Liberal?

[The Jay]

Why is liberal seen as such a dirty word here? My understanding of the word is that it means (roughly) having a leftist attitude.:confused:

[TheGodlessUtopian]

It is dirty because a lot of the time liberals and progressives use rhetoric which sounds "socialistic" but only have an aim of defending capitalism through tricking the working class.

[Tablo]

Yeah, the term liberal really has become a dirty word, especially in the US.

[PhoenixAsh]

Liberal is generally having leftist attitudes fully in the burgeoisie concept of society...neither rejecting capitalism, societal hierarchy nor burgeoisie democractic principles...but rather wants to change some of their aspects to make them more "friendly". Libaral thought centers fully on acquiring change through the current electoral process. Ultimately this serves as a misdirection of class struggle towards social change rather than the overthrow of capitalism and prevents class consciousness.


This differs from European Liberalism which is a full free market political group which is not necessarilly socially progressive ande most definately capitalist in essence and nature.

[The Jay]

I can see how it may be viewed as a distracting tendency for the proletariat on those grounds, but I don't see why something well intentioned should be viewed with such disdain. Are there any other reasons?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Liberalism falls within the realm of bourgeois politics. The divide in bourgeois politics is purely strategic and tactical, that is, it's a question of how to best pursue the interests of the capitalists as a class not whether or not the capitalists should continue to rule. The working class is exploited by the bourgeoisie. The working class must abolish the rule of the bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie as a class to emancipate itself. Bourgeois politics off all shades represent the continued exploitation of the working class and are an obstacle to proletarian liberation.

[PhoenixAsh]

I can see how it may be viewed as a distracting tendency for the proletariat on those grounds, but I don't see why something well intentioned should be viewed with such disdain. Are there any other reasons?

The intention is that we stay within the capitalist system. It is in fact anti-revolutionary and counter productive.

The disdain is mostly caused by the fact that it lacks any form of root cause elimination and instead centers around the mistaken belief that capitalism...and therefore exploitation...somehow has a humane face and that somehow freedom can exist in a society based on exploitation and unequal power distribution based on private ownership and creating more efficiency in the capitalist mode of exploitation by introducing scientific principles.

Then disdain in short is because it is the ultimate sell out and poses symptomatic based cures instead of curing the disease.

[The Jay]

So liberal is viewed as synonymous with democrat? I don't think that that's fair to the word. Was I wrong in that assessment? Thanks for the posts everybody btw.

[PhoenixAsh]

So liberal is viewed as synonymous with democrat? I don't think that that's fair to the word. Was I wrong in that assessment? Thanks for the posts everybody btw.

Well liberalism in the US is found both in the Republican party and the Democratic party...though admittedly most liberals, as far as I can tell, are in the left wing of the democratic and the Green Party.

THat said...liberals always oppose socialism.

[The Jay]

I thought that to be socialist/ect. was to be the most liberal, in the sense of most shared power. If that's not the case then what would a liberal policy look like compared to a socialist one?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Well liberalism in the US is found both in the Republican party and the Democratic party...though admittedly most liberals, as far as I can tell, are in the left wing of the democratic and the Green Party.

THat said...liberals always oppose socialism.
This, and there reasoning is usually the one liner "it sounds good on paper"...

[Dumb]

A liberal policy would be to maintain capitalist enterprises, and to redistribute a portion of their income in order to fund some very basic welfare programs (and wars, and prisons, and police...). A socialist policy would be to abolish capitalist enterprises altogether and establish collective control of production; this would eliminate the profit motive (and its symptoms) as well as eliminating the need for a welfare system altogether.

[¿Que?]

The problem is that the word liberal has different connotations in different context. In the modern age, liberal has become synonymous with leftists, although it still carries some of the baggage of the past. The word used to be practically synonymous with capitalist, in the sense that liberals wanted to "liberalize" economies from the constraints and regulations of national leaders. Those who were conservative, wanted to maintain national control of economies, but not in the modern sense, but in control of a monarch or emperor. This is where the word neo-liberalism comes from. It is employing the classical definition of liberalism.

While it is true that today liberals tend to be on the left, and tend to favor regulated markets and often even nationalization, the fact is, modern usage suggests at best reformism. Liberals today are not concerned with overturning the current social structures.

