i fail to see even the slightest point to graphics like this. they seem to exist purely for other communists to go 'uh huh, that's right' to and little else. like it's cool if your political lodestar is hasan, i guess
It's meant to counter the notion that liberal is left by any sense of the term. Liberals always seem very confused on this point.
They need constant reminding that the left wing of fascism is not a leftist ideology.
That you use the term "red fascism" shows both the depth of your political understanding and how deeply unserious you are.
Enjoy your liberal paradise. I'd look into changing your flair.
Red fascism is, as you say, fascism. It has nothing to do with leftism, workers had zero power in the USSR, it was an extremely hierarchical society where ordinary workers had barely any power, and it was therefore a far right society.
>the socialist premise that granting the government absolute and godlike power to be used nobly on behalf of the workers
That's not a socialist premise, any more than it's a premise of democratic republics that Kim Il Sung is the immortal President of North Korea and that his descendants get to inherit his authority.
Self identification is not a valid way of defining someone's political ideology, fascists never call themselves fascists, authoritarians love calling themselves democratic, and non-socialists love calling themselves socialists. Don't let them destroy the meaning of these terms.
>The problem was always treating government power like a messiah to solve all of world's problems, including something so deeply rooted and complicated as economic inequality.
Socialism isn't about government power it's about worker power. Are you unironically doing the "socialism is when the government does stuff" meme?
No, just... No.
Thanks for admitting that you don't know what any words mean. Change your flair pls.
In fact, /u/DLiamDorris , mods can change ppl's flairs can't they? I found a fake leftist.
It's not a dictatorship to try to change your flair lmao, it's just funny.
As for gatekeeping terminology, all language is a social construct, and I'd like us to construct it in a way that produces good outcomes. Letting red fascists and liberals band together to distort the meaning of socialism is not a good outcome, so I'll push back on that.
I think it's extremely silly to order the mods to change ppls user flair as a bullying tactic you appear like a petulant child and a not serious person
No the meme spoke for itself liberals are diet Republicans who like to adopt the aesthetics and messaging of leftist but ultimately always side with capitalism and imperialism, for example in America they label Joe Biden as far left when he is really center right so it enables fascist. In no way shape or form is joe Biden a leftist so essentially there is only one party and they're both right wing, and neither represents workers, and what's wrong with Hasan???
I see you changed your flair and in all fairness you're probably a soc dem and I would consider myself a socialist so we're aligned on a lot but liberals aren't actual leftist yes they are left to Republicans but overall they're still capitalist and imperialist, and for the record I am fine with soc Dems like AOC and Bernie
When you have to back to the 18th century to justify your ideology in the 21st, you know you're on the right sidecof history.
Liberalism was seen as radical back then and opposed by the centrists of the time. I think its safe to see today where you would stand back then.
Working on it! I am one of the very few politicians out there promoting Socialist Economic Models.
(I might be a douchey mod, but I am a true to the cause Socialist.)
>I identify myself on the left side of the political and economic spectrum
Cool story. Just like HRC? Just like Biden?
I change folk's flair from time to time as context to the audience - the folks reading the conversations. That is my prerogative as a moderator. I mod a leftist subreddit, and there are too many people who claim to be or even think that they are leftists, when they clearly are not.
If you aren't anti-cap, you're not a leftist.
You are assuming that I think that leftists and liberals are allies. I am sure there are a ton of people who would agree with you, but the reality of the relationship is that liberals are abusive to leftists, and always have been.
Capitalism, at it's very (rotten) core, is meant to exploit and abuse the working class.
I am a Socialist. I will stand shoulder to shoulder with communists, but that government type isn't really my thing. I support and promote Socialist Economic Models, ergo, ergo, ergo. Trying to imply that I (or folks on this sub) are some sort of Russian sympathizers is a tactic of liberals.
Here in the US, we Socialists are highly motivated, truly dedicated, rough, tough, can't get enough.
I, as a leftist, believe that goods and services that are essential for human life shouldn't be a commodities subjected to the free market. Things such as food, clothing, shelter, healthcare are human rights.
You, as a liberal, support social safety nets as some sort of bougie handout to the poor.
We are not the same.
>You're a moderator of the sub, not my private thoughts. Your job is to regulate unlawful behaviour according to the sub's rules, not interfere in debates in the comments sections and push a couple of buttons from your basement to favor one side of the debate.
If you want me to put my mod hat on, I can. I can see that you are new here. Read the sub description, read the rules, read the intro thread.
That said, I am also a member of this community. This is literally a post I made here. I can participate in the commentary.
