You must log in or # to comment.
As an outsider, I’m curious why there is such a focus on liberalism in leftist circles? It seems every other meme here is hate for liberals. What’s the relationship between liberalism and leftism?
Edit: thanks for the responses but unfortunately I don’t really understand what you guys are talking about. I needed an ELI5 really. Thanks anyway.
I will always point to mlk as a response to this question:
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
New to me, very good quote thanks
To quote Malcolm X:
The white liberal is the most dangerous thing in the entire wester hemisphere. He is the most deceitful, he’s like a fox. And a fox is always more dangerous in the forest than the wolf. You can see the wolf coming, you know what he is up to. But the fox will fool you. He comes at you with his mouth shaped in such a way, that even though you see his teeth, you think he is smiling.
All their supposed progress and opposition to capital only reinforces and propels capitalism, alleviating the need for fascism just for a little longer (which arises for the ruling classes when the majority of the population grows disillusioned with their lies, be they conservative or “progressive”). In the end only legitimizing the underlying framework (capitalism), without ever threatening it.
tl;dr: scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds
Liberalism is a big-tent ideology that services Capitalism. Leftists want Socialism, Liberals want Capitalism. This is the divide.
For me it is a frustration over that liberals would rather endanger the liberal democracy by working with the far right than collaborating with anything considered left. It is very obvious in Sweden. The swedish far right has declared that the liberal democratic project is a threat to their nationalist vision – it’s not just me as a leftist saying this, but liberals, as in the Liberal party, said this about them. Then came the last election, the Liberals sided with the far right. Its down to two liberal MPs and they could force a switch from the far right to just center lib politics. But no. They rather want prisons for children than work with a socdem and maybe suffer to have a cap on profits on charter schools.
As an outsider, I’m curious why there is such a focus on liberalism in leftist circles?
Liberal politicians in the US tend to be deeply connected with the industrial and media elites. So we get a recurring cast of candidates who are milquetoast on a slew of popular issues, while they’re lauded as “The Most Leftist Politician To Ever Think About Running For Office” in headline after headline.
Leftists who run are regularly denigrated as unrealistic, unelectable, and disastrous for the domestic economy by the same industrial tycoons and media magnets who push unpopular candidates and their dismal policies. So we’re in this constant state of tension during election season, with a candidate like Joe Biden who receives enormous stacks of cash and tons of DNC support fighting against an outsider like Sanders or AOC who divert time from expressing generally popular sentiments to argue over whether they’re well-dressed enough to win over a rust belt used car salesman.
What’s the relationship between liberalism and leftism?
Liberals tend to campaign as leftists and govern as conservatives. So they initially attract a lot of leftist voters, and then end up having to argue that said voters shouldn’t ask for anything from the party once the election is over. Leftists tend to live on the political outskirts, looking for anyone remotely attractive to rally around, only to get taken for a ride by con-men in the liberal party until they finally burn out and stop engaging with electoral politics.
Removed by mod
Lmao, is this vibes-based theory? Nothing you said makes any sense, haha
Removed by mod
Some of them, sure, but this post is 100% accurate historically.
And yet you feel the need to comment on it?
That seems healthy.
Removed by mod
I’m guessing you browse twitter too.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Found the liberal.
Removed by mod
I needed an ELI5 really.
Liberals essentially cover for both capitalists and fascists. See, capitalist and fascist ideology are very unpopular on their own, so liberals come up with all kinds of ways to pretend that rich people owning everything is good for everyone (capitalism) or pretending that more police repression means more safety (fascism).
Liberalsm essentially acts as the pretend-friendly “facade” ideology of this unholy trio - so yes, it’s simply coherent for leftists to despise liberalism.
Liberals essentially cover for both capitalists and fascists.
ELI5. What’s a liberal? What’s a captialist? What’s a fascist? Why are liberals covering others?
Because the last 400 years of human history basically has been liberals stabbing leftists in the back.
See: Emmanuel Macron. Liberals would rather ally with nazis than leftists
Didn’t Ensemble ally with the left to defeat RN?
Liberalism has been a weird one to try and tackle in the US today, at least in my friends circle. I’m a leftist through and through, but have friends that still fall into the liberal bucket. But they have absolutely no desire to compromise with fascism, and they have the same criticisms of capitalism and the current market as myself. Despite this, they still sometimes take offense to my criticisms of liberals and still feel some sort of ownership over it. So I think as times progress onward, it’s going to get harder and harder to define it, especially with how the US has clouded all of these terms.
That said, there’s still a shitload of liberals in the US that think we can simply vote these problems away and basically do nothing else. They aren’t willing to get their hands dirty if it comes down to it and will instead do whatever they can to fly under the radar and put on blinders. They fail to realize that the Democratic Party is the other side of the same fascist coin.
But they have absolutely no desire to compromise with fascism, and they have the same criticisms of capitalism and the current market as myself.
This is pretty much the default stance for most people, I believe. The issue, is that without deprogramming the Anticommunist Red Scare Propaganda, and without reading Leftist Theory, this is the endpoint of this position, essentially doomerism.
That said, there’s still a shitload of liberals in the US that think we can simply vote these problems away and basically do nothing else. They aren’t willing to get their hands dirty if it comes down to it and will instead do whatever they can to fly under the radar and put on blinders. They fail to realize that the Democratic Party is the other side of the same fascist coin.
This is why it’s important for Leftists to constantly agitate, organize, and spread theory. Electoralism is a doomed game, organizing is what’s important.
Removed by mod
I’m gonna start recommending Combat Liberalism to them.
Removed by mod
That said, there’s still a shitload of liberals in the US that think we can simply vote these problems away and basically do nothing else. They aren’t willing to get their hands dirty if it comes down to it and will instead do whatever they can to fly under the radar and put on blinders. They fail to realize that the Democratic Party is the other side of the same fascist coin.
If you are from US, then thank you. For me (observing from another side of the pond) it seemed that everyone saying “kill the other side” is not healthy. Thanks for another confirmation that not everyone thinks so.
A unified working class helps everyone.
Scratch a liberal, and a fascist bleeds.
Or, because liberals care more about preserving their increasing property and stocks values and thus willing to bed with the devil, than preserve democracy.
Yes, that’s why liberals have historically worked with fascists against Leftists.
Unfortunately you’re correct. We see this happening all over again.
It’s happening in France right now. And ANC in South Africa just started a coalition which includes white supremacist parties…
Removed by mod
Hitler came into power because the liberal PM appointed him chancellor to avoid creating a coalition with the left party. Liberals would rather work with a fascist over a socialist any day of the week.
See: The new French government
Macron had the option of forming a coalition with the leftists, who won a plurality of the seats. Instead, he joined forces with the nationalist party on the right.
That’s a lie; Paul Von Hindenburg was an a outspoken Monarchist.
These are mutually exclusive?
Removed by mod
SPD has been a liberal center-left party since it’s founding. Hindenburg’s closely held political beliefs had no bearing on the outcome of a liberal party avoiding a coalition with socialists by appointing a fascist to chancellor.