What I'm saying, though is that the distinction between classical liberalism and modern liberalism is really only a matter of degrees, because both still support capitalism to a certain extent. Therefore, it is still valid for socialists to decry liberalism in both senses of the word.

[#FF0000]

If that's not the case then what would a liberal policy look like compared to a socialist one?

Depends. It'd be sorta centrist overall (it's blatant in Europe where Liberal parties are usually in the center while parties to the left are more social democratic)

Honestly I'm having a hard time telling you what liberal policy would look like. I was going to say somewhat interventionist economic policy with some social programs without going into the realm of a full-on welfare state.

But then conservatives are sorta for the same thing -- they just intervene in economics in a different manner.

A socialist policy on the otherhand would be total abolition of private property and wage labor. So, yeah, markedly different from any policy you could call "liberal".

[#FF0000]

p.s. things make a little more sense if you don't look at things as a sliding scale. If someone is super-ultra liberal, that doesn't mean they fall into the realm of socialist. At the same time, if someone is super-ultra conservative, they don't necessarily fall into the realm of reactionary/fascist.

[RadioRaheem84]

As most right wingers have put it to me Communism = extreme liberalism. No joke.

Liberalism is capitalism, plain and simple. It calls for more taxes to redistribute some of the proceeds to repair the excesses of society. That is all. It doesn't question the social relationships within production, it doesn't have a class analysis and it most certainly does not believe in transcending capitalism. It believes in the natural arguments behind it that right wingers also believe.

[tfb]

Search youtube for "Love Me I'm a Liberal". Listen to the Phil Ochs version first.

[Smyg]

In Europe, a liberal can be either centre-right or just right.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Liberalism is a different philosophical system, although it has many similarities with socialism. It comes out of the 1700s and 1800s and is predicated on political equality, the belief being that one can have political equality amongst all men despite wealth inequality. Political equality, in the mind of the old liberal, comes from freedom to make a choice. Political power comes from voting. Some of our great philosophers were liberals-Hume, Locke, and the American revolution is probably the most famous liberal revolution in history.

Socialism on the other hand is predicated on the inability to talk about true equality without a discussion of economics and economic power. Your social welfare, in the mind of a socialist, is a major determinant in one's real liberty. In this system, political and social power is seen as coming from ownership over the means of production as collectives of people, not individuals.


It should be noted though that liberals and socialists often have similar aims, or even the same aims. Take a cause like women's rights or Gay marriage-both have become a major liberal causes, but is likewise a cause for many socialists. The main difference is that, as other posters have said, liberals will only attack symptoms of Capitalism's failure and not Capitalism itself. Perhaps this is why Conservatives cannot tell the difference anymore. Perhaps it is also why liberals and socialists/communists have allied many times before in history. But Communists and liberals do not always work well together, contrary to what morons in the American media think.

Remember, liberalism really isn't just "more centered Leftism", maybe both systems can be grouped as "Leftwing" or whatever but there are some significant distinctions in perspective.

[RadioRaheem84]

Better yet, liberals stop short of economic equality and extending their love of democracy in the political sphere into the economic sphere.

Their calls for social justice are really just political calls to give people more access to capitalism.

[Blake's Baby]

EDIT: Damn, others posted whiole I was answering Smyg...

On liberals being 'centre-right':

Or centre-left, like the Liberal Democrats (at least the 'Social Liberal' wing of the Liberal Democrats in the UK, as opposed to the centre-right 'Market Liberal' wing...).

In general: social democrats (who are 'left wing') want the state to guarentee a 'nice' functioning of capitalism; liberals (who are generally centrist) don't trust the state much but want 'nice' capitalism because people are you know, nice; and conservatives (who are 'right wing') want to be carried to their golden thrones by a billion slavering slaves. Because you know, they're worth it. All - social democrats, liberals and conservatives - support capitalism.

Socialists on the other hand want to destroy capitalism. So no, being a 'liberal' has little do with being a socialist.