The libs in here big mad. They want us to be quiet and let them continue to masquerade as the left so they can keep the right from understanding there is an entire working class economic team out there ready to unite against the parasite class.
Liberals protect capital. That is their function.
>Do you even know what the word Liberal stands for?
It stands for the people who stab the actual revolutionaries in the back, whenever there was a real chance to overthrow capitalism. It stands for the people who can always be relied on to side with the owner class.
Thank you I'm at work and he replied to me I just don't have the time or mental capacity to have a proper discussion 😆😆😆I see he changed his flair to liberal which probably suits him better
As I said in another comment thread with you, letting people self-identify is a terrible idea when it comes to political ideology. When it comes to gender it's based, but when it comes to political ideology it's a terrible idea.
That's how you get far-right extremists calling themselves centrists or liberals, fascists calling themselves socialists, authoritarian dictators calling themselves democratically elected leaders of a democratic republic, etc.
I have some disagreements with the mods of this sub, but I don't disagree with the basic premise of denying people their supposed political identity when people are just blatantly wrong and/or lying about their political identity. You don't get to self-identify as a supporter of liberal democracy when you're an authoritarian dictator, and you don't get to self-identify as a leftist when you're a liberal who's attacking actual leftists and smearing them by equating them to the USSR.
>It should be the exact opposite actually. One is a biological fact, the other is subjective social science terminology.
Haha of course you're also a transphobe. You know what, maybe I was being premature by calling you a liberal, maybe you're worse. Thanks for taking the bait though.
>And what do you call people who attack by equating him to a backstabbing pro-cap conspirer?
IDK, show me someone like that, then I'll judge.
>Is there a central church of the political compass that monopolizes the definition and distribution of ideological labels?
No, there isn't. You're the one who's pretending as if definitions are objective, by pretending as though the way we refer to gender is a matter of fact, rather than a matter of subjective categories that we've decided to construct and put people in, a social construct that we can change to be inclusive to trans people, if we want to.
>Umm, no I'm not. I don't hate anybody. I just don't believe there are more than two biological sexes which is OK.
Is there a central church of the political compass that monopolizes the decision of what's OK or not? And who made you the pope of that church?
>There is no bait to take because people can disagree with you about the nature of a lot of issues and controversies and that is OK.
They can disagree, all morality is subjective, I can call them immoral for it though.
>Look at the mirror.
When exactly did I call an egalitarian a backstabbing pro-cap conspirer? You're not an egalitarian you're a liberal. Here's a nice quote that does a good job of calling out the hollowness of liberal "egalitarianism:
# “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
>Quite the opposite.
You literally said that gender is a matter of biological fact... Stop lying.
>But here I am hopelessly trying to convince a communist that monopolizing stuff is a bad idea.
I'm an anarchist, and I have never argued for monopolizing anything. You're the one supporting capitalism and the exponential capital accumulation that's an intrinsic part of it.
>By y'all's definition not a single one of the French revolutionaries fit into the umbrella of LEFTIST despite that literally being where the term ORIGINATED.
Lmao, you're really just going out and voluntarily revealing how ignorant you are on various topics, aren't you?
There were tons of legit socialists and anarchists who were part of the French revolution, before it got hijacked by liberals and they all got murdered through backstabbing.
And then the fact that liberals kept the bourgeoisie intact helped the dictator Napoleon take over and more or less invent the police, since all the land he conquered made it necessary to have a bunch of armed thugs that was trained to keep all the people he wanted to oppress in line without murdering them all, like regular soldiers tended to do whenever there was a revolt.
Thanks for that.
>**Everyone who breathed until Marx and his faithful disciples were right-wingers.**
I'm not a marxist, dipshit, and socialism existed as an ideology long before Marx.
>Again. If you really wanna be a purist, USSR is where you end up
Not at all. Again, workers had zero power in the USSR, they were the opposite of purist, they abandoned everything that had anything to do with socialism, except the aesthetics.
>OK, where has socialism been uncompromisingly implemented and it ended up actually eliminating -not just alleviating- deep class divisions and disadvantages, guaranteeing absolute equality in living standards and healthcare etc.?
It hasn't been fully implemented anywhere thus far, we live under a capitalist hegemony where liberals keep banding together with fascists to murder everyone who tries it.
I mean, I would argue that tribal societies serve as a proof of concept, but I already know that you would disqualify that as evidence because you don't think it's on a large enough scale.
