Leftists and Liberals

[Raurast]

I've seen several members here talk disparagingly about liberals.

What do Liberals believe in that these members do not like?

Is this, for lack of a better term, anti-liberal sentiment widespread among the revolutionary left? Can revolutionary lefters be liberals, or is that an incompatible combination?

Today people say that Democrats in the US are liberals, and that they are left-wing too. Is this incorrect?

Thanks

[Tifosi]

What do I not like about Liberalism? Capitalism!

[Ocean Seal]

They are "left" relative to the Republicans; however, they are not leftist in general. We do not accept that we can work with capitalism as the liberals do. A common thing that we preach here is that we will not accept the compromise of bigger cages and longer chains. We seek to emancipate the proletariat not simply make their lives slightly less miserable.

[Foldered]

Today people say that Democrats in the US are liberals, and that they are left-wing too. Is this incorrect?
Yes.

[Zanthorus]

Well first of all it's difficult to work out exactly what a "liberal" is.

The original "liberals" where the classical liberals of the enlightenment. Figures like John Locke, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Montesqueiu etc who supported republican forms of government, "the rights of man" (Private property and personal freedoms) and "free markets" in the sense of markets which were free from economic rent.

In the early 20th century came the rise of "social" or "modern" liberalism which advocated greater state intervention, welfare schemes etc. Think FDR or Keynes.

Since the 70's social liberalism has been phased out by "market" or "neo" liberalism which stems from the writings of economists like Hayek and Friedman and advocates a completely unregulated market.

Most "liberal" parties in europe are centre-right parties (The liberal democrats in england recently entered into a coalition government with the conservative party. And their leader worships Margaret Thatcher), however in america things are kind of twisted and "liberal" is usually referred to as anyone whose left-of-centre.

Another problem is what "leftism" is. The term "left" originally arose in the French revolution when those on the left side of parliament who supported the revolution. These leftists would also probably have been liberals in the classical sense.

Today "left-wing" is usually used for anyone with even vague concerns about "social justice" signifying everyone from the green party to the CPGB-ML. In this sense "social liberalism" is also "left-wing".

Personally actually I don't really think of myself as "left-wing" because of the numerous things that could potentially entail. The real political divide is not about left vs right but capitalists vs workers and more specifically those who stand on the basis of the class rule of the bourgeoisie and the subjection of workers politics to bourgeois interests and those who stand for the political independence of the working class. Since liberals don't fight for an independent working class political force I consider them part of the enemy.

[Os Cangaceiros]

however in america things are kind of twisted and "liberal" is usually referred to as anyone whose left-of-centre.

The word "liberal" in the United States has degraded completely, to the point that it's now pretty much an exclusively pejorative term in the political arena. To me it represents one of the biggest successes that conservatives have ever had. That's why some "liberals" in the U.S. have been trying to rebrand themselves as "progressives".

[black magick hustla]

i dont dislike average liberals. i am very contemptous about really assertive liberals though. i think they can be incredibly patronizing to conservative folk to the point of using terms like redneck or whitetrash and making fun of people with "parochial conservatism" for working shit jobs. it makes my blood boil. especially because really vocal liberalism is generally vocalized by people who are generally better off than the kind of simple minded conservatism you see in the countryside

[Os Cangaceiros]

i dont dislike average liberals. i am very contemptous about really assertive liberals though. i think they can be incredibly patronizing to conservative folk to the point of using terms like redneck or whitetrash and making fun of people with "parochial conservatism" for working shit jobs. it makes my blood boil. especially because really vocal liberalism is generally vocalized by people who are generally better off than the kind of simple minded conservatism you see in the countryside

Yeah...I think that the whole Sarah Palin fiasco brought some of that out. Some liberal media pundits were mocking her background as a hunter/fisherman and Wasilla as some kind of meth-infested backwoods redneck town. It was all pretty offensive to me, since I come from the same background (a very rural community in Alaska). These same people who supposedly care about the underclass. :rolleyes:

[black magick hustla]

i'd rather go to the pub with my average mexican friends who are full of gender prejudices and racial ones that drink fucking wine with this shitbags that care more about multiculturalism and hating on religion than peopel

[automattick]

I think Zanthorus pretty much summed up what should be said. I'll throw my two-cents in here as well.

By the way, by "liberals" I assume you to mean the North American variant; for in Europe and elsewhere they tend to mean conservative. So I'll hereafter refer to its North American/perverse definition:

The problem is that while liberals view the left as the estranged cousins, they have more in common with their feuding rivals, the right. For liberals, they still support all of the main features of capitalism (private ownership of the means of production, profit, individualism, etc.) but in light of how the state may intervene, which is generally a Keynesian view of capitalist cycles and crisis.

Liberals believe in all of the human rights clap-trap as leftists do, but they stop short of introducing "democracy" when it comes to matters of the work place. For example, in society, we are able to elect our leaders. In our work places, we cannot question our bosses to the same degree. That's the left, a distinction, as Zanthorus points out, can mean a lot of things.

Communists not only disavow the tyrannical behavior of corporations, but also of the bourgeois idea of democracy itself. As Marx once said, the road to socialism starts with democracy, meaning that in order to even get to something like communism, democracy as we understand it today in all of its forms (utopian, bourgeois, etc.) must be done away with as well.

Liberals would not support any of this, and would easy degenerate into fascist hyenas. There's more to it, but that's my share.

[mikelepore]

I see liberals as stubbornly unwilling to "put two and two together" and draw the conclusion that capitalism has to go.

A typical conversation that I've had hundreds of times --

Revolutionary: Then you agree that the capitalism causes poverty?
Liberal: Yes.
Revolutionary: And you agree that capitalism causes economic cycles and recessions?
Liberal: Yes.
Revolutionary: And that capitalism causes wars and militarism.
Liberal: Yes.
Revolutionary: Capitalism also causes racial discrimination.
Liberal: Yes.
Revolutionary: Capitalism also causes air and water pollution.
Liberal: Yes.
Revolutionary: Capitalism causes many cases of fraud and corruption.
Liberal: Yes.
Revolutionary: And many other social problems that we have considered.
Liberal: Yes.
Revolutionary: Those are unpleasant effects.
Liberal: Yes.
Revolutionary: We want to eliminate unpleasant effects.
Liberal: Yes.
Revolutionary: As a general rule, if we want to get rid of an effect, then we have to get rid of the cause of that effect.
Liberal: Yes.
Revolutionary. Then we need to get rid of capitalism.
Liberal: Hold on there, you were fine up until that last step. Let's not get ridiculous. There's no need to become extremists. We don't want to topple all of civilization. We don't want to call for the utter destruction of all that is decent.

