The growing arrogance of the liberal-left in the West toward Marxists....

[RadioRaheem84]

Slavoj Zizek touches on this notion in a great lecture he gave at a Marxism Conference last year. I posted the video on another thread in the learning section.

In it he reads a critical letter to Zizek in which the liberal progressive outlines his desires for the United States in terms of social policy (universal healthcare, better public schools, etc) but the liberal scoffs at the notion that the boogeyman is capitalism. He outright says he yawns at such a monster initially saying that capitalism is not the threat. Socialism/Communism is more of a threat to him.

Noam Chomsky also reiterated his opinion of liberals after nearly half a century of scalding them with his hot tar of logic, describing them as arrogant secular priests who tout the rationale of the era. He sees them as the real enemy because it's easy to see how wrong conservatives are in the mainstream.

So all in all, are liberals a growing obstacle to socialism now? They've always been a bit of a thorn in our side but I believe that with the advent of their Messiah in office, they've seemed to have grown a pair and are challenging both left and right in some effort to appear as these holy enlightened middle men with no extreme axe to grind.

In Europe, I have noticed that the Northern European intellectuals especially in the UK, Denmark and Germany, point their tiresome ire toward people of the left and it irks me. They're in full force going against anything they deem as a "totalitarian" ideology and that includes Communists.

What is with this new found arrogance? This overt display of one's intellectual muscle? All of a sudden within the past half decade they've been playing the capitalism with a human face card and anyone that should oppose would be labeled a dogmatic malcontent.

[Prometheus Unbound]

I don't know/ care about Zizek -- he's all over the place anyway -- but Chomsky is not a "liberal". That's just silly.

[RadioRaheem84]

Um, I didn't say Chomsky was a liberal. Where did you get that?

I said Chomsky has been bashing the liberals for years and still considers them the obstacle of any real progress.
How on Earth did you gather that I meant to call him a liberal?

[Madvillainy]

Chomsky IS a liberal.

[RadioRaheem84]

He does say some rather liberal-ish things and he is more of an idealist in my book than a materialist, but I wouldn't call him a total liberal. I mean h spent half his career challenging liberal administrations and their political outlook.

[Prometheus Unbound]

Um, I didn't say Chomsky was a liberal. Where did you get that?

I said Chomsky has been bashing the liberals for years and still considers them the obstacle of any real progress.
How on Earth did you gather that I meant to call him a liberal?
Oh, I thought... well, nevermind. For what it's worth, it seems that somebody jumped in to call Chomsky a liberal already, so there you have it :lol:

[~Spectre]

Um, I didn't say Chomsky was a liberal. Where did you get that?

I said Chomsky has been bashing the liberals for years and still considers them the obstacle of any real progress.
How on Earth did you gather that I meant to call him a liberal?


You've gone down that road in several threads now, i.e. calling or implying that he's a liberal. Glad to see you've moved on from that.

[RadioRaheem84]

You've gone down that road in several threads now, i.e. calling or implying that he's a liberal. Glad to see you've moved on from that.


Well, I confused liberal for idealist as if they were one and the same.

[Kiev Communard]

Slavoj Zizek touches on this notion in a great lecture he gave at a Marxism Conference last year. I posted the video on another thread in the learning section.

In it he reads a critical letter to Zizek in which the liberal progressive outlines his desires for the United States in terms of social policy (universal healthcare, better public schools, etc) but the liberal scoffs at the notion that the boogeyman is capitalism. He outright says he yawns at such a monster initially saying that capitalism is not the threat. Socialism/Communism is more of a threat to him.

Noam Chomsky also reiterated his opinion of liberals after nearly half a century of scalding them with his hot tar of logic, describing them as arrogant secular priests who tout the rationale of the era. He sees them as the real enemy because it's easy to see how wrong conservatives are in the mainstream.

So all in all, are liberals a growing obstacle to socialism now? They've always been a bit of a thorn in our side but I believe that with the advent of their Messiah in office, they've seemed to have grown a pair and are challenging both left and right in some effort to appear as these holy enlightened middle men with no extreme axe to grind.