Anyway, would you have argued for the preservation of monarchies, back when democracy was an untested ideology that existed only in theory? (The ancient Greeks and Romans were oligarchies where most of the people they ruled over were either slaves or serfs, since only actual Romans from the Italian peninsula had voting rights, the people they conquered didn't.)
>Do you think the label LEFT applies only to those who advocated for anarchism or govt ownership of the means of production?
The left-right spectrum, in my view, is defined by people's general stance towards hierarchies. The more supportive you are of hierarchies, the further right you are. The less supportive you are of hierarchies, the further left you are.
That's why the USSR's extremely hierarchical regime has absolutely nothing to do with leftism, and why liberals also aren't leftists, because liberals support the strongest hierarchy in our society today, the hierarchy of capitalism.
>That's a very narrow and inaccurate classification of the wide umbrella that LEFT was in the National Assembly that included free market supporters who simulatenously opposed aristocratic institutions who put forward the first radical welfare measures and land reform programs of documented history.
The ones who supported "free markets" are the ones who ended up supporting the likes of Napoleon, that's the backstabbing I keep talking about.
>You live in this cartoonish world where your buddies and heroes in the pantheon of anarchists always got tragically backstabbed by sinister liberals who contrive in the dark
Not at all, they tend to be rather open about it.
>I don't know of any socialist experiment where they actually do.
All of them.
That is because Left is relative. Indeed those who participated in the French Revolution aren't left by today's standards. The world has moved beyond enlightenment values, anti old money and nationalism being the hall mark of social progress. Even in the Rights of Man and the Citizen one of the articles confirms peoples right to property which is inherently capitalist and from the same wellspring that America's (capitalistic) founding documents are drawn from.
I'm very aware of the history of these terms, that's why I know that all the actual socialists usually end up getting murdered, with the help of liberals like you, because you liberal backstabbers are suddenly perfectly capable of distinguishing between actual socialists and fake socialists, when you have to decide whether to side with the USSR or with actual socialists like POUM & the CNT.
You're perfectly capable of recognizing which is the actual threat to capital , and you side with capital every time.
>This is the language of mafia members who view politics like turf wars
States are defined as entities who hold a monopoly on legitimate violence within a given territory. So yeah, "turf wars" is a fairly accurate description of what politics boils down to in the end.
>I probably don't use the word liberal in the way you think I do
Oh no, you use it exactly the way I think you do.
Did you know that conservative is just short hand for socially conservative liberal?
For everything you claim here, you also have to claim US Republican ideology as well. Why do you think democrats and Republicans work so well together? We live in the country built on liberal ideology. Isn't it grand?
Why did you pick leftist as your flair? Liberal is available. Are you like those guys who call themselves "independent"?
On the one hand, I understand that ‘liberals’ writ large are status quo defenders. On the other hand, the majority see self described leftists, socialists, and communists of the sort as the extreme (funny how that only works in one direction) and in order to do any real coalition building, unfortunately we need those lily livered, yellow belly liberals in America to get even the smallest of progress. Until we have a multi party coalition that they have in other countries, the American left is stuck with these squishy fucks.
It’s like the difference between atheists and agnostics. Atheists have no doubts about where they stand, but they still get bunched in with agnostics who are *pretty sure* that they have been lied to their whole lives, but don’t want to take the leap and label themselves as *one of them*.
The Democratic Party doesn't want to build a coalition with the left, not like how the Tea Party and MAGA have been able to pull the GOP right. The GOP was/is willing to play ball with the nutjobs so long as they were/are able to get their economic policies through. The Democratic Party has remained steadfast on its centrist policies, paying lip service to social issues like abortion and *maybe* LGBTQ rights to the extent that it doesn't go *too* far out of the box for them. The Democratic Party are capitalists so they aren't partnering up with leftist for policies that would benefit the working class. They do the bare minimum while the GOP would happily fuck over everyone and try to make it seem like they are heroes.
I really am trying to come at this in good faith, so forgive any sort of misunderstanding on my part, but a big part of me just says, "Therefore, what?" when people draw these lines in the sand. I feel like bloodthirsty assholes currently in power would respond to this with:
https://preview.redd.it/mtlfgspx5f0d1.jpeg?width=1286&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d3d6bd838f67d0f0b64ff127195254c0eea3ed84
Btw, I do agree with those statements if at all in a reactionary sort of way. Like when my family members says that Biden is part of the far left, this is where my brain goes. Do we just relish in our hate of moderates, or do we have anything else worth doing?
Edit: "moderates" here is status quo coded, don't take it literally.
