News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

The Liberal Mentality

Started by pr126, March 07, 2018, 01:12:27 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Baruch

Quote from: Unbeliever on March 18, 2018, 05:25:12 PM
Ralph Nader has been working to build a left/right alliance for some time now. I don't know much about his progress, but at least he's trying. He wrote a book that I haven't read yet:

Unstoppable: The Emerging Leftâ€"Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State

America's Corbyn?  Bwahaha.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

Quote from: Unbeliever on March 18, 2018, 05:25:12 PM
Ralph Nader has been working to build a left/right alliance for some time now. I don't know much about his progress, but at least he's trying. He wrote a book that I haven't read yet:

Unstoppable: The Emerging Leftâ€"Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State

There are times when I think Ralph Nader is/was one of the most valuable people on the planet, and other times when I think he is a complete idiot!  He is kind of random.

I don't think he is trying to construct a left/right alliance, so much as a rebellios challenging one.  Which isn't bad in itself, but not as useful as he could be.  He is mostly too angry to do much in national political events, and given any political influence, he would be a lot like Trump.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Cheerful Charlie

Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 07, 2018, 05:22:53 PM
A social democracy by by definition is capitalist. You probably already know this, but I just want to clear up confusion among anyone here who has any sort of sympathies for socialism:

Socialism and capitalism are antithetical to eachother, and none of the northern european countries are examples of socialism - they're all capitalist.

Examples of socialism are shitholes like venezuela, where government has seized the means of production. Currency controls, price controls, complete control of the economy by the government. That's socialism.

Socialism is a slippery easel word that can mean anything or nothing much.  A scare word to hustle fools all too often.  We tried laissez faire capitolism, anything goes during the industrail revolution.  It was a horror, a bust.  Some nations tried it's opposite, communism, another bust. In the early 20th century, capitalism with little government "interference" was a resounding failure.  We should have learned our lesson. Government is a necessary evil.  This is what the less sophisticated call socialism.  We turned away from a good government to neo-liberalism, back to the gilded age!  And what do we get with that?  Supply side idiocy.  Vast deficits.  Income inequality.  Stagnant wages for working Americans.  If fighting this stupidity is labelled socialism, let's have more socialism. Want to see how this low tax above all, little regulation idea leads?  Look at those wonderful states that follow that creed!  Kansas, Lousiana, Alabama, Mississippi.  The wonderful world of the hookworm belt.  Venezuala?  We will get down to that level if we keep voting in GOP politicans with hard-ons for Ayn Rand.
Cheerful  Charlie

Gilgamesh

Quote from: Cheerful Charlie on March 20, 2018, 03:09:55 PM
If fighting this stupidity is labelled socialism, let's have more socialism.

That's that thing - social policies are not socialism. Socialism means one thing and one thing only - it refers to the government (the people) seizing the means of production from the corporations. That is socialism.

Socialists - that is; people who are for socialist states - intentionally muddy the waters and convince well-meaning, forward-thinking liberals that the more social policies a nation has, the closer it is to socialism. Because liberals are generally for social policies, they begin to think that socialism is good - not knowing what socialism is actually referring to.

Marxists have always used the bleeding-hearts of liberals to usher in their ideals. The term, 'useful idiot' was coined by marxists, and refers to liberals. Once marxists get in power, and the liberals are no longer useful, they have another funny phrase - it's, "liberals get the bullet, too."

Be a liberal. I'm all for liberty, and myself self-identify as liberal.

But don't be a useful idiot.

Hakurei Reimu

Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 20, 2018, 03:59:57 PM
That's that thing - social policies are not socialism. Socialism means one thing and one thing only - it refers to the government (the people) seizing the means of production from the corporations. That is socialism.

Socialists - that is; people who are for socialist states - intentionally muddy the waters and convince well-meaning, forward-thinking liberals that the more social policies a nation has, the closer it is to socialism. Because liberals are generally for social policies, they begin to think that socialism is good - not knowing what socialism is actually referring to.