SPD has been a liberal center-left
That’s a contradiction in terms: Liberalism is a right-wing philosophy; it can’t be center-left. JFC you idiots are all the same. Sometimes I wonder if y’all’re capable of having 2 consistent thoughts. Go on, tell me about how anyone who isn’t an ML is a liberal (including Anarchists) and every Liberal is a fascist.
Look, I don’t get to control how people classify political parties. That is how SPD has always been defined. Centrist parties have always had a variety of status quo-esque ideologies. Hindenburg was a monarchist and a member of the SPD, because monarchy was the recently departed political system and he wanted a return to the status quo. Liberals were also a part of SPD, and there are a variety of samey progressive liberal ideologies that seek to entrench capitalism while providing social benefits to the people. That is how a liberal center-left party can exist.
And for the record, I’m an anarcho-syndicalist.
Alright, fair enough.
“Ve can control zem.”
Removed by mod
Firstly, never in the history of the world has fascism and authoritarianism been defeated through voting.
Second, from a socialist perpective, a liberal is a proponent of capitalism with democratic trappings.
Third lol
From an American socialist perspective
No, from every proper/genuine socialist perspective (ie. one that defines socialism by the public ownership of the economy)
Only in the sense that they still exist, and thus have never truly been defeated. Fascists and authoritarians have lost elections, and thus lost or never gained power… but fascism and authoritarianism still exist as concepts. The only real way to change that is to:
A. Completely remove the concept from public consciousness, which is nigh impossible and can always be thought of again
B. Kill anyone you suspect of harboring fascist or authoritarian thoughts. Which is the kind of thing people think when they say “that just makes you a fascist/authoritarian yourself”.
You can not police thought unless you become that which you hate. You can help to foster an environment where those ideas seem silly and not worthwhile… bit not with swords or guns.
If you don’t believe that you can have what you want with democracy, with freedom of choice, with elections and voting. That your only choice is to force others to see things your way with violence… then I have some bad news for you. You are the authoritarian.
You can not force people to be free at the tip of a bayonet. They have to choose it for themselves.
We defeated fascism militarily 80 years ago, and yet it’s slowly it grew back and is poised to take power again. Everything that happened since wasn’t defeating fascism but nurturing it, as it’s been growing in power since. You are positing a false dichotomy. The only way to defeat fascism is to change to a system that doesn’t breed fascism.
We didn’t defeat fascism, we defeated fascists. Fascism didn’t stop existing because we defeated Germany in a war. It just went into hiding. A lot of that hiding in the US.
The idea that we “defeated fascism” is part of the problem with why it still exists. That we were able to shoot it in the face and it just went away.
The only way to defeat fascism is to change to a system that doesn’t breed fascism.
Yes, that is literally the point of my previous comment. The problem is you are advocating a system that fosters it, not one that removes it.
What? Lol the current system breeds it. The one you explicitly endorse through voting. How is what I suggest promoting fascism? Do you even know what I would suggest or are you just making an ass of yourself?
Ah yes, let the fascists win the election rather than voting against them, which would “endorse” them somehow. Great leftist logic there.
Mate, you lot have been “voting the fascists out” for the past 80 years and they’ve only been growing stronger to the point where you’re about to get fascism in multiple northern nations (never mind the looming climate apocalypse) . Surely you must know what they call ones who keep doing the same thing and expect different results.
You’re literally advocating violence to enforce your point of view.
I dont know what you think that is, but it sure as fuck isn’t leftist. You don’t change minds by caving them in.
Where did you see me advocating for violence? Are you making silly assumptions again?
As Neil Gaiman once wrote in something entirely unrelated:
“‘Time is fluid here,’ said the demon.”
Are Labour liberals? We have a Lib Dem party who I consider the liberal party, well I assume they are anyway.
Labour right now is just the Tory party from 12 years ago. So scumbags but only massive scumbags instead of gigantic scumbags.
They’re slightly to the left of US liberals, so I guess that’s close enough for a meme.
Swedish liberals do
On Monday, Renew Europe chairman Stéphane Séjourné took distance from the decision of the Swedish Liberals to sign a government agreement that favours the far-right.
“I acknowledge that the Swedish Liberals blocked the far right from entering the government,” he told Politico, adding that he regrets “the agreement and the direction it is taking. “A government with the far right cannot have our blessing”, he said.
Sources within Renew Europe confirmed to EURACTIV that Séjourné personally regretted the decision of the Swedish Liberals on account of the “common values” shared by the Renew Europe members.
It should be noted that “blocked the far right” means “gave far right influence over the government with no accountability instead of collaborating with social democrates”.
Renew later also let the Swedish Liberals stay in their group, so they to some degree agree with the strategy of giving the far right influence over the government as long as it means you never have to work with a socdem.
You should search about Salvador Allende if you think you can beat fascism by “peaceful means”
I know of no liberals at all that say that
Except for the 90%+ of Democrats in Congress and the White House who consider bipartisanship the highest political virtue, even now that the GOP is a literal fascist party.
Those liberals are ALL about compromising with fascists.
No they don’t, they don’t care about getting leftists to agree.
When they say they care about bipartisanship, they mean they want to agree with all the new far right stuff that would probably make them richer.
Well technically it wouldn’t be bipartisanship to compromise with people who belong to no party, having been alienated from their own one by their constant sharp turns right and vehement opposition to anything left of Reagan.
Good point otherwise, though.
Removed by mod
Most of them want a Congress that is willing to work together. Congress is literally supposed to work together.
Not when one of the parties is a fascist party. There’s no acceptable compromise possible with fascists.
Conservatism and progressivism are two hands of the same body.
More like progressivism is the supramarginal gyrus (the part responsible for compassion and empathy), the frontal cortex (logical reasoning), and the hippocampus (creativity) whereas conservatism is the medulla oblongata (fear and distrust) and not much more.
Besides, today’s Republican party isn’t just a conservative party. Fascism is much farther right than that, into “straight white Christian men SHOULD control everything and nobody else should have rights” territory.
Just because one of those hands has cancer doesn’t mean you remove the whole hand.
The entire GOP is controlled by that cancer. There’s no redeeming traits, nobody who goes against it without being ostracized.
The Alt-Right
Is a media term for “modern Fascist but were not allowed to use that word no matter how accurate it is”.
The government exists to make life as good for as many people as possible. That’s simply not possible when giving fascists ANY of the things they want.
Most of them want a Congress that is willing to work together. Congress is literally supposed to work together.
Not when one of the parties is a fascist party.
Not at all, rather. Part of the point is that it’s literally supposed to work against itself to keep change slow, manageable. Moderate.
Also, doctors do sever limbs that can’t be recovered. Idunno where the person you’re responding to gets their ideas but maybe they should let it serve its natural function instead of digging around in it for bad ideas.
You hear about what’s going on in Palestine lately?
Yeah, ok, but I’m still voting for Isildur in November. He may not be perfect, but he’s better than Sauron. Besides, who else am I going to put my faith in? A bunch of stupid hobbits? Get real.
deleted by creator
But heck, I’ll vote for whoever’s chosen at the entmoot.
Settle in. We won’t be finished reading all the names until at least December.
The rumor mill is saying he’ll announce his bowing out this weekend, and if that source is true he’s also not just pushing for Kamela (which I think is big, I expected he would but I don’t think she stands a chance in hell)
She certainly has a chance to distance herself from Biden and actually regain disaffected voters.