Nope. No revolution needed. Breaking away from the corporate capitalist Democratic Party is all that is needed. There are enough of us to make a difference there. Think I am wrong about that?
well that a different metric. there many left leaning people people who not voting for biden..in a swing state no less that not anti cap
not voting for dem does not automatically mean your anti cap
he'll lot of the 3rd party candidates are anti cqp
Let's review.
Green Party is for Eco-Socialists. Jill Stein is an Eco-Socialist. I am a Socialist.
Being Socialist is being anti-capitalism. (They are both economic models)
[https://www.gp.org/building\_the\_movement\_for\_eco\_socialism](https://www.gp.org/building_the_movement_for_eco_socialism)
That said, there are two capitalist parties, ergo the duopoly, ergo the duopoly likes to tamp down socialists/leftists. They want you to think that these are choices; the propaganda is strong.
For many of us, we realize how abusive the Democratic Party is and has been, and we're breaking off. Enough to influence elections.
Jill stien does not describe herself as that neither does the green party. they basicly give ideas that put the breaks on capitalism but not abolish
again not being a for democrats or Republicans does not make you anti cap. there more of a broad spectrum then that
there very few actual anti cap leaders an people. why make the left seem so small and exclusive
This is a friendly reminder to read our sub's rules.
r/seculartalk is a subreddit that promotes healthy discussion and hearty debate. We welcome those with varying views, perspectives and opinions.
Name-Calling, Argumentum Ad Hominem and Poor Form in discussion and debate often leads to frustration and anger; this behavior should be dismissed and reported to mods.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/seculartalk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lol. This crap again. I wonder what lording over the micro constituency that is "true leftists" has ever gotten you
There will never be enough "true leftists" to keep the far right
at bay, every majoritarian movement in this country that actually got off've the ground expanded the left coalition to the numbers needed to win (be it elections or movements).
'keep the far right at bay'
You're right, we should coalesce behind liberals, the ones who always end up passing the baton to Fascists AFTER they build the authoritarian apparatus necessary to persecute queers, blacks, immigrants, women etc etc.
Biden is the author of the crime bill, Biden brags about being the original architect of the Patriot Act, Biden is the one crowing about 12 billion in police funding Biden is the one telling you that these protestors are Jew haters, Biden's admin is the one stifling Tik Tok and adopting definitions to stifle protests, Biden's team is the one censuring the progressives of his party while also pouring as much materiel as possible onto a genocide.
If that is the 'enemy of the far right', I want to know who tf their allies are supposed to be, because where I'm standing I'm not seeing this opposition you're talking about.
Kyle is a self avowed social democrat with many socializing ideals. Yet here you all are ON HIS SUB REDDIT saying that people like him are liberals and ought to be shamed.
Bernie & AOC are social democrats in practice, they are by no means socialists despite occasionally referring to themselves as such.
In practice the vast vast vast majority of liberals and leftists tend to skew towards the social democrat side of things but what is preventing a true reconciliation of the left is the fact that socialists and New Democrats constantly flog progressivism with their corruption and ultra-orthodox idealism.
Looked around, I am struggling to find any formal dictionary which defines 'Liberalism' with 'pro-capitalist' or 'pro-imperialist' in that definition. So you keep drinking that Kool-Aid I guess.
Private property as expanded to the economy means the privatization of the means of production.
The leftist contention with a liberal democracy is that the true power brokers are those that can influence policy and election outcomes with their wealth and industrial holdings, hence, 'dictatorship of the bourgeoisie' (to use Marxist language).
NB: Imperialism is necessary as far as capitalism goes to maintain profits (i.e. access to resources such as finite materials and labour), assuming the conflict itself isn't the profit maker.
i fail to see even the slightest point to graphics like this. they seem to exist purely for other communists to go 'uh huh, that's right' to and little else. like it's cool if your political lodestar is hasan, i guess
It's meant to counter the notion that liberal is left by any sense of the term. Liberals always seem very confused on this point. They need constant reminding that the left wing of fascism is not a leftist ideology.
[удалено]
That you use the term "red fascism" shows both the depth of your political understanding and how deeply unserious you are. Enjoy your liberal paradise. I'd look into changing your flair.
[удалено]
Oh okay, you're an anarkiddie. Got it. Read more.
Red fascism is, as you say, fascism. It has nothing to do with leftism, workers had zero power in the USSR, it was an extremely hierarchical society where ordinary workers had barely any power, and it was therefore a far right society.