It's exasperating. You can't get them follow through with a simple syllogism.

They're not like the conservatives, who won't even admit that class division and the reckless profit motive has any negative consequences. They are aware of the consequences. They just refuse to grant the final step in the syllogism and agree with the need to make a fundamental change.

[Janichkokov]

I like the distinction between liberals and leftists. Steve Biko made some really interesting comments about "white liberals" - basically, he couldn't stand them, because he thought they were too hollow and condescending. This seems to be the same sort of direction here. But I think we're being a bit too hard on the old liberal. When you consider how hostile the American political atmosphere is to any sort of "radical leftism" (I hate that term too but we're stuck with it), can you really blame anyone for taking a more cautious approach to their politics?

[The Vegan Marxist]

Conservatives : Support Unregulated Capitalism;

Liberals : Support Regulated Capitalism;

Both have in common : Capitalism

[Raúl Duke]

I've seen several members here talk disparagingly about liberals.

What do Liberals believe in that these members do not like?

Is this, for lack of a better term, anti-liberal sentiment widespread among the revolutionary left? Can revolutionary lefters be liberals, or is that an incompatible combination?

Today people say that Democrats in the US are liberals, and that they are left-wing too. Is this incorrect?

Thanks

It's all relative...

Usually, it's assumed, that leftists will feel more "comfortable" associating with liberals than with conservatives but the reality is more nuance and complex.

Sure, there are a lot of fucks (a whole bunch) and batshit insane among the GOP-loving crowd but there are some normal people.

Among the usually liberal crowd, you got those who appear apolitical but vote Democrat and such, who are pretty normal nice people.
There are also those who say (or don't) they're liberal and vote Democrat but are not pretty hard-headed about it.

Than you got those big-time Democrat supporters who fucking annoy you, since they've become annoying ever since the Democrats won the elections, at how thick they are by making up excuses for the Democrats/Obama ineptitude and shitty "reforms" and corporate-guided policies. They also out-right think you have "unrealistic views" (Amazing how they claim this when they have incredibly naive views on the government) and can show quite an anti-leftist stride that is equal to those seen among conservatives/Republicans. Plus over time you get tired of their whining over conservatives/Republicans especially as you begin to notice that there's no substantial difference between either party.

When you meet these people you than find out that the Democrats can be as bone-headed as the Republican supporters were/are during the past administration.

In terms of political moderates, the people I've always liked to hear, besides non-partisans, talk about politics are those somewhat "blue-dog" type liberals/Democrat voters who are disillusioned with the Obama administration for failing to bring about any real change. I mean, when they talk they basically say the same things I would say (although using less radical words) about what a farce this current administration has been (except that I never had any hopes on the current administration,after all I didn't even vote).

[this is an invasion]

I generally like to hang around people who are either completely apolitical or right-wing (obviously not too far Right.), if they aren't communists.

[Robocommie]

I prefer hanging out with liberals than conservatives, maybe it's just a cultural thing, though I do despise elitism and classism and the subtler forms of racism which liberals think they're immune to because they're "enlightened." But it works out because I usually don't hang out with snobs.

Generally, left-liberals who understand that there's a certain level of racism and injustice in the system and that poverty is a social problem, not a personal problem, and aren't terrible fucking chauvinists, I can enjoy hanging with them. In my experience, those folks tend to be potential socialists who just buy into the lies about Marxism.

[Dimentio]

I've seen several members here talk disparagingly about liberals.

What do Liberals believe in that these members do not like?

Is this, for lack of a better term, anti-liberal sentiment widespread among the revolutionary left? Can revolutionary lefters be liberals, or is that an incompatible combination?

Today people say that Democrats in the US are liberals, and that they are left-wing too. Is this incorrect?

Thanks

In Sweden, the liberals are considered the right-wingers. In most of Europe in fact, they are considered the right-wingers.

[RadioRaheem84]

In Sweden, the liberals are considered the right-wingers. In most of Europe in fact, they are considered the right-wingers.

Well it goes to show how far to the right politics are in the US! You have center-right and bat shit crazy xenophobic right wing proto-fascists.

Liberals are the most annoying people you would ever want to be friends with.

Despite their politics, right wingers can be some of the most generous, friendliest and loyal friends you will ever have (if they're not racist).

Liberals, on the other hand, if they're crazy mainstream types, are horribly condescending, elitist, and utterly pro-establishment.

Progressives are very nice and caring in the US. I find them to be very genuine.

That being said, I think it's well known here on revleft just how much I tend to despise American Liberalism. I hung out with many liberals, and while their "politics" may be kind they're certainly not.

For Europeans, think of the snootiest technocratic Danish, English or Dutch right wing Third Way-ish social democrat that you know of and you will have a picture of American liberals. No doubt.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Well it goes to show how far to the right politics are in the US! You have center-right and bat shit crazy xenophobic right wing proto-fascists.

Liberals are the most annoying people you would ever want to be friends with.

Despite their politics, right wingers can be some of the most generous, friendliest and loyal friends you will ever have (if they're not racist).

Liberals, on the other hand, if they're crazy mainstream types, are horribly condescending, elitist, and utterly pro-establishment.

Progressives are very nice and caring in the US. I find them to be very genuine.

That being said, I think it's well known here on revleft just how much I tend to despise American Liberalism. I hung out with many liberals, and while their "politics" may be kind they're certainly not.

For Europeans, think of the snootiest technocratic Danish, English or Dutch right wing Third Way-ish social democrat that you know of and you will have a picture of American liberals. No doubt.

Well, at one time, the right-wingers were the liberals of today. It was the conservatives who voted against the Vietnam war for example. It just twist & turned & here we are today.

[ComradeOm]

I see liberals as stubbornly unwilling to "put two and two together" and draw the conclusion that capitalism has to goWhy should they? Leaving aside the whole class issue - and capitalism and liberalism are really inseparable - one of the hallmarks of liberalism is its preoccupation with the political sphere. The idea that social solutions/changes is pretty alien to liberal thought. And that is the big difference between liberals and socialists of all stripes

[Milos]

Liberals are maybe even more dangerous than conservatives.

[Barry Lyndon]

I see liberals as stubbornly unwilling to "put two and two together" and draw the conclusion that capitalism has to go.