I definitely think Kamala is gonna be a big lose if she runs, but I 100% think she’ll be who they run.
They keep Biden and the loss is likely bigger, haha
Are you really trying to meme in a 3rd party candidate push? Really?
I’m so fucked up by all of this. I don’t know what anything means anymore and depending on who I’m talking to, I’m either a faithless child-diddling monster, or I’m a genocide-supporting class traitor.
And like. I’d consider myself a far left liberal, in the sense of how the U.S. defined liberal when I learned the terms, where it was more a place on the political spectrum, rather than a codified set of ideas.
Right to left, I’d define the that spectrum as Reactionary (Alt-right), conservative, centrist, liberal, and revolutionary (leftist, I think?). I know that those terms have different meanings in other countries.
I’d consider the Republican Party to currently be between conservative and alt-right, with the Democratic Party being centrist with liberal window dressing.I think the U.S. political system is fucked. It was never intended to accommodate political parties, let alone the nearly 250 years of maneuvering by capitalists to slip reigns onto the government, which now appears to have fully succeeded. I believe that the embrace of fascism by the Republican Party is a means to control the ~60% of people who are left of center and without cohesive political representation because of limitations of the U.S. political system/bastardization of it/the pernicious influence of capitalism.
I don’t support the Democratic Party, nor do I really feel the U.S. government is in a place to fix itself without some foundational things changing. I don’t think, realistically, that those things can be changed without mass engagement and effort, which… sigh. I’m doing what I can.
But also, I don’t believe a revolt or some form of dramatic U.S. government reformation is possible. As a result, the folks that are already demanding change and have given up hope for reforming the system are hostile to me, and the other folks fall into the camp of being disengaged/only mildly upset or even desirous of a slide into fascism. It feels like there isn’t really enough people who are unified who want to change course without throwing the whole thing out.
I honestly feel kind of alone.Here comes the ramble:
What happens if the U.S. does elect Trump and it swings full fascism?
Will the disengaged people even know if it gets bad enough that they should start engaging? Congress is already working on banning TikTok because of Gaza. A congress that doesn’t need to pretend to abide by the law would have already done that 8-10 months ago. The media, owned by a few corporations, already mostly shapes the U.S. worldview. What happens when the outliers - PBS starts parroting Fox News talking points by government mandate, and independent news sites are suddenly no longer reachable?
If folks do know things are bad, and they do band together to try to do something about it - how do they manage? Any number of reasons can be dreamed up to disenfranchise. In my state, weed is legal. A quick cross-reference of the state weed registry with the voter registry and possibly a quick demographics check (because we know they’d do that), and the federal government can throw whoever they want in jail, prevent us from ever voting, or remove our ability to earn a living for any dreamed up reason. Revolution? A country that’s geographically unassailable will continue to be unassailable. Plus you have the propaganda/information control and the general docility of the U.S. population.I’m not trying to challenge or debate anyone here. I don’t think you’re stupid, nor do I think the ideals are bad. I fucking wish society was more altruistic and smarter.
I just… don’t see any realistic or actionable outcome other than to keep fighting for every inch using the tools we have, even if they are faulty, entrenched systems.
Call me propagandized, unimaginative, cynical or stupid, or… whatever, I guess. I just don’t see other viable options, and I think broadcasting moral superiority, embracing divisiveness and exhibiting hostility is going to create roadblocks, should we need to unite. If we can.And like. I’d consider myself a far left liberal, in the sense of how the U.S. defined liberal when I learned the terms, where it was more a place on the political spectrum, rather than a codified set of ideas.
The funny thing is, the US defined liberal is the codified set of ideas, liberalism is just to the left of the median in America. America is that far-right.
Right to left, I’d define the that spectrum as Reactionary (Alt-right), conservative, centrist, liberal, and revolutionary (leftist, I think?). I know that those terms have different meanings in other countries.
The problem is that you jump straight from Liberal to Revolutionary, there’s a spectrum of thought among leftists. Revolution may be correct, but there are schools of reformist thought as well. Additionally, liberals and all those to the right of them are Reactionary, just in varying degrees. A “centrist” would be left of liberalism, ie a Social Democrat or Market Socialist.
I’d consider the Republican Party to currently be between conservative and alt-right, with the Democratic Party being centrist with liberal window dressing.
The Democrats are Neoliberal, there’s no set dressing. Liberalism is just right-wing. Conservatives are far-right populists, ie fascists in some cases.
I think the U.S. political system is fucked. It was never intended to accommodate political parties, let alone the nearly 250 years of maneuvering by capitalists to slip reigns onto the government, which now appears to have fully succeeded.
On the contrary, the US was designed by wealthy Capitalists to benefit themselves. The system is working as intended, protecting Capitalists.
I believe that the embrace of fascism by the Republican Party is a means to control the ~60% of people who are left of center and without cohesive political representation because of limitations of the U.S. political system/bastardization of it/the pernicious influence of capitalism.
Fascism is a class-colaborative alliance between the bourgeoisie and petite bourgeoisie against the proletariat and lumpenproletariat along nationalist lines to attempt to forcibly return to a less-decayed state of Capitalism.
I don’t support the Democratic Party, nor do I really feel the U.S. government is in a place to fix itself without some foundational things changing. I don’t think, realistically, that those things can be changed without mass engagement and effort, which… sigh. I’m doing what I can.
Correct. Join an org!
But also, I don’t believe a revolt or some form of dramatic U.S. government reformation is possible. As a result, the folks that are already demanding change and have given up hope for reforming the system are hostile to me, and the other folks fall into the camp of being disengaged/only mildly upset or even desirous of a slide into fascism. It feels like there isn’t really enough people who are unified who want to change course without throwing the whole thing out.
I honestly feel kind of alone.Reform cannot work, Revolution is the only way. Build up dual power, organize, and try to build up parallel structures. Organize!
What happens if the U.S. does elect Trump and it swings full fascism?
Beating Trump won’t stop the conditions for fascism, only Leftism can. Fascism can only be kicked down the road, until the ratchet effect takes us there anyways, unless Leftists organize.
I’m not trying to challenge or debate anyone here. I don’t think you’re stupid, nor do I think the ideals are bad. I fucking wish society was more altruistic and smarter.
I just… don’t see any realistic or actionable outcome other than to keep fighting for every inch using the tools we have, even if they are faulty, entrenched systems.
Call me propagandized, unimaginative, cynical or stupid, or… whatever, I guess. I just don’t see other viable options, and I think broadcasting moral superiority, embracing divisiveness and exhibiting hostility is going to create roadblocks, should we need to unite. If we can.You’ve got the core of it, but not the theory. Try reading Leftist theory! Whether it be Marxist or Anarchist, leftists have been attempting to fix the system and are growing in power.
I’ve said this to you previously, but - I appreciate you.
When I find the ability to tame my ADHD and time constraints a bit more than current, I’ll work on digging into The State and Revolution - because you are kind, and you are thoughtful.
Fellow ADHDer here, I’m an anarchist so it might not be the kind of thing you’re looking for but I’ve found the Audible Anarchist podcast to be really good. Relatively short (10-20 minute) essay readings, I like them when I’m doing chores and need the stimulation.
