opinions on mainstream "US liberals" (aka, those stereotypes that conservatives love)

[Adi Shankara]

What do you think about Mainstream US liberals? What is your opinion on them?

Personally, I hate them. I think they make the entire leftist movement look weak, ineffectual, and cowardly. I never met a REAL Communists/socialists who was afraid of defending himself against violence or attack, yet many of these "liberals" would allow anyone to walk over like doormats.
I also hate how they hijack the term "Leftist" from us, so everyone paints those who are REAL Communists/socialists with the same, watered down meaning that is applied to Democrats.

I cringe when someone calls me a "liberal". in fact, that is the worst insult I can think of, because its camping me with Democrats, who are for the most part capitalists with Keynesian tendencies, they are against immigration amnesty, and they are rife with stereotypical behaviors that have nothing to do with leftists (I had one at a cafe in Berkeley tell me I wasn't a communist because I liked barbecued pork--what the hell?)

therefore, I ask you, my fellow REAL leftists, what your opinion is on the US mainstream liberals, aka democrats, are.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Liberals seem to have bleeding hearts as long as their pockets can be kept fat in my experience. They're the worst kind of capitalist ideologue, they know shit is wrong with capitalism but they think they can fix it and they drag the working class down with them every time they convince them capitalism can just be fixed. A few weeks ago a liberal told me the person running for California governor had already been governor before and had "fixed capitalism" when he was governor when trying to get me to support him :mad:. Fat chance of that ever happening.

[Spawn of Stalin]

They are as bad as conservatives, and probably more dangerous because of the illusion of progress that comes with liberalism. They are stupid. That is my opinion on liberals.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

I think that they are dangerous and that they cannot be trusted. Anything that is marxist-like that comes from them will automatically be corrupt simply because Liberals along with Conservatives only seem to care about money, power, and attention. And with the scheme that the progressive liberals are putting on, I could see things getting nasty.

[Zapatas Guns]

When people support conservatives everyone knows they are stupid and/or evil. People support them because they say screw everyone else, it is all about me me me. At least that is up front.

Liberals are insidious because they give an illusion that a person cares. Nothing liberals propose or do actually gets to the heart of a problem and sometimes they even make it worse.

[Agnapostate]

Liberal democratic capitalism employs government intervention for macroeconomic stabilization to a greater extent, boosting efficiency in the capitalist economy. The liberal is ultimately a greater anti-socialist than the "conservative" (whatever that means) is.

[Uppercut]

While I mostly agree with the above posts, I have to say that I can find a lot of common ground with a few democrats at my school. They have the right ideas of nationalized healthcare, ending the wars, and helping the underprivileged. Unfortunately, they don't get to the root of the problem, which is capitalism in general. They say they are against corporate power, but they don't understand capitalist production relations and what makes the system drive.

The government is made the mediator force between labor and capital, pretending not to take one side or the other, but it always seems to end up in capital's favor.

[Red Commissar]

Most of the common liberals (in the American sense) I've met, obviously those who do not have political clout, seem to me agreeable people. Most of the time I'm able to debate with them on political matters much more civilly than I would with those who consider themselves "conservative" or "libertarian". Or god forbid the Objectivsts on my campus.

To me their hearts are in the right places; however they have issues imagining another society with out trying to understand it from a capitalist point of view, that is in the framework of a "middle-class" livelihood. But again, the liberals I meet have the potential to be open-minded to other things, whereas conservatives tend to be ignorant or overly cynical towards things (socialism fails because of human nature, etc).

The main issue I saw with these liberal types is they all got fooled into thinking Democrats were "good" people, and got caught up in the Obamamania, and lost their lofty standards of being "critical" thinkers as opposed to conservatives types. That's the main issue I see with my liberal acquaintances, their willingness to trust the mainstream political system which is nothing more than the capitalists fighting over spoils. I was utterly confused by their confidence that Obama would suddenly change everything for the better.

Now liberal politicians, particularly the careerists, are the dangerous ones. They are wolves in sheep clothing that attempt to awe working-class people and fool them into thinking that their politics benefit them, when clearly they do not. Particularly in the United States, there is very little real things in the grand scheme of things that separate them from their opponents.

Of course another problem this presents is the inevitable disappointment youthful liberals get, which might push them into the right as they grow older.

[Nolan]

Liberal scum. 'Nuff said.