A typical conversation that I've had hundreds of times --

Revolutionary: Then you agree that the capitalism causes poverty?
Liberal: Yes.
Revolutionary: And you agree that capitalism causes economic cycles and recessions?
Liberal: Yes.
Revolutionary: And that capitalism causes wars and militarism.
Liberal: Yes.
Revolutionary: Capitalism also causes racial discrimination.
Liberal: Yes.
Revolutionary: Capitalism also causes air and water pollution.
Liberal: Yes.
Revolutionary: Capitalism causes many cases of fraud and corruption.
Liberal: Yes.
Revolutionary: And many other social problems that we have considered.
Liberal: Yes.
Revolutionary: Those are unpleasant effects.
Liberal: Yes.
Revolutionary: We want to eliminate unpleasant effects.
Liberal: Yes.
Revolutionary: As a general rule, if we want to get rid of an effect, then we have to get rid of the cause of that effect.
Liberal: Yes.
Revolutionary. Then we need to get rid of capitalism.
Liberal: Hold on there, you were fine up until that last step. Let's not get ridiculous. There's no need to become extremists. We don't want to topple all of civilization. We don't want to call for the utter destruction of all that is decent.

It's exasperating. You can't get them follow through with a simple syllogism.

They're not like the conservatives, who won't even admit that class division and the reckless profit motive has any negative consequences. They are aware of the consequences. They just refuse to grant the final step in the syllogism and agree with the need to make a fundamental change.

This.
Basically, what it really comes down to is that they tend to come from relatively privileged backgrounds, and thus have a stake in preserving the overall system, although tweaking it a bit to make them feel better about themselves is acceptable. And then they go to college and are brainwashed by other liberal professors that such a world view is 'realistic'(the watchword of political cowards). This is also tied into the fact that while they recognize capitalism's flaw's, they buy the ruling class propaganda about socialism hook, line, and sinker, and therefore genuinely believe that capitalism has problems but the alternatives have been tried and have failed.

[4 Leaf Clover]

liberal probably as - liberal democrat , which is a pejorative that Leninists mostly use for Anarchists and Council Communists , and some of their rethoric

[AK]

In Sweden, the liberals are considered the right-wingers. In most of Europe in fact, they are considered the right-wingers.
In Australia the Liberal party is the conservative party :blink:

[eyedrop]

In Sweden, the liberals are considered the right-wingers. In most of Europe in fact, they are considered the right-wingers. In Australia the Liberal party is the conservative party :blink: In Australia the Liberal party is the conservative party :blink:

Our liberal party is called "Left" and is centre-right.

[sozialistentony]

They are "left" relative to the Republicans; however, they are not leftist in general. We do not accept that we can work with capitalism as the liberals do. A common thing that we preach here is that we will not accept the compromise of bigger cages and longer chains. We seek to emancipate the proletariat not simply make their lives slightly less miserable.

I like how you explained that. Pretty much the root of my contempt for liberals as well. I don't have as much an issue about them as many others, but I still think they can be annoying.

They're like our distant cousins. With a little motivation and work, we can make any liberal into a red in no time at all. I didn't read any other posts past this one FYI, I just wanted to point this out :p

[Dimentio]

Well it goes to show how far to the right politics are in the US! You have center-right and bat shit crazy xenophobic right wing proto-fascists.

Liberals are the most annoying people you would ever want to be friends with.

Despite their politics, right wingers can be some of the most generous, friendliest and loyal friends you will ever have (if they're not racist).

Liberals, on the other hand, if they're crazy mainstream types, are horribly condescending, elitist, and utterly pro-establishment.

Progressives are very nice and caring in the US. I find them to be very genuine.

That being said, I think it's well known here on revleft just how much I tend to despise American Liberalism. I hung out with many liberals, and while their "politics" may be kind they're certainly not.

For Europeans, think of the snootiest technocratic Danish, English or Dutch right wing Third Way-ish social democrat that you know of and you will have a picture of American liberals. No doubt.

Social democrats are generally considered the centre. I would claim that the US democrats in Sweden would pretty much be equivalent to the current Swedish alliance government (which is a coalition government between two conservative parties and two liberal parties). In the USA, the conservative prime minister of Sweden would probably have been viewed as some form of socialist.

The social democrats of Sweden are sadly without any core or ideology.

Olof Palme once said: "To be a social democrat is to be a democratic socialist."

I think it was Göran Persson or Mona Sahlin who later said: "To be a social democrat is to be... social and a democrat."

[Barry Lyndon]

They're like our distant cousins. With a little motivation and work, we can make any liberal into a red in no time at all. I didn't read any other posts past this one FYI, I just wanted to point this out :p

I'm not so sure about that. The average conservative or reactionary tends to be less well educated and is in their position due to nationalism, racism, sexism, homophobia and/or xenophobia that arises from a lack of class consciousness. Liberals, however, tend to be better educated, and thus also better indoctrinated. Being a liberal in fact necessitates better indoctrination because one needs a superior intellect to create increasingly elaborate justifications for supporting a system that you are aware has multiple horrific flaws.
Also, many conservatives and reactionaries have legitimate rage stemming from unemployment, economic disparities, and the effects of globalization, but their rage has been deliberately misdirected at blacks, immigrants, Muslims, gays, liberals, etc etc. Liberals tend to come from privileged class and racial backgrounds, so that they do not have to live with the roughest edge of the capitalist system on a day to day basis, and therefore even their criticisms come from a very lofty, detached perspective, and they are always able to dismiss radicals as being too hot-headed, no matter how much actual human suffering is involved, because they are always at a Olympian distance from it.

[Raúl Duke]

I'm not so sure about that. The average conservative or reactionary tends to be less well educated and is in their position due to nationalism, racism, sexism, homophobia and/or xenophobia that arises from a lack of class consciousness. Liberals, however, tend to be better educated, and thus also better indoctrinated. Being a liberal in fact necessitates better indoctrination because one needs a superior intellect to create increasingly elaborate justifications for supporting a system that you are aware has multiple horrific flaws.
Also, many conservatives and reactionaries have legitimate rage stemming from unemployment, economic disparities, and the effects of globalization, but their rage has been deliberately misdirected at blacks, immigrants, Muslims, gays, liberals, etc etc. Liberals tend to come from privileged class and racial backgrounds, so that they do not have to live with the roughest edge of the capitalist system on a day to day basis, and therefore even their criticisms come from a very lofty, detached perspective, and they are always able to dismiss radicals as being too hot-headed, no matter how much actual human suffering is involved, because they are always at a Olympian distance from it.