Hell yeah a fellow adhd anarchist
🥳
Audible Anarchist is great. Anarchist Library is another great resource depending on what you can hyperfocus on.
Hell yeah, I’ve had a bunch of recommendations for things on the library. Currently I’ve got a physical copy of Dolgoff’s Anarchist Collectives I’m trying to finish
Not who you replied to, but I’ve spoken with them before. They haven’t read much theory at all, if any, hence the recommendations last time. I’m sure they will appreciate your recs as well, they aren’t a committed Marxist or anything.
Oh, it’s you! I remember! Thanks for the kind words.
For what it’s worth, eReaders make reading theory much easier for me, and I also have ADHD. Audiobooks also work for people too, but I like to reread sections sometimes.
Because every proletariat revolution has resulted in equality and not a speed run to mass poverty… Why would it work this time? When has it ever worked in reality? Where’s the beautiful shining example of Marxist success?
Let’s copy that now. (I can’t find an example of it).
When do you realize revolution is an acceleration of entropy in society.
You’re proposing to bloodlet society and end up with less for the people, and more for the rich.
Because every proletariat revolution has resulted in equality and not a speed run to mass poverty… Why would it work this time? When has it ever worked in reality? Where’s the beautiful shining example of Marxist success?
Cuba, the USSR, PRC, etc. All resulted in vastly improved conditions with respect to their previous conditions. Cuba was a fascist slave society, Russia was under the underdeveloped tyranny of the Tsar, and China was run by Nationalists and had been colonized for a century. In the USSR and PRC, life expectancy doubled.
If your current understanding is that society was fine and dandy, and then became worse after implementing Socialism, then you really need to open a history book. Life certainly didn’t become amazing and perfect, but life did get better gradually after overthrowing their brutal previous conditions.
Let’s copy that now. (I can’t find an example of it).
What do you mean by this? There are AES states like Cuba today.
When do you realize revolution is an acceleration of entropy in society.
There’s no “entropy” in society, society is not made up of “energy.” Revolution is a consequence of unsustainable conditions, like previously shown.
You’re proposing to bloodlet society and end up with less for the people, and more for the rich.
How? Please explain what this means. I am advocating for democratically controlling production so that it can service the needs and wants of the people, rather than wealthy Capitalists as it does in curreny society.
As I mentioned, the examples of this working out in real life. Not so good. The USSR, currently dissolved and not a model I’d be interested in emulating. The folks I know who lived in it don’t want it back either.
Cuba, I’d say they had equality for citizens which they don’t, not a good example either.
China… Really?? Marxism? Really?? We’re glossing over Mao Zedong and a history of mass murder.
“The truths of Marxism are myriad, but it all comes down to one line: ‘Rebellion is justified!’” When the CCP was waging revolution and still trying to gain national power, this statement was a powerful shot in the arm. Once it became the ruling party, to bring this up again was to invite revolt against itself. That was exactly what happened in the Cultural Revolution. Its result was catastrophic, because Mao as a revolutionary was unable to make the transition from “breaking” to “making”. He once claimed: “There is no making without breaking. The making is in the breaking.” But that was just revolutionary romanticism misaligned with reality. In truth, it is much harder to “make” than to “break”. Source - https://www.thinkchina.sg/politics/new-paradigm-needed-china-cannot-achieve-common-prosperity-marxism-and-class-struggle
You’re expressing wonderful ideals.
They don’t seem to line up with the execution in the real world though.
My argument is that it won’t and hasn’t ever.
When a developer writes a program that doesn’t do what it’s supposed to, it gets rewritten. Marxists just keep trying the same philosophy. Maybe if we murder more people it’ll work.
As I mentioned, the examples of this working out in real life. Not so good. The USSR, currently dissolved and not a model I’d be interested in emulating. The folks I know who lived in it don’t want it back either.
This is nothing but anecdotal evidence and a blanket claim that the USSR was bad just because it was illegally dissolved. Although it varies from State to State, the majority of residents polled in former-Soviet countries approved of the USSR and wished for it to remain.
Cuba, I’d say they had equality for citizens which they don’t, not a good example either.
Genuinely, what do you mean by this? They have far better quality of life metrics like life expectancy, and more democratic means to sway things than they did under Batista and fascist slavery. It has a more progressive LGBT legal code than America does these days.
China… Really?? Marxism? Really?? We’re glossing over Mao Zedong and a history of mass murder.
China is currently Dengist, ie practices Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. If you want to read about it, consider reading China has Billionaires. The PRC shifted away from Maoism, an evolution on Marxism-Leninism, after the Cultural Revolution. Despite the myriad failures of the Cultural Revolution, Life Expectancy still doubled under Mao, and there was a nearly totally equal redistribution of land from the landowners to the peasants.
You’re expressing wonderful ideals.
They don’t seem to line up with the execution in the real world though.
My argument is that it won’t and hasn’t ever.
You haven’t really made an argument yet, you’ve made blanket statements like “I don’t think so” and whatnot. You haven’t analyzed anything, and some of your points are directly disprovable with a quick google search, such as the bit on Cuba and the USSR.
When a developer writes a program that doesn’t do what it’s supposed to, it gets rewritten. Marxists just keep trying the same philosophy. Maybe if we murder more people it’ll work.
Again, false and vibes-based. Marxism has evolved over time, Marxist thinkers have introduced new analysis with existing theory. That’s why there’s even such a thing as Marxism-Leninism or Maoism.
Additionally, you make it seem like Marxism is when you murder people, which outside of Revolution is historically false again.
Do you have any real points, with supporting evidence, or are you content with just vibing your position?
Do you have any real points, with supporting evidence, or are you content with just vibing your position?
Yeah, I’m not trying to vomit a bunch of falsehoods at folks to try to make a point by point argument. I don’t think I need to write a book to make a point.
You aren’t arguing in good faith. You’re ignoring facts and history.
Murders don’t end in those countries because the revolution is ‘finished’. Anytime someone disagrees they have to be disappeared or reeducated.
Is China such a success that they’re using hostages in China to threaten folks to keep their social media compliant with CCP ideals?
https://rsf.org/en/beaten-death-state-security-rsf-shocked-gruesome-murder-independent-journalist-china https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_August https://www.cato.org/blog/death-cuban-dissidents https://2017-2021.state.gov/chinas-disregard-for-human-rights/
Do you have any argument that doesn’t involve a bloodletting of society?
Yeah, I’m not trying to vomit a bunch of falsehoods at folks to try to make a point by point argument. I don’t think I need to write a book to make a point.
But you have been, as I proved.
You aren’t arguing in good faith. You’re ignoring facts and history.
Enlighten me. I have posted sources for my claims.
Murders don’t end in those countries because the revolution is ‘finished’. Anytime someone disagrees they have to be disappeared or reeducated.
Do they? Is that historically accurate? If by “disagreement” you mean collaboration with the Nazis or the fascist White Army, you’re deliberately obfuscating the facts.
Is China such a success that they’re using hostages in China to threaten folks to keep their social media compliant with CCP ideals?