[Proletarian Ultra]

I've got a four-part checklist I use to evaluate liberals.


Do they support the Palestinians? "Israel is only harming itself" doesn't count.
Are they not hung up on anti-consumerism or population control (AKA "the proletariat is the problem")?
Do they unhesitatingly support a position that makes most white people uncomfortable? (e.g. uncompromising defense of affirmative action; reparations, militant immigrant-rights or criminal justice causes, welfare rights, etc.)
Do they despise or fear cops?
If they pass all four checks they're not really liberals; they just don't know that they're socialists yet. If they are liberals, fuck 'em.

[NGNM85]

I think this is really a masturbatory exercise. 'Liberal' doesn't mean anything, here. It's just a preferred slander that gets tossed out for anybody or any idea that isn't popular.

[sozialistentony]

I must strongly disagree with the sentiment stating that liberals are far worse than conservatives, the 'left' worse than the right. Let's take a look at the Tea Party: Racist fucks who, the majority of the time, cease to make any amount of sense and are completely for religion and the state being one. Liberals seem to be far less for religion (if for it at all), and considering religion is the most destructive and poisoning thing one can come into contact with, the liberals already have a heads-up. Liberals also, mind you, are usually for things such as universal health care, a graduated income tax, the right to choose an abortion, et cetera, et cetera.

Right-wing, neo-conservative fascists are the issue. I don't ever like them or their ideas. Liberals, on the other hand, are clearly, despite some of them having their heads up their fucking asses, moving towards progress and a beneficial change for EVERYONE and not just the elite. Though they can be destructive in their ignorance, annoying as holy hell and as crooked as Cianci himself, they are in no way as bad as the conservative; nor can they be considered a hinderance as most times they are for at least one of the issues the real leftists are.

They may give us a bad name, but they aren't fascists and that counts for something.

*I would like to note I am talking of the true leftists in the equation, not the capitalist mooches. The liberals who are really left; the ones who I don't have on the kill-slowly-with-fire list.

[sozialistentony]

And I do think the term 'liberal' stands for something. One associates it with the left, therefore it can be considered representative of something. And we all know what the term means, what it is indicative of, so it does retain some usefullness. I tend to think the word asshole is slander for someone who is an asshole :p just saying, ha-ha.

[Emile Armand]

All people who believe in democracy inherently believe in the oppression and exploitation of the people. Liberal, Conservative its all the same, we face the same fate either way. I support no forms of leadership. Capitalism must be abolished entirely.

[RED DAVE]

Liberals seem to have bleeding hearts as long as their pockets can be kept fat in my experience.At one time the Left used the term "limousine liberals."

RED DAVE

[bloodbeard]

And i thought liberals were essentially centrists...

[McCroskey]

It´s all down to a difference in semantycs. What in some places means one thing, means the opposite somewhere else. In Europe, for example, "liberal" tends to be associated with the centre-right, as "liberal" refers to someone who believes in the freedom of the markets. Also, in America, "libertarian" means someone who is extremely capitalist and supports the abolition of taxes, social welfare, and rights, meaning that your rights have to be purchased according to your economic means, while in Europe (apart from the UK, which is very americanised), "libertarian" has only one meaning: anarchist. If you are a Republican in the USA, we all know what you are, but if you go to Spain, being a Republican identifies you as being left or far left.

That is why many times we don´t understand what others are talking about, and what seems heresy in one country is actually not so in another country. In Europe, for example, leftist organisations don´t see a big issue in religion, but in the US you have a big problem with fundamentalism, that we don´t have here. It´s all down to different meanings attributed to the same words geographically, and that´s why I believe you should define "liberal", otherwise us in the old continent would be shocked when you refer to them as "leftists".

[Raúl Duke]

They are as bad as conservatives, and probably more dangerous because of the illusion of progress that comes with liberalism. They are stupid. That is my opinion on liberals.

This plus


I cringe when someone calls me a "liberal".

Slightly this.

[ContrarianLemming]

What do you think about Mainstream US liberals? What is your opinion on them?


Bigger cages! Longer chains!

[RadioRaheem84]

From the very start of my ascent into Marxism, I thought of the liberal as the real enemy to progress. They love to usurp all of the gains the working class has gained fighting the establishment while liberals in office and high places spat on them and asked them to reform their radical ways.