I agree somewhat.

But one has to take note that part of the issue is one's class background.

My relatives and a few people who I met in NY and NJ, while most likely they voted for the Democrats, voiced their disillusions about Obama, the health care reforms, etc. My uncle seemed quite astute, he knew that the Democrat's current health reform program imitates some aspects of the system advocated by the Republicans in the past. These were not well-off people, most were in the working class.

Younger liberals, from what one may call middle-class positions, however seemed more naive and just make excuses for the current administration when you level a criticism (from the left) about its policies. What's most striking is their naivety. Some do genuinely care about the situation and some of them have been personal affected, yet still hold on to this naivety that by switching politicians their problems/nation's problems will be solved. This naivety I think should be targeted by the left.

Also, don't believe that Republicans are all uneducated; this is a stereotype. While "on average", as a group, they're relatively uneducated compared to liberals, you will meet conservatives who are highly educated, and this is a sizable group, and you will meet liberals who are uneducated.

[The Red Next Door]

Speaking as an ex liberal those things are true for some, i would read something about other countries then tell my class, this is what you fucking idiots need to do. I use to talk about people who live in the ghetto and in the country in a extreme harsh manner,

while i supported them getting help, and i would and still look down on people who couldn't watch subtitle films because of a reasonable reasons, that i thought were bs and plus look down on them because they was not multicultural.

I act like i knew everything and i thought i was all that, just because i can speak some languages, just because i watch foreign films, just because i watch the BBC unlike the stupid motherfuckers.

If anyone didn't know, there is a website called Hot Ghetto mess, and i used to enjoy mocking ghetto and redneck people on that site daily. Plus i was a naive obamanic social democrat liberal with extreme elitist tendency, you would think that i come from a very upper middle class background. but no, i come from a working class background.

which makes the whole thing ironic, and the only reasons that i had enjoy a taste of an elitist liberal lifestyle was because of my uncle. being nice enough to take me and my sister to starbucks and etc, so i can sip that coffee and act like a snob who was really just a poor kid.

On top of that this commie have a bunch of name brand shit, I know shame on me.

Since i saw the light, I have made a strong effort to quit being an elitist pig, but i still have along way to go, I still called my friend who a stupid hick for not agreeing with me on stuff.

I should be thankful that he at least admire communism.

So the point is not all snobby liberals come from well to do upper middle class professional backgrounds.

[HEAD ICE]

Liberals want to throw the working class a bone. Leftists want to take the bone and I have no idea where I am going with this.

[Outinleftfield]

I think the main reason for the elitism seen in many liberals is that because they refuse to see what the real problem is (capitalism) they wind up taking an even harsher opinion of conservatives and anyone regardless of class who has those beliefs. This extends to an elitist attitude towards lifestyles they associate with conservatism(smoking) regardless of what the person actually believes. They also take a harsher opinion of the poor, because their point of view necessitates that they "blame the victim" in the same way as the conservatives even if to a lesser extent but will take an even harsher attitude towards poor people they tend to think of as conservative(whites in trailer parks).

Revolutionaries don't take as harsh an opinion, because we realize the material factors and the propaganda that is responsible for people being mislead and we place blame with the ruling class while being truly supportive of working class people.

[727Goon]

I really hate white liberals with a passion. I mean seriously, who's gonna be more likely to call the cops on you for dumb shit, some nosy uptight liberal or some redneck ass cracker?

[∞]

http://weblog.leidenuniv.nl/media/blogs/76039/invisiblecollege/political_compass.png

Pay close attention. The liberals fall toward the the center top right.
While leftists can be anywhere on the top or bottom left, but the y have to be in the left.

http://politicalcompass.org/images/uscandidates2008.png

Liberals are right wing

[Rusty Shackleford]

Heres something about liberals...

Liberal 1: Say joke with racial epithet
Liberal 2: lol
Liberal 3: lol
Me: what the fuck
Liberal 1,2,3: Its not racist if its a joke/you need a sense of humor/im not really racist.

[mikelepore]

What are the axes in that chart defined as? Who it's acceptable for the workers to be treated like dirt by? The lower right quadrant with Hayek and Rand and so forth, that would be the quadrant that says: workers shouldn't get treated like dirt by the government, but it's all right if workers are treated like dirt by their employers.

[727Goon]

Heres something about liberals...

Liberal 1: Say joke with racial epithet
Liberal 2: lol
Liberal 3: lol
Me: what the fuck
Liberal 1,2,3: Its not racist if its a joke/you need a sense of humor/im not really racist.

I mean it's very possible that your liberal friends are racist, because liberals do tend to be just as, if not more racist than conservatives, but depending on the context theres no need to get all uptight about racial humor.

[∞]

What are the axes in that chart defined as? Who it's acceptable for the workers to be treated like dirt by? The lower right quadrant with Hayek and Rand and so forth, that would be the quadrant that says: workers shouldn't get treated like dirt by the government, but it's all right if workers are treated like dirt by their employers.

The lower left quadrant don't take shit from anybody.

[ContrarianLemming]

Communists not only disavow the tyrannical behavior of corporations, but also of the bourgeois idea of democracy itself. As Marx once said, the road to socialism starts with democracy, meaning that in order to even get to something like communism, democracy as we understand it today in all of its forms (utopian, bourgeois, etc.) must be done away with as well.


are you mad?

[ContrarianLemming]

I mean it's very possible that your liberal friends are racist, because liberals do tend to be just as, if not more racist than conservatives, but depending on the context theres no need to get all uptight about racial humor.

this^ is bullshit, i can't believe anyone believes this.

[ed miliband]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGDT7wKvdRk

The Phil Ochs version is much better, but this'll have to do.

[727Goon]

this^ is bullshit, i can't believe anyone believes this.

Why everyone gotta be all PC and shit? Fuck, race can be hilarious, my favorite comedian is Chris Rock and that nigga is funny as fuck and jokes about race all the time. Who cares dude, racial jokes don't usually help the white power structure, actual racist motherfuckers do. And white liberals can be racist as fuck, every white liberal teacher I had in high school was ridiculously condescending and subtly racist, just because they think they are "above racism" or that it is only working class white people who are racist doesnt make it true.

[ComradeOm]

this^ is bullshit, i can't believe anyone believes this.Clearly you're not down with 'RAANismo'

[NGNM85]

I've seen several members here talk disparagingly about liberals.