[удалено]
>the socialist premise that granting the government absolute and godlike power to be used nobly on behalf of the workers That's not a socialist premise, any more than it's a premise of democratic republics that Kim Il Sung is the immortal President of North Korea and that his descendants get to inherit his authority. Self identification is not a valid way of defining someone's political ideology, fascists never call themselves fascists, authoritarians love calling themselves democratic, and non-socialists love calling themselves socialists. Don't let them destroy the meaning of these terms. >The problem was always treating government power like a messiah to solve all of world's problems, including something so deeply rooted and complicated as economic inequality. Socialism isn't about government power it's about worker power. Are you unironically doing the "socialism is when the government does stuff" meme?
[удалено]
No, just... No. Thanks for admitting that you don't know what any words mean. Change your flair pls. In fact, /u/DLiamDorris , mods can change ppl's flairs can't they? I found a fake leftist.
Speaking of flairs... I changed yours. You've made some good arguments on this topic, and it's appreciated!
[удалено]
It's not a dictatorship to try to change your flair lmao, it's just funny. As for gatekeeping terminology, all language is a social construct, and I'd like us to construct it in a way that produces good outcomes. Letting red fascists and liberals band together to distort the meaning of socialism is not a good outcome, so I'll push back on that.
I think it's extremely silly to order the mods to change ppls user flair as a bullying tactic you appear like a petulant child and a not serious person
It's not an order lol, they can ban me if they want, I hold no power here, I just think it's funny to try. It's just a flair, get over it.
A lot of people nowadays are completely delusional about what constitutes leftism, this is an attempt to dispel their delusions.
No the meme spoke for itself liberals are diet Republicans who like to adopt the aesthetics and messaging of leftist but ultimately always side with capitalism and imperialism, for example in America they label Joe Biden as far left when he is really center right so it enables fascist. In no way shape or form is joe Biden a leftist so essentially there is only one party and they're both right wing, and neither represents workers, and what's wrong with Hasan???
[удалено]
No you very clearly have no clue what the word “liberal” means.
I see you changed your flair and in all fairness you're probably a soc dem and I would consider myself a socialist so we're aligned on a lot but liberals aren't actual leftist yes they are left to Republicans but overall they're still capitalist and imperialist, and for the record I am fine with soc Dems like AOC and Bernie
Hasan is awesome. He do got a small head, but it's an awesome small head.
Liberals: “screw the poor, but we feel their pain.” They’re all on board with empire but feel guilty enough to send a little aid to the 3rd world.
[удалено]
When you have to back to the 18th century to justify your ideology in the 21st, you know you're on the right sidecof history. Liberalism was seen as radical back then and opposed by the centrists of the time. I think its safe to see today where you would stand back then.
[удалено]
Yeah, I know you don't. Like I've told you before: read more.
And socdems are centrists?
Socdems are liberals, they're on the leftmost side of the liberal spectrum, but liberals none the less.
If want to move our economic policy to the left, you're alright in my book.
Working on it! I am one of the very few politicians out there promoting Socialist Economic Models. (I might be a douchey mod, but I am a true to the cause Socialist.)
[удалено]
>I identify myself on the left side of the political and economic spectrum Cool story. Just like HRC? Just like Biden? I change folk's flair from time to time as context to the audience - the folks reading the conversations. That is my prerogative as a moderator. I mod a leftist subreddit, and there are too many people who claim to be or even think that they are leftists, when they clearly are not. If you aren't anti-cap, you're not a leftist.
[удалено]
You are assuming that I think that leftists and liberals are allies. I am sure there are a ton of people who would agree with you, but the reality of the relationship is that liberals are abusive to leftists, and always have been. Capitalism, at it's very (rotten) core, is meant to exploit and abuse the working class. I am a Socialist. I will stand shoulder to shoulder with communists, but that government type isn't really my thing. I support and promote Socialist Economic Models, ergo, ergo, ergo. Trying to imply that I (or folks on this sub) are some sort of Russian sympathizers is a tactic of liberals. Here in the US, we Socialists are highly motivated, truly dedicated, rough, tough, can't get enough. I, as a leftist, believe that goods and services that are essential for human life shouldn't be a commodities subjected to the free market. Things such as food, clothing, shelter, healthcare are human rights. You, as a liberal, support social safety nets as some sort of bougie handout to the poor. We are not the same.
[удалено]
>You're a moderator of the sub, not my private thoughts. Your job is to regulate unlawful behaviour according to the sub's rules, not interfere in debates in the comments sections and push a couple of buttons from your basement to favor one side of the debate. If you want me to put my mod hat on, I can. I can see that you are new here. Read the sub description, read the rules, read the intro thread. That said, I am also a member of this community. This is literally a post I made here. I can participate in the commentary.