China certainly isn’t perfect, not by any stretch. Don’t confuse support for Marxism for saying every single AES country is perfect in every way. That would be idealism, not Materialism. Overall though, the scope of harm committed by China pales in comparison to US and the rest of the West.
Do you have any argument that doesn’t involve a bloodletting of society?
Revolution will happen regardless of how we feel about it. Blaming the oppressed for turning against their oppressors instead of blaming the oppressors for creating the conditions for Revolution in the first place is victim blaming.
Do you condemn Dessalines for the blood in history’s most successful Slave Revolt in Haiti?
How? Please explain what this means. I am advocating for democratically controlling production so that it can service the needs and wants of the people, rather than wealthy Capitalists as it does in curreny society.
You’re advocating revolution, if I’m reading your words correctly.
That involves a radical restructuring of society. You’re advocating violently modifying the roles of individuals to fit your new goals. That has historically and always involved a bloodletting.
As I understand it Marxism is about being authoritarian in government (telling people what to do, and punishing those who don’t comply) and ensuring via government that resources are equally distributed. This concentrates power among the ruling elite. Historically, this continues the corruption it claims to end. So, what I’m saying essentially - that Marxism is a neat philosophy - It doesn’t line up with reality or achieve its stated goals.
It does kill all the dissenting opinions and create the echo chamber that has consistently been corrupted and hasn’t stood the test of time.
So if there’s to be a bloodletting. Let it begin with those asking for it, first.
You’re advocating revolution, if I’m reading your words correctly.
That involves a radical restructuring of society. You’re advocating violently modifying the roles of individuals to fit your new goals. That has historically and always involved a bloodletting.
I’m advocating for Marxism. Revolution will happen regardless, Capitalism continues to decay and conditions for the Proletariat continue to crumble. Marxists should do their best to make sure this revolution is equitable for the people and democratic in nature, rather than be co-opted by fascists.
As I understand it Marxism is about being authoritarian in government (telling people what to do, and punishing those who don’t comply) and ensuring via government that resources are equally distributed. This concentrates power among the ruling elite. Historically, this continues the corruption it claims to end. So, what I’m saying essentially - that Marxism is a neat philosophy - It doesn’t line up with reality or achieve its stated goals.
You’re wrong on quite a few things here.
-
Marxism is about having a Democratic Worker-State. All governments “tell people what to do and punish those who don’t comply,” even Anarchists. There were forced labor camps in Revolutionary Catalonia.
-
Marxism is not about even or equal distribution of resources. Marxism is about meeting everyones needs with what is produced as best as possible. People have unequal needs and unequal contributions.
-
This does not “concentrate power around the ruling elite.” It’s a shift from power in the hands of Capitalists to power in the hands of the Workers.
-
There is corruption in AES states, yes, but this is not “the same corruption,” not even close. Capitalist states function via corruption, and anti-corruption policies are extremely popular in AES countries.
Marxism does line up with reality and does meet its goals, you have been wrong at every line and supported it with your feelings, not supporting evidence.
It does kill all the dissenting opinions and create the echo chamber that has consistently been corrupted and hasn’t stood the test of time.
It allows dissenting opinions, just not the resurgence of Capitalism, just like now we do not allow Monarchists to retake power. Marxism has also withstood the test of time.
So if there’s to be a bloodletting. Let it begin with those asking for it, first.
More vibes and unclear positions.
More vibes and unclear positions.
A person doesn’t have to have a clear position or solution to know that something isn’t right. This revolution you’re expecting, when does it start?
The Revolution starts when the Material Conditions call for it. Imperialism is weakening, and more countries in the Global South are turning their backs on the US and trying to develop themselves.
-
In 2019 I realized America was going fascist and there was nothing to stop it. So, I’m with you. I don’t give up hope though, because I don’t want to be bitter.
Funny how you say people voicing support for revolution have given up hope. That’s literally the most hopeful wish I can think of. Liberals resigned to a system that … systemically … rejects any real structural change may have hope, but with very limited scope of imagination, and disregarding a lot of the structural harm.
I have no idea what any of these terms mean anymore. For a long time, I thought Liberal was just everything left of center and leftist was just synonymous with Liberal. It’s too fucking confusing.
Right wingers are way better about ignoring their differences and I suspect much of the granular nature of left wingers right now may be a “divide and conquer” tactic by bad actors.
Liberal only means “left of center” in places where Liberalism, the ideology, is left of that location’s median. Ie, in America, Liberalism can be considered left, despite Liberalism as an ideology being right-wing, in favor of Capitalism.
Leftism refers to Socialism, ie Anarchism or Marxism. Liberals are not in that spectrum, it isn’t “divide and conquer,” liberals have historically sided with fascists against leftists, because liberalism and fascism are uncomfortably close.
That’s a stupid as hell naming scheme. I routinely criticize criticize American’s left of being too comfortable with consumerism and baby steps, but I stay away from using buzz words.
And fascist leaders are working hard as hell to divide any opposition they have. We spend too much energy on infighting. Want me to vote for a Socialist? I already do in primaries. I wont give Trump an edge by throwing away my vote on a third party in the general election.
That’s a stupid as hell naming scheme. I routinely criticize criticize American’s left of being too comfortable with consumerism and baby steps, but I stay away from using buzz words.
Genuinely don’t know what you’re getting at, here. America is so far right that right-wing Capitalism is considered Left. In reality, the Left/Right divide is Socialism/Capitalism. It’s not aboht buzzwords, nor is it about consumerism.
And fascist leaders are working hard as hell to divide any opposition they have. We spend too much energy on infighting. Want me to vote for a Socialist? I already do in primaries. I wont give Trump an edge by throwing away my vote on a third party in the general election.
It would be nice if Liberals ever sided with Leftists, but historically they have sided with fascists to maintain their own positions. If by voting for a Socialist you mean Bernie, the Social Democrat center-right politician, he would certainly be an improvement. Still not a Socialist.
The reason I hate “leftist” being the name for a specific ideology is because it’s such a nonspecific name. Capitalism, Socialism, Marxism are much more specific names for specific ideas. “Leftist” just sounds like casual description for a general idea.
If you want to know why I consider this to be a right wing psyops Divide and Conquer tactic, ask yourself, who benefits by convincing left leaning people to not vote for the left leaning politician? I know a card carrying Communist who vote for fringe Green Party candidate in every presidential election.
The reason I hate “leftist” being the name for a specific ideology is because it’s such a nonspecific name. Capitalism, Socialism, Marxism are much more specific names for specific ideas. “Leftist” just sounds like casual description for a general idea.
Leftism is a group of ideologies surrounding collective ownership of the Means of Production, and opposition to Capitalism. It is a general through line.
If you want to know why I consider this to be a right wing psyops Divide and Conquer tactic, ask yourself, who benefits by convincing left leaning people to not vote for the left leaning politician? I know a card carrying Communist who vote for fringe Green Party candidate in every presidential election.
Biden is a right wing politician, Trump is far-right. The only way to get left-wing change electorally is to vote for Greens or PSL.
I think the big thing is to not demean the people who are calling for bigger measures. Plenty of us appreciate that gradual sustainable reform where life goes on and everyone keeps going to work then going home would be super cool, but dont think its possible. I don’t really see people get confronted for wanting to try reform, its when reform types tell more revolutionary folk that they’re “just as bad” for not wanting to roll over for something thats increasingly imminent.
