Do any of them know what the word “liberal” actually means?
I tend to see the derogatory ‘Liberal’ and moreso ‘Lib’ used for Neo-liberals and those supporting the neoliberal policies that have dominated the last few generations.
I otherwise see it used in the context of the phrase “scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds” which is pithy but tracks with history and typically the more antagonistic usage. It is almost entirely used to provoke a reaction from the ‘libs’ it is directed at, accuracy notwithstanding.
With context it is almost always pretty self explanatory which is being used.
“Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism, free markets, representative democracy, legal rights and state monopoly on violence. It includes a large portion of the present day political spectrum, from the centre-left social democrats to the far-right conservatives and American libertarians.”
Republicans are also liberals. At least in the true sense of the word. So it’s low-key funny when they use the term liberal as an insult.
I myself am not a liberal. Fiscally at least. Socially I’m a progressive.
In American political terminology, “liberal” means a different thing than in Europe. It implies being left-wing on social issues. Republicans by definition cannot be liberals (in the American sense of the term).
It would be like saying “it’s funny when Americans say they’re going to ‘wear their boot’, how are you going to wear part of your car?”
They are using a different definition of the word, and pretending they aren’t is being wilfully ignorant at best. Pretending the other definition doesn’t exist just serves to alienate people who might actually agree with you.
I’m just excited to see what happens when they find out their PC has been invaded by libs.
And then proceeds to own them by deleting them all
Almost like AuthComs are authoritarian before they are communist, and thus have more in common with the American Fascist Party than any actual leftists.
I used to think it just was synonymous with the left, but I’ve recently been seeing a lot of comments on Lemmy saying liberals aren’t leftist so now I am not sure if it means anything or if those Lemmings are just dumb.
I’ve grown up with the term “bleeding heart liberals” being applied to groups like Green Peace and hippies that promote love and unity by people who are just complete pieces of shit, and in that context I was always like “I guess I’m a liberal 🤷🏻♂️”
Liberals are somewhere between center left and center right. In the US, the alternative to republicanism is the “liberal party” and because they often encompass people further left than the party line, they are seen as left wing. Generally, I associate people who are always in favor of slow electoral measures, a strong state, strong individualistic rights that are positively defined (the right to do rather than not having the right to do) and the view that capitalism is the only method that had worked so far and is therefore best with liberalism. But thats far from an academic definition.
When you add in the fact that people usually end up seeing another person’s politics in relative to their own, things get unintelligible for someone trying to pinpoint an ideology.
An anarchist like myself will probably point towards someone like Biden or Obama and say they are a liberal or neoliberal, which is probably accurate enough (if I do say so myself), but I’ll also call conservatives like Romney, Bush, and Raegan, liberals or neoliberal even though those are people most self titled liberals would hate. A staunch authoritarian communist might call AOC or Sanders a liberal because they aren’t revolutionary communists, even though I’d personally consider them somewhat socialist progressives. Heck, I’ve ben called a liberal by hardcore communists even though my views are more similar to their definition of communism than theirs, and I’ve been called a liberal by some alt right people even though their views are closer to liberalism than mine.
Fox news, on the other hand, would call a pink haired person on a college campus a liberal for the pink hair alone. They might label a gay trump supporter who has a pride flag a liberal because of their homophobia combined with the association pride has with liberals to them. They might call someone who is genuinely far left a liberal because they either can’t comprehend their beliefs or because they don’t catch some of the indicators that they are looking at a communist, anarchist, etc.
US Dems and mainstream liberals are definitely right to far right by (mainland) European standards.
The political window in the US is very different from the European ones.
Yeah. The US is a shit show. At least the Overton window now includes antizionism, small victories!
I do think a lot of liberals are further right than they realize. But I don’t think it’s accurate to call them far right unless you solely are considering their economic ideology (which is reductionist), or are lumping in people who would probably be more accurately described with a better label. Or your perspective is skewed from being far enough left.
I used to think it just was synonymous with the left, but I’ve recently been seeing a lot of comments on Lemmy saying liberals aren’t leftist so now I am not sure if it means anything or if those Lemmings are just dumb.
I’ve been fucking telling you, insisting on a Eurocentric definition confuses people, and that confusion is exploited by fascists.
