I happen to like laziness and globalization.
also do you really have to preface this with your middle class guilt stuff? that shit's the worst. It comes across as oddly self-aggrandizing.
Results 1 to 9 of 9
Am I A Socialist?
Hi,
I recently started a series of NAME DELETED vlogs on Youtube, my first one being about globalisation (a bit off topic for socialism, I guess) and have had a lot of people telling me that my views are really not very socialist.
Here's the link to the Youtube video:
LINK DELETED
I'll also give a transcript for the 'Socialist' bit, omitting the intro:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, the first thing I wanted to talk about is globalisation, and, more specifically, the increasing Westernisation of foreign countries. In my opinion, it all comes down to this sort of cultural laziness that has descended in the west. It has come to the point now that I, as a middle-class teenager, would barely have to lift a finger to be able to eat well, and live in general comfort. Now, don't mistake this for some rant on how we should return to a stone-age style society in which we are all entirely independent and self-sufficient. That would be ridiculous. But the situation that we find ourselves in raises some serious issues. Vegetarianism and vegan-ism are two examples of this. I, personally am not a vegetarian. I don't have the energy or passion for it. But it seems to me that I, as part of the middle class, am able to buy and eat pork from a pig that has been fed, raised and slaughtered, and I could have all this for a nominal price. Is that OK? To live in a world where animals are slaughtered for me and I don't have to so much as hold a knife.
Now, I'm aware that, from a middle-class carnivore – well, omnivore – this is a tad hypocritical. But this isn't my main reservation – what I really object to is the way that we have “expanded” into other, poorer countries to accommodate this need. What's worse is the name we give it – not globalisation, necessarily, but development. Those who defend globalisation always refer to the good that it has created, the jobs that have been created, the money people have earned, all the success stories that have come out of our involvement in these countries. We have been the crutch, they say, that has helped this country off of it's feet and towards the realms of western affluence. But at what cost? And can we honestly say that this would not have happened in its own time, and in a more supportable and independant? For a country to have been forced to become so heavily dependant on the West is not development. It is imperialism. Imperialism of the worst kind – silent imperialism that has been dressed up under the name of development. You would have to be incredibly naïve to actually believe that we did it all solely for the betterment of these other countries and not to feed our own cultural laziness. We have lied not only to these other nations, but to ourselves as well, trying to justify our imperialism. But you can dress a pig up as a human being – you can dress George Bush and David Cameron up as human beings – but sooner or later, people are going to realise. It is still imperialism. We are still exploiting poorer countries to support our sloth and idleness.
Thanks,
NAME DELETED
Last edited by MarxSchmarx; 6th May 2014 at 12:17. Reason: Do not post personally identifiable information including names, links to images of yourself, etc...
I happen to like laziness and globalization.
also do you really have to preface this with your middle class guilt stuff? that shit's the worst. It comes across as oddly self-aggrandizing.
Suit yourself, there's nothing like a military coup / the clothes are great, and everybody loves a curfew.
Do you approve of a society where the means of productions are under people's control? If so, you are a socialist. There are no shades of this. Either you are a socialist or not.
Being against globalisation doesnt automatically gives people reason to believe you are a socialist. You could for example also just be a my-brain-is-turned-off nationalist who wants his/her nation to have their own autonomy from the rest of the world.
You could also be taking a more liberal or social democratic approach, just someone who wants to protect the jobs of hard working everyday [1st world country here]ians.
What aspects of globalization are you referring to Taters?
No offense, but you kind of come off as a know-it-all little prat in that video -- am I using that right? Like a cis gendered privilege white hetero who's going to save all of us helpless POCs, Queers and poor confused workers. Are you a Socialist? Dunno, where do you stand on property, patriarchy, racism, you know, the kinda stuff Socialists care about?
Noel Ignatiev: "Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity"
Marquis de Sade: "You young maidens, too long constrained by a fanciful Virtue's absurd and dangerous bonds and by those of a disgusting religion, imitate the fiery Eugénie; be as quick as she to destroy, to spurn all those ridiculous precepts inculcated in you by imbecile parents"
Political Spectrum, Simplified
Do you believe all men are equal and that nationalism and fascism is foolish? Do you believe in a society where those thay produce the goods control how they are made? Also do you agree woth a dictatorahip by the proletariet?
One thing is certain about the afterlife, what you do, who you are, and why you fight for those around you remains till the end.
I've been sort of lurking around these forums quite some time, and when I see a "Am I a (Type of Radical Leftist)?" it seems like the most common answer is no, mostly because the individual tends to have an eclectic mix of beliefs from all fields of the spectrum. In the end, one usually looks like a confused reactionary.
Now I don't want to stir any controversy, but I think it might be helpful if we engage this confusion and demystify its origins. It may be true that the original poster comes off as a privileged individual, but insulting him for this might not gain us his support.
I remember my journey towards socialist thought, and it was a long and difficult one and it took me many years to shake away my previously-held idealist, reactionary opinions. I'm still learning to this day, but much progress has been made since my conservative days.
I think it's therefore important that we recognize that our worldviews are constructed by the world around us. Many people are perfectly "good", but they have been raised and conditioned throughout their entire lives by capitalist and bourgeois ideology. To them, a lot of our ideas can seem alien, abnormal, or "on the fringe."
Therefore, directing personal critiques towards them right off the bat may not be all that useful. When one operates with an idealistic paradigm, what to us materialists is common sense can appear to them as nonsense.
In the end, I think there's a lot of potential with these "Am I _____?"s. I think if we take the approach of "these beliefs don't exactly follow the socialist line of thought. Here's why..." In a gentle manner, we might have more success.
Perhaps this is entirely false. I have just seen many people turned off by insults of leftists when one approaches them with their naïve ideas. And there have been many occasions where I have inadvertently angered others by speaking with the assumption that socialist ideas are common sense and widely accepted.
Anyways, carry on. Original poster, the others are correct, one would have to know your stance on ownership of the means of production in order to give you an answer. But whatever your viewpoint, please don't be discouraged. Pick up some leftist literature if you can, and I'm sure you'll eventually become a well-informed, resolute and upright socialist.
