie, Disraeli published a novel that in its own way dealt with the same themes. We find a Chartist agitator bitterly challenging the existing order and denouncing the reality of the ‘two nations’ (‘rich and poor’) into which England is divided. In the Communist Manifesto, the Chartists are included among the ‘existing working-class parties’; 16 and the agitator seems to exhibit the revolutionary consciousness attributed to the proletariat by Marx and Engels. It is interesting to observe Disraeli’s response: it made no sense to speak of ‘two nations’; a bond of ‘fraternity’ now united ‘the privileged and prosperous English people’. 17
The key word is the one emphasized by me : the English aristocracy had shelved the caste, even racial arrogance it traditionally displayed towards the popular classes ; and now it was the ‘fraternal’ national English community as a whole that adopted a pose of supreme aristocratic disdain for other nations, especially colonial populations.
In other words, rather than disappearing, the racialization traditionally suffered by the British popular classes was displaced. It is no accident if Disraeli, who subsequently became the author of the Second Reform Act (which extended political rights beyond the circle of the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie), and of a series of social reforms, was simultaneously the champion of imperialism and the right of the ‘superior’ races to subjugate ‘inferior’ ones. In this way, the British statesman proposed to defuse the social question and class struggle in his own country : ‘I say with confidence that the great body of the working-class of England […] are English to the core. They are for maintaining the greatness of the Kingdom and the Empire, and they are proud of being subjects of our Sovereign and members of such an Empire.’ 18
These were the years when in France Proudhon adopted the position (according to Marx) of a ‘socialist of the Imperial period’—to be precise, the Second Empire. 19
Thus, we see a new political movement emerge. In the late nineteenth century, alluding to Napoleon III and Bismarck as well as Disraeli, a German observer spoke of an ‘imperialist social policy’ or ‘imperial socialism’ (Imperialsozialismus ). 20
Already brought out by Marx, the connection between the colonial question and the social question in the capitalist metropolis was recognized and put at the centre of a new political project, which proposed a kind of quid pro quo: the popular masses and proletariat were invited to respond to the dominant classes’ limited social reforms with patriotism and support for colonial expansionism.
That’s what i thought, but after rapidly checking i edited my comment because i realized that i’ve been abused by some clickbait titles about some kind of “war” between Morocco and Algeria over the Sahara(, and that our president recently took the side of Morocco).
When i’m looking a bit more into this, they’re not lying to this point, but they’re not saying that the algerian position is based on its own decolonial tradition, every article i found(, out of the 5-6 i’ve skimmed through, 2015 in a specialized magazine, up to 2024 in a more general one,) say that it’s primarily done to annoy Morocco, and more power/influence over the region. Not in favor of the Sahrawis whose point of view isn’t really told.
So, i guess that if i had to find the bias in our propaganda, it’d be that usually we’d be in favor of the independence of the Sahrawi republic, but we’re curiously not taking their sides(, just like for south-eastern ukrainians or others). So our bias is that we’re progressively aligned with the position of Morocco, and the u.s.
Indeed, the algerian position is more about supporting their independence, there’re no claims, thanks 👍
Internet is the occasion to meet other nationalities, so i was wondering : do you have an opinion(, and/or could you tell me the general algerian opinion,) about the western Sahara ? Should it be independent, moroccan, algerian, divided, … ?
Also, it’s not important but it reminds me of seeing a channel a few years ago that offered a bounty for archeological findings proving that the western Sahara was the ancient location of Atlantis, e.g. with this, it’s almost certainly false but kind of the only thing i know about this topic 🤷The Fr*nch left is Charlie Hebdo
And yeah, the so-called “freedom of expression”*
*As long as we agree with you. Terrorism apologia or what we deem “hate speech” or “disinformation” is a threat to our “values”.
It’s very French.
It makes me think of this video from Blast : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AASPDZd-DKc (5k likes for 145k views)
First you watch the video(, in x2,) hoping from something, then you’re disappointed, and then you read the comments and you’re pleasantly surprised(, at least in my case :))
Peu importe, mais juste pour info complémentaire, je voulais te dire qu’il avait écrit cela après que nous ayons parlé ensemble : https://jlai.lu/comment/10727043
Et je voulais aussi te dire que même si tu n’avais pas voulu débattre plus longtemps avec anansi(, clairement une opinion anti-“autoritaire” fréquente chez nous n’est-ce pas ? Il nous accuse de double standard alors que même en ne commençant qu’en 1945 les deux accusations ne sont pas comparables, enfin, il dira qu’il s’oppose aux deux, je trouve ça malhonnête mais cela aurait pu être l’occasion de prendre le temps de “convertir” quelqu’un, même si je comprends que tu n’ai pas que ça à faire tkt…)
Je dis pas ça dans l’intention de te “flatter”, mais je trouve que ce que tu dis(, genre ici ou là,) sur l’ironie de personnes qui ne nous tolèrent pas sur la base de notre supposé autoritarisme, est super pertinent et totalement aligné sur ce que je critique moi aussi de mon côté. On ne veut pas défédérer de lemmy.world ou d’autres parce qu’ils se trompent dans leur vision du monde, et que leurs opinions nous choque ou que nous les craignons, c’est e.lles.ux qui craignent notre agitprop. Enfin bon/bref, c’est con parce que la défédération va aussi affecter leur feed, tant pis 🤷…
If anyone here wants to know more about the beliefs of anansi and the reasons for why a leftist like him(, very common in France,) is convinced that Hexbear and Lemmygrad are simply contrarians with no backbone to stand firm on our beliefs even when it’s “our” side that commits atrocities, he talked about it at different places, including under this post, but that comment would be a recommended starting point if you want to “convert”/debate/convince him(, which can obviously only be done with enough patience on both sides).