You seem like a fine, thoughtful person. Thats great, we need that. Just understand we also need people who are preparing for and discussing what comes next if reform doesn’t work.
How can the world become more altruistic and smarter when the hard right is actively destroying our public education system and right wing media causes stochastic terrorism with zero accountability?
Humanity isn’t getting better. We are seeing the final results of secularization, the end goal of a godless world where all that was once sacred are now open season for mockery and destruction. And even worse is that so much of the left is actively to blame for this.
None of you will get it, you will just blanket downvote because you cannot grasp that religion has a necessary place in human culture and the social chaos we have now is partially caused by the mockery of an institution that has literally held together human society for more than two and a half thousand years of human history.
The stuff in your first paragraph is being done by religious people. Hard right=religious… Religion hasn’t “held together human society”, it stopped human progress in is tracks for more than 2 thousand years, and continues to fight to destroy any progress we’ve been able to achieve.
I think you limit your understanding to western Christianism, which infamously decided to establish a direct connection between political and religious authority as well as deeply institutionalized religion. These concepts already struggle when looking at the original, orthodox Christians like they survived in Palestine, the Levant and Turkey.
If you look at diaspora Judaism in large parts it has been a beacon of scientific and social progress in many areas. Which is why these groups strongly oppose Zionism as a religiously themed imperial project, which directly contradicts their religious values and bastardizes the understanding of Judaism into a barbaric version.
If you look at Islam it brought great scientific and social progress, in particular allowing for Christian and Jewish communities to thrive, building social infrastructure and implementing rule of law. Look at the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Iberian Jews, after the Christians won against the “Moors”. Extremist Islamism is a product of hundreds of years of genocidal Western Christian occupation, largely absent in places where people could life and practice in peace.
If you look at the Western “war on terror”, Chinas subjugation of the Uighur, the Serbian genocide in Bosnia and Putins supression of Muslims, you should wonder, what brings all these powers together? It is their fear of a reemergence of religion, not as a cheap trope, like with the evangelicals in the US, but as something people take serious. In particular Islam is dangerous to established powers and capitalist rule, as it provides a balanced approach to life, where the relationship to god is a priority but sustained by thriving for a good and just life for oneself and their community.
Meanwhile both capitalism and communism reflect on humans as purely economic beings, whose struggle should always be materialistic rather than holistic.
I guess I can agree that there’s a type of religion that isn’t evil, and minds it’s own business, and just tries to live a wholesome life and be good to people. I don’t think people necessarily NEED religion to live like that, but for those that do, I’m all for it.
Yes I know and I can guaran-fucking-tee you that as a progressive Christian myself, whatever dislike you have for conservative evangelicals I bear times five because OUR BOOK LITERALLY TEACHES NOT TO DO THESE THINGS.
I’m not arguing with butthurt atheists today, my positioned is far more nuanced than your ilk can respond to but I want to point out:
I didn’t say MY religion, I said religion in general. Every cohort study reports people with strong religious convictions consistently report higher life satisafaction. Your claims of 'holding us back for 2k years is not only ridiculously incorrect, it is based on memes you have consumed and not historical fact. Nearly every prestigious university in the U.S. was founded as a Jesuit school and that order has LONG been proponents of education and technological advancement.
Lastly, your opinion of religion is formed from the memes and news articles you see about angry conservative evangelicals, because that’s what feeds the ratings beast. You really have no fucking clue what it looks like from the inside otherwise you wouldn’t be blanked bombing all theists for the rancid and unbliblical acts of the extremists.
Enjoy your block because I certainly enjoyed blocking you.
But the Bible is very inconsistent on its messages, which is exactly why it can be used in ways you don’t agree with. Christianity in particular has often been used by those in power to keep their power and subjugate others. It’s certainly not the only religion that has done it, but it is one of the most prominent.
You believe what you want to, but when Christofascists are able to use the same book to push their regressive, violent policies, then maybe you should take a look at why that is.
Removed by mod
If you don’t have any actual scholarly interest in Operating Thetans, then you aren’t prepared for any discussion involving Scientology.
Removed by mod
It doesn’t seem like religion has made you very happy. Or very nice. I get that your username includes angry, and you seem to take that very seriously.
It also seems like you’re not very different from the people you claim are co-opting religion. You are cherry-picking the parts of Christianity that work well for you, while ignoring or downplaying the rest.
I know you’re not going to change your mind, but this approach certainly isn’t doing much to try and convert anyone.
Removed by mod
Man… Angry autist is angry
Right to left, I’d define the that spectrum as Reactionary (Alt-right), conservative, centrist, liberal, and revolutionary (leftist, I think?).
You are mixing desire of change(conservative vs reformist) with relations of policy and economy(socialism vs capitalism).
I’d consider the Republican Party to currently be between conservative and alt-right, with the Democratic Party being centrist with liberal window dressing.
You call them centrist, I call them center-right at best. It looks more right-wing than LDPR(former LDPSS, first right-wing party in USSR) or Russia of the Future(Navalny’s party, center-right).
But also, I don’t believe a revolt or some form of dramatic U.S. government reformation is possible.
Yeah, it’s 21st century. I don’t see it happening.
I fucking wish society was more altruistic and smarter.
Smart society needs members of that society to be smart. Which means they need to attend school regardless of having a farm.
I just… don’t see any realistic or actionable outcome other than to keep fighting for every inch using the tools we have, even if they are faulty, entrenched systems. Call me propagandized, unimaginative, cynical or stupid, or… whatever, I guess. I just don’t see other viable options,
Welcome to political apathy.
and I think broadcasting moral superiority,
If only legism was moral superiority. Then legists of Third Reich would be “morally superior”. Well, they did claim to be superior everywhere. Didn’t help in Nuremberg.
Meanwhile people who built universal education, universal healthcare, public transit and welfare systems in my country weren’t legists.
Fascism is like the rising ocean. Imagine all the “brown people” near the shores and the white people at The high ground. You know out group versus in group.
The rise in fascism is causing the ocean level to rise drowning the people who are closest to the shore. This is analogous to people dying to political nonsense that otherwise wouldn’t.
If Trump gets elected. The ocean rises faster. In the next 4 years we’ll see a lot more people. Drowned.
If Biden gets elected the ocean still rises but it rises slower than with Trump. People still die, but less people die.
From a defeating fascist perspective. A slower rising ocean means more time to organize and spread information.
Also, politics is both the hardest thing and the easiest thing to understand. I consider myself a pretty intelligent person and it still took me awhile to really understand what was going on and I needed help. It’s crazy! It’s like everyone is playing chess on the same board. Some people are making basic moves. Some people are just pawns. Only a few people are playing 5D chess and mopping up the field.
Meanwhile leftists: “Make sure you don’t vote in a way that might keep actual fascists from power. Better the fascists win than people who will make things only mildly better!”
Exterminating Gazans makes things better?
Maybe read the meme again.
Removed by mod
Ah, so rather than go against Trump’s bad policy and do something actually GOOD for our fellow human beings, we need to stick to this compromise position where we do something almost as bad as him? Because we are more worried about losing pro genocide voters than we are about an actual genocide, or something?