[the Left™]

Liberals-- capitalists with a human face

[freethinker]

Liberalism is a different philosophical system, although it has many similarities with socialism. It comes out of the 1700s and 1800s and is predicated on political equality, the belief being that one can have political equality amongst all men despite wealth inequality. Political equality, in the mind of the old liberal, comes from freedom to make a choice. Political power comes from voting. Some of our great philosophers were liberals-Hume, Locke, and the American revolution is probably the most famous liberal revolution in history.

Socialism on the other hand is predicated on the inability to talk about true equality without a discussion of economics and economic power. Your social welfare, in the mind of a socialist, is a major determinant in one's real liberty. In this system, political and social power is seen as coming from ownership over the means of production as collectives of people, not individuals.


It should be noted though that liberals and socialists often have similar aims, or even the same aims. Take a cause like women's rights or Gay marriage-both have become a major liberal causes, but is likewise a cause for many socialists. The main difference is that, as other posters have said, liberals will only attack symptoms of Capitalism's failure and not Capitalism itself. Perhaps this is why Conservatives cannot tell the difference anymore. Perhaps it is also why liberals and socialists/communists have allied many times before in history. But Communists and liberals do not always work well together, contrary to what morons in the American media think.

Remember, liberalism really isn't just "more centered Leftism", maybe both systems can be grouped as "Leftwing" or whatever but there are some significant distinctions in perspective.

"Applause"

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

So liberal is viewed as synonymous with democrat? I don't think that that's fair to the word. Was I wrong in that assessment? Thanks for the posts everybody btw.

I think originally the word was in reference to those whom supported unregulated, free-market, Randian capitalism; I believe this is it's meaning in the classical sense see the Tea Party, Mises Institute and others for modern examples of this tendency. In modern political discourse it (as other comrades have pointed out) refers to those whom are more progressive but ultimately support capitalism, reformist or those whom retard the class struggle and are against policies which are necessary (peaceful revolution types).

I think it would be safe to say that in America it would essentially mean those whom are socially liberal but fiscally conservative meaning that when it comes to social issues such as homosexual marriage, drug issues, etc. they are liberal but when it comes to the economy they are conservative in that they are 'ok' with government regulation and intervention in the market place. As opposed to conservatives who are socially conservative but fiscally liberal and only advocate laissez-faire capitalism.

I think the reason for the disdain in the far-left or labor movement would be obvious in their support of capitalism and other various issues which we seek to abolish. Further, while they admittedly help us accomplish some of our goals in the short-term they retard the revolution with their reforms and leave the disillusioned and those whom aren't class concious to believe that all that needs to be done is reform capitalism and make it "nice." You really could go on and on what is wrong with liberalism of any stripe.

But to answer your question it can used to described some Democrats and has become synonymous with the Party however I think it goes against the original meaning of the term.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

In Europe, a liberal can be either centre-right or just right.Here too. It just so happens that "center-right" is about as far "left" as bourgeois politics gets in the Land of the Free.

[Independent Socialist]

Liberals generally believe in Keynesian capitalism, the belief that social welfare should exist but the free market also should. Look, liberalism and keynsianism is better than laissez faire capitalism, nobody is denying that. However, if any corporations exist in a society, the society is not socialist, but rather a mixed economy. However, liberals do agree with socialists in terms of some short term demands and socialists can work with liberals on certain issues such as social justice

[GPDP]

Liberalism is the ideology of the bourgeoisie, first and foremost. It has a "left" tendency to it, but I would say what we know as modern "conservatism" is nothing more than the far-right tendency of liberalism.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Liberalism is the ideology of the bourgeoisie, first and foremost. It has a "left" tendency to it, but I would say what we know as modern "conservatism" is nothing more than the far-right tendency of liberalism.

I tend to think of conservatism as the sick twisted love-child of liberalism and the remnants of old-fashioned aristocratic feudal attitudes. In most European countries and the USA they are wedded to the liberal system of wealth accumulation and political organization, and this is an important point to make. But it is easy to smell the sulfur of feudalism in their attitudes to the working classes and other marginalized groups, hence the reason they so revile the more "left-wing" liberals (and why some more mindless conservatives equate modern liberalism with "marxism").

[GPDP]

I tend to think of conservatism as the sick twisted love-child of liberalism and the remnants of old-fashioned aristocratic feudal attitudes. In most European countries and the USA they are wedded to the liberal system of wealth accumulation and political organization, and this is an important point to make. But it is easy to smell the sulfur of feudalism in their attitudes to the working classes and other marginalized groups, hence the reason they so revile the more "left-wing" liberals (and why some more mindless conservatives equate modern liberalism with "marxism").