American definition of liberal: socially liberal
European definition of liberal: economically liberal
My thoughts exactly! Every real-life human I’ve ever spoken to uses it to mean open-minded and every definition I look up agrees, yet for some reason half the people posting here think it exclusively means economically-neo-liberal capitalist.
It’s easier than accepting nuance, and it’s usually from the same people who demonstrate that same lack of nuance in everything else they post.
Perhaps they are seeing “free enterprise” and associating that with being something only pertaining to capitalism, even though you can have free enterprise without capitalism.
Yeah these are old school definitions, like how a “liberal education” means you get a broad education in differing perspectives (ironically, this term is now associated with a Eurocentric take on topics). In the same sense, “liberal policies” would mean freedom of religion, sexuality, etc.
All good things that progressives agree with, but it also entails more pernicious property rights, and the protection of the state/establishment against those who threaten those rights.
It doesn’t necessarily have to be this way, but this is what I believe it’s come to mean in practice. It also has very little to do with how one votes, especially in a democracy like the U.S. where you’ve just got your “monkey loves you” and “monkey needs a hug” choices.
The context is typically pretty important for how it is being used. The user of the term often provides more than enough context I find.
If ‘liberal’ is being used in a derogatory sense, which isn’t going to be captured by an academic definition, it’s often aimed at neoliberalism in a pretty broad sense.
Which is probably what this meme is referring to: the shared rejection of neoliberalism. The motivations are different but that’s immaterial to these things. I mean: it is specifically referencing an American political party here: so I wouldn’t be looking for a political science definition on ‘liberal’.
American liberals are not neolibs. Neolibs are Republicans.
Those statements are both true, but: Neoliberalism dominates both political parties in the United States and has for generations. The Democratic Party is also neoliberal, (often in spite of their voters.)
The Republican Party’s neoliberalism has fostered fascist and christian nationalist factions to the point they may take over.
The Democratic Party’s stance has been to try and absorb disaffected Republican neoliberal voters from the above.
Which leaves ‘non-neoliberal American liberals’ with the choice of supporting… well it is and has been a successful right wing strategy to say the least.
The Democratic Party’s stance has been to try and absorb disaffected Republican neoliberal voters from the above.
That’s a leftist idea that Leftists just made up and are running with due to their own echo chambers. Dems do like capturing centrists, especially now the GOP has gone off the rails, but the coalition is absolutely led by progressives who push progressive policies as much as they can. The theory is to capture disaffected centrists and win them over with clearly superior Democrat policies and positions. Doesn’t always work, but that’s the play. When the Democratic party allows oil leases or higher border funding, it doesn’t do so skipping with joy. It does so reluctantly as part of a compromise to win other gains.
This is the part where you get out the tin foil hats and claim that despite all evidence to the contrary, Democrats actually secretly want every bad thing ever to happen. Because they’re just that evil.
Dems do like capturing centrists,
Doesn’t always work, but that’s the play.
Sure doesn’t. Very strong arguments to my point.
You didn’t even read it did you lol
Just like “aha, everything you said actually supports me!” like you think it’s some sort of debate uno reverse card
1 favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2 noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3 of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.
4 favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5 favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression:
6 of or relating to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7 free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant
8 open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
Only 5,7 and 8 are “open minded” Being favorable to progress does not mean being open minded and what constitutes as progressive is in itself up to debate. Individual rights and liberties can be understood as neo-liberal capitalism of “well the law allows you, your economic situation doesn’t concern us, and now back to slaving 60 hours a week.” Or it could mean “We need to enable people to enjoy their liberties so we need to ensure their basic human dignity with healthcare, education and social welfare to empower them.”
what the fuck is number 1 then?
favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
what is number 2 then?
noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
I think if you go point by point and ignore the rest then you can argue semantics, but I don’t see how you can take all 8 together and argue what “progressive” means
Some authoritarians strongly believe that they’re far left. But an authoritarian regime cannot be left. If you’re not liberal, you’re an authoritarian, not left, and it doesn’t matter what type of authoritarian bull shit you’re subscribing to.