With the conservative, which is really just a classical liberal, we know exactly where he stands and is very open about his unflinching support of capitalism and US domination. With the liberal, you get a lofty, sneaky type that will play the part that he is a people's man and the lesser of two evils, but ends up being exactly the same as his opponent, only with a better PR campaign to help him out.

Liberals are smug, annoying, and utterly difficult to talk to because they think of themselves as resting in this moral center away from the "extremes", when in reality they've started just as many, if not more wars than Republicans.

I hate it how they love to be considered the "left" though. It is so annoying!

[Jimmie Higgins]

Liberals in the US can mean anything from neo-liberal political "realist" like almost all major Democratic politicians and talking heads to essentially a democratic socialist.

I think it's important to make the distinction, regarding liberals, between the ones who are liberal for the intent of preserving the rule of capital and nationalism (i.e. Democrats who lure people into taking right-wing positions on the war in Iraq or the professional liberal politicians who position themselves at the front of a social movement just to draw it into "legal" avenues and tone down the demands).

I think this is totally different than street-liberals who are generally just workers or professionals or students who are attracted to the ideas that liberalism represents (peace, social justice, a fair shot in life for workers, solidarity with other counties and people, etc) or have been convinced by the political arguments from establishment liberals.

It's a mistake to write off the regular old person with some mixed ideas who is generally liberal because we want to nurture their desire for social justice and an end to wars. Their instincts are probably largely good from our perspective, they just lack a class understanding or concrete ideas for how to actually achieve the change they want. In the political vacuum that exists on the Left in the US, the people who are our natural allies and audience are generally influenced by whoever is more organized - and so many look to the Democratic party or NGOs or lobby groups or the ACLU or, now, NWO conspiracy-types, to "fight for them".

We need to convince people that they need to fight for themselves and organize together, not under some unaccountable NGO corporate structure or a liberal organization's board of directors or for some personality cultist like the Ron Paul or LaRouche followers.

Liberals (even the around the corner ones) can be really annoying and delusional (I saw some woman in Berkeley get mad at a stranger for using a plastic bag... I wanted to be like: Hey, who gives a shit about what that one guy does when Obama is letting BP drown the Caribbean in crude!). But they are also the people who, for the most part, want to see racism and wars end - we should encourage them on that, but challenge them to see these problems in connection to a larger system that also opresses all workers on a daily basis and that it will take a collective fight to really bring democracy to people.

[Adi Shankara]

All people who believe in democracy inherently believe in the oppression and exploitation of the people.

I don't necessarily believe that; both Trotsky and Rosa Luxemburg were communists who had a commitment to democracy, and they believed it was a fundamental necessity of a communist state (as do I); they just believed in ground up democracy, not top down democracy.

[Terminator X]

I used to hang around some liberals, and thought I identified with them, but quickly realized they wanted nothing to do with actual leftist views and philosophies. They are nothing but reformists who like to say things that sound mildly interesting, until you realize they have no interest in actually acting on these views. I compare them to headline writers, but not actual columnists - they say things that get your attention, but have no substance when you get down to it.

The last straw was when one of these elitist liberals accused me of being just as "loony" as the right-wingers. That was when I realized that the capitalist two-party system in the US was no longer for me. Both parties refuse to even remotely consider the notion of abolishing capitalism.

[Emile Armand]

I don't necessarily believe that; both Trotsky and Rosa Luxemburg were communists who had a commitment to democracy, and they believed it was a fundamental necessity of a communist state (as do I); they just believed in ground up democracy, not top down democracy.
The will of the majority is law in democracy. When the majority make the rules that leaves the minority powerless. Democracy essentially creates oppression, this is why I am an anarchist and not a Communist, all forms of leadership are forcing the will of a certain group onto another. If a man is capable of ruling himself why must any foreign powers govern him?

[Jimmie Higgins]

The will of the majority is law in democracy. When the majority make the rules that leaves the minority powerless. Democracy essentially creates oppression, this is why I am an anarchist and not a Communist, all forms of leadership are forcing the will of a certain group onto another. If a man is capable of ruling himself why must any foreign powers govern him?As long as there is some scarcity then decisions that effect the majority of people are going to be made by someone or some group. Right after a revolution, who will decide how to divide up resources, where to build new hospitals and schools? All this initial planning will require coordination beyond just local decision-making. I think democracy - bottom up - with any representatives being re-callable, decisions being made transparently among the group who selects the rep so that the rep just carries out their decisions, and 100% accountable (and not a set position with good wages) is the best way to ensure that in big decisions, the most cooperative decisions are made and that no clique can take over.