Indeed, their social attitudes are a remnant of the classical Burkean conservatism of the late 1700's and early 1800's, which was a reaction to the newly upcoming bourgeois liberalism of that time. However, that conservatism has largely died out, as the old feudal order has been eliminated and its few token remnants rendered irrelevant.

This is why I classify modern conservatism as the far-right of liberalism. Where classical conservatism opposed the emergence of capitalism, today's conservatism fully embraces it. All that remains of it are some of its backwards social views, as well as its extreme disdain for democracy (though it has at least learned to pay lip service to it instead of openly arguing against it, leaving that task to the fascists). Otherwise, it's still squarely within much the same worldview of today's liberalism.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Liberals are bourgeois reformists.

[GPDP]

Liberals are bourgeois reformists.

Only in US mainstream political rhetoric. Liberalism encompasses more than just its reformist tendency. Would you say neo-liberalism is reformist?

[Red And Black Sabot]

Revolutionary leftists are not liberals and liberals are not revolutionary leftists. We don't have the same interests. In fact, we have very little in common.
In fact, I think liberals are about as slimy as it gets as they obscure their pro-capitalist, pro status quo agenda behind their cute niceties and willingness for compromise. If anything, they serve to pacify resistance in acting as if this system could work for all of us if we just passed the right legislation, got the right candidates elected, or even worse, if we just talked nice toward each other.
As though the problem isn't that the distribution of wealth and power is horribly concentrated but that those with wealth and power just need to be a little bit nicer. That's where bullshit terms like "classism" come in.
When there's serious social problems, liberals never go to the root. They never try to solve it. They simply throw a bunch of money at it and pat themselves on the back so they feel good about it later but leave the marginalized and excluded with nothing but their charity.
I certainly resent them. In fact, I'd rather have a conversation with a conservative because at least they're honest... They might be sacks of shit but they stand for something which makes it easy to define them. A lot of them are pissed off too so I can relate. Liberals on the other hand are into whatever sounds hip and progressive but only in passing and only on the surface.
If you see a lot of scorn here for liberals it's probably because revolutionary leftists want to get shit done and want to get shit done now but every time we make an honest effort, the first group of folks who get in our way and recuperate our efforts or block them flat out are the liberals.

[NewLeft]

Liberals have leftists attitudes?? I am not sure where people are getting this idea from.. This must be a US centered thread because liberals here are the masters of keynesian.

[Le Socialiste]

Liberalism does not equal Leftism in that it seeks to reform capitalism (or at least pretend to). Among the majority of Democrats (who are considered liberals), the consensus is that capitalism isn't inherently destructive or exploitative - it's the men and women in charge who bring such qualities to the system. They believe capitalism can be reformed to serve the people, when in reality it simply can't. Liberals seek to better the existing structures of capitalism and governance; revolutionary leftists want to bring those structures down.

[Geiseric]

it doesnt mean anything here, stalinists just call people that so they feel more revolutionary or whatever. Nobody who posts regularly on this site is a liberal. Stalinists also are trying to hide the fact that their political movements always ally with liberal ones.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

it doesnt mean anything here, stalinists just call people that so they feel more revolutionary or whatever. Nobody who posts regularly on this site is a liberal. Stalinists also are trying to hide the fact that their political movements always ally with liberal ones.

/Trotskyite rant.

[Geiseric]

I'll stop ranting if you guys stop saying revisionist and liberal. It would increase the board membership too, if there weren't people denying the great purges.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

I'll stop ranting if you guys stop saying revisionist and liberal. It would increase the board membership too, if there weren't people denying the great purges.

To my credit I have not once called anyone here a liberal nor have I called anyone a revisionist aside from perhaps Khrushchev or Mao or some other figure from history; that's about it. Also, I haven't seen anyone else do it here really except the few crazies that don't last long like 'Ryan the Commie Girl' and others. I haven't really seen the rest of us usual ML posters randomnly labeling others revisionists or liberals either.

[CAleftist]

Liberalism is the political system that evolved at the same time the economic system of Capitalism evolved in the "West" (Britain and the United States especially). So it's hard to talk about Liberalism without Capitalism, as political systems are based on economic systems.

Liberalism in the 1700s was one of the ideologies of the emerging bourgeoisie (Toryism was another) in Britain and America, and in the historical context of bourgeois politics, the American version, which became the central ideology and foundation of American politics, was actually quite radical-components of their ideology included constitutionalism, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, "free and fair" elections, "representative" democracy, and others of the "natural rights of men." But keep in mind, this was all in the context of the emerging capitalist economies at the time in Europe and America, not to mention the slave trade and the brutally repressive slave society that developed in the Southern United States. So any revolution would be a bourgeois revolution, and anything granted to the working class was done on the condition that it didn't harm bourgeois interests.

However, most people don't mean the liberals of the American Revolution when they say "liberal" nowadays. They are talking about "social liberalism", which is a variant of liberalism distinguished by on the one hand, embracing capitalism and "progress", while on the other hand, recognizing the need for reforms to strengthen capitalism-and the social welfare policies that the most reactionary elements of American politics love to demonize were designed with the intent to reform capitalism to make it stronger, not to bring about "social justice" or "social democracy" or any of that (though some people undoubtedly thought of themselves as doing such). Examples of "social liberal" programmes include the Progressive Era, the New Deal, and the Great Society.

It is "social liberalism" that the "left-wing" members of the Democratic Party model their political stances on. However, as the Republican Party has found out, it's quite easy for the populace to be suspicious of idealistic liberal "do-gooders." For one thing, they are thoroughly a bourgeois/petit-bourgeois "movement." Another thing to point out is that liberal leaders tend to come from the bourgeois intelligentsia and upper strata of the proletariat-they include lawyers, researchers, professors, writers, authors, and other "intellectual" positions. This group of "intellectual coordinators" for capital are an easily identifiable "liberal elite", even if the purpose of that identification is for the "conservative'" elite to win votes for the Republican Party.

Additional disdain comes from the fact that liberals, when pressed, are every bit as reactionary and belligerent as "conservatives" when it comes to genuine left-wing politics. The Democrats were the party that put the United States on a permanent war footing (Truman). Liberal Democrats like Hubert Humphrey were instrumental in the battles of the Cold War. John F. Kennedy was a Cold Warrior, and Lyndon Johnson even more so. Jimmy Carter? Please. (I don't think I need to state that the last two Democratic administrations have been essentially identical on major policy issues to the recent Republican administrations).

So yeah, to make a long story short...the disdain for liberals is richly deserved.

[ericksolvi]

The way I see the world tends to group things together. The guys on here are very well informed about all the different and specific leftist ideologies, and therefor they like to use their knowledge to make fine distinctions. The way I look at is is simplified, maybe over simplified. Just far left to far right and a continuum running between the two. As far as I'm concerned everyone on the left is on the same side, be they liberals, communists, anarchists. Better to be confusing as a big group, then be concise as a bunch of little groups, power in numbers no?

[The Jay]

The way I see the world tends to group things together. The guys on here are very well informed about all the different and specific leftist ideologies, and therefor they like to use their knowledge to make fine distinctions. The way I look at is is simplified, maybe over simplified. Just far left to far right and a continuum running between the two. As far as I'm concerned everyone on the left is on the same side, be they liberals, communists, anarchists. Better to be confusing as a big group, then be concise as a bunch of little groups, power in numbers no?

I would concede that if we were talking about reforming the current gov't to be more socialistic through a single-payer health care system, banking reform, ect., but from a revolutionary perspective liberals are either potential converts or adversaries. Almost everyone here falls into the second category, kinda fitting with the name of the site lol.

[ericksolvi]

I would concede that if we were talking about reforming the current gov't to be more socialistic through a single-payer health care system, banking reform, ect., but from a revolutionary perspective liberals are either potential converts or adversaries. Almost everyone here falls into the second category, kinda fitting with the name of the site lol.