‘Liberal’ is one of those words that has so many definitions that it can have contradictory meanings. It can mean ‘open to / tolerant of’. It can denote a style of education that tries to be broad rather than deep. It can describe various political positions - the ‘Liberal Party’ is left-wing in Chile, centrist in the UK and Canada, and right-wing in Russia, Japan and Australia. This is also what OP is memeing about. At this point, to avoid confusion, I would just avoid using the word except in the purely academic / technical sense.
Lib bashing in left spaces is the mating cry of the tanky
It might be cathartic every so often, but too much makes the wrong people feel safe.
Liberals do not belong in left spaces, left is literally defined by anticapitalism.
No, left is defined by liberalism. Anti-capitalism is far right authoritarian bull shit.
Having a fight over who is or isn’t allowed in left spaces instead of having the discussion about leftist policy is what got the left where it is in today’s political discussion.
Defining a movement by who’s not allowed in it leaves you without any ability to get anywhere legitimately.
This is an environment of welcoming. And you should just get the hell out of here.
You should stop contradicting yourself to keep getting to lib bash without feeling responsible for drawing the wrong people in.
Hang on guy, I’m with you. https://youtu.be/CzX-fFPUigQ
Liberals aren’t left though. They are a centrist position by their very definition.
Once again, a movement based on exclusion is never going to achieve legitimacy.
The only way to achieve legitimacy in the eyes of liberals is liberal policy, the singular thing we are all against.
Based on your interpretation every group could simply be redefined into illegitimate.
- We are for democracy
- Oh so you think that monarchy is bad and you want to define yourself as excluding loyal subjects of the king! That will never be legitimate.
Leftist think that democracy should extend into the economic realm as well and what we should do with the means of production should be governed by the people and not just whoever happens to own the capital. One way to word that would be anti-capitalist, but another way would be to word it as economic democracy.
So if you require an inclusive definition for something to be legitimate, there you go. Liberals in America do not seek to do away with capitalism, you would be hard pressed to find any that do. If you support capitalism, then by the fact that capitalism’s private ownership is mutually exclusive with democratic control of the economy, you don’t support a democratic control of the economy.
You can’t have a vegan meat eater, not because of any moral assessment on veganism or meat eating, but because those two terms are mutually exclusive.
There’s no fight.
A space for people opposed to capitalism isn’t gonna have people who are pro-capitalism.
Software developers are staying silent on this one.
deleted by creator
Only good library is the standard library, packages are much better 😤
But I like my libs… Often enough produced with a pretty communistic and anti-authoritarian mindset… (And too often, lack of support for the workers… Ups) But I like them.
“We’d like for our software to ThingDo. Our team has estimated 4 weeks for this work. What’s your estimate?”
“Wait, you want to write it from scratch? Why not just plug in ThingDoer library?”
“…ah, right. Damn libs.”
Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleed…
Usually because it’s a fascist doing the scratching, so the liberal punches him
Nice
Op, are you in the US?
In the US, the choices for voting are Republican and Democrat.
Which of these parties is “liberal?”
The argument being made when non conservatives dislike liberals is when the liberals in question align with the Ds, because the Ds have every interest in pushing vaguely progressive policies during elections and never actually follow through in office.
Remember student loans? Still out there Remember universal healthcare? Still gotta pay for insurance Remember tax reform? Still paying higher rates than people who can’t conceivably spend all of their money.
The primary goal of the Dems when in power is to maintain power. Fuck those guys. Not quite as hard as Republicans, but it stands.
Signed, Not a fucking tankie
Democrats tried to fix all those things but were blocked by Republicans in Congress and on the Supreme Court. And that is Democrats fault somehow? Give us more numbers, we’ll get you more results.
I vote D because I have no other valid choice. When Obama was in the president seat, he had both houses of congress and only managed to get the aca. Don’t get me wrong, telling insurance they have to cover preexisting conditions is a good thing, but only by the standard that we are required to use insurance anyways. We need single payer.
Don’t misquote me. I don’t think D and R are the same thing. I know that I suffer less under D leadership than R, however, things only actually ever seem to move further right. For example, why are we throwing college kids in jail for stating the obvious: that supporting the massacre of civilians is heinous? I think that D and R are playing the same game, Power, and the little people who aren’t rich are the ones paying their dues.