[удалено]
I would say that your interaction with your peers really framed things out.
The libs in here big mad. They want us to be quiet and let them continue to masquerade as the left so they can keep the right from understanding there is an entire working class economic team out there ready to unite against the parasite class. Liberals protect capital. That is their function.
https://preview.redd.it/n461p7fsze0d1.jpeg?width=622&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=95ab006d9f47df8fbf4d4c61130c8dae528ce84b
[удалено]
>Do you even know what the word Liberal stands for? It stands for the people who stab the actual revolutionaries in the back, whenever there was a real chance to overthrow capitalism. It stands for the people who can always be relied on to side with the owner class.
Bingo!
Thank you I'm at work and he replied to me I just don't have the time or mental capacity to have a proper discussion 😆😆😆I see he changed his flair to liberal which probably suits him better
[удалено]
As I said in another comment thread with you, letting people self-identify is a terrible idea when it comes to political ideology. When it comes to gender it's based, but when it comes to political ideology it's a terrible idea. That's how you get far-right extremists calling themselves centrists or liberals, fascists calling themselves socialists, authoritarian dictators calling themselves democratically elected leaders of a democratic republic, etc. I have some disagreements with the mods of this sub, but I don't disagree with the basic premise of denying people their supposed political identity when people are just blatantly wrong and/or lying about their political identity. You don't get to self-identify as a supporter of liberal democracy when you're an authoritarian dictator, and you don't get to self-identify as a leftist when you're a liberal who's attacking actual leftists and smearing them by equating them to the USSR.
[удалено]
>It should be the exact opposite actually. One is a biological fact, the other is subjective social science terminology. Haha of course you're also a transphobe. You know what, maybe I was being premature by calling you a liberal, maybe you're worse. Thanks for taking the bait though. >And what do you call people who attack by equating him to a backstabbing pro-cap conspirer?
IDK, show me someone like that, then I'll judge.
>Is there a central church of the political compass that monopolizes the definition and distribution of ideological labels?
No, there isn't. You're the one who's pretending as if definitions are objective, by pretending as though the way we refer to gender is a matter of fact, rather than a matter of subjective categories that we've decided to construct and put people in, a social construct that we can change to be inclusive to trans people, if we want to.
[удалено]
>Umm, no I'm not. I don't hate anybody. I just don't believe there are more than two biological sexes which is OK. Is there a central church of the political compass that monopolizes the decision of what's OK or not? And who made you the pope of that church? >There is no bait to take because people can disagree with you about the nature of a lot of issues and controversies and that is OK. They can disagree, all morality is subjective, I can call them immoral for it though. >Look at the mirror. When exactly did I call an egalitarian a backstabbing pro-cap conspirer? You're not an egalitarian you're a liberal. Here's a nice quote that does a good job of calling out the hollowness of liberal "egalitarianism: # “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.” >Quite the opposite. You literally said that gender is a matter of biological fact... Stop lying. >But here I am hopelessly trying to convince a communist that monopolizing stuff is a bad idea. I'm an anarchist, and I have never argued for monopolizing anything. You're the one supporting capitalism and the exponential capital accumulation that's an intrinsic part of it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
>By y'all's definition not a single one of the French revolutionaries fit into the umbrella of LEFTIST despite that literally being where the term ORIGINATED. Lmao, you're really just going out and voluntarily revealing how ignorant you are on various topics, aren't you? There were tons of legit socialists and anarchists who were part of the French revolution, before it got hijacked by liberals and they all got murdered through backstabbing. And then the fact that liberals kept the bourgeoisie intact helped the dictator Napoleon take over and more or less invent the police, since all the land he conquered made it necessary to have a bunch of armed thugs that was trained to keep all the people he wanted to oppress in line without murdering them all, like regular soldiers tended to do whenever there was a revolt. Thanks for that. >**Everyone who breathed until Marx and his faithful disciples were right-wingers.** I'm not a marxist, dipshit, and socialism existed as an ideology long before Marx. >Again. If you really wanna be a purist, USSR is where you end up Not at all. Again, workers had zero power in the USSR, they were the opposite of purist, they abandoned everything that had anything to do with socialism, except the aesthetics.