I don't see full fledged revolution starting tomorrow. However the current climate has made people more receptive to new ideas. My inclusive attitude is a situational response. It is in fact what I see as the best method for gaining converts, at this time. There are not enough communists in the US to mount a revolution. This is the time invite more people into the movement, even if they are first enticed with a softer kind of rhetoric, and aren't really fully on board with revolution.
Over time people can be made to have more understanding and tolerance for revolutionary ideology, but only if we can get them to give it a good hard look. Once the message has been spread, even mainstreamed to some extent, we need only wait for the next crisis to begin full revolution.
I'm really more extreme then I let on. Sometimes I just can't help being contrary, you learn so much more that way. On more centrist sites I throw out far left ideas, on this far left site I throw out more centrist ideas. I do this to see the counter arguments of others. To be honest my ideal system doesn't even have money in it. But I will never say that in front of people I'm trying to convince of my point of view, it's too out there. People need to be eased into new ideas.
Right now ideological purists, who lack the sense to tailor their rhetoric to their audience, are the movements worst enemy. I will do anything to spread the message, if that means being nice to liberals, so be it.

[EvilRedGuy]

My liberal teacher is an asshole who removes my Anarchist symbol on my computer's desktop.

[tir1944]

My liberal teacher is an asshole who removes my Anarchist symbol on my computer's desktop.
Oppression!

[EvilRedGuy]

He does it all the time, its fucking annoying.

[GPDP]

The way I see the world tends to group things together. The guys on here are very well informed about all the different and specific leftist ideologies, and therefor they like to use their knowledge to make fine distinctions. The way I look at is is simplified, maybe over simplified. Just far left to far right and a continuum running between the two. As far as I'm concerned everyone on the left is on the same side, be they liberals, communists, anarchists. Better to be confusing as a big group, then be concise as a bunch of little groups, power in numbers no?

But liberals AREN'T on our side. At least, not those who have any idea about what liberalism actually entails. A case may be made for self-identified "liberal" workers (who I like to call in-the-closet socialists), yes, but liberal politicians, leaders, and organizations? Hell no. They turn on us and hinder us at every step of the way. Always have, and always will.

There is no clean continuum. Liberalism is an entirely separate ideology from revolutionary socialism. Perhaps you can make a case for a continuum within ideologies, but certainly not between them.

[Blake's Baby]

Left wing, right wing, it's the same old capitalist bird.

Either you're for the self-emancipation of the working class and the overthrow of capitalism (Marxists and class-struggle Anarchists) or you are not. There is no continuum there. One is either a revolutionary or a supporter of the status quo. There's no reason for us to ally with one faction of the ruling class to oppose the faction of the ruling class. As revolutionaries we oppose all the factions of the ruling class. There is no common ground between revolutionaries and liberals.

Do you oppose capitalism?
Us - yes; them - no.

Do you support private property and classes?
Us - no; them - yes.

Do you support workers' self organisation?
Us - yes; them - no.

Do you support the national state and its wars?
Us - no; them - yes.

Liberalism is a pro-capitalist ieology (as others have said, the ideology of capitalism par excellence). Socialism (of either the Marxist or Anarchist variety) is diametrically opposed to it. What you're proposing is a confidence trick to sucker in people to a 'movement' that is prepared to hide its own ideology in a quest for power or converts. Good luck with that.

[ericksolvi]

Do you have any better ideas?
Or are you just going to keep setting revolutionary symbols as your computer back round and complaining?
I am first and foremost a rationalist. By any means necessary, should be our mindset. Some people on this site, a few individuals I'm not trying to imply this about everyone, have straight up said that they support violence as a means to revolution. I just can't imagine why any rational person would choose violence over toned down rhetoric. In the long run anything that works is best.
Is playing nice with others really that distasteful?
How do you get through life if you look at the world and see mostly brainwashed masses, and evil masters? Wouldn't that leave you feeling unbelievably angry.
And before you answer "Yes I'm angry and you should be too" realize that I consider emotion the antithesis of reason. If I got angry thinking about something I wouldn't trust myself to make accurate assessments of that thing, because I would assume that my thinking on the matter would be skewed.
From a place of cold rationality I can say that I believe capitalism is dying. It's like a shark that needs to move forward (continually generate more capital, and expanding) to survive, and there's no more forward left, systems are shrinking and collapsing. Now Marx said the thing to do in this situation is institute communism, should have happened sooner. It has nothing to do with anger about how terrible the masses have been treated. It's about trying to save the human race from self destruction. :crying:

[EvilRedGuy]

Do you have any better ideas?
Or are you just going to keep setting revolutionary symbols as your computer back round and complaining?
I am first and foremost a rationalist. By any means necessary, should be our mindset. Some people on this site, a few individuals I'm not trying to imply this about everyone, have straight up said that they support violence as a means to revolution. I just can't imagine why any rational person would choose violence over toned down rhetoric. In the long run anything that works is best.
Is playing nice with others really that distasteful?
How do you get through life if you look at the world and see mostly brainwashed masses, and evil masters? Wouldn't that leave you feeling unbelievably angry.
And before you answer "Yes I'm angry and you should be too" realize that I consider emotion the antithesis of reason. If I got angry thinking about something I wouldn't trust myself to make accurate assessments of that thing, because I would assume that my thinking on the matter would be skewed.
From a place of cold rationality I can say that I believe capitalism is dying. It's like a shark that needs to move forward (continually generate more capital, and expanding) to survive, and there's no more forward left, systems are shrinking and collapsing. Now Marx said the thing to do in this situation is institute communism, should have happened sooner. It has nothing to do with anger about how terrible the masses have been treated. It's about trying to save the human race from self destruction. :crying:


Dude...

[ericksolvi]

Dude...

Yes?

[The Jay]

Dude...

dude . . . this isn't where I parked my car.

[ericksolvi]

dude . . . this isn't where I parked my car.

That's a fairly inane. I don't get it.

[Blake's Baby]

...
How do you get through life if you look at the world and see mostly brainwashed masses, and evil masters? Wouldn't that leave you feeling unbelievably angry.
And before you answer "Yes I'm angry and you should be too" realize that I consider emotion the antithesis of reason. If I got angry thinking about something I wouldn't trust myself to make accurate assessments of that thing, because I would assume that my thinking on the matter would be skewed...

But you're being emotional, you're assuming that 'people of good will' should be able to work together, and you're assuming that the reason more people aren't socialist is because they're suckers (and you want to sucker them with something else). Where is 'rationality' there? Isn't incredibly elitist of you to assume that lying to people (who you obviously think are stupid) about what you believe is a better way to convince them to do what you want (which is obviously right because you're better than them) than, you know, telling them the truth?

If socialism is the only way humanity can rescue itself from the horrors of cxapitalism, and if socialism can only be built by the working class, it is absolutely imperative that socialists tell the truth. Anything else is a vile con-trick. It is the antithesis of being 'rational'.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Liberalism is a capitalistic set of idealogies. Since the one goal that all revolutionary leftist movement shares is the dismantling of capitalism and the imperialism inherent in it, we're not fond of liberalism.

[ericksolvi]

But you're being emotional, you're assuming that 'people of good will' should be able to work together, and you're assuming that the reason more people aren't socialist is because they're suckers (and you want to sucker them with something else). Where is 'rationality' there? Isn't incredibly elitist of you to assume that lying to people (who you obviously think are stupid) about what you believe is a better way to convince them to do what you want (which is obviously right because you're better than them) than, you know, telling them the truth?

If socialism is the only way humanity can rescue itself from the horrors of cxapitalism, and if socialism can only be built by the working class, it is absolutely imperative that socialists tell the truth. Anythng else is a vile con-trick. It is the antithesis of being 'rational'.

Actually I assume people are both rational, and have free will. This being true if communism is presented to them in a way that makes them want to learn more, they will choose it. Most people would be communists if existing communists did a better job of convincing other people of the superiority of communism.
If a PR firm were to be hired to find a better way to market communism what do you think they would recommend? Ludicrous, and probably offensive to some, but it's a serious question.

[EvilRedGuy]

Liberalism is popular capitalism. Mainstream capitalism, while Conservatism are its jealous brother who always messes up.

[CAleftist]

Liberalism is popular capitalism. Mainstream capitalism, while Conservatism are its jealous brother who always messes up.

I would venture that liberalism is an exceedingly elitist ideology, both theoretically and in its concrete support.

[Lucretia]

Liberalism is a thoroughly capitalist ideology, so of course it's a dirty word among socialists.