What do Liberals believe in that these members do not like?

Is this, for lack of a better term, anti-liberal sentiment widespread among the revolutionary left? Can revolutionary lefters be liberals, or is that an incompatible combination?

Today people say that Democrats in the US are liberals, and that they are left-wing too. Is this incorrect?

Thanks

Let’s start at the very beginning. ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ are extremely broad divisions of political ideology that originated in post-revolutionary France. This is an example of the Left/Right political spectrum that most people encounter in school;
http://blsciblogs.baruch.cuny.edu/luc/files/2009/10/left-right.png (http://blsciblogs.baruch.cuny.edu/luc/files/2009/10/left-right.png)

At the far Right you have Fascists, then Reactionaries, then Conservatives, then the Center, which is sometimes called ‘Moderate’, then Center-Left, to Progressives, or Liberals (More on that, later.) to Socialists, Anarchists and Communists at the far Left, or radical Left.

Some Democrats are Liberals, and all of them are Leftists. However, they are largely Center-Leftists.

Liberalism is a school of thought that came out of the Enlightenment. Some of the central ideas were democracy, human rights, secular government, and capitalism. Liberalism had a wide impact on philosophy, and influenced both the Left and the Right, but not the far-Right. The Liberal Enlightenment ideas inspired early Anarchists, like Bakunin, who took some of these ideas and expanded on them.

Liberals, at least in the US, believe in many of the ideas of classical Liberalism, although they generally support mixed economies. Most modern US Liberals are something of a different beast, while generally well-educated; they aren’t taking their cues directly from Locke and Rousseau. Modern American Liberals are moderate Leftists. They are more Left than Center-Leftists, but not as much as Radicals. Sometimes they call themselves Progressives, which is essentially the same thing. As someone once mentioned this is in part because the American Right has turned Liberal into a four-letter word.

The disagreement between Radical Leftists on this site, and Liberals, or Center-Leftists is a philosophical disagreement. Both groups are leftists, but they generally don’t embrace the kind of sweeping, broad spectrum social transformation (Which is actually the definition of ‘Radical Left.’) that Radicals propose.

As for the hostility, I think there are a number of reasons. First, I think these concepts are often misunderstood. Second, the Radical Left (Unfortunately.) tends to be very sectarian. Also there’s a lot of cliquishness and high-school politics, and “Liberal” for whatever reason has become an accepted slander, like “counterrevolutionary”.

I hope that helps.

[AK]

The lower left quadrant don't take shit from anybody.
Yeah... Gandhi... haha. He went all Rambo on the British, didn't he?

[ContrarianLemming]

Most liberals I've seen who did the Political compass came out -5 -5. thats in the middle of the lower left.

[∞]

Yeah... Gandhi... haha. He went all Rambo on the British, didn't he? Oh yeah totally apeshit:glare:


Most liberals I've seen who did the Political compass came out -5 -5. thats in the middle of the lower left.

Well there ideology is more right-wing than they think.

[BLACKPLATES]

Sounds like we are arguing over the definition words. "Liberal" as it is "understood" in western capitalist societies can mean anything from a sterotypical social-democrat-welfare-statist (in the US) to hard right-libertarian-bourgeois-imperialist (most of Europe) Liberalism in the US is mostly a political term, used to self identify or to label an opponent. In the US it is understood to mean (almost exclusively) "one who votes with American Democratic Party" In the UK and many other places it means "Neoliberal" which defines an actual right wing, imperialist economic theory. As its being used in this forum (as a pejorative) it is a cultural sterotype used in much the same way as an ethnic stereotype such that..."all liberals = "all africans"= "all asians" OR "one liberal therfore all liberals" = "one african therefore all africans" ,,etc.. Sounds too much like the discussions of lumpen proletariat (frequently called peasantry in here) and the Petit bourgeois, that are used less as disspationate scientific Marxist observations of class dynamics, and more as bigotted, superstitous over aggrandizement of the self. . Some (very wise) member of Rev Left reacting to a libertarian trope about "human nature" pointed out that there is no human nature, only human behavior..very true. In the US most of the petit bourgeois are left "Liberals". In the US,The lumpen are (mostly) bitterly divided by the ruling class along a centuries old racial/ethnic wedge . Most are not self aware politically, those that are tend (ABSURDLY) to knee jerk, ultra right nationalism. both classes serve the interests of the ruling class while accusing the other of serving the interests of the ruling class. In the Post Industrial west everyone is a "worker" and no one is a "worker" the manufacturing working class that once dominated is long gone. 20th century stereotypes may not be as helpful or accurate as they once were (if they ever were). Anyone who is an enemy of finance capital and globalism/imperialism has the potential to be the freind of the revolution. If anyone i talk to comes away from the converstation not understanding the dynamics of capitalist exploitation, thats MY fault, and i need to work on my arguments.

[RadioRaheem84]

Let’s start at the very beginning. ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ are extremely broad divisions of political ideology that originated in post-revolutionary France. This is an example of the Left/Right political spectrum that most people encounter in school;
http://blsciblogs.baruch.cuny.edu/luc/files/2009/10/left-right.png (http://blsciblogs.baruch.cuny.edu/luc/files/2009/10/left-right.png)

At the far Right you have Fascists, then Reactionaries, then Conservatives, then the Center, which is sometimes called ‘Moderate’, then Center-Left, to Progressives, or Liberals (More on that, later.) to Socialists, Anarchists and Communists at the far Left, or radical Left.

Some Democrats are Liberals, and all of them are Leftists. However, they are largely Center-Leftists.

I am curious as to what your position is on Ron Paul too?

Liberalism is a school of thought that came out of the Enlightenment. Some of the central ideas were democracy, human rights, secular government, and capitalism. Liberalism had a wide impact on philosophy, and influenced both the Left and the Right, but not the far-Right. The Liberal Enlightenment ideas inspired early Anarchists, like Bakunin, who took some of these ideas and expanded on them.

Liberals, at least in the US, believe in many of the ideas of classical Liberalism, although they generally support mixed economies. Most modern US Liberals are something of a different beast, while generally well-educated; they aren’t taking their cues directly from Locke and Rousseau. Modern American Liberals are moderate Leftists. They are more Left than Center-Leftists, but not as much as Radicals. Sometimes they call themselves Progressives, which is essentially the same thing. As someone once mentioned this is in part because the American Right has turned Liberal into a four-letter word.