I hope that you can see how the “liberal” position on this is fucking disgusting
Hello to fascism and Trump’s final solution to the Palestine question, it is! Got it!
Vote Biden, obviously. His Gaza policy is still absolute dog shit. It is not complicated and pretending that anyone criticising him for it is voting for trump is dumb as fuck
Me:
Meanwhile leftists: “Make sure you don’t vote in a way that might keep actual fascists from power. Better the fascists win than people who will make things only mildly better
You: Reasons to not vote for the candidate opposing the fascists. Arguing with anyone suggesting voting against the fascists. Swerve completely the point about how much WORSE for Gaza and the rest of the Palestinians Trump would be.
Me: Thanks leftists. /s
You claim to want to make things better for Gaza, but not if it involves putting a mark in a box, because in your view that would be going TOO FAR and going against EVERY principle you ever held dear.
You talk such a big game about Gaza and fascism, but you wouldn’t stoop so low as to actually fucking vote on this issue. No, it’s much more important to take up the crusade against the centrists. Thanks leftists. Great help you were in preventing the fascists from taking over the most powerful country in the world.
Grow up and live in the real world. It sucks. Please try much harder to not make it worse.
The first two words in my last response were “Vote Biden” sooooooooo…
You talk such a big game about Gaza and fascism, but you wouldn’t stoop so low as to actually fucking vote on this issue.
Cool, so you’ll vote for Claudia De La Cruz of the Party for Socialism and Liberation? She’s antifascist and anti-genocide, unlike Biden and Trump.
Removed by mod
I am not superior, I just think that “who should we vote for?” is a question for the ballot box and “what should we do?” is a more important question for the rest of the time.
Removed by mod
When has voting kept fascists from power?
This coming November. So you pretend that stopping fascists is important to you, but you’re not prepared to even put a mark in a box to stop it.
When has voting ever stopped fascism?
This coming November. If you cared even a tiny little bit, you would make a mark in a box. But you don’t really care, you just pretend to care.
Historically, when has voting ever stopped fascism? Do you have any historical knowledge of fascism, where you think you can stop it simply through the electoral process?
Your question is actually misleading. What you mean is “when did voting cause a fascist regime to hand over power peacefully”, but what’s not documented well in the history books is how many times a far right party lost an election, didn’t get their hands on real power and didn’t become a regime. The answer to the two questions is
- Not very often. One they’re in power is usually too late and an awful lot of lives, usually those of people in marginalised groups, are lost unnecessarily. Fascists rarely give way to popular opinion once they’re in power.
- EVERY time a far right party with plans to dismantle opposition loses an election, you prevent a fascist regime from getting started.
What’s better? Wait till it happens and it gets so bad that people take up arms and even more death occurs to start the long road back to peaceful transfer of power or vote it away before it starts?
You can help to prevent this, but no, you’re claiming to care and hinting that you might be prepared to do something drastic, but if it comes down to putting a mark in a box, oh no, that’s asking too much. You’re completely deceiving yourself if you believe what you’re saying.
Your question is actually misleading. What you mean is “when did voting cause a fascist regime to hand over power peacefully”, but what’s not documented well in the history books is how many times a far right party lost an election, didn’t get their hands on real power and didn’t become a regime.
No, that’s not what I mean. America has a fascist problem, even if Biden wins fascism is still coming. I am directly asking you when fascism was stopped by voting against a fascist threat.
EVERY time a far right party with plans to dismantle opposition loses an election, you prevent a fascist regime from getting started.
No, this is historically inaaccurate, hilariously so. The Nazis took power without being elected.
What’s better? Wait till it happens and it gets so bad that people take up arms and even more death occurs to start the long road back to peaceful transfer of power or vote it away before it starts?
You can’t “vote it away,” fascists don’t care about electoral results. They sieze power. Voting for Biden slows the descent into fascism but does nothing to the core reasons why it exists, ie decaying Capitalism and dying Imperialism.
You can help to prevent this, but no, you’re claiming to care and hinting that you might be prepared to do something drastic, but if it comes down to putting a mark in a box, oh no, that’s asking too much. You’re completely deceiving yourself if you believe what you’re saying.
I’m actually suggesting organizing, touching grass, and building dual power. I do plan on voting, I myself am undecided. If the Democrats manage to completely reverse their genocidal tendencies and take a firm Anticapitalist stance, I would probably vote for them, but as it stands that just kicks the problem down the road while conditions continue to worsen.
Aren’t liberals leftists though?
No. Leftism is primarily defined by support for a socialist economy. There is not a single liberal on the planet that would support socialism.
That lack of nuance is not helpful. There are plenty of liberals that would like a more balanced economy.
Edit: I’m tired of everyone’s “that’s not socialism.” You have to get people behind it. That requires taking steps. You aren’t going to bitch at reasonable people online to wake up one day and we’ve made the full conversion.
“More balanced” I.E. “we can compromise with it”
“More balanced” means Capitalism with safety nets, right? That’s not Socialism.
Sure but I don’t think we are just going to flip a switch tomorrow and the country will be socialist. You have to start somewhere and get support. When we show people how good it is for the working class, they will push with us.
You’re partially correct. You can’t get there via the existing Capitalist system, you have to build up dual power via organizing. The Capitalist system will dangle treats like Carrots but never allow the system itself to change from within.
A balanced economy is not socialism. Socialism means the democratic control over the economy by the workers. To have democratic control over the economy, workers must control the means of production. You cannot “balance” that with capitalism.
Cannot tell if this is meant sarcastically? Probably?
Just in case you are serious:
Often debated because neither is well defined and liberal is used by different people to mean totally different things. As I would use the term, liberals are in favor of liberating markets and nothing else. Leftists are people who are in favor of progressive and emancipatory politics. So for me, liberals are definitely no leftists.
It was serious, in my head both were just terms for left wing further left than central left but not like extremist left wing.
Ah OK, really depends where you live. In Germany, for example, the liberal party is notoriously anti-left and usually allies with the main conservative, right-wing party. When it was founded after WW2 many Nazis joined it.
And it also depends what you mean by left vs right wing. In the US, the democrat party may be considered left leaning? But in comparison to many European left wing parties, it might be more of a centrist or even right-wing party. None of these terms can be really pin pointed down to an exact meaning and they are usually relative to other positions surrounding them. For me, defining liberal as market liberal seems like the most sensible definition, but then you might consider the US american Republican party to be liberal as well? Confusing!
And what is extremist left wing? Some people even consider human rights and medical care for everyone to be extremist left. Again, these terms always go in relation to other position like described via the overton window.
Liberals are not leftists if we define the status quo as capitalism and leftism as the progressive opposition to the status quo
(and those are the definitions I and probably any honest socialist uphold)They are, or rather were. For most of the world, especially in Europe, liberalism means/meant socially liberal, i.e. left wing - based on personal freedom from imposition of others’ values on their personal and social lives. However, in America liberal has (relatively recently, as in 2000’s) become synonymous with neoliberal ideology, which is absolutely not left wing in any traditional sense, focusing on ‘small government’ and freedom of the markets—I guess because pronouncing two extra syllables is too much effort? Idk.