Marxists have always used the bleeding-hearts of liberals to usher in their ideals. The term, 'useful idiot' was coined by marxists, and refers to liberals. Once marxists get in power, and the liberals are no longer useful, they have another funny phrase - it's, "liberals get the bullet, too."

Be a liberal. I'm all for liberty, and myself self-identify as liberal.

But don't be a useful idiot.
As long as people know what they're talking about, you can call liberalism 'dog-fuckingism' and it wouldn't make a difference. If people are using and understanding 'socialism' in a way that does not fit your definition, then it is hardly being a useful idiot. It means that, once again, a term has escaped the original coiners and become wild. What you call 'socialist' has apparently split off into what I would call 'communist', whereas 'socialist' has been reappropriated to mean a leaning to more social policy.

Liberal progressive people are sour to capitalism because they see capitalism NOT WORKING to deliver on their own prosperity. Keeping to your rigid definitions won't help. They don't hate capitalism because they are being bamboozled by your true-scottsman socialists â€" it's because they see hypercapitalists run rampant over general prosperity to create a privileged pseudo-royalty. This is what really triggers revolutions; it's the masses getting tired of the oligarcy's shit. The only solution is to fix our shit and make capitalism work for everyone, and that seems to necessitate regulation.

When you see me advocating for nationalized industry, then you can call me a useful idiot.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

Baruch

Quote from: Cheerful Charlie on March 20, 2018, 03:09:55 PM
Socialism is a slippery easel word that can mean anything or nothing much.  A scare word to hustle fools all too often.  We tried laissez faire capitolism, anything goes during the industrail revolution.  It was a horror, a bust.  Some nations tried it's opposite, communism, another bust. In the early 20th century, capitalism with little government "interference" was a resounding failure.  We should have learned our lesson. Government is a necessary evil.  This is what the less sophisticated call socialism.  We turned away from a good government to neo-liberalism, back to the gilded age!  And what do we get with that?  Supply side idiocy.  Vast deficits.  Income inequality.  Stagnant wages for working Americans.  If fighting this stupidity is labelled socialism, let's have more socialism. Want to see how this low tax above all, little regulation idea leads?  Look at those wonderful states that follow that creed!  Kansas, Lousiana, Alabama, Mississippi.  The wonderful world of the hookworm belt.  Venezuala?  We will get down to that level if we keep voting in GOP politicans with hard-ons for Ayn Rand.

Chavez and Maduro ... like their predecessor Castro are followers of Marx, not Ayn Rand.  Not that I agree with Ayn Rand either.

I am sure you will cut a fine figure as an apparatchik in the new Leftist regime.  Commissar for the Internet perhaps?
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Gilgamesh

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on March 20, 2018, 06:05:46 PM
As long as people know what they're talking about, you can call liberalism 'dog-fuckingism' and it wouldn't make a difference. If people are using and understanding 'socialism' in a way that does not fit your definition, then it is hardly being a useful idiot.
That's not what I said - at all. People who are pro-socialist-states (ie socialists) view liberals as useful idiots - because these liberals are easily convinced to support ideals which are antithetical to liberalism.

QuoteIt means that, once again, a term has escaped the original coiners and become wild. What you call 'socialist' has apparently split off into what I would call 'communist', whereas 'socialist' has been reappropriated to mean a leaning to more social policy.

If you're going to call people who are pro-even-one-social-policy a socialist, then what are you going to start calling socialists? Oh, you'd call them communists, you say? Well since a socialist state requires a government, what are you going to start calling communists - which is defined as being fundamentally without a governing body?

QuoteLiberal progressive people are sour to capitalism because they see capitalism NOT WORKING to deliver on their own prosperity.
What? Liberalism is pro-capitalism. Capitalism naturally exists without government collectivism. Liberalism is fundamentally pro-individualism, therefore capitalism is a natural consequence of liberal ideals.

Not only that, but the most prosperous nations on earth have always been, currently are, and will always be, capitalist economies. 