The disagreement between Radical Leftists on this site, and Liberals, or Center-Leftists is a philosophical disagreement. Both groups are leftists, but they generally don’t embrace the kind of sweeping, broad spectrum social transformation (Which is actually the definition of ‘Radical Left.’) that Radicals propose.

As for the hostility, I think there are a number of reasons. First, I think these concepts are often misunderstood. Second, the Radical Left (Unfortunately.) tends to be very sectarian. Also there’s a lot of cliquishness and high-school politics, and “Liberal” for whatever reason has become an accepted slander, like “counterrevolutionary”.

I hope that helps.

No it doesn't. :thumbdown:

Liberals are center-right. Get over it. We are not the "far left", we are the left. We were around before 'modern' liberals i.e. in the context that it's used today.

What we have in the media and US politics are reactionary rightishts, rightists, and skiddish centrists that mask themselves off as the left. The real left is marginalized and the progressives are dubbed "far left".

Please, though, NGN, enlighten us on how Tony Blair is a socialist and Hillary Clinton are left allies?

[BLACKPLATES]

You may be equivocating just a little bit.
I havent noticed that the main stream media are "liberal" in the way you mean it. They are not pushing "Liberal" (center left) stories at all. They are just an echo chamber for Imperialist propaganda and fear mongering.If anyone wants to know where American Liberals come down there are a handful of bloggers, and even fewer MSM journalists who exemplify what that world view is. Bill Moyers and Amy Goodman are archetypal American Liberal Journalists.Jane Hamsher and Glen Greenwald are archetypal Liberal bloggers. The current leadership of the CPUSA is more liberal than doctrinaire Marxist. I am a dues paying member of CPUSA,not happy with the squishy doctrine, but they're not exactly willing stooges of the capitalists either.(well actually Sam Webb's tailing of the Demo-crap-tic party is pretty unbearable)

[NGNM85]

No it doesn't. :thumbdown:

Liberals are center-right. Get over it.


Not according to the literal definition.


We are not the "far left", we are the left.

No, you still don't understand what this word means. All of the left is by nature 'progressive', in that it promotes progress to some degree, whereas the right is conservative, or reactionary. (Or fascist, on the far right.) What designates the radical left is the degree of change that is being advocated. Center-Leftists endorse smaller specific changes, moderate Leftists propose greater changes, the 'radical' left wants to fundamentally alter society, not just to tweak the structure, but to do away with existing structures and replace them with something else. that is what defines the 'radical', or 'far' left.


We were around before 'modern' liberals i.e. in the context that it's used today.

Before modern Liberals, in the context it's presently used in American discourse, yeah. This however, doesn't change anything. There were moderate leftists before them.


What we have in the media and US politics are reactionary rightishts, rightists, and skiddish centrists that mask themselves off as the left. The real left is marginalized and the progressives are dubbed "far left".

I'm not going to bother untangling that.


Please, though, NGN, enlighten us on how Tony Blair is a socialist and Hillary Clinton are left allies?

Tony Blair, who is a leftist, promotes and endorses socialist economic policies. I never said Hillary Clinton was an ally. You clearly don't understand how broad the left actually is. Perhaps you can more easily understand that most conservatives ("Real' conservatives, not like the Bush administration.) have very little in common with Neo-Nazis. Just because we're on the same half of the political spectrum doesn't mean there aren't enormous differences. This is not fantasy football, you don't just get to pick the people you like.

I would suggest talking to BlackPlates, perhaps he can explain it better. I've put it as simply and clearly as I can.

[Crux]

Tony Blair, who is a leftist, promotes and endorses socialist economic policies
I was going to say you simplify thing's in absurdum. Then I read this.
Excuse me, sir, but what planet do you live on?

[NGNM85]

I was going to say you simplify thing's in absurdum. Then I read this.
Excuse me, sir, but what planet do you live on?

I think it's incredibly simple, also, which makes it all the more baffling that it is so poorly understood. Incidentally, I also was deliberately trying to make my first post as simple as possible, to be the most accessible to people like the originator of the thread. this IS "Learning."

I'd argue with you, but it really comes down to how you (Specifically.) choose to define 'left', 'liberal', and 'socialist.' I happen to use the literal definitions, like the rest of the world. I can't speak for whatever definition you've created for yourself.

[RadioRaheem84]

You may be equivocating just a little bit.
I havent noticed that the main stream media are "liberal" in the way you mean it. They are not pushing "Liberal" (center left) stories at all. They are just an echo chamber for Imperialist propaganda and fear mongering.If anyone wants to know where American Liberals come down there are a handful of bloggers, and even fewer MSM journalists who exemplify what that world view is. Bill Moyers and Amy Goodman are archetypal American Liberal Journalists.Jane Hamsher and Glen Greenwald are archetypal Liberal bloggers. The current leadership of the CPUSA is more liberal than doctrinaire Marxist. I am a dues paying member of CPUSA,not happy with the squishy doctrine, but they're not exactly willing stooges of the capitalists either.(well actually Sam Webb's tailing of the Demo-crap-tic party is pretty unbearable)Well the media likes to define the left and right spectrum with their split screen debates. The "left" is usually a skidish center rightist who simply disagrees with the other guy on tactic grounds not principle. Amy Goodman would be seen as the "far" left.

[RadioRaheem84]

NGN, you're a damn fool but you so sure of your bull, it's amazing! Tony Blair is no socialist. Do you really think we take the "literal" mainstream definitions of a twisted political spectrum that's used for propaganda purposes, seriously? I could understand you using it in the context of understanding the American political spectrum and the propaganda system, but you take it seriously!! Laughable.

[Crux]

I'd argue with you, but it really comes down to how you (Specifically.) choose to define 'left', 'liberal', and 'socialist.' I happen to use the literal definitions, like the rest of the world. I can't speak for whatever definition you've created for yourself.
No. So you admit your defintions are thing's you've created yourself out of thin air?

[NGNM85]

No. So you admit your defintions are thing's you've created yourself out of thin air?

No, that's what I'm saying about you. My definitions are the generally accepted ones that can be found in textbooks and encyclopedias, in the US and abroad.

[RadioRaheem84]

No, that's what I'm saying about you. My definitions are the generally accepted ones that can be found in textbooks and encyclopedias, in the US and abroad.

:laugh: Oh man. You never stop. I think maybe the mods are letting you post for comic relief.


Are you not getting that the vast majority of us find political and economic topics in most mainstream textbooks to be bias and rather full of it for the most part?

