this post was submitted on 08 Apr 2026
788 points (99.9% liked)
Memes of Production
1500 readers
1204 users here now
Seize the Memes of Production
An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of the “ML” influence of instances like lemmy.ml and lemmygrad. This is a place for undogmatic shitposting and memes from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.
Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.
Other Great Communities:
founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
Order of operations matters.
There's always a better perfect solution. If you're not willing to work for something achievable because your special vision for how things should be is the only thing you care about, well, that's why leftists fight each other instead of fighting the fascists that have taken over the usa and are in the process of taking over the rest of the world.
You have 1,000 slaves. Do you accept freeing 500 instead of fighting for all to be free?
Fight for what’s right, fuck compromise that perpetuates suffering. That’s what centrists do.
Do the thing that helps now and work to do the things that help in the future as well. Why would I allow 500 slaves to remain in servitude just because I can't free all 1,000 right now?
Accepting freeing 500 doesn't mean stopping the fight to free the other 500.
Should the Union during the US Civil War have refused to free any slaves until it could guarantee all slaves would be free?
I think the proposed situation is that the slavers will agree to free 500 slaves if you let them keep the other 500. Would you take the deal?
I mean, that is the situation stated? Unless you mean "You are forbidden from engaging in abolitionism ever again", which is generally not what people object to when they decry 'reform', which rarely, if ever, comes with such terms in the contexts it's discussed in on here.
Choices should be made fundamentally on two issues: reduction of suffering, and improvement of strategic positioning. If it does both, it is morally necessary to take it. If it helps one goal, but does not harm the other goal, it is morally necessary to take it. If it helps one goal, but harms the other goal, you must make your own estimation of the relative value of each.
Freeing 500 slaves reduces suffering. Ceteris paribus, it also improves strategic positioning. If an argument can be made that, in context, it degrades strategic positioning, then the choice becomes more ambiguous, but the emphasis here is on 'degrades', not simply 'does not improve'. But you'd better be ready with a damn good argument for keeping 500 people in chains on strategic grounds when you could very well free them, and not just a general feeling of 'All or nothing'.
That's true, the hypothetical I posed isn't remotely analogous to the perfection vs harm reduction debate. I have a tendency to fixate on questions I find interesting regardless of how realistic or practical they are.
No worries, I understand that completely, I often do the same thing!
Does freeing 500 take 1% of the effort of freeing all 1k? Do the 500 first and then start working towards freeing the rest.
Now, this requires actually doing the second part, but some good actually done is better than all the good wished for but none done.
People get complacent after doing some, it’s always better to do it all than half arse it and promise to come back later.
Plus it y’know actually stops the suffering rather than prolonging it but lesser.
Example, ACA, there's been no real talk from Dems after "compromising with Republicans" to pass that to try and make it better. To maybe go with the original plan of universal healthcare for all and not health insurance for all.
To some degree, this is correct - people tend to leave behind the passion once they've done something about it. But this is a reason to do as much as one can with the circumstances given, regardless of worrying whether it is 'too radical' to last; not a reason to refuse to do anything that doesn't immediately result in the end-goal of your ideology.
Put another way, this argument could be used to oppose anarchist organizing - after people do a little for the revolution, like organizing, they tend to get complacent. Only immediate and violent action in service to revolution is moral.
But it doesn't stop the suffering until it succeeds, if it succeeds.
Which is the better outcome? Someone wanting to save 10,000 lives, but failing to save anyone's life; or someone who wants to save 1,000 lives, thinking it's all they can do (rightly or wrongly), and succeeds in saving 500?
It's almost like reality has nuance and shit.
You refused to compromise, and now you have 1000 slaves. But at least you can tell yourself you did the right thing, as the slaves, slave on.
Because refusal to compromise = never succeeding?
You’d be in favour having some slave states and some non-slave states instead of fighting a civil war to end slavery.
But wouldn't you be in favor of not having any non-slave states until you could assure that there were no slave states? Thus eliminating the political and demographic power which allowed the abolitionists to be a faction strong enough to contest a civil war?
No, I'd compromise to buy time, until I can stab the confederates in the back, duh.