I don’t think D and R are the same thing.
BUT
I think that D and R are playing the same game
Suuuuure.
For example, why are we throwing college kids in jail for stating the obvious
That’s not moving right. The US has always done this. You’re just too young and/or uninformed to know about the countless time this has happened throughout history.
I like how the fact that “this has happened before” is somehow a valid excuse for it to happen now. Dismiss me if you like but you still aren’t offering any actual rebuttal.
Since the 80s, and Reagan bot major parties have facilitated the transfer of wealth away from the middle class and to the rich specifically.
I don’t need to call that out because it’s been there for everyone to see for 40 fucking years. What the actual fuck are you on about.
That’s not moving right.
Rebuttal above.
I am not, and I’ve observed that every American seems to have their own definition of what “liberal” means, which is not really very helpful when trying to use the word in a discussion
I’m reasonably sure making discussion difficult is the goal. When the right refers to libs, they mean “anything left of me” without ever acknowledging that a significant number of people being referred to are neither progressive lib or left. The American D party is a center right organization, so how do I, as a leftist express “fuck the platform of the ‘liberal party’ is pushing, they’re clearly bought and paid for too, and are serving the bourgeoisie and don’t give a fuck about me, but I still have to put the guy in charge back in charge cause the alternative is dictatorship.”
Yep, sounds about right.
The democrats are the liberal party. They support abortion, religious freedom, police reform, civil rights (sometimes), drug decriminalization, etc.
That being said, they are trying to encapsulate and entire half of the political spectrum. There’s going to be gaps, disagreements between individual party members, and places where one policy or value has to override another.
Nah, your first statement is close, but you miss by a bit:
“The democrats are the liberal party. They [pretend to] support abortion (when trying to get elected), religious freedom (when trying to get elected), police reform (when trying to get elected), civil rights (when trying to get elected), drug decriminalization (when trying to get elected), etc.”
When not trying to get elected they don’t actually DO anything.
Drug decriminalization was a big deal in the 70’s and we are maybe just now kinda getting around to it.
I didn’t even call out the shit behavior on civil rights, you did that.
They seem a-ok with police fucking with college kids right now.
They’ve had 50 years since roe v wade to guarantee the right to abortion, and they didn’t.
What DID they do?
Helped give money to people who are already rich through tax breaks. Helped give money to people who are already rich through deregulation they allowed through. Helped give money to people who are already rich through defense contracts. Helped give money to people who are already rich by overthrowing foreign governments with control over resources out oil barrons want.
Id call those “gaps”, yeah.
Literally everything Democrats do is bad, especially the good things they do.
Got it.
Definitely not sounding like fash talking points at all.
When choice 1 is kill me slowly (maybe suggest slowing down oil emissions but not actually enforce it), and choice 2 is kill me quickly (lets sell Alaska to Exxon), what is the correct choice?
I would honestly prefer choice 3 which is stop fucking trying to kill me.
Should I commend the D team for not being quite as bad as R? Jesus man, I just want to have options that aren’t two different versions of wrong.
Seriously, how do you not understand that this is an ENGINEERED false dichotomy?
Additionally, everyone is coming at me going “the liberal party is progressiveby definition” and yet no one gives any examples of ACTUAL progress o. The D platform that ever a tualky gets acted upon. So far I’m the only person here who’s even. Rought up the ACA, and I do grant that it is mild progress, for the US, not for anywhere else in the developed world.
Choice 3 is just choice 2 with a fake mustache.
Should I commend the D team for not being quite as bad as R?
Yes.
Jesus man, I just want to have options that aren’t two different versions of wrong.
Sucks, welcome to being an adult.
and yet no one gives any examples of ACTUAL progress
It’s pointless because every time we do you just throw out a red herring. Or start screaming that doing something to fix the problem is somehow worse than making the problem worse. Or you just go quiet.
Let’s try. Biden has forgiven $153 billion in student loans that would not be forgiven under the GOP. That is progress.
Commence with the mental gymnastics.
Debt forgiveness is a decent step… Again unless educating your populace is as high a priority as it should be, in which case higher education would be freely available to any who wanted it. That’s not a moving goalpost, that’s simply how it always should have been.