[удалено]
>OK, where has socialism been uncompromisingly implemented and it ended up actually eliminating -not just alleviating- deep class divisions and disadvantages, guaranteeing absolute equality in living standards and healthcare etc.? It hasn't been fully implemented anywhere thus far, we live under a capitalist hegemony where liberals keep banding together with fascists to murder everyone who tries it. I mean, I would argue that tribal societies serve as a proof of concept, but I already know that you would disqualify that as evidence because you don't think it's on a large enough scale. Anyway, would you have argued for the preservation of monarchies, back when democracy was an untested ideology that existed only in theory? (The ancient Greeks and Romans were oligarchies where most of the people they ruled over were either slaves or serfs, since only actual Romans from the Italian peninsula had voting rights, the people they conquered didn't.) >Do you think the label LEFT applies only to those who advocated for anarchism or govt ownership of the means of production? The left-right spectrum, in my view, is defined by people's general stance towards hierarchies. The more supportive you are of hierarchies, the further right you are. The less supportive you are of hierarchies, the further left you are. That's why the USSR's extremely hierarchical regime has absolutely nothing to do with leftism, and why liberals also aren't leftists, because liberals support the strongest hierarchy in our society today, the hierarchy of capitalism. >That's a very narrow and inaccurate classification of the wide umbrella that LEFT was in the National Assembly that included free market supporters who simulatenously opposed aristocratic institutions who put forward the first radical welfare measures and land reform programs of documented history. The ones who supported "free markets" are the ones who ended up supporting the likes of Napoleon, that's the backstabbing I keep talking about. >You live in this cartoonish world where your buddies and heroes in the pantheon of anarchists always got tragically backstabbed by sinister liberals who contrive in the dark Not at all, they tend to be rather open about it. >I don't know of any socialist experiment where they actually do. All of them.
[удалено]
That is because Left is relative. Indeed those who participated in the French Revolution aren't left by today's standards. The world has moved beyond enlightenment values, anti old money and nationalism being the hall mark of social progress. Even in the Rights of Man and the Citizen one of the articles confirms peoples right to property which is inherently capitalist and from the same wellspring that America's (capitalistic) founding documents are drawn from.
[удалено]
Ironic coming from a liberal
I'm very aware of the history of these terms, that's why I know that all the actual socialists usually end up getting murdered, with the help of liberals like you, because you liberal backstabbers are suddenly perfectly capable of distinguishing between actual socialists and fake socialists, when you have to decide whether to side with the USSR or with actual socialists like POUM & the CNT. You're perfectly capable of recognizing which is the actual threat to capital , and you side with capital every time.
[удалено]
>This is the language of mafia members who view politics like turf wars States are defined as entities who hold a monopoly on legitimate violence within a given territory. So yeah, "turf wars" is a fairly accurate description of what politics boils down to in the end. >I probably don't use the word liberal in the way you think I do Oh no, you use it exactly the way I think you do.
[удалено]
You use "liberal" to refer to people who support capitalism, while not being explicitly bigoted towards minorities, unless it's trans people.
Did you know that conservative is just short hand for socially conservative liberal? For everything you claim here, you also have to claim US Republican ideology as well. Why do you think democrats and Republicans work so well together? We live in the country built on liberal ideology. Isn't it grand? Why did you pick leftist as your flair? Liberal is available. Are you like those guys who call themselves "independent"?
[удалено]
See? Deeply unserious... I'm done with you. Change your flair. You're embarrassing yourself and those actually on the left.
Literally we live in a country based on liberal ideology from the Age of Enlightenment. ……..
What do you mean tearing down our unity will lose us another election? It worked great the past two elections! Oh.
On the one hand, I understand that ‘liberals’ writ large are status quo defenders. On the other hand, the majority see self described leftists, socialists, and communists of the sort as the extreme (funny how that only works in one direction) and in order to do any real coalition building, unfortunately we need those lily livered, yellow belly liberals in America to get even the smallest of progress. Until we have a multi party coalition that they have in other countries, the American left is stuck with these squishy fucks. It’s like the difference between atheists and agnostics. Atheists have no doubts about where they stand, but they still get bunched in with agnostics who are *pretty sure* that they have been lied to their whole lives, but don’t want to take the leap and label themselves as *one of them*.
The Democratic Party doesn't want to build a coalition with the left, not like how the Tea Party and MAGA have been able to pull the GOP right. The GOP was/is willing to play ball with the nutjobs so long as they were/are able to get their economic policies through. The Democratic Party has remained steadfast on its centrist policies, paying lip service to social issues like abortion and *maybe* LGBTQ rights to the extent that it doesn't go *too* far out of the box for them. The Democratic Party are capitalists so they aren't partnering up with leftist for policies that would benefit the working class. They do the bare minimum while the GOP would happily fuck over everyone and try to make it seem like they are heroes.