[Crux]

No, that's what I'm saying about you. My definitions are the generally accepted ones that can be found in textbooks and encyclopedias, in the US and abroad.
Eh, nice try but I know my way around textbooks and encyclopedias. Please show me which one calls Blair a socialist. Also ever heard of a thing called class?

[NGNM85]

Eh, nice try but I know my way around textbooks and encyclopedias. Please show me which one calls Blair a socialist.

The platform of the Labor Party is democratic socialism. Tony Blair suppports certain socialist economic policies. This is what I am referring to.


Also ever heard of a thing called class?

Obviously. Class is a division of social strata in which the individuals fall into the same range or category in their place in society. For example; "upper class", or "working class." It can also be used a synonym for being cultured, refined.

[AK]

The platform of the Labor Party is democratic socialism. Tony Blair supports certain socialist economic policies. This is what I am referring to.
You think Blair supports workers' control of the means of production? Or a resource-based gift economy? There aren't really any other socialist economic principles besides that and he doesn't support either.

[NGNM85]

You think Blair supports workers' control of the means of production? Or a resource-based gift economy? There aren't really any other socialist economic principles besides that and he doesn't support either.

Democratic socialism is a particular unique political distinction.

It depends on whether you're talking about socialism as a political ideology, or simply talking about economics.

[AK]

Democratic socialism is a particular unique political distinction.

It depends on whether you're talking about socialism as a political ideology, or simply talking about economics.
Well then you should say he supports democratic socialist economic policies then, instead of being vague.

[RadioRaheem84]

Never really heard Blair support such policies though.

[NGNM85]

Well then you should say he supports democratic socialist economic policies then, instead of being vague.

Ok.... I'll try to be more specific, for what it's worth..

[BLACKPLATES]

Well the media likes to define the left and right spectrum with their split screen debates. The "left" is usually a skidish center rightist who simply disagrees with the other guy on tactic grounds not principle. Amy Goodman would be seen as the "far" left.

Oh i dont disagree with you one whit about our brain dead media culture, i just think that they are not (left) liberals, who are, i believe the focus of this convo. I dont think they even wish to be thought of as liberal. AS I see it,Once upon a time being thought of as "liberal" was a ticket into the salons of the intelligentsia in Europe and North America, and so representative of cultural institutions, such as Newspaper editors and writers were found there. Not anymore, they have dropped any pretense of being intellectuals and pursue thier empty careers as carelessly and shamelessly as if the were contestants on a game show.

[BLACKPLATES]

Maybe hes confused by the British Labor Party affilliation. Again, like
liberal" its a semantic thing some are confused by. I dunno. i dunno a whole lot :confused:

[ed miliband]

The platform of the Labor Party is democratic socialism. Tony Blair suppports certain socialist economic policies. This is what I am referring to.

Come on... you're joking right?

1. What the Labour Party (and large chunks of the British Left) consider socialism should not be considered socialism. It isn't. Socialism for them is charity and altruism and equal opportunities within a capitalist society. Socialism for them is not at odds with imperialism or capitalism, but a way of making imperialism and capitalism nicer; a form of castration, essentially.

2. Blair's 'democratic socialism' was put in place of the parties' fourth clause. Clause IV called to "secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof". Many in the party considered this a socialist statement and in removing it Blair might have lost a considerable deal of support, so he rewrote it asserting that the Labour Party are "democratic socialist[s]" without explaining what was meant by that and more importantly, without acting like a "democratic socialist" when in power. It was just put there to please Labour tribalists. Clever politics.

3. Members of the Labour Party also claimed that New Labour was a 'libertarian socialist' organisation! Peter Hain wrote a number of pieces name-dropping Chomsky, Tom Mann, the Diggers, etc. Of course New Labour where not 'libertarian', nor 'socialists' but they claimed that to be the case so it must be true, right?

[Thirsty Crow]

I think it's incredibly simple, also, which makes it all the more baffling that it is so poorly understood. Incidentally, I also was deliberately trying to make my first post as simple as possible, to be the most accessible to people like the originator of the thread. this IS "Learning."

I'd argue with you, but it really comes down to how you (Specifically.) choose to define 'left', 'liberal', and 'socialist.' I happen to use the literal definitions, like the rest of the world. I can't speak for whatever definition you've created for yourself.
And which exactly socialist economic policies does the (New) Labour advocate?

[Blackscare]

You have center-right and bat shit crazy xenophobic right wing proto-fascists.

Don't know if someone responded to this bit in the thread, but I just wanted to say one thing. Can we stop throwing around the word fascist and proto-fascist like it means any right wing tendency we don't like? Fascism is a very specific thing, and as much as I hate the american right they are not proto-fascist, at least any more than the democrats. In fact they have a large wing of "libertarians" who, although having some wacky views on capitalism, certainly are not fascists.


If we abuse this word, it loses all meaning and the left just look like immature name-calling children. We exercise a great deal of restrain and nuance talking about leftist concepts but it seems when we talk about the right there's a tendency to just say "ah, well they're fascists."

You need to understand your enemy rationally and scientifically, and examine what each group stands for, before you can accurately critique them, which we should be doing more.

[Zanthorus]

No, you still don't understand what this word means. All of the left is by nature 'progressive', in that it promotes progress to some degree, whereas the right is conservative, or reactionary. (Or fascist, on the far right.)

Well to begin with that would mean that the divide between right and left is constantly changing from place to place and time to time which is inconvenient if you want to compare politics from different time periods or locations. Second of all what is "progressive" and "reactionary" is highly contentious. It's become a staple of the new right that they try and brand themselves as progressive go-getters against the "reactionary" left which clings on to it's trade unions and welfare state.

There is also the issue that some people are neither progressive nor reactionary, but revolutionary.

[ed miliband]

This is a nice but dated summing-up of the Labour Party from 'The Floodgates of Anarchy' by Albert Meltzer and Stuart Christie:


But the Labour Party today is a coalition, too. It is not a working-class party as such though its rockbottom votes come as a result of people thinking it is. It cannot be equated with theoretical social-democracy, though some of its protagonists are democratic socialists. It has the duty, often neglected, of defending trade union and co-operative interests, but it has links with management, too. Its middle-class Fabian thinking dominated parliamentary tactics, though again, some of its MPs have been toned-down state communists, their idea of socialism late Lenin or early Stalin, adapted to democratic ideas and rejecting the violence associated with Bolshevism rather than the general theory.