Small "d" democracy doesn't "create" oppression in the class sense of the oppression we seen in modern bourgeois parliamentary democracy - or dictatorships for that matter. This oppression in modern society comes from the class struggle and the need of a minority to impress it's will onto the majority. One way they do this is through a twisted version of democracy which allows for limited input from the majority and little accountability for the bureaucracy. Their goal is the appearance of a legal way to air grievances, but in reality the system is set up to protect minority rule: laws are written to be incomprehensible unless you are specialized and trained in law and know some Latin (it helps if you own a wig too); if popular demands make it as far as being heard in the Parliament/Congress, these bodies are full of procedural bullshit to slow these demands (think healthcare in the US) and then the supposed establishment proponents can throw their hands in the air and say "we tried, but damn that arcane rule that tossed out the votes".

Democracy outside of class conflict is just a way of making decisions collectively - if you are part of the minority vote you are not "oppressed", you simply loose the argument. Without class division and conflict, then loosing the vote just means that things didn't go your way in that instance. Of course I think there should be some guarantees for personal freedom and rights for the minority to call for another vote after a short period of time or some kind of assessment period, but in general, I think that while workers after a revolution might come to their decisions in various ways in their workplaces and communities and neighborhoods - the big decisions that effect large numbers of people should be done through democratic vote.

[Slavoj Zizzle]

The will of the majority is law in democracy. When the majority make the rules that leaves the minority powerless. Democracy essentially creates oppression, this is why I am an anarchist and not a Communist, all forms of leadership are forcing the will of a certain group onto another. If a man is capable of ruling himself why must any foreign powers govern him?

This would be far in the future, but what would people be discriminated against in a communist society? Racism, sexism, class, all of the things that divide people would be gone as they are all the result of the ruling class dividing and commodifying the proletariat. I've yet to hear an anarchist give a reasonable model for the transition from capitalism to anarchist society and how said society would work (or how it would differ from communist society).

[sozialistentony]

Anarchism = lack of government, society, and authority. I'd like to tell me how you haven't figured that one out yet.

Certain forms of anarchism imply different, but I don't see what's so hard about understanding the world having nothing but people in it whom are all equal.

Democracy can burn in the darkest depths of the non-existant hell. Anyone still attatched to it might as well accept inequality as a governing factor in any democracy.

But that's just my opinion and I could be wrong.

[McCroskey]

Anarchism = lack of government, society, and authority. I'd like to tell me how you haven't figured that one out yet.

Certain forms of anarchism imply different, but I don't see what's so hard about understanding the world having nothing but people in it whom are all equal.

Democracy can burn in the darkest depths of the non-existant hell. Anyone still attatched to it might as well accept inequality as a governing factor in any democracy.

But that's just my opinion and I could be wrong.


The human being is a social being, whether you like it or not. "Anarchism", in the way you portrait it, was a petti-burguois ideology that advocated total individual freedom and an end to social relatioships, either left wing or right wing, and didn´t think an individual person should be tied by social responsibilities. In that sense, an "anarchist", in that way, is as opposed to the idea of workers´revolution as he is opposed to the idea of fascism. To them, it´s the same. Anarchists got involved in the 1st International and in the workers´struggle when they embraced socialism as the solution for inequality, but keeping a libertarian and democratic twist to it, as opposed to the perceived "authoritarianism" of Marxists.

I think you are a bit confused. If you are for total anarchy, and for the inevitable burguoise concept of "everyone for themselves, with no authority or regulation", then what are you doing in a revolutionary left forum? Either you are for equality, justice and democracy, or you are for total lack of authority and total lack of planning towards a just society. If you are against society, as we can see from your posts, you are against cooperation, solidarity and equality. Please tell me how are you going to build a more equal and just society without democracy and just basing on "I do as I please, as no one tells me what I have to do".

I bet you have the economic means to survive anarchy and lack of democratic control. Unluckily, half the population of the world haven´t got this advantage. They need democracy.

Cheers!

[sozialistentony]

If you can't see how anarchism creates equality and freedom then perhaps it's not worth explaining.