With the internet this peculiar usage has recently (as in the last 5-10 years) started leaking out of America and is being used in this confusing and ambiguous manner.
To be fair though, the Overton window has shifted so far right now that liberal (i.e. left of the nominal centre) shares much of the same space as neoliberal. See New Labour, and the current Labour government.
Edit: Deleted a paragraph that in retrospect was unnecessarily negative.
For most of the world, especially in Europe, liberalism means/meant socially liberal, i.e. left wing
Wuh? In most of continental Europe, liberalism typically means classical liberalism, a right-wing ideology about laissez faire economy. The US has always been the odd one out in using it to mean socially liberal (see also the last paragraph here).
Huh! My perception has always been the opposite, but that Wikipedia article appears soundly sourced. Don’t I feel silly?!
It appears I have been shown who is the boss.
Anyhow, I hope it’s agreed that the general point I had that there’s historically two different uses of that term and it’s not unreasonable to be confused about them still stands.
I’ll leave my comment up as-is for context.
Ah thanks I think that clears it up for me.
This isn’t really true, even with being extremely vague.
Liberalism, as described by Locke, was primarily concerned with individual liberty (as mentioned), but included in those liberties was the right to private property. In fact, he was among the first to describe it as a ‘natural law’.
US liberals co-opt the label with emphasis on the social liberties, and neo-liberals co-opt the label with emphasis on the personal property.
Leftist politics, being primarily oriented along a materialist axis, is concerned with both social and economic liberation and identifies systems of oppression in both governance and capital owners. Referring to ‘liberals’ as ‘leftist’ ignores the central ideological focus of leftist politics to begin with.
Nope, Liberals seek to maintain Capitalism, Leftists seek to move beyond it.
maybe in the purest sense of the word. Personally I find the label “left” to be pretty pointless anyway.
Draw an equal triangle. Label each point ‘left’, ‘right’ and ‘liberal’.
The concepts are in perfect tension over: public policy, private interest, and state authority.
Ahh, yes, a pointlessly divisive meme that only seeks to stir up shit. Peddle your bad faith trolling elsewhere.
liberals when someone points out they shouldn’t try to compromise with fascism.
We already know what happens when a liberal gets scratched. Apparently for some all we need to do is scratch their ego.
The agitprop seems to be working lol.
Why is this “pointlessly divisive?” Liberals always attack leftists and side with fascists, it’s agitprop. It’s divisive with a purpose.
Is all Agitprop bad-faith? Lemmy.world’s proud tradition of left-punching seems more bad-faith.
I’m shocked, honestly, at the response to my comment.
I don’t understand how everyone can be missing this so badly. This meme, this attitude of left vs. far left, is the EXACT same thing that the right did to themselves before the last election (and are currently still doing). This whole idea that the liberals aren’t left enough, or that, as you say, the liberals are attacking the far left, is a lie. It’s agitprop all right, but it’s agitprop designed to agitate the entirety of the left, and divide them before an election. It’s turning blue voters into non-voters or third party voters. It’s doing exactly what the right wants. It’s giving them the election on a fucking silver platter. It’s just horseshoe theory mixed with a little, “The call is coming from inside the house.”
But, no. Go ahead. Keep believing yourself to be the victim of crimes you have no evidence of. Keep telling yourself that it’s you against the world. And when Trump takes office after the election in 4 months you can have so many other people to blame it on other than yourself.
Great work. Keep it up. You are a true free-thinker.
Something left of the far right is not necessarily “left”.
Maybe on USA that’s true but I don’t know.
I’m shocked, honestly, at the response to my comment.
Why? Liberals have left-punched for their entire existence.
I don’t understand how everyone can be missing this so badly. This meme, this attitude of left vs. far left, is the EXACT same thing that the right did to themselves before the last election (and are currently still doing). This whole idea that the liberals aren’t left enough, or that, as you say, the liberals are attacking the far left, is a lie.
Liberals are not left. Liberalism supports Capitalism, Leftists support Socialism. Historically, such as in Nazi Germany, Liberals aligned with the fascists against the Leftists. It isn’t left vs far left, it’s left vs right.
It’s agitprop all right, but it’s agitprop designed to agitate the entirety of the left, and divide them before an election. It’s turning blue voters into non-voters or third party voters. It’s doing exactly what the right wants. It’s giving them the election on a fucking silver platter. It’s just horseshoe theory mixed with a little, “The call is coming from inside the house.”
No, it’s agitprop meant to get liberals to finally join the left against fascists, instead of liberals crying and handing the reigns to fascists yet again.
But, no. Go ahead. Keep believing yourself to be the victim of crimes you have no evidence of. Keep telling yourself that it’s you against the world. And when Trump takes office after the election in 4 months you can have so many other people to blame it on other than yourself.
When Trump takes office, it will be because liberals continue to “vote blue no matter who” as America tumbles further and further right, a dying empire, rather than for one time joining the left and organizing on the ground. Liberals vote once every 2 years and think themselves warriors against fascism as they fight against leftists at every step.
Great work. Keep it up. You are a true free-thinker.
Thank you! If you want reading recommendations, I have a bunch I think might help clarify some misconceptions you have.
The fact that you can write all of that and not see that you are validating every part of the statement that you quote shows how truly up your own ass you are.
“No you”
Listen, you could try to do something productive and try to read some of the same books on theory most of us have, as well as look into the historical ties between Liberalism and Fascism against Leftism. Instead, you wade in here, drop a very ill-informed comment, then act like a victim because people disagree with you online.
You sound like someone on Facebook that has “done their own research.” Reading propaganda isn’t the same as understanding political theory.
Is reading Marx “Propaganda?” What about Engels, Luxemburg, Politzer, Chomsky, or Parenti?
What makes something “propaganda” and what makes something “political theory?” Is it whatever you personally agree with? Is that why you have a racist profile picture?
“Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds,” looks like you’ve been scratched.
Pfft, the same leftists complaining about Sanders and AOC not being progressive enough?
Get outta heeeeere
Seriously couldn’t be more well put.
I can’t add a whole lot to what’s already being said. But I have to ask. Did no one read the LoTR? Tolkien was a believer of benevolent Monarchy, and rejected political plurality. Closer to authoritarian really, with a lot of sugar added.
So the meme bugs me in one more way. Isildur was in fact a better choice, whether he could or could not defeat sauron. There was no other choice middle earth would rally under the banner of. And because people supported him despite imperfections, Aragon got the chance with his allies to fight another day and win.
🎶 I don’t want to live in Middle Earth no more
I don’t want to die in this One Ring war
I want to sail off to Valinor
And make like an Elf Man 🎶
It’s a meme. It does not necessarily have to live up to the original point of the scene or the author.
No they take the ring for themselves and this is how we get center-left authoritarianism.
That’s not how fascism works, in any way. Fascism is a response to dying Capitalism, it’s an attempt to turn the clock back via the Petite Bourgeoisie and Bourgeoisie working together against the Proletariat and Lumpenproletariat.
Marxists want to turn the clock forward and organize along Socialist lines, with a democratically run worker-state. This is not fascism, nor is it Leftists taking advantage of fascism.
Historically, Liberals prefer to side with fascists, as they wish to maintain current structures, rather than reorganize.