In Europe, I have noticed that the Northern European intellectuals especially in the UK, Denmark and Germany, point their tiresome ire toward people of the left and it irks me. They're in full force going against anything they deem as a "totalitarian" ideology and that includes Communists.

What is with this new found arrogance? This overt display of one's intellectual muscle? All of a sudden within the past half decade they've been playing the capitalism with a human face card and anyone that should oppose would be labeled a dogmatic malcontent.

It's nothing new. Actually, if you mean the so-called "liberals" in the U.S., they were hostile towards the idea of Socialist Revolution from the very outset. Just think about such "liberal" potentates as Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman or Lyndon Bains Johnson - there is nothing new here.

As to European context, here "liberals" are actually as much right-wing as conservatives are - and some are even more (Guido Westerwelle comes to mind).

Post-Soviet "liberals" are even more reactionary and Social-Darwinistic than their Western "colleagues", so this is just part of one trend, namely of liberals (that is, supporters of "free market" - regulated or not, - and pluralistic oligarchy ("representative democracy") playing the role of old reactionaries (Legitimist conservatives of 19th century).

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Liberalism in Europe and in the US are, of course, slightly different.

Whereas Liberalism in the US is the main 'left' (or maybe we could say 'less right-wing') ideology, in Europe we often talk of non-capitalised 'liberalism', as either social liberalism or the more Thatcherite economic liberalism. Rarely is there a genuinely liberal party, especially in the UK. Often the economically liberal are socially conservative, and the socially liberal and more economically moderate (the Labour Party in the UK, for example), thought it must be said that 'liberalism' in the UK is often understood as a more economic-based ideology - economically liberal as in 'the free market rules', that is.

However, I won't spend more time elaborating on this point, it is moot for me as Liberals of the US ilk and economic liberals here in Europe are the clear class enemy and ideological enemy. Fuck them all.

[Barry Lyndon]

It's nothing new. Actually, if you mean the so-called "liberals" in the U.S., they were hostile towards the idea of Socialist Revolution from the very outset. Just think about such "liberal" potentates as Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman or Lyndon Bains Johnson - there is nothing new here.

The historical record speaks for itself:

Woodrow Wilson: The Palmer Raids, ruthless repression of labor strikes, 13,000 troops and millions of $ of military supplies to aid the White Russians against the Bolsheviks. Blockaded Russia, then authorized 'famine relief' that subsidized the White armies.

Harry Truman: Successfully pressured the CIO to purge itself of unions that accepted Communists(causing the CIO to lose 1.7 million of its 6.3 million members), sent 60,000 US troops to unsucessfully prop up Chiang Kai Shek, CIA sabatoged elections in Italy in 1948 to prevent Communists from winning, Korean War-3 million dead.

John F. Kennedy:Bay of Pigs, multiple attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro

Lyndon B. Johnson: Vietnam War-4 million eventually dead, Great Society program to stave off threat of black revolt.

A leopard never changes its stripes, including elite liberals.

[RadioRaheem84]

True but this time it seems like the liberals are not tolerant anymore of socialist beliefs, at least in academia. Wheras before they were fighting for our rights of free speech against McCarthyism. Nowadays, they're trying to really rub us out of the intellectual discourse altogether. They're pinning us as extremists akin to Islamic radicals.

[Barry Lyndon]

True but this time it seems like the liberals are not tolerant anymore of socialist beliefs, at least in academia. Wheras before they were fighting for our rights of free speech against McCarthyism. Nowadays, they're trying to really rub us out of the intellectual discourse altogether. They're pinning us as extremists akin to Islamic radicals.

That's not historically accurate, I think. Even in the McCarthyist era, liberals main complaint was that those having their careers ruined "weren't real Communists"(the presumption being that political persecution was fine if you were in fact a Communist), and that McCarthy's tactics were counterproductive to the just and heroic struggle against Communism.