FUCK YOU for that final bit. I've survived with my family of 3 people on 15 grand per year for several years. Now it's a 4-person family making 35 grand flat a year after taxes. I'm here for a reason, whether you believe it or not. This reason corresponds with the purpose of the forum, whether you believe it or not. Making arbitrary assumptions about me isn't helping.

[Comrade B]

I wouldn't generalize the center right so much. There are of course some morons in it, but there are plenty of people who are just not willing to believe that the bourgeoisie are that cruel, and many who just buy what they have seen in society so much. I am a Marxist because I like people and think we should help all people. It can get frustrating often when people are misinformed, but in general, people are good.

I will admit thought that I cannot stand it when people pretend that they care more about the environment than human survival. They are idiots and liars, if it were possible for humans to behave like that, natural selection would have thrown us out. The environment has to be protected because we need a clean environment to survive and because human beings enjoy nature (when it is not a danger to them)

[McCroskey]

If you can't see how anarchism creates equality and freedom then perhaps it's not worth explaining.

FUCK YOU for that final bit. I've survived with my family of 3 people on 15 grand per year for several years. Now it's a 4-person family making 35 grand flat a year after taxes. I'm here for a reason, whether you believe it or not. This reason corresponds with the purpose of the forum, whether you believe it or not. Making arbitrary assumptions about me isn't helping.

It is worth explaining, please do. Obviously if you know.

A family of 3 people on 15 grand a year? Ok, half the planet live with bigger families than that on much less than 1 grand a year. If we don´t put a stop to it, if we leave it to "total freedom" how on earth are they going to improve their conditions? Please tell me how total chaos and lack of social responsibility will help them. If you don´t have an answer apart from the usual "fuck you", etc, please do refrain from answering, as I don´t like ad hominem childish arguments.

Please get out of your "I want to do as I please with no commitments" bubble. It´s socialism and democracy we are fighting for here, not burguois total individual freedom. If you are not interested in democracy, what on earth are you interested in?

[sozialistentony]

Now you've set me off.

Recall please, that I live in the United States. The difference between what a Honduran makes annually in US dollars as compared to what an American makes is entirely different. The standard of poverty as of 3 years ago was 'A family of 4 people whose annual income is less than $15,000.' as best I can remember. But I must've merely joined for kicks, right?

You seem to have gone unnoticed to the fact that wealth is superfluous in this matter. What is the difference between two equally-committed socialists who make different sums of money? Nothing, contextually speaking. Why does it matter how wealthy I am? Has it a difference as to whether I wish to help people or not? I don't understand your currency-related argument; It's nonsensical.

Since you ask for an explanation, I can come to one of several conclusions as to why: You are oblivious, you wish to contradict my statement, or both.

Marx himself claimed that all oppression comes from the state, is rooted, at the 'hands' of the state. So what's there wrong with the absence of the state?

The end product of communism is anarchy. The end product of Marx's 'stage time line' if you will, is a state-less, class-less system in which currency is absent due to obsoleteness. There is no control of the means of production for there needs not to be; There is no means of compensating workers due to the same reason. The final product of Marx's proposed 'stages', is anarchy wherein everyone has equal access to the means of production.

My assumption is that if you are a socialist you must support communism to some extent. And whilst there are different belief sects regarding communism which differ in this, communism as by Marx is as aforementioned.

The phrase 'fuck you' clearly demonstrates what I want to say. It's chilidsh only because you have dubbed it so. I quote Nietzsche something similar to, "My goal is to say what other men say in entire books in a single sentence." Childish would've been more falsely accusing you of being homosexual with a crude pop-culture word or phrase. Childish? No.

You argue for democracy as though you actually are still indebted to it. I can conclude, not assume, therefore, that you believe in democracy still. Democracy, my friend, is what turns South American countries into mafia-run states. Your belief in democracy to any extent is what I'd call childish.

You call my anarchistic ideals burguois, but have you any idea what the word means? It is representative and referential to the ruling class, the elite. Anarchism does not involve classes. So how is it burguois?

'We' does not encapsulate everyone here. Are you the forum owner? If he tells me so, and only if he tells me so, shall I believe this statement and leave. You talk about my lack of belief in democracy as something so absurd, something so off-the-wall.

But I've wasted too many words on you. I argue for different reasons than you. I find constructive criticism in insults and arguments and debates whilst I doubt you do. I'm done here. This thread has strayed far enough. Reply, your rebuttal means nothing to me.