Many more Labour MPs, brilliantly educated and with degrees in sociology and political views fashioned in debate at the Oxford Union, have naturally no conception of socialism at all, and think it has something to do with the nationalisation of industry pioneered by Bismarck or the degree of reform passed in a single session. Others are parliamentary liberals who have left the sinking ship. More still have no differences at all with the Conservatives other than the clear necessity of getting a seat, and among these are the hired lawyers used to pleading any cause for which they get paid. There are not a few, graduating from local politics, who hug the fond illusion that the electorate chooses them for their personal qualities and public devotion.16

It is difficult to place the Labour Party accurately in Figure 8, as if it were a concrete philosophy rather than a united front. The nearest one can get would be to draw a line from social-democracy to radicalism, and from social-democracy to Fabianism, completing the triangle with a line from Fabianism to radicalism. Having done that, one will still find a millionaire MP with laissez-faire views on capitalism outside the neat triangle.http://www.ditext.com/christie/floodgates.html

[NGNM85]

Come on... you're joking right?

1. What the Labour Party (and large chunks of the British Left) consider socialism should not be considered socialism. It isn't. Socialism for them is charity and altruism and equal opportunities within a capitalist society. Socialism for them is not at odds with imperialism or capitalism, but a way of making imperialism and capitalism nicer; a form of castration, essentially.

I was speaking strictly in economic terms. East Germany and Romania were 'socialist' countries. What is pure socialism or true socialism? I would say it's more than simply having a command economy, or whatever. That real or pure socialism is both an economic system and a political/philosophical belief system. The Labor Party is about as socialist as the socialist bloc.


2. Blair's 'democratic socialism' was put in place of the parties' fourth clause. Clause IV called to "secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof". Many in the party considered this a socialist statement and in removing it Blair might have lost a considerable deal of support, so he rewrote it asserting that the Labour Party are "democratic socialist[s]" without explaining what was meant by that and more importantly, without acting like a "democratic socialist" when in power. It was just put there to please Labour tribalists. Clever politics.

....Yes.


3. Members of the Labour Party also claimed that New Labour was a 'libertarian socialist' organisation! Peter Hain wrote a number of pieces name-dropping Chomsky, Tom Mann, the Diggers, etc. Of course New Labour where not 'libertarian', nor 'socialists' but they claimed that to be the case so it must be true, right?

No, I actually wouldn't recommend taking anybody's statements at face value, that goes double for politicians.

[NGNM85]

Well to begin with that would mean that the divide between right and left is constantly changing from place to place and time to time which is inconvenient if you want to compare politics from different time periods or locations. Second of all what is "progressive" and "reactionary" is highly contentious. It's become a staple of the new right that they try and brand themselves as progressive go-getters against the "reactionary" left which clings on to it's trade unions and welfare state.

The Left or Right orientation of particular governments change, for example, the US government has been moving to the right in the past few years. However, Left and Right are static concepts.

Regardless of what the right says they are not progressive, by nature.


There is also the issue that some people are neither progressive nor reactionary, but revolutionary.

Revolutionaries are just the extreme of the progressive trend, they want bigger changes, and usually in a shorter time frame.

[∞]

I 'SPLAINED THIS! WHY THE ARGUING?:confused:

[RadioRaheem84]

NGN, your posts can be quite confusing sometimes because you say you know that the political spectrum is flawed and even used for propaganda purposes yet you insist on using the flawed terminology as fact. Just because the Clintons are seen as left in the media it doesn't mean you have to argue in favor of that. You insist you're just using the litteral meaning but how do you not see the literal popular meaning as not flawed too? If so why use them? I am not sure which position you're trying to take?

[∞]

NGN, your posts can be quite confusing sometimes because you say you know that the political spectrum is flawed and even used for propaganda purposes yet you insist on using the flawed terminology as fact. Just because the Clintons are seen as left in the media it doesn't mean you have to argue in favor of that. You insist you're just using the litteral meaning but how do you not see the literal popular meaning as not flawed too? If so why use them? I am not sure which position you're trying to take?

I don't think its flawed...when did I say that.

[NGNM85]

NGN, your posts can be quite confusing sometimes because you say you know that the political spectrum is flawed and even used for propaganda purposes yet you insist on using the flawed terminology as fact.

I'm reallt trying to make it as simple as possible. Part of the problem is it involves a lot of terms with multiple meanings and interpretions.

The Left/Right spectrum is absolutely flawed, as I said, placing Stalinists and Anarchists on not only the same end, but the same spot is a serious problem. However, it is what has been used historically, what people use in general conversation. One also has to be able to generalize to some degree to make communication possible.


Just because the Clintons are seen as left in the media it doesn't mean you have to argue in favor of that. You insist you're just using the litteral meaning but how do you not see the literal popular meaning as not flawed too? If so why use them? I am not sure which position you're trying to take?

The words might be the same, but the meaning isn't necessarily the same. Again, for example, in the media terms like 'Liberal" or "Radical Left" are often used as pejoratives, but that's not how I use them.

[RadioRaheem84]

The Left/Right spectrum is absolutely flawed, as I said, placing Stalinists and Anarchists on not only the same end, but the same spot is a serious problem. However, it is what has been used historically, what people use in general conversation. One also has to be able to generalize to some degree to make communication possible. why do you keep saying Stalinism? There is no such thing as a political
ideology so it wouldn't be next to anarchism in any contrived political spectrum. The way you communicate is vague and confusing. You really use the terms liberally.

[RadioRaheem84]

I don't think its flawed...when did I say that.

Huh? The post was for NGN

[BLACKPLATES]

Well the media likes to define the left and right spectrum with their split screen debates. The "left" is usually a skidish center rightist who simply disagrees with the other guy on tactic grounds not principle. Amy Goodman would be seen as the "far" left.
The more I think about what your saying the more i think i my understand where your coming. OF course the Liberal/Conservative dynamic is screwed to the right. In the US even the most adently sincere left striving liberal is almost always and American exceptionalist who thinks most Democrats are "well meaning". The political "center" is where the fight is and in the US they have it defined just to the right of Rockefeller republicans. Where im coming from is less principled and more tactical. Some of those self identified left liberals will come to this site, or a site like this and be chased away when they are called stooges and right wing assholes etc., Id rather entice them to stay for more than 1 minute and try to bring them over to us. The Left Democrats are EXTREMELY disallusioned right now and this is probably a good time to recruit more of them than normal.