This applied to foreign policy, too. If a liberal wanted to defend a Third World revolutionary movement targeted for destruction by Washington, they had to preface their criticisms with 'such and such group aren't communists, their nationalists'-Iv'e read older essays actually saying this about the North Vietnamese/Vietcong, the Cuban revolutionaries and the Sandanistas.
The implication being that if they were 'Communists' well then, terrorism, bombs, and death squads away.

[heiss93]

I don't see this as "new". If anything the liberal-left in the USA is slightly less hostile to the "totalitarian" left since they no longer perceive them as a threat post-USSR.

[RadioRaheem84]

That's not historically accurate, I think. Even in the McCarthyist era, liberals main complaint was that those having their careers ruined "weren't real Communists"(the presumption being that political persecution was fine if you were in fact a Communist), and that McCarthy's tactics were counterproductive to the just and heroic struggle against Communism.

This applied to foreign policy, too. If a liberal wanted to defend a Third World revolutionary movement targeted for destruction by Washington, they had to preface their criticisms with 'such and such group aren't communists, their nationalists'-Iv'e read older essays actually saying this about the North Vietnamese/Vietcong, the Cuban revolutionaries and the Sandanistas.
The implication being that if they were 'Communists' well then, terrorism, bombs, and death squads away.


Yes, very true. I can see what you mean.

Not to say that this is all new but that liberals seem to be a bit more brash almost annoyed by leftists now.

[Adil3tr]

I thought Chomsky was an anarchist? OR libertarian Socialist or whatever. Also, whoever called Howard Zinn not a Marxist is fucking wrong.

[RadioRaheem84]

Also, whoever called Howard Zinn not a Marxist is fucking wrong


I thought he was an anarchist too.

[Kibbutznik]

I thought he was an anarchist too.
Social anarchism is generally derivative of Marxism. It is perfectly possible to be both an anarchist and a Marxist fellow traveller.

[Rusty Shackleford]

funny, i have had a decent reaction to their action.

[Martin Blank]

What is with this new found arrogance? This overt display of one's intellectual muscle? All of a sudden within the past half decade they've been playing the capitalism with a human face card and anyone that should oppose would be labeled a dogmatic malcontent.

If you think this is bad, you should have been there in 1993 -- the beginning of the Clinton years and only about 13 months after the dissolution of the USSR ... and no Internet as a means of support and contact with other like-minded people. I lost count of how many times I had to argue against the "death of communism/end of history" triumphalism. I've forgotten more of the arguments against NAFTA than most people around here have even heard. I can remember when, in debates about the Soviet Union and China, the pro-capitalists didn't have the so-called Black Book to use as a "reference".

Yes, I'm old. But that gives me the ability to compare, and I can say that this period is a lot better for self-described socialists and communists than the period around 1993-94.


It's nothing new. Actually, if you mean the so-called "liberals" in the U.S., they were hostile towards the idea of Socialist Revolution from the very outset. Just think about such "liberal" potentates as Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman or Lyndon Bains Johnson - there is nothing new here.

Let's not forget Kennedy, either. He was profoundly anti-communist, which greatly shaped and influenced his international policy. His visceral hatred of the Cuban Revolution (Kennedy spent a lot of time in Batista's Havana and loved Cuban cigars) led him to support the Bay of Pigs invasion (up to the point where it threatened to commit the military to action for which it was unprepared) and to reject any kind of up-front diplomatic solution through the UN (a violation of the UN Charter) during the Missile Crisis. As well, his anti-communism (and well-executed maneuvering by the Pentagon) led to the setting of precedent when it came to troop buildup -- a precedent more commonly associated with Johnson.

[RadioRaheem84]

I think that liberals are really pissed because they finally reached an era where there is no real threat to the neo-liberal order. Before you had leftist ideas and notions of developmental economics playing a key role in global policy. Now that is all but a ghost in the halls of power.

