Should we be more upset at liberals or conservatives?

[RadioRaheem84]

We know where right wingers stand, but with liberals it's a bit harder to figure out.

How can people who follow this political persuasion see the nation sink lower and lower into poverty and only think of reform?

This boggles the mind, especially since the reform they seek to implement is the same reform that was undone by the opposition and is still being undone.

How can they continue to set the framework to stop at abolishing the capitalist system while claiming to be revolutionary?

What is the appeal of reform? Is it out of fear of their being "no alternative", no horizon past capitalism that keeps people from fundamentally questioning the status quo?

[Decolonize The Left]

We know where right wingers stand, but with liberals it's a bit harder to figure out.

How can people who follow this political persuasion see the nation sink lower and lower into poverty and only think of reform?

Because liberal ideology is built around reform. For the liberal, the state is not a problem. The government is not a problem. The capitalist economic system is not a problem. What is a problem is how they are being run.


This boggles the mind, especially since the reform they seek to implement is the same reform that was undone by the opposition and is still being undone.

How can they continue to set the framework to stop at abolishing the capitalist system while claiming to be revolutionary?

I don't know any liberals who claim to be revolutionary - at least not in a real sense. They might talk about 'revolution' as they talk about 'fascism', you know, key words to generalize about an event/party.


What is the appeal of reform? Is it out of fear of their being "no alternative", no horizon past capitalism that keeps people from fundamentally questioning the status quo?

The appeal of reform is obvious as it provides the least amount of resistance. It's easier to reform when you don't have to do anything except vote every now and then and pay taxes. Plus it affords you the luxury of being upset when things don't go your way. You can blame the authorities. Revolution is very difficult and may cost you your life. How would you be able to watch Conan or Twilight if you're dead?

- August

[RadioRaheem84]

I think you're right, the appeal of reform is that it's safe and offers the least lethal form of resistance.

I really think it's out of fear people accept reform.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I don't think it's just out of fear but also a sense of no alternative. It's like "we're stuck with what we got, let's make the best of it," kind of mentality.

[Commissar Rykov]

I don't think it's just out of fear but also a sense of no alternative. It's like "we're stuck with what we got, let's make the best of it," kind of mentality.
Exactly, I have seen these kinds of comments from the local Occupy Movement and it is utterly frustrating as they seem unwilling or uninterested in other alternatives to the situation. Though I have heard a few suggest that the time for reform is likely over and dead which I find an interesting development.

[OHumanista]

I don't think it's just out of fear but also a sense of no alternative. It's like "we're stuck with what we got, let's make the best of it," kind of mentality.

Indeed. Most people can't even imagine an alternative, so they think there is none and that reform is the only way to go.

[RadioRaheem84]

is it just because people think that history is going in some linear fashion? That Communism failed so reform is the only hope?

[PC LOAD LETTER]

is it just because people think that history is going in some linear fashion? That Communism failed so reform is the only hope?
In my experience they don't consider Communism a viable alternative ... mostly because they don't know what it is.
In the US at least ... they think it's some wild dictatorship (thanks, Stalin ... ).

[tir1944]

The further towards socialism a country goes,the worse capitalist Agitprop against it gets.;)

[eric922]

It is a complicate question, because liberalism isn't very well defined anymore. Most people who call themselves liberals today are really social-democrats and would like to see a form of the Nordic Model in the U.S. In the case of these liberals I tend to think of them as allies. A lot of them probably want socialism, but it is very hard to break through all the propaganda that says its impossible, we should work with them for reform, but keep reminding them that if and when reform fails there is another option.

Notice above I said most liberals, because there is a small subset of liberals that really annoy me. A poster on the forum Democratic Underground refereed to them as "latte liberal," Which I think is a good description of that small group of people who call themselves liberals, but don't care about politics or economics, but consider a lifestyle. This group is very elitist, they are vegans a lot of the time, drink fancy coffee, have college degrees. There isn't anything wrong with any of those things, but as I said this sub-group are very elitist and that is the problem.

[Commissar Rykov]

is it just because people think that history is going in some linear fashion? That Communism failed so reform is the only hope?
Many I have talked to do seem to view history in a linear fashion. They feel that the USSR failed either because the ideals didn't work or Stalin corrupted them and thus they feel the ideal is dead because of the damage done. As eric mentions there are the two camps and one seems much more sympathetic to Revolutionary Left ideas but tend to avoid them as they feel it has been ruined by rampant authoritarianism that damaged the ideas of Marx. The other subset are just obnoxious hipsters who care more about how they come off then they do the actual ideas they support.