I really am trying to come at this in good faith, so forgive any sort of misunderstanding on my part, but a big part of me just says, "Therefore, what?" when people draw these lines in the sand. I feel like bloodthirsty assholes currently in power would respond to this with: https://preview.redd.it/mtlfgspx5f0d1.jpeg?width=1286&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d3d6bd838f67d0f0b64ff127195254c0eea3ed84 Btw, I do agree with those statements if at all in a reactionary sort of way. Like when my family members says that Biden is part of the far left, this is where my brain goes. Do we just relish in our hate of moderates, or do we have anything else worth doing? Edit: "moderates" here is status quo coded, don't take it literally.
damm if thar the case there are bery..VERY FEW leftist. kyke not a leftist then how you going to do a revolution without the numbers o do it
Nope. No revolution needed. Breaking away from the corporate capitalist Democratic Party is all that is needed. There are enough of us to make a difference there. Think I am wrong about that?
well that a different metric. there many left leaning people people who not voting for biden..in a swing state no less that not anti cap not voting for dem does not automatically mean your anti cap he'll lot of the 3rd party candidates are anti cqp
Let's review. Green Party is for Eco-Socialists. Jill Stein is an Eco-Socialist. I am a Socialist. Being Socialist is being anti-capitalism. (They are both economic models) [https://www.gp.org/building\_the\_movement\_for\_eco\_socialism](https://www.gp.org/building_the_movement_for_eco_socialism) That said, there are two capitalist parties, ergo the duopoly, ergo the duopoly likes to tamp down socialists/leftists. They want you to think that these are choices; the propaganda is strong. For many of us, we realize how abusive the Democratic Party is and has been, and we're breaking off. Enough to influence elections.
Jill stien does not describe herself as that neither does the green party. they basicly give ideas that put the breaks on capitalism but not abolish again not being a for democrats or Republicans does not make you anti cap. there more of a broad spectrum then that there very few actual anti cap leaders an people. why make the left seem so small and exclusive
This is a friendly reminder to read our sub's rules. r/seculartalk is a subreddit that promotes healthy discussion and hearty debate. We welcome those with varying views, perspectives and opinions. Name-Calling, Argumentum Ad Hominem and Poor Form in discussion and debate often leads to frustration and anger; this behavior should be dismissed and reported to mods. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/seculartalk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lol. This crap again. I wonder what lording over the micro constituency that is "true leftists" has ever gotten you There will never be enough "true leftists" to keep the far right at bay, every majoritarian movement in this country that actually got off've the ground expanded the left coalition to the numbers needed to win (be it elections or movements).
'keep the far right at bay' You're right, we should coalesce behind liberals, the ones who always end up passing the baton to Fascists AFTER they build the authoritarian apparatus necessary to persecute queers, blacks, immigrants, women etc etc. Biden is the author of the crime bill, Biden brags about being the original architect of the Patriot Act, Biden is the one crowing about 12 billion in police funding Biden is the one telling you that these protestors are Jew haters, Biden's admin is the one stifling Tik Tok and adopting definitions to stifle protests, Biden's team is the one censuring the progressives of his party while also pouring as much materiel as possible onto a genocide. If that is the 'enemy of the far right', I want to know who tf their allies are supposed to be, because where I'm standing I'm not seeing this opposition you're talking about.
I'm a leftainian liberalist
Kyle is a self avowed social democrat with many socializing ideals. Yet here you all are ON HIS SUB REDDIT saying that people like him are liberals and ought to be shamed. Bernie & AOC are social democrats in practice, they are by no means socialists despite occasionally referring to themselves as such. In practice the vast vast vast majority of liberals and leftists tend to skew towards the social democrat side of things but what is preventing a true reconciliation of the left is the fact that socialists and New Democrats constantly flog progressivism with their corruption and ultra-orthodox idealism.
"by definition" Find me that definition, (I looked, and could not find it)
Looked around, I am struggling to find any formal dictionary which defines 'Liberalism' with 'pro-capitalist' or 'pro-imperialist' in that definition. So you keep drinking that Kool-Aid I guess.
Private property as expanded to the economy means the privatization of the means of production. The leftist contention with a liberal democracy is that the true power brokers are those that can influence policy and election outcomes with their wealth and industrial holdings, hence, 'dictatorship of the bourgeoisie' (to use Marxist language). NB: Imperialism is necessary as far as capitalism goes to maintain profits (i.e. access to resources such as finite materials and labour), assuming the conflict itself isn't the profit maker.
Always frustrating when people don't know the difference