I mean think about it. Watch the mainstream news and really focus on what that whole world is really like in DC, NYC, Madrid, London, etc. They don't think about welfare distribution, universal healthcare, socialism ,etc. They think about capital markets, the Dow, tax breaks, etc. They're in it to make sure capitalism is safe and secure and think that there is NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE. I mean like Chomsky has always said, it's a paradigm, a mindset, a real set of presupposed ideas that never stray too far from initial framework.

Leftist ideas are really a monkeywrench and something that just pisses them off, especially in this era where there is no USSR to give such ideas any clout anymore. Now it's just pesky terrorists and damn die hard reds that tick them off more than anything. People like Chavez, Morales and the Nepalese Maoists are just thorns in their sides and they hate every bit of them.

I mean I stayed up late watching Bloomberg TV, the financial news show, and I thought to myself, wow not even social democratic developmental economic ideas would cross these peoples minds. And I wasn't just talking about Wall Street moguls featured on the news channel. I was watching many of high level Cabinet members involved in economic policy. They were all geared to make sure Wall Street was happy, not Main St.

I can see why they're so pissed off at leftist ideals and anti-establishment politics today.

[ed miliband]

Another thing to consider is that a lot of these people have never suffered from poverty, nor worked in harsh conditions, etc. For many it's not in their class interest to support socialism or pay any attention to what Marx had to say.

[The Red Next Door]

As a Marxist in a family full of pro-Obama liberals, I have experience first hand their arrogance against us, they been on my case about being a communist and even to go as far to ask me, "do you work with the tea party?" what the fuck?! My cousin called me a nazi pinko for not supporting obama, Liberal are moving to the far right.

[zimmerwald1915]

As a Marxist in a family full of pro-Obama liberals, I have experience first their arrogance against us, they been on my case about being a communist and even to go as far to ask me, "do you work with the tea party?" what the fuck?! My cousin called me a nazi pinko for not supporting obama, they are moving to the right.
If this were not a situation in which you, a real person, actually found yourself, it would be darkly comic.

[The Red Next Door]

If this were not a situation in which you, a real person, actually found yourself, it would be darkly comic.

:laugh:, got to a write graphic novel about this, but seriously I have notice how nationalistic liberals are getting including African- Americans, you know how people say that white people think, they own everything? Well ever since Obama got elected Blacks are starting to exhibit many behavior of pro establishment white people.

[ckaihatsu]

Why Did I Get Married Too?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Did_I_Get_Married_Too

[The Red Next Door]

Why Did I Get Married Too?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Did_I_Get_Married_Too

What the fuck does this have to do with the topic?

[ckaihatsu]

What the fuck does this have to do with the topic?




Blacks are starting to exhibit many behavior of pro establishment white people.


While not *explicitly* political, the movie is a cultural artifact that illustrates a *very* bourgeois, materially empowered group -- not a *recent* development, per se, but more like a culmination of privilege.

[RadioRaheem84]

I am also noticing liberals parroting right wing libertarian stuff like "personal responsibility", "get a job you bum" type of stuff. When I think of pop culture I think of near universal Libertarian ideals seeping into what was once essential Rawlsian Liberalism TV. I think of the Simpsons turning Lisa into a joke of her formal self and parroting centrist stuff when she used to be quite progressive in the 90s. I think of Jon Stewarts admission that half of the Daily Show writing staff are Libertarian. I think of Family Guy and the cross breed of liberal and libertarian ideals and their rather insensitive stance toward minorities. They're really hitting the "get a job you bum" thing hard now.

Like GA Cohen noted in many of his books, Rawlsian Liberalism and Libertarianism aren't that far off from each other morally speaking. They share a lot of the same values.

This era is really blurring the lines between the two, hence why so many progressives think that Ron Paul is a good candidate and why you have to watch out when listening or watching progressive liberal shows these days because they feature so many right-libertarians too.

It's upsetting at just how marginalized the real left has become. It's more upsetting to see liberals become so rabid in the past decade chiding anything they deem anti-establishment. They've created an atmosphere where it's viewed as detrimental to your career if you're vocal about a systemic critique of the system rather than a liberal complaint.

[The Red Next Door]

I am also noticing liberals parroting right wing libertarian stuff like "personal responsibility", "get a job you bum" type of stuff. When I think of pop culture I think of near universal Libertarian ideals seeping into what was once essential Rawlsian Liberalism TV. I think of the Simpsons turning Lisa into a joke of her formal self and parroting centrist stuff when she used to be quite progressive in the 90s. I think of Jon Stewarts admission that half of the Daily Show writing staff are Libertarian. I think of Family Guy and the cross breed of liberal and libertarian ideals and their rather insensitive stance toward minorities. They're really hitting the "get a job you bum" thing hard now.

Like GA Cohen noted in many of his books, Rawlsian Liberalism and Libertarianism aren't that far off from each other morally speaking. They share a lot of the same values.

This era is really blurring the lines between the two, hence why so many progressives think that Ron Paul is a good candidate and why you have to watch out when listening or watching progressive liberal shows these days because they feature so many right-libertarians too.

It's upsetting at just how marginalized the real left has become. It's more upsetting to see liberals become so rabid in the past decade chiding anything they deem anti-establishment. They've created an atmosphere where it's viewed as detrimental to your career if you're vocal about a systemic critique of the system rather than a liberal complaint.

Maybe when another Bush like person from the Republican office, they will start to change their views, seem to notice that if a republican is in office, they are radical let take down the motherfuckin system and when the dems are in, it another story.

[RadioRaheem84]

I went them to get radical when a Dem is in office.

[zimmerwald1915]

Maybe when another Bush like person from the Republican office, they will start to change their views, seem to notice that if a republican is in office, they are radical let take down the motherfuckin system and when the dems are in, it another story.
And I bet some people will even believe they're sincere.

[ed miliband]

Also, liberals have traditionally been afraid of things that they see as ideological, prefering a 'pragmatic' approach to the issues at hand. Liberals tend to see capitalism as a natural order perfect for humans to exist within, and view socialism as an ideology that must be imposed over and above people (with no class distinctions). Marxism and anarchism are just utopian and irrational to many of these people.

[RadioRaheem84]

Also, liberals have traditionally been afraid of things that they see as ideological, prefering a 'pragmatic' approach to the issues at hand. Liberals tend to see capitalism as a natural order perfect for humans to exist within, and view socialism as an ideology that must be imposed over and above people (with no class distinctions). Marxism and anarchism are just utopian and irrational to many of these people.

But then why is their ideology hopelessly idealistic?

[RadioRaheem84]

John Strewart, aka Stew Beef, has proposed a rally on the National Mall that calls for an appeal to Rational Politics. Rational politics of course being centrist moderate liberalism that marginalizes both right wing and left wing voices. In his ridiculous segment he showed clips of both tea party protesters and left wing dissidents of the Bush administration and depicts them as both the "extremists" of the American political discourse.

This is the type of arrogance I am talking about though. This belief that their ideology is the pragmatic moral center that distinguishes itself from the "extremes". Apparently, they think of themselves as holding the key to rational discourse in this country. While I understand that the extreme elements in politics of both the left and the right have dived into conspiracy theories, Stewart still dismissed protesters calling Bush a war criminal and hassled Dick Cheney for their handling of Hurricane Katrina.

I find the Daily Show to be at the forefront of promoting this centrist approach that marginalizes the left among the younger generation.

[Barry Lyndon]

John Strewart, aka Stew Beef, has proposed a rally on the National Mall that calls for an appeal to Rational Politics. Rational politics of course being centrist moderate liberalism that marginalizes both right wing and left wing voices. In his ridiculous segment he showed clips of both tea party protesters and left wing dissidents of the Bush administration and depicts them as both the "extremists" of the American political discourse.

This is the type of arrogance I am talking about though. This belief that their ideology is the pragmatic moral center that distinguishes itself from the "extremes". Apparently, they think of themselves as holding the key to rational discourse in this country. While I understand that the extreme elements in politics of both the left and the right have dived into conspiracy theories, Stewart still dismissed protesters calling Bush a war criminal and hassled Dick Cheney for their handling of Hurricane Katrina.