We have nothing to be scared or ashamed of because we both (think that we )believe in the truth(, seek the Truth), and we’re the first ones to criticize the typical western double standards that can be seen everywhere. Like everyone here i’m not afraid of being wrong somewhere nor about exchanging about my/our beliefs.
(We’ve already spoke about it in french so i don’t think i’ll add my own comment, but )There’s a good reply from Cowbee below(, a tiny bit agressive but it could be worse, and more importantly he has good arguments).
(here)Keep in mind that anansi said here and there that he doesn’t want to defederate on these grounds, and don’t personally want to defederate, but was asked to do a survey by some jlailu users(, following this heated post that according to them wasn’t initially going to lead to anything in the first place).
Then is it wrong to say that nazi Germany was bad ? We should say that “some germans were bad” ?
Once again you’re certainly right to nuance, but could understand why people use shortcuts, and you probably used them as well(, i did).
I know that not all iranians or chinese or russians are awesome, but i do love their countries, because of their government’s actions, and regularly claim that Iran, Russia, China, the Alliance of Sahel States, and many more countries/federations, are awesome
(i’d undeniably prefer if the Alliance of Sahel States lived in peace alongside islamists though, nothing’s easy, and i do recognize on the other side that it’s happening on the fringes of the historic territory of islamism, and that we should leave some room for africans to (re)create their own uniqueness that goes beyond any other ideology, ‘one day’/soon perhaps, for now they’re still choosing between “liberalism”, socialism, and islamism, i don’t see their fourth way but it can only be temporary if they continue to ‘make room’&search for it)Still a good point/warning though(, even if it’s more for intra-national groups) :
Because as soon as that line of thought is cautioned, you only need a drop of social or economic domination to create a racist trend.
Yet if you’re anti-imperialist then you’re anti-France(≃anti-french), just like americans here are anti-amerikka(≃anti-americans), a shortcut to say that you’re against our imperialist actions and propaganda.
That’s why historically we’re called anti-patriotic, while we’re simply patriotic towards another France than the current one(, and real patriots are internationalists anyway i.m.h.o.).
This is not what was posted or claimed.
That’s how i’m understanding it since i signed up here on Lemmygrad, and not only for the fr*nch, but for amerikkans and every westerner as well.
Many people here are american and are rightfully criticizing our imperialism, it’s not xenophobism towards themselves.As for the rest of your (pertinent )answer i have a simple question that may help me in understanding your position(, or you to understand mine) : If Mélenchon, Roussel, Poutou, Arthaud, …, come into power and somehow miraculously manages to change the course of France(, one could dream). Wouldn’t Lemmygrad users say that France is awesome now ? Or would they need to say that “some french people are awesome” ?
You may be right to want to put some nuances in this, but it’s an understandable shortcut, you define France by its government, medias, and the propaganda believed by the overwhelming majority of its population, seems like a fair shortcut, and if you’re a french anti-imperialist, then be welcomed here, but you’re an exception in France(, and knows it).
Are you pro-France, do you support the actions of our government ?
If not, why argue on the principle that users here were “racist” or xenophobic for hating a pro-french instance ? Jlai.lu isn’t anti-imperialist nor anti-french, and i doubt that finding a few criticisms(, and even fewer support for the countries we’re defending here,) would change that fact.
They’re assuming the ideology of people living in France, and of your instance, rightfully so i.m.o., not saying that there’s a problem with french “genes” or w/e
Correction : Someone states a French speaking community should be defederated on the basis of being pro-French
If you really hate the current actions of France then we have the same “values”/beliefs/ideology
An example : Most people here would have probably appreciated some of the warnings emitted from our president towards Israel(, even if, let’s be honest we’re still far from it), that’s only an example, they’re against our actions and what we’re ending up representing.
“It’s a rare french win” isn’t heard very often around here.
Cool, now notice the algerian flag next to her username.
You’re the first to say that « fascists are currently 1/3 to 1/2 of voters in France », but “racialist punks” is too much ?
France is opposing every country that we’re supporting on Lemmygrad and Hexbear, and your community is not anti-France, so you’re not against imperialism and most of you clearly aren’t against nationalism.
If you’re saying that you’re not what she denounces, then aren’t we on the same side ? Kinda hard to prove it for the community, but it’s possible to do it for you, and if you really have the same values then there’s no need to fight then.
Aren’t you ashamed of the françafrique, of our many wars, of our neocolonialism, of our decolonial wars, of our centuries of genocide, of the lamentable state of our propaganda, etc. ?
She’s not “racist”, since she doesn’t hate me for being french(, even if it’s not a quality), but she hates the ideology of our country, as i do, and even more we hate the actions of our government, as you’ll claim to do as well. And it’s not because we hate France but because we love humanity/‘other countries’. Try to argue on this basis in our medias it’ll be impossible.
Edit :