Under that, there simply is no student debt. Also, worth noting that debt forgiveness doesn’t actually fix the problem, it just gets people to shut up and go away, so yes I am still screaming for good and free public education for the public good.
There it is. No progress is good enough. Ever.
Fuck you and your “biden bad” propaganda.
They support
- Abortion (in campaign ads and fundraising emails)
- Religious freedom (by wagging a finger when Republicans don’t and then doing fuck all about it)
- Police reform (by throwing cash at cops for “better training” while refusing to actually change the inherently abusive system)
- Civil rights (sometimes) (when it won’t effect the bottom line of their owner donors like AIPAC and the fossil fuel industries
- Drug decriminalization (in theory, but never in practice)
they are trying to encapsulate and entire half of the political spectrum
No. They are trying to be IN CHARGE OF over half of the political spectrum. The only ideologies other than their own (which is center right to right wing) that they ever try to appeal to is the couple dozen “undecided that are almost but not quite Republicans” left in the country.
There’s going to be gaps, disagreements between individual party members, and places where one policy or value has to override another.
Nope, there’s going to be nothing but neglect and abuse towards anyone to the left of the leadership, which is now to the right of Reagan.
In spite of the name, the Democratic Party is not democratic or even a party. It’s a private for-profit corporation controlled by a small group of people who are in turn controlled to varying degrees by rich people, other corporations, and industry lobbying groups.
When the horseshoe becomes a circle…
I use lib for shared objects.
I will not stand for this anarchist erasure
It’s more that OP seems unable to fathom anyone to the left of them being both rational and uncool with liberalism. That’s why they specifically said “Authouritarian Communists,” the SpOoKiEsT LeFtIsTs.
Who doesn’t hate those dang rightwingers, The Liberals?
Just throw workers owning the means of production on there and we’ve got a
stewreal progressive.You’re confusing liberalism with social progressivism, and leftism with social programs.
At the end of the day, Capitalism is right wing, Socialism is left.
👍
Not what your voting record demonstrates if you’ve been voting for liberal establishment figures.
Remember a politician’s talk < actions and campaign finance.
to be fair, the word “liberal” has lost its meaning in the US, because there no differentiation between economic liberalism and social liberalism. the guy in the meme would be a classic socialist in europe. we do have liberals here too, but they are the economic liberalism-type and more in line with the US-Republicans in economic questions, like tax cuts for the rich and businesses.
It’s as meaningless as any words that hang on the notion that there’s a “spectrum”.
You either you accept what works and fosters human well being and liberty, adjusting your politics accordingly to reality as we learn more about the world, or you’re conservative, a fundementally irrational denial of reality.
This is why seemingly different groups like Marxists and neo-nazis end up at the same place ultimately; they’re unwilling to give up on failed ideas. It doesn’t matter what label one applies, if you’re still trying failed ideas after they’ve produced untold amounts of harm then you’re just on one road to fascism or another.
It’s a binary, not a spectrum.
Lol thats great, i came under a “biden bad”-post just a few hours ago to the same conclusion. the best friend of a left-authoritarian isn’t anyone on the left wing, its an right-authoritarian.
i’m a socialist with anarchism as an ideal in some aspects, and for quite a while i couldn’t understand why anyone on the left side of the spectrum would actively lobby against biden in the upcoming election until i realized that.
Biden literally supports genocide, so it is reasonable for people to not want to support him even if it comes at a cost to themselves. If you’re unable to understand that, even if you disagree, I very much doubt you are aligned with the kind of goals you purport.
You clearly don’t understand that America as an institution has supported genocide your entire life and longer, it’s just more in your face right now than it’s ever been, Biden may support genocide but so did Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Ike, Truman, FDR, Hoover, and on back. This isn’t new shit and yes we desperately need better, but the genocide of the people you are arguing for will continue either way, but it will be faster with Trump. If you feel this strongly about stoping the US support of genocide regardless of who is president, I suggest you look into direct action, if you don’t have the backbone for that shut the fuck up.