I find the Daily Show to be at the forefront of promoting this centrist approach that marginalizes the left among the younger generation.

Case in point. I posted this on the wall of the facebook page supporting the 'Restore Sanity' rally(which has, depressingly 90,000 fans):

"Go to hell John Stewart. How dare he equate the Tea Party racists and lunatics with people on the left who say Bush is a war criminal? Bush IS a war criminal-heard of Abu Ghraib? Haditha massacre? The killing of thousands of Iraqi civilians in Fallujah with chemical weapons? Or is that all not important, because Obama ...decided to not prosecute Bush and his minions for those disgusting crimes. Don't go to this stupid rally"

Responses:
'STFU'

'Wow, you ARE a case in point.'

'Extremist views, like those you expressed in your post, serve only to isolate you from the moderate majority of Americans.'

'This is about asking the media to stop being overly extremist on both sides; although your comments may be justified, they don't really belong here.'

'See, you're the kind of person that this rally is supposed to be against. It's not just the right, it's radicals on both sides of the political spectrum.'

'so, doesn't look like you qualify for the rally, SIR'

'Dude. Take your medicine. Seriously though you just don't fucking get it. This rally is happening because of people like YOU.'

'Sir - I'm disagree with you but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler.'

And this is the state of liberal discourse.

This is it, I'm taking a plane to Caracas as soon as I can. The US is hopeless.

[GPDP]

Case in point. I posted this on the wall of the facebook page supporting the 'Restore Sanity' rally(which has, depressingly 90,000 fans):

"Go to hell John Stewart. How dare he equate the Tea Party racists and lunatics with people on the left who say Bush is a war criminal? Bush IS a war criminal-heard of Abu Ghraib? Haditha massacre? The killing of thousands of Iraqi civilians in Fallujah with chemical weapons? Or is that all not important, because Obama ...decided to not prosecute Bush and his minions for those disgusting crimes. Don't go to this stupid rally"

Responses:
'STFU'

'Wow, you ARE a case in point.'

'Extremist views, like those you expressed in your post, serve only to isolate you from the moderate majority of Americans.'

'This is about asking the media to stop being overly extremist on both sides; although your comments may be justified, they don't really belong here.'

'See, you're the kind of person that this rally is supposed to be against. It's not just the right, it's radicals on both sides of the political spectrum.'

'so, doesn't look like you qualify for the rally, SIR'

'Dude. Take your medicine. Seriously though you just don't fucking get it. This rally is happening because of people like YOU.'

'Sir - I'm disagree with you but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler.'

And this is the state of liberal discourse.

This is it, I'm taking a plane to Caracas as soon as I can. The US is hopeless.

That's supremely fucked up. Just goes to show you liberals can be just as bad as "love it or leave it" conservatives.

[La Comédie Noire]

This always happens when things can't continue as they are. Kinda reminds me of Peter Stolypin in the Russian Revolution. Proposing solutions that are 40 years out of context.

You have three options: be a leftist, a rightist, or retire from politics forever and hope history will leave you alone.

[RadioRaheem84]

So apparently, Bush can get away with murder as it was just another failed policy to these liberals.

This is the type of vile nature I see in liberals that even conservatives cannot stand. This dismissal that both sides are wrong and that they can see with their impartial eyes a rational, pragmatic way.

This is why, like Chomsky, I hate liberals.

[GPDP]

So apparently, Bush can get away with murder as it was just another failed policy to these liberals.

This is the type of vile nature I see in liberals that even conservatives cannot stand. This dismissal that both sides are wrong and that they can see with their impartial eyes a rational, pragmatic way.

This is why, like Chomsky, I hate liberals.

What's even more infuriating about these oh-so-enlightened paragons of rationality, pragmatism, and moderation is that they all worship people like MLK, yet were MLK alive today he'd likely point out the exact same things Barry Lindon pointed out, and call them hypocrites, at which point they'd immediately dismiss him as a "left-wing extremist" who "doesn't get it."