[dodger]

Not a Latte,more a double espresso ....to go. Seriously who would want their problems. Is anybody in control? It worries the hell out of me. Not much evidence of social or democratic policies from these liberals. Even less evidence that they wish to defend social or democratic gains won by workers over many years. Left and right look equally threadbare bereft. Do these terms resonate as once they did? Left and right? With a punch up on election night. I am not a politico, perhaps that is why I cannot see the difference between any of them. Am I missing something? My instincts tell me, my experience screams it...they are pretty much all the same . Two cheeks of the same arsehole as vulgar tube drivers have said. Our union parted company with LABOUR...we are recruiting and healthy, whilst they are losing members. Important financial backers...to say nothing of Murdoch have pulled the plug on them. Weep. It was not Labour or EU that rescued my occupation pensions..or any sobbing liberal. Liberals need victims...preference given to perpetual victims..Anyone round here feel like taking on the role ? Liberal or victim, I mean...

[ZeroNowhere]

Do we have to be more upset at one than the other? It's not like they're different enough to merit the inconsistency.

[GPDP]

It is a complicate question, because liberalism isn't very well defined anymore. Most people who call themselves liberals today are really social-democrats and would like to see a form of the Nordic Model in the U.S. In the case of these liberals I tend to think of them as allies. A lot of them probably want socialism, but it is very hard to break through all the propaganda that says its impossible, we should work with them for reform, but keep reminding them that if and when reform fails there is another option.

All too true. I like to call this subset of liberals "closet socialists." The problem with this group is that they are not very well versed in political ideology other than what they get out of their school education and the media and such. Thus, they describe themselves as liberals, as that is the term that the mainstream deems to be the "left" in political discourse. Some of them might call themselves socialists, albeit referring more to social-democracy rather than real socialism. In any case, I do believe this group is definitely on our side for the most part, and are often very open-minded and receptive to socialist ideas.


Notice above I said most liberals, because there is a small subset of liberals that really annoy me. A poster on the forum Democratic Underground refereed to them as "latte liberal," Which I think is a good description of that small group of people who call themselves liberals, but don't care about politics or economics, but consider a lifestyle. This group is very elitist, they are vegans a lot of the time, drink fancy coffee, have college degrees. There isn't anything wrong with any of those things, but as I said this sub-group are very elitist and that is the problem.

And then there's THESE assholes. Although I'd argue this "elitist" subgroup also includes what I like to call "policy wonk" liberals. The kind that go to Georgetown, read The Nation and other establishment journals, and get into development economics and other bourgeois bullshittery, while pretending to care for the common man. RR84 can tell you more about this group, since he used to be one of them. :D

[GatesofLenin]

Exactly, I have seen these kinds of comments from the local Occupy Movement and it is utterly frustrating as they seem unwilling or uninterested in other alternatives to the situation. Though I have heard a few suggest that the time for reform is likely over and dead which I find an interesting development.

Just to add, I saw a banner last week at OWS: "We love the USA, we love capitalism, we're the 99%". Surely boggles the mind.

[Commissar Rykov]

Just to add, I saw a banner last week at OWS: "We love the USA, we love capitalism, we're the 99%". Surely boggles the mind.
Aye, and when you bring up that this is the natural evolution of capitalism they start balking and suggest they can stop it from happening. Good fucking luck on that but history has proven that capital must concentrate into a few hands due to the nature of the markets and the need to manipulate the markets for maximum profit.

[RadioRaheem84]

And then there's THESE assholes. Although I'd argue this "elitist" subgroup also includes what I like to call "policy wonk" liberals. The kind that go to Georgetown, read The Nation and other establishment journals, and get into development economics and other bourgeois bullshittery, while pretending to care for the common man. RR84 can tell you more about this group, since he used to be one of them. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/biggrin.gif

This is the worst group of people in regards to the working class perspective. Not even populist right wingers are as elitist as this group.

Policy wonk technocrat liberals think they're entitled to take over any movement because of their educational credentials and connection to the establishment.

Cenk from the Young Turks comes to mind. He's way more down to Earth but he falls into that category.

[LewisQ]

Liberals are the natural enemies of the working class. There's no ambiguity about where conservatives stand. Liberals blur the battle-lines and wilfully impede the development of class consciousness.

[eric922]

This is the worst group of people in regards to the working class perspective. Not even populist right wingers are as elitist as this group.

Policy wonk technocrat liberals think they're entitled to take over any movement because of their educational credentials and connection to the establishment.

Cenk from the Young Turks comes to mind. He's way more down to Earth but he falls into that category.
I'm surprised to hear that about Cenk, since he seems to be one of the few more reasonable pundits, of course I haven't seen more than a few clips of his show. Now Ed Schultz is a tool. Of course the only mainstream commentator I can stand is Olberman, and Current TV isn't exactly mainstream.

[Zav]

At least the liberals are trying to do something constructive and progressive (according to their ideology, anyway, not their practice).

[RadioRaheem84]

Cenk and Rachel Maddow would be prime examples of liberal policy wonk types. They believe in institutional legitimacy but are upset with how it's been "corrupted".

They're down to earth in comparison to some of the real deal policy wonks that are not in journalism.

[Broletariat]

All factions of the bourgeoisie are equally reactionary.

[Misanthrope]

Sure is false dichotomy in here

[GatesofLenin]

Aye, and when you bring up that this is the natural evolution of capitalism they start balking and suggest they can stop it from happening. Good fucking luck on that but history has proven that capital must concentrate into a few hands due to the nature of the markets and the need to manipulate the markets for maximum profit.

True and history has proven to us that North Americans lack the gumption to fight for their rights and will bend over easily to any sharp-lipped charlatan.

[Sugarnotch]

True and history has proven to us that North Americans lack the gumption to fight for their rights and will bend over easily to any sharp-lipped charlatan.

What history would that be?

North Americans have a fairly rich labor history; it has only been in the last 30 years or so that we've begun to not "fight for our rights" -- but that's more due to attacks by bourgeois propagandists than it is to character flaws.

[Commissar Rykov]

What history would that be?

North Americans have a fairly rich labor history; it has only been in the last 30 years or so that we've begun to not "fight for our rights" -- but that's more due to attacks by bourgeois propagandists than it is to character flaws.
Indeed, the Revolutionary Left was considered enemy number one for a long time in North America. A lot of violence, strikes and actions were taken that is why you saw such crushing blows dealt after the Bolshevik Revolution and continuing onwards until more recent times.

[Black_Rose]

Because liberal ideology is built around reform. For the liberal, the state is not a problem. The government is not a problem. The capitalist economic system is not a problem. What is a problem is how they are being run.


I would agree with liberals that the problem of capitalism is how the system is being run, but I am not a left-liberal because liberal "reform" does not provide a permanent, or even temporary, solution to the problem in the contemporary geopolitical setting. The problem is the modern manifestation of capitalism: neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is the system.





The appeal of reform is obvious as it provides the least amount of resistance. It's easier to reform when you don't have to do anything except vote every now and then and pay taxes. Plus it affords you the luxury of being upset when things don't go your way. You can blame the authorities. Revolution is very difficult and may cost you your life. How would you be able to watch Conan or Twilight if you're dead?

- August
My biggest fear is to die as an unarmed victim in a death squad massacre or persecution, and I would prefer to die as an armed combatant while a credible threat to my enemy, instead of suffering that fate. Of course, death is a risk, not the goal: the purpose of armed to resistance is to remove the bourgeoisie from power through armed means, and to do that, an armed combatant must survive the next day; one cannot pose a threat to one's enemies if one is deceased (although there might be some tactical situations a suicide attack may ). I laud the women (and men) guerrillas of FARC, and I see them as my moral superiors because I have some doubts whether I would actually risk my life for a revolutionary cause. They are truly courageous.

[ZeroNowhere]

At least the liberals are trying to do something constructive and progressive (according to their ideology, anyway, not their practice).
Perhaps that's because they view themselves and their ideas as determinants of world history, and base their views on eternal moral principles rather than historical necessity?

[The Stalinator]

Well, some liberals are just people who are blinded to the faults of capitalism and want to do the right thing. I'd know. I was that kind of liberal once. Not too long ago. Maybe I'm just getting this impression from my past experience, but especially the young ones seem to fit that description. However:

Liberalism is a slimy, sugar-coated version of oppressive capitalism. Its only upside is that people are given some basic rights to social freedom that they should've had in the first place. So the more "serious" liberals who fully understand capitalism's faults and handwave them just like conservatives do, I have a huge problem with. Hate the fuckers.

Conservatives are some of the most cold-hearted fucking people I've ever met. I won't even start on them. We all know what they say. Blame the poor. Destroy other peoples' cultures and ways of life in order to make room for rich white traditionalist Christians who've already been fucking with the rest of the country for the entirety of its existence. Fuck that shit.

I dunno. Maybe I'm being a bit too forgiving, but that's my opinion.

[GatesofLenin]

What history would that be?

North Americans have a fairly rich labor history; it has only been in the last 30 years or so that we've begun to not "fight for our rights" -- but that's more due to attacks by bourgeois propagandists than it is to character flaws.

Past 30 years have been taken over by "put the game on, pass the wings" mentality. My dad remembers the great 50's in Canada, where people cared what happened to them and their neighbours. Nowadays, it's me, myself and I.