Your vote isn’t a declaration of loyalty, love, support, or condoning. It never has been in this country, what it is is a small expression of which of the two directions presented to you is preferable. In this iteration we are presented with the maintenance of the status quo, which is fucking so stupid and I in every other circumstance would fight tooth and nail against it, but the other option is authoritarian christofascism which will culminate in at the very minimum of a constitutional crisis when blue states refuse to enforce the Gilead bullshit while thousands are murdered in red states. You want to stop genocide in Gaza? Me too, it’s gonna be hard to do that when there’s a cleansing happening in the US.
It’s a fucked up system, I hate it too, but again the only other option than these two ancient assholes is direct action and that has a lot of other consequences even if they are worth it in the long run
So I’m going to just tell you this; what you’re doing above is not convincing anyone.
Given that factual reality, you then have to ask yourself, as someone who probably likes to believe that you’re pragmatic and worldly; if your strategy for convincing millions of voters to support Democrats inspite of their increasingly fascist, right-wing tendencies is not working, what are your other practical options for actually helping Biden win.
And remember, this might involve changing your politics, or getting off the fence and actually doing something etc.
In any case, it’s a rhetorical question, since I’ll be blocking you. Think about it though, think about 2016 and how badly your political strategy failed this country then. Consider changing.
Leftists literally threatening the country with a fascist takeover if Dems don’t bow to their impossible demands.
We’re not trying to win your vote. We’re trying to stop you from infecting more undecideds. You people are rotten and need to be cut out of the process before you kill us all.
There’s a huge differentiation between social and economic liberalism! Liberals in the US means almost exclusively social liberalism. Liberal in the us is progressivism.
Economic liberalism is a Republican position, not a Democrat one.
@[email protected] I promise this is the last one, I’ve made my point
You’ve made it clear that you believe words do not have meanings, and are just vibes, yes.
300 million people having the same vibe
9 billion having the same vibe as me.
Multiple definitions of words can exist. When 300 million people agree on a definition, that’s a valid definition.
Also, the RIDICULOUS ARROGANCE of Europeans never fails to astound me. 9 billion people? You really do think you represent the whole world lol. News flash, the colonial era is over, you lost your empires. Just stop, you’re embarrassing yourself.
I’m not a European, lol. The entire world and the entirety of academia understands Liberalism the way most people on Lwmmy use it, ie to refer to a pro-Capitalist ideology.
yes but you don’t participate in riots and vote for joe biden instead of third party, therefore you are no better than transphobes
/s if it wasn’t obvious
I ‘am’ an anarcho-communist and I don’t like libtards. Libtards to me are ‘progressive capitalists’ that have no systemic insight what so ever and think all it takes to bring upon heaven on earth is to try and be nice.
I mean, you should try and be nice obviously but you are not going to soy latte your way outta this my dudes.
> is anarcho-communist
> accuses others of lacking systemic insight
I’m unsure what you mean by this. Would you be willing to elaborate?
They probably read 2 words that they don’t like.
I like the idealism in communism and I have been thinking about how to implement communism without very authoritarian structures, and the anarchist way seems to be the only way, but I don’t see how it would be able to sustain our current lifestyle and amount of people. Exploitation of dependencies without authoritarian structures seems unavoidable to me and avoiding dependencies would probably require that people provide themselves with the resources ; which requires more labor and resources. As of right now, I don’t see a flawless system. (that includes capitalism)
So personally I think, saying that the other people have a bad systemic insight in the context of any general ideology is ungranted.
At what point does a structure become authoritarian? There are numerous Anarchist and Marxist propositions for how to structure a Socialist and eventually Communist society, so if there’s a definitive cutoff point for you you can find something to research.
What leftist theory have you read? Not as a “read more theory!” Snark, but more so I can give recs based on your answer to the authoritarian question posed in the last paragraph.
Honestly I am not well-read on leftist theory as in formal education. I look into things that I have encountered and think for myself. I would appreciate new ideas and things to look into.
I appreciate the call out on my vagueness in regards of authoritarian structures. Thanks for that.