Events like these are nothing more than rituals for the reinforcement of their liberal elitist attitudes, gatherings wherein they build giant ivory towers for them to look down at the unwashed masses and ridicule the "extremists" (who are, of course, two sides of the same coin) in between sips of their Starbucks lattes. In short, this is just a liberal circle-jerk, and nothing of value will come off it.

[Apoi_Viitor]

What is liberalism? Generally, I think of it as the ideologies of enlightenment philosophers who championed autonomy, liberty, consent, and toleration. Granted, I don't think their assumption that the capitalist system is the ultimate embodiment of those values, and I think socialism should work towards better achieving those notions. That's why, like Chomsky, I'm a "liberal".

[GPDP]

What is liberalism? Generally, I think of it as the ideologies of enlightenment philosophers who championed autonomy, liberty, consent, and toleration. Granted, I don't think their assumption that the capitalist system is the ultimate embodiment of those values, and I think socialism should work towards better achieving those notions. That's why, like Chomsky, I'm a "liberal".

That's great, but we're talking about the people who self-identify as liberals today as per the popular conception of the term as it stands.

Obviously, in the abstract, most socialists do not take issue with those concepts or ideas, and most in fact fully embrace them. The point of leftist politics, however, is to go beyond the abstract and critically asses who it is that those ideas currently serve, and who loses out. As it is, most liberals' calls for "liberty" entails the liberty of the ruling class to exploit the working class domestically and abroad, and "toleration" on their terms would entail giving a platform to the most reactionary segments of society to the detriment of all.

[RadioRaheem84]

What is liberalism? Generally, I think of it as the ideologies of enlightenment philosophers who championed autonomy, liberty, consent, and toleration. Granted, I don't think their assumption that the capitalist system is the ultimate embodiment of those values, and I think socialism should work towards better achieving those notions. That's why, like Chomsky, I'm a "liberal".

way to miss the point

[Os Cangaceiros]

Whoa! Liberals are hypocrites? And arrogant, too?

Is this some kind of new development within liberalism? :ohmy:

[Koba the Other Mugabe]

I think it's because Obama's administration is tasked with keeping the working class from rebeling, comrade. They're trying to keep them in line but containing and limiting the boundaries of "change".

[RadioRaheem84]

Whoa! Liberals are hypocrites? And arrogant, too?

Is this some kind of new development within liberalism? :ohmy:

Well, I think the point is that for the past two decades there has been a rather collaborative approach among leftists and liberals.

For instance, many leftists watch Jon Stewart and Colbert Reports for shits and giggles because they both poke fun at the right. But then you start seeing their centrist, liberal views as a detriment to the left when they also air pro-military stuff, equate leftists with rightists as the "extreme", promote Israel (even if they're critical of it sometimes), call Hugo Chavez a tin pot dictator, etc.

It's time for leftists to really be critical of the liberal establishment instead of seeing them as an ally in class struggle.

I take Chomsky's approach that liberal represent more of a threat than conservatives because they're seen a the "rational" actors in politics whereas right wingers are usually given the shaft unless they just dominate the scene by sheer force or manipulation. The liberals are sort of the secular priesthood in which academics and politicians receive their daily dose of dogma.

We tend to be nice to them because they hate the right too and they tend to share some values with us. But this should be looked at critically too as fundamentally we do not share the same philosophical presuppositions. I think it's a shame that we have turned our politics into the "golden rule" game where all politics are the same as long as they preach the same idealist fluff.

What we mean by democracy and other ideals is not the same as what liberals mean. GA Cohen already demolished this notion in many of his books.

The liberals share more idealogical traits with right wing libertarians than they do with us.

[Amphictyonis]

He sees them as the real enemy because it's easy to see how wrong conservatives are in the mainstream.



The wised thing I've read all day ;) Our real enemies aren't some lame reactionary Tea Party minority it's the god damned Democrats. Whoever is in power really. It's all the same.