And not only that, but you don't speak for all liberals. Myself and all my friends are liberals. We are all pro-capitalism.

Oh, but you'd rather redefine liberalism, too, right? Go to r/socialists or r/communism right now and talk to, you know, actual socialists and communists. Ask them what they think about liberals. To them, there is virtually 0 difference between liberals and fascists. They don't consider themselves aligned with liberals. They consider liberals useful idiots who get put into the gulag as soon as they've served their purpose. Why? Because while a marxist can confuse a liberal enough to be able to use them to bring about their ends, they cannot completely remove that liberals sense that personal liberty is something to be preserved.

The fact is; I don't see liberals turned sour to capitalism. I see people who call themselves liberals but who hold ideals antithetical to liberalism, sour to capitalism. I see people who don't know the etymology behind terms using the terms exactly as the people who seek to socially engineer them would like them to use those terms.

You are literally arguing that we allow the marxist tactic of hegemony over language with purpose to confuse us, to confuse us. That's... pretty retarded.


Gilgamesh

And to add:

Capitalism with 'social policies' is still capitalism. And a socialist state (a state where the people have seized the means of production from the private corporations) is not fundamentally related to 'social policy' in any way shape or form.

So I agree that as long as you know what people are actually talking about, letting semantics get in the way is pointless.

Shiranu

#68
Quote...what are you going to start calling communists...

Just to answer one small part, since I'm not really interested in getting involved in an argue over semantics changing...

I would probably start calling them (as you define them [or rather as they are text-book defined]) a relic of the past, since they already are something very close to non-existent. While countries like China, N. Korea are certainly still "communists", N. Korea is more relevantly a dictatorship and China is an interesting fusion of capitalism, communism and corruption.

It's like the word progressive, since that keeps getting brought up; 25+ years ago, that word meant something extremely different. Now it means what we all think. Definitions change... and as communism becomes less and less relevant, it loses it's meaning as a set political doctrine and gains one that mostly just stands for corrupt, dictatorial Leninism. Blame the Soviets and Chinese for destroying it's meaning, not us.
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

Baruch

"what are you going to start calling communists - which is defined as being fundamentally without a governing body? "

That is a fantasy definition in Marxist theory ... never happened.  Technically that would be called anarchism.  And Lenin considered anarchists to be his biggest enemy, given that a woman anarchist nearly succeeded in assassinating him.  So a Feminist Anarchist then, in her case.

All 20th century real communism, is a socialist dictatorship, rather than a socialist democracy.  And it does involve the end of private property as in China or the USSR, but not in Hitler's Germany.  Nazism was socialist, but not communist.

Socialism can mean politically progressive regulation of a capitalist economy (not necessarily democratic).  If Hitler had been progressive, then he would have been a hero, since he never proposed the elimination of private property, nor suppressing traditional religion (as Stalin, Mao etc did).  Had Hitler been progressive and democratic ... then he would have been the greatest modern German ... greater than Bismarck.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Gilgamesh

Quote from: Shiranu on March 20, 2018, 08:04:51 PM

I would probably start calling them (as you define them [or rather as they are text-book defined]) a relic of the past, since they already are something very close to non-existent.

The state of being a communist isn't defined by being pro-communism while at the same time residing in a communist nation. To be a communist means to only be the former of those two things - for communism.

People who want to bring about communism - that is; communists - are abundant as ever, dude.

And even if they weren't, that doesn't change the definition of communism.

Gilgamesh

Quote from: Baruch on March 20, 2018, 11:10:45 PM
"what are you going to start calling communists - which is defined as being fundamentally without a governing body? "

That is a fantasy definition in Marxist theory ... never happened.  Technically that would be called anarchism.  And Lenin considered anarchists to be his biggest enemy, given that a woman anarchist nearly succeeded in assassinating him.  So a Feminist Anarchist then, in her case.

All 20th century real communism, is a socialist dictatorship, rather than a socialist democracy.  And it does involve the end of private property as in China or the USSR, but not in Hitler's Germany.  Nazism was socialist, but not communist.

