Liberals and Conservatives

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

Can anyone assimilate a contrast between Conservatives and Liberals on the bases of their axioms? One could adduce the social incongruity, but fundamentally they're tantamount.

Secondly, by what method can we acquaint Socialism in an unbiased approach
to US politics?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Liberals and conservatives are the same branch of the bourgeoisie. Both groups have a vested interest in defending the capitalist mode of production but simply have different means of doing so.

Generally,liberals believe in "defending" minorities, affirmative action, gay rights, and so forth while the republicans are anti all this. Republicans oppose all this and full heartedly defend the rich (so do the democrats but they have some thin veneer that throws off the ignorant).

It is difficult to really go into details because both parties swing so much it is hard to give a exact definition. Ultimately, both parties aren't going to do anything for the working class and for racial and sexual minorities they are still going to live as second class citizens.

Your second question doesn't make much sense. We acquaint it by advocating it?

[Bostana]

Tomato Tamoto.

They're both branch's of Capitalism that clame to know what is best for the working class. End yet none of them has yet to fix anything.

[x359594]

Among the deepest assumptions of both liberals and conservatives are the following:

1) Individuality cannot be "reduced" to its social and economic determinants. If all of these could be listed, a core or essence of personality would remain. Each personality is equally unique and precious, each equally ineffable.

2) The timeless, hallowed core or essence is more important than any of the merely external factors that create empirical selves. Liberals admit the existence of these factors in hopes of aiding the "better" self against them. Conservatives ascribe destiny to choice. For both, the ultimate unit of reality is the individual--not the economic system, class, race, sex or their specific conjunctures.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

Liberals and conservatives are the same branch of the bourgeoisie. Both groups have a vested interest in defending the capitalist mode of production but simply have different means of doing so.

Generally,liberals believe in "defending" minorities, affirmative action, gay rights, and so forth while the republicans are anti all this. Republicans oppose all this and full heartedly defend the rich (so do the democrats but they have some thin veneer that throws off the ignorant).

It is difficult to really go into details because both parties swing so much it is hard to give a exact definition. Ultimately, both parties aren't going to do anything for the working class and for racial and sexual minorities they are still going to live as second class citizens.

Your second question doesn't make much sense. We acquaint it by advocating it?
Acquainting as in introduce socialism and socialist ideologies to the United States political system.

[x359594]

Acquainting as in introduce socialism and socialist ideologies to the United States political system.

The problem is educating the public (in the US anyway) to what socialism actually is.

The term "socialism" has been used in the mainstream media fairly often since the 2008 financial industry bailouts, but as the corporate media uses the word it has nothing to do with actual socialism. This why the right can label Obama a socialist and why liberals disavow the label as an insult.

It will take a herculean educational campaign to inform the American people about socialism.

[RedSonRising]

Nowadays, it seems like it's just neo-liberals on a nostalgia trip for Adam Smith's outdated market model VS Keynsians trying to "save the brown people."

[NewLeft]

The problem is educating the public (in the US anyway) to what socialism actually is.

The term "socialism" has been used in the mainstream media fairly often since the 2008 financial industry bailouts, but as the corporate media uses the word it has nothing to do with actual socialism. This why the right can label Obama a socialist and why liberals disavow the label as an insult.

It will take a herculean educational campaign to inform the American people about socialism.
the corporate media has used the word for clinton too. it's not like this is a new practice. would the american even want socialism?


Nowadays, it seems like it's just neo-liberals on a nostalgia trip for Adam Smith's outdated market model VS Keynsians trying to "save the brown people."
what are you talking about

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Liberals pretend to try to fix the problem; conservatives are too stupid to even pretend.
Take this pink slime issue that is going on.

Liberals are "creating awareness" and pretending that they are going to fix everything.

Rick Perry is off supporting those companies that still make pink slime and making tee shirts that say "Dude, it's beef."

[x359594]

...would the american even want socialism?

Public opinion polls show that a majority of US citizens are inclined toward some degree of wealth re-distribution, control of the work place, public ownership of the oil industry, etc.

These nascent desires need to be nurtured. Perhaps the word "socialism" is too loaded with negative connotations. Perhaps the expression "cooperative commonwealth" should be brought back into vogue.

[Revolution starts with U]

Both tend towards market based sucess as a measure of worth, hero worship of the founding fathers and other american "great men," ie nationalism, propertarian idealism.

Conservatives promote prosperity through self-centered grit and determination, white/american supremacy, christian zeal, patriarchy, and strong heirarchy.

Liberals promote prosperity through education, minority "protection," wealth redistribution, christian secularism, weak patriarchy, weak heirarchy, and internationalism.

Socialists promote prosperity through class struggle, class awareness, non-nationalism, secularism, non-heirarchy, and populism.

You can't promote socialism non-biasedly, as it is necessarily biased to the proletariat (in theory at least).