It isn’t as much a concrete point like “having a police”, but rather the human nature. I see a lot of protective behavior in people. The idea of communism is a sacrificing one in the sense that you give some of yours to get more for everyone. As a system will teach people within the system that the system is good. It is expected that people will be generally protective of the system. So sacrificing some freedoms for the protection of the system seems like a very normal evolution of those ideals. And you don’t need to worry as the system is good which is why you are protecting it. So over time, just like under any hierarchical system, the power will move towards the “core” of the system. Under capitalism the wealthy and under communism the state. Under communism, protecting the system will have a strong hand and will move the power to the “core”. The “core” is the state. the system and the state are extremely similar. So the state will behave as if an Attack on them is an Attack on the system. Justifying additional force and moving power into the core. Under somewhat authoritarian capitalism, we can observe that behavior quite clearly. But the state and the core isn’t as similar and an “attack” on the “core” isn’t an Attack on the state. Creating the shit that we can observe today under capitalism. Where the state are corrupted by the core while pretending to not be and fighting against the elements of the core that haven’t paid them. In communism, the power goes to the state and the state happily accepts it, turning it more and more authoritarian over time.
So from my pov, authoritarian Systems are an issue but are also seemingly required to protect the system and it’s people. Capitalism sucks as it kinda assume hierarchy and “sneaks” exploitation in. But a authoritarian state acts a little bit as a counter force to the “core”. (While a full on authoritarian state will of course take control over the “core”) While any liberal state, enables the “core” to move more power to itself quicker. Communism is much better in regards of assuming hierarchy as it doesn’t. But an even slightly authoritarian state with communism places the “core” and the state together as a unite without a real counter force and will eventually be very authoritarian. An liberal communistic System would avoid hierarchy and by that protect itself from placing the “core” in the hands of the state, but it would live itself vulnerable by “small” actors trying to build an hierarchy as people generally like to do, and enables “small” local exploitation.
I just don’t see a way for any of them to not fail. Currently I believe that the violence of the public is the only way to reset the failing systems. That violence is just usually a little late and not just, fair or merciful. Leading to a lot of unjust pain and suffering.
I don’t see how to escape this shit.
Please call me out on my shit take. Thanks.
I think you have done a lot of thinking, but haven’t really engaged much with Marxism or Anarchism with regards to philisophy.
For Marxism, check out Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Engels.
For Anarchism, The Conquest of Bread by Kropotkin is good.
The “Human Nature” issue is one that every leftist movement has had to engage with and “solve.”
It is true that I haven’t really engaged with Marxism and/or anarchism beyond the basics. I can look into it, thanks.
Out of curiosity, do you think I have a point? What would be your critic? I don’t want to take your time, so only respond if you feel like it. I understand if you don’t have the time.
Friend I’m not a friend of liberals myself but can we please not use ableistic terms that end with “-tard”?
Reserve that shit for the right wing
Ok, even though I know this will make no difference to ‘you people’ (sorry just cannot help myself xD).
In this case I choose to use this specific word because it’s so obviously a dogwhistle for right wing extremists that in the context of this meme I think it’s funny, since my actual stance is neither authoritarian or rightwing.
I don’t seriously mean to perpetuate negative stereotypes with regards to people with mental handicaps.
Just as a curiosity, are you by any chance from the US? I just cannot imagine anyone from Europe making such a big deal about a joke like this, let alone use the term ableist.
I guess my brain has just rotted as a result of a few decades of being on the internet. Inside i’m still an edgy teen apparently. No actual offense meant :)
I get it, i know how it is. I’m an Israeli anarchist, you can tell by a previous post and my user name.
I’m making a bit of a fuss over it because i find this trend within myself, having grown up in a nationalist family and a religious school, i tend to say those words as instinct as well and am trying to unlearn this behavior.
I grew up as an edgy teen as well so i guess i can relate, but now I’m intp young adulthood and trying to be better to not repel potential friends.
That sounds like a worthy and potentially wholesome effort indeed. I would just like to say that I think sincerity is more important than seriousness. Best of luck to you my friend.
Much respect for being an anarchist in Israel btw, especially in these interesting times.
Solidarity from The Netherlands.
I don’t like libtards.
You can just call them liberals. You don’t need to meld the term to a slur.
I mean, you should try and be nice obviously
By shaving the first two letters off an r-bomb? Come on, guy. I get what you’re saying, but this is an awful way to phrase it.
Libtards
Is a right wing fascist term. I don’t think you’re an anarcho-communist. I think you’re a right wing pretending to be leftist to try to suppress the Democratic vote. You guys have tells.