Socialism can mean politically progressive regulation of a capitalist economy (not necessarily democratic).  If Hitler had been progressive, then he would have been a hero, since he never proposed the elimination of private property, nor suppressing traditional religion (as Stalin, Mao etc did).  Had Hitler been progressive and democratic ... then he would have been the greatest modern German ... greater than Bismarck.


Communists define communism as stateless. I know statelessness is a fantasy. It's a fantasy communists will continue to hold to for as long as they exist. Every time communists gain government and fail to abolish it like their ideology tells them to, the next generation of communists just denounce them as "not real communists." Communists are retarded, you see.

Shiranu

#72
QuotePeople who want to bring about communism - that is; communists - are abundant as ever, dude.

I haven't seen much evidence of that. I see people who are in favour of turning certain sectors into textbook communist programs (chiefly medical and social programs, education, things of that nature), but I cant say I am aware of anyone of any real social statue who advocates the government taking over all industry (such as manufacturing and distribution of goods) and running it through the state. Infact, I cant think of particularly anyone of no social statue who thinks that as well.

Statistically the number of people who live under a communist regime has dropped since the 90s, and that is including China which is at best a de jure communist state but in reality is way too complex to say it's this-or-that. Historically there have been communist parties that actually made waves in the United States, such as factions of the Union movement and the Chicano movement, but afaik no major social movement is currently spearheaded by communists. So I have to call bs on them being more prevalent now than in the 70s-90s, and certainly bs on them being more abundant than they were in the early 1900s.

QuoteAnd even if they weren't, that doesn't change the definition of communism.

No, but societies do change the definitions of words, and it is changing.
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

Gilgamesh

Quote from: Shiranu on March 20, 2018, 11:53:47 PM
I haven't seen much evidence of that. I see people who are in favour of turning certain sectors into textbook communist programs (chiefly medical and social programs, education, things of that nature), but I cant say I am aware of anyone of any real social statue who advocates the government taking over all industry (such as manufacturing and distribution of goods) and running it through the state. Infact, I cant think of particularly anyone of no social statue who thinks that as well.


Go on tumblr and search, "communism." Go on r/communism, or r/socialists. Go on leftypol.

There are huge communities of communists.

You failing to observe certain aspects of objective reality doesn't mean those aspects are non-existent.

Shiranu

#74
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 21, 2018, 12:03:28 AM
Go on tumblr and search, "communism." Go on r/communism, or r/socialists. Go on leftypol.

There are huge communities of communists.

You failing to observe certain aspects of objective reality doesn't mean those aspects are non-existent.

Right, and I could go on r/classical libertarians and discover a community of classical libertarians. That doesn't mean that because I didn't have access to that community before the internet that the number of libertarians has actually increased, it just means they have a way to be more vocal about their existence and interact amongst each other. Amplitude =/= volume or mass. Particularly when that amplitude is vibrating across the internet and not the real world.

Tumblr is not "the real world". Leftypol is not "the real world". Nor is any other chatroom. The only time these chatrooms have any relevance in the real world is when they decide to meet each other and that is predominately to interact with each other and not the environment around them.

I'm talking about relevant communists... communists who are enacting social change, who are influencing public opinion, who are making an difference with their sway on politicians... people who vote for communists, or publicly campaign for communists. I could call myself an whatever I like on a chatroom, but at the end of the day if I am not taking actions in the real world to enact whatever position I push online, then they are just words on a computer screen and are what your online persona is, not you as an individual.

Communism holds significantly less political and social power in the real world than it does on the internet; failing to observe a reality that may exist on the internet does not translate to failing to observe something in the real world that does. I love the internet, but I have no delusions that tumblr, youtube comments, this forum, whatever are somehow equal to or as real as something said or done in the real world. And the reality in the real world is that if you identify as a communist... you are utterly irrelevant to society. It's as purposeful as identifying yourself as a furry. Sure, it might gain you points within your niche community, but otherwise people are just going to give you a strange look and walk by.
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur