Have some civility.

(not OC)

Show Context

404 comments

You're taking the definition linked at face value and not doing further investigation into what it means and its material repercussions.
In a capitalistic society capital and the right to private property is above all, including the individual, it is by all means sacred and must be respected. This means that despite having more empty homes than homeless people, these people can't be located into these empty homes because the property is above them, they don't matter.
The supposed "rights of the individual" is just the individualization of the self in detriment of the collective. Despite us being social animals that depend on each other, said rights and constant capitalistic propaganda sells us the idea that we are single individuals that are responsible for everything around us. Phrases like "If you get get fired its your own fault and you should pull yourself by your own bootstraps", "if you get sick that's your own fault", "if you become homeless that's your own fault", etc. It's never the system in place that prioritizes profit and private property above you. It also doesn't matter that someone is racist because that's their individual right of free speech, despite that hurting society as a whole, it's the individual above the collective.
"Liberty" for who? If your choice is to pay rent or be homeless, that's not a choice. If you have to worry about keeping a roof above your head, not getting fired, if you can pay your bills, if you can afford food, then you're not free. The only ones that are free are the bourgeoisie, as they hold all the power in a capitalistic society.
I can’t accept this label. They are conservatives/fascists. Not liberal.
The Republicans maintain capitalism, just like Democrats do. They are both liberals because liberalism is the status quo of capitalism. Of course there is neoliberalism too, but as the name implies, it is a "new" type of liberalism. They are by all metrics liberals. Further right than the Democrats, sure, but liberals none the less. They fit into defending the things I explained above, just like the Democrats also do.
If you arent distinguishing between ideology, party and individual then I don’t think you fully understand capitalism.
I'm literally talking to you from a marxist instance. I don't claim to know everything about capitalism, but I do think I have a better grasp than most liberals on this.
Furthermore, what do you mean with distinguishing ideology from party and individual? Ideology is present in both these things. Capitalistic liberal ideology as the status quo, maintains itself by being ever present in the collective mind of the people as the only viable solution. You can't separate these things because they are deeply interlinked, both the individual and the party are not separated from ideology.
The genocide in Palestine is wrong because they cannot have a right as individuals, they do not have liberty, they have not had an election allowed to be held since 2008, they have no political equality, they have no right to private property and settlers can kick them out, they are not equal to Jews under the law.
No, a genocide doesn't stop being wrong when the genocided population have rights. Also you completely ignore Palestine as a country, which grants the Palestinians rights, even tho Israel doesn't since it is a settler colonial genocide entity.
Any true liberal would support Palestine from your own source.
Anyone with a shred of empathy supports Palestine. The question of a liberal supporting Palestine or not on ideological grounds is settled in if the liberal believes in the legitimacy of Israel or not, and anyone that does believe that, doesn't support Palestinians in any way whatsoever.
Israel is not a legitimate state, it was a settler colonial project from its very inception. That's why we have 75+ years of a genocide happening that the world brushes off and does nothing about.
- You're taking the definition linked at face value and not doing further investigation into what it means and its material repercussions.
  No, I am a liberal. These are my values.
  In a capitalistic society capital and the right to private property is above all, including the individual, it is by all means sacred and must be respected. This means that despite having more empty homes than homeless people, these people can't be located into these empty homes because the property is above them, they don't matter.
  Perfectly said. Yes this reveals the inherent conflict between capitalism and liberalism.
  Liberalism says "homeless should be housed", capitalism says "I'm not paying for it".
  Liberalism demands the answer "yes you will" but capitalists have bought up all the media and politicians so we don't have the power to force them.
  The supposed "rights of the individual" is just the individualization of the self in detriment of the collective.
  Get specific. My right to freedom of movement from one state to another is detrimental for the collective why?
  Despite us being social animals that depend on each other, said rights and constant capitalistic propaganda sells us the idea that we are single individuals that are responsible for everything around us.
  Please separate liberal ideology from capitalist propaganda.
  Conflating them like this isn't going to convince me. The capitalist propaganda is bad, the honest liberal thinkers are not.
  If you get get fired its your own fault and you should pull yourself by your own bootstraps,
  That's not true. Unemployment exists and liberals constantly argue to expand welfare and introduce UBI.
  The idea of "stimulus checks" was a liberal one.
  if you get sick that's your own fault
  Not true, healthcare should be a right. You're the one talking about getting rid of our "supposed" rights.
  It also doesn't matter that someone is racist because that's their individual right of free speech, despite that hurting society as a whole, it's the individual above the collective.
  Okay! That's an actual argument.
  That's true. Liberalism says "that guys wrong and bad" but there's nothing they can do until the man breaks the law.
  The idea behind this is that this is a limitation in the state, not individuals.
  Go punch a nazi. Go tell them to fuck off.
  The state won't do it for you, but the state also won't censor you in return when you talk about "controversial" stuff like LGBTQ rights, communism, etc.
  If that's not a compelling enough reason feel free to argue against that specific right.
  "Liberty" for who?
  According to liberalism, for all.
  If your choice is to pay rent or be homeless, that's not a choice. If you have to worry about keeping a roof above your head, not getting fired, if you can pay your bills, if you can afford food, then you're not free. The only ones that are free are the bourgeoisie, as they hold all the power in a capitalistic society.
  Agreed. The type of capitalism liberals consented to was heavily regulated and based on competition.
  Liberals aren't supposed to like capitalism. At most, a liberal can tolerate it in the moment while it's working but that moment has long since passed and capitalism is the main threat to liberalism right now.
  Capitalists are trying to purge the liberals from making reforms and replacing them with fascists, which is pushing people further left from that for better allies.
  The Republicans maintain capitalism, just like Democrats do. They are both liberals because liberalism is the status quo of capitalism.
  There is lot in this short bit I need to correct.
  The Republicans conserve capitalism because they're **conservative((.
  The Democrats maintain capitalism (instead of progrssing beyond it) because their party is owned by capitalists..
  You need money to run a campaign, it's impossible for any ideology (no matter how hostile to capitalism) to end up as a major party (at least in our current system) because it requires the capitalists to donate to those parties to have anywhere close to the resources needed to run a campaign.
  Of course there is neoliberalism too, but as the name implies, it is a "new" type of liberalism.
  Look at Bill Clinton who is typically the example of a neoliberal.
  It's not a "new" type of liberalism, it's just centrism.
  They are by all metrics liberals. Further right than the Democrats, sure, but liberals none the less. They fit into defending the things I explained above, just like the Democrats also do.
  If you arent distinguishing between ideology, party and individual then I don’t think you fully understand capitalism.
  I'm literally talking to you from a marxist instance. I don't claim to know everything about capitalism, but I do think I have a better grasp than most liberals on this.
  Opposing capitalism doesn't mean you know more about it.
  Furthermore, what do you mean with distinguishing ideology from party and individual?
  What liberal ideology says you should do is not exactly equal to what the democrats do nor exactly equal to what John Locke does.
  Ideology is present in both these things. Capitalistic liberal ideology as the status quo, maintains itself by being ever present in the collective mind of the people as the only viable solution.
  Capitalist liberal ideology is a contradiction.
  Liberal ideology says all people are equal. Capitalist ideology says people are worth the value they produce.
  These cannot coexist at the same time.
  To slot them in together, capitalism would need to slice out the very root of liberalism and then wear its skin like cloth. Exactly what they've done.
  I deny their botched surgery as the original liberalism I believe in.
  You can't separate these things because they are deeply interlinked, both the individual and the party are not separated from ideology.
  Yes I can. The majority of liberal voters oppose the genocide. It's the democrats who are funding it.
  https://truthout.org/articles/poll-finds-6-in-10-democratic-voters-now-back-palestinians-over-israelis/
  Don't blame liberals when capitalists are the ones doing this shit.
  No, a genocide doesn't stop being wrong when the genocided population have rights.
  Are you genuinely kidding me? Lmfao. You're so bad faith for no reason!
  Also you completely ignore Palestine as a country, which grants the Palestinians rights, even tho Israel doesn't since it is a settler colonial genocide entity.
  I don't even know how to respond.
  It sounds like you agree with me that Israel is a settler colonial genocidal state who are violating the Palestinians so these last two comments are confusing.
  Liberalism agrees with you that genocide is bad.
  Anyone with a shred of empathy supports Palestine.
  Yeah
  The question of a liberal supporting Palestine or not on ideological grounds is settled in if the liberal believes in the legitimacy of Israel or not, and anyone that does believe that, doesn't support Palestinians in any way whatsoever.
  That's not accurate. I already cited data which shows liberals support Palestine over Israel.
  Besides that's only half the question.
  Let's say a liberal accepts the legitimacy of Israel. The next step is that they'd have to accept the legitimacy of Palestine on equal terms.
  A liberal would typically default into the 2 state solution.
  A liberal may condemn Oct 7 and say the music festivals shouldn't be a valid target, but that is a rare exception in a one sided war waged on Palestinians by Israelis.
  There no way a liberal could look at the settler violence and decide Palestine doesn't have the right to violently oppose that.
  Israel is not a legitimate state, it was a settler colonial project from its very inception. That's why we have 75+ years of a genocide happening that the world brushes off and does nothing about.
  Yep, then people were born into that situation and now wr have to deal with.
  "Is Israel legitimate?" seems like a bit of a distraction personally when the answer to "are they committing genocide?" is "yes".
  
  There is no separating capitalism and liberalism because liberalism is the ideology of capitalism. You should read the recommendation from comrade Dessalines. You're arguing for some idealistic version of Liberalism that never existed in the real world. This is not a materialistic view and goes against history itself.
  Get specific. My right to freedom of movement from one state to another is detrimental for the collective why?
  In the US right now? Probably none. Now if you look at China that can be a problem for example, that's why a milenar system like the Hukou exists. A good example is about rural exodus to urban areas which is a real problem that needs proper tackling, if at a given time it is needed to be controlled, then individual liberties on that should be restricted until the issue is fixed. If that doesn't happen, you end up with what happened here in Brasil, the formation of favelas.
  Also, I got more specific in that same paragraph when I talked about the right of free speech and racism as an example.
  That’s not true. Unemployment exists and liberals constantly argue to expand welfare and introduce UBI.
  You're misunderstanding me here, I didn't meant to use that as actual argument, I was citing that as examples of the propaganda itself. I don't believe these things, I believe the issue is the system. I should have put those between quotation marks, my bad. I'm not gonna respond to the next ones citing that, because I'm not making that argument.
  Also, I don't believe UBI is the answer, as it doesn't fix the underlying issue, capitalism itself.
  The state won’t do it for you, but the state also won’t censor you in return when you talk about “controversial” stuff like LGBTQ rights, communism, etc.
  Except when they do.
  If that’s not a compelling enough reason feel free to argue against that specific right.
  Here in Brasil, LGBTphobia, racism and nazism are against the law. It's that simple. And that's the bare-minimum.
  According to liberalism, for all.
  Only on paper, in practice the ones that brought it are the only ones that are free, like I already argued.
  Agreed. The type of capitalism liberals consented to was heavily regulated and based on competition.
  All capitalism is heavily regulated. Capitalism cannot exist without state intervention. And competition is a lie. Competition naturally leads to monopolization, it is a contradiction of capitalism.
  Capitalists are trying to purge the liberals from making reforms and replacing them with fascists, which is pushing people further left from that for better allies.
  Capitalism cannot purge liberals, because liberals are proponents of capitalism. Furthermore you seem to think liberalism is opposed to fascism, when historically that has been the exact opposite, every time leftists gathered enough power to challenge the capitalistic system, liberals have turned on us and helped the fascists.
  Also related: Malcolm X: White Liberals and Conservatives
  The Republicans conserve capitalism because they’re conservative. The Democrats maintain capitalism.
  So, the exact same thing?
  You need money to run a campaign, it’s impossible for any ideology (no matter how hostile to capitalism) to end up as a major party (at least in our current system) because it requires the capitalists to donate to those parties to have anywhere close to the resources needed to run a campaign.
  That's why we marxists don't believe in electoralism, you're literally pointing out how the whole thing is rigged. We believe in revolution. Electoralism is at best a tool to put our ideas out there to the population and further organize the working class.
  It’s not a “new” type of liberalism, it’s just centrism.
  Bruh. What kind of vibes based analysis is this? Neoliberalism is defined by making the state "smaller" which is done by getting rid of state owned companies, destroying social nets, etc. It is literally capitalism creating new markets for itself by destroying the little the working class might have of rights.
  Just look at the proponents of neoliberalism: Reagan, Tatcher and Pinochet.
  Yes I can. The majority of liberal voters oppose the genocide. It’s the democrats who are funding it.
  These liberals are opposed to the genocide because they have a lick of empathy. Both Democrats and Republicans are pro genocide, because it benefits the US capitalists at home and furthers US's interests in the middle east. Even a younger Joe Biden admitted that, which I already linked.
  Don’t blame liberals when capitalists are the ones doing this shit.
  Capitalists are doing the genocide. Liberals are enabling them.
  Are you genuinely kidding me? Lmfao. You’re so bad faith for no reason!
  You said, and I quote: "The genocide in Palestine is wrong because they cannot have a right as individuals". If I'm supposed to interpret that any other way than the way I responded, then you need to rephrase that. My argument is not in bad faith, I'm responding to exactly what you said.
  Let’s say a liberal accepts the legitimacy of Israel. The next step is that they’d have to accept the legitimacy of Palestine on equal terms.
  You clearly ignore the historical context that I already provided. Israel was a settler colonial project from the get go. That is inseparable from the concept of Israel as a country, therefore you cannot accept the legitimacy of both Israel and Palestine as countries. And anyone that says that is wrong and uninformed on the issue at best, or a genocide apologist at worst.
  You cannot make this claim on a vacuum like it doesn't have a truckload of implications behind it. This is a completely idealistic view of the situation and of the world.
  Again, you're lacking tangible material analysis.
  A liberal may condemn Oct 7 and say the music festivals shouldn’t be a valid target, but that is a rare exception in a one sided war waged on Palestinians by Israelis.
  And that is still a wrong argument from the liberals. There shouldn't have been a music festival on fucking occupied territory to begin with. Israel was literally doing a festival while starving and genociding the palestinians, but the moment the palestinians fight back and attack that festival then it is a problem for the liberal.
  There no way a liberal could look at the settler violence and decide Palestine doesn’t have the right to violently oppose that.
  Just lol. I must have hallucinated the amount of "but do you condemn Hamas" liberals I see on the internet then.
  Yep, then people were born into that situation and now wr have to deal with. “Is Israel legitimate?” seems like a bit of a distraction personally when the answer to “are they committing genocide?” is “yes”.
  Bullshit. Palestinians have seen their life go to absolute hell in the spam of a single generation. And both questions are valid, because Israel is not a legitimate state and that needs to be acknowledged because the two state solution doesn't exist. The only solution is giving back the land to Palestine.
  Also, you ignore how the vast majority of Israel's population is pro-genociding the Palestinians. Hell, there were protests in Israel for the right to rape Palestinians.
  
  There is no separating capitalism and liberalism because liberalism is the ideology of capitalism.
  I'm liberal, you aren't.
  The only definition of liberal you will allow is one I do not hold, a strawman that completely contradicts all of my values.
  That's the end of the conversation then. I'm sorry you wasted your time typing this up.
  If you have anything beyond semantic arguments on labels I would lead with that next time.
  
  Lmao, I engaged with all your arguments, but you cannot do the same for me.
  What you call yourself doesn't matter if you're completely wrong. The only thing that matters is the tangible reality, which you are going against without providing a single evidence of why you're right and why I'm wrong, when I argued extensively on my view.
  
  Hey I'm sorry. I just gave your comment an actual read and only the first paragraph I initially read was bad faith patronizing.
  In the rest you did bring up points worth responding to so I apologize and I will do that in a bit.
  Just keep in mind I may actually have some knowledge in history and just might be able to back up claims I make.
  
  Well getting you to acknowledge that was like pulling teeth.
  
  Lmao, I engaged with all your arguments, but you cannot do the same for me.
  I will engage with any content in your argument.
  I'm not going to argue with your definition of liberal.
  I would love to keep talking but I'm the liberal, accept my definition of my own system of beliefs or I have nothing to say but "nu uh".
  
  Wow, scratch a liberal and they'll tell you not to do that because they don't like getting scratched.
  How revealing.
  
  Then just respond to my arguments.
  scratch a liberal and they’ll tell you not to do that because they don’t like getting scratched.
  No, it's scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds.
  
  Then just respond to my arguments
  Make an argument.
  
  You ignored their argument
  
  You're still at this? I made several arguments in that comment that you can reply too independent of the definition you use for liberalism, if you're just gonna continue to be this childish, then I have nothing else to talk about. Either respond to my comment or fuck right off.
  And since you're gonna read this, like it or not, your definition of being a liberal has no basis in reality and is based on a theory that was never meant to you, no matter how much mental masturbation you make to justify it. The bourgeoisie used it to put themselves in power and continue to use it to maintain capitalism. You can cry all you want about how capitalism and liberalism as somehow separate, it won't change reality.
  Liberalism is a death cult
  
  if you're just gonna continue to be this childish, then I have nothing else to talk about.
  Respectfully, that's where I tried to leave it 2 comments ago
  And since you're gonna read this, like it or not, your definition of being a liberal has no basis in reality
  It's not about liking or not liking it.
  If you're in a different reality than me, there's not much we're going to be able to say. I'd rather spend my energy on people in the same reality
  You can cry all you want about how capitalism and liberalism as somehow separate, it won't change reality.
  :'(
  
  They gave you an incredibly lengthy response and you're just going to cut and run?
  
  Yep. I'm somewhat new to some of these ideas, and there's a whole bunch of people trying to raise points at the same time.
  If I'm going to learn, and respond intelligently I need to make sure I don't get burnt out, and if this guy opens in such a blatantly bad faith way I'd rather spend the time replying to one of your or the many other intelligent comments I've been getting.
  If I misjudged them, they now know how to phrase it to get a reply and I've told them they're free to comment again and make an argument.
  
  Yep. I’m somewhat new to some of these ideas, and there’s a whole bunch of people trying to raise points at the same time.
  Then say that; don't' try to pull a dismissive "you're wrong, but I can't be bothered to explain why" dodge that you did.
  and if this guy opens in such a blatantly bad faith way
  He didn't, and it's bad faith of your to say he did.
  they now know how to phrase it to get a reply and I’ve told them they’re free to comment again and make an argument.
  They spent a lot of time writing out an extensive argument, and they have every right to expect that, if they did it again, you'd find some new procedural nitpick to justify not responding to it.
  
  He didn't, and it's bad faith of your to say he did.
  if they did it again, you'd find some new procedural nitpick to justify not responding to it.
  Then that's it. If I'm bad faith the discussion needs to end.
  If you understand why they might not want to type up a long comment only for the other person to find some nitpick then you 100% understand why I ignored that one specific comment and replied to every single other comment on this thread.
  Including to you actually multiple times to which one comment you replied
  You've captured the flaw in liberalism extremely succinctly.
  Thank you for the compliment. It's funny to see you reply to me in so many different threads I feel like Schrodingers faith right now. Am I good faith? Bad faith? Who knows.
  
  Then that’s it. If I’m bad faith the discussion needs to end.
  Great, I'll make sure to report you to the mods if your openly admitting to acting in bad faith.
  understand why I ignored that one specific comment
  No, because the comment you ignored was extensive and full of reasonable points, which you then ignored with the excuse of a brief nitpick.
  Thank you for the compliment.
  It would only be a compliment if you were trying to capture the flaw in liberalism.
  I feel like Schrodingers faith right now. Am I good faith? Bad faith? Who knows.
  Sentences like this certainly push the needle towards bad faith.
  
  Great, I'll make sure to report you to the mods if your openly admitting to acting in bad faith.
  Feel free to do that, if I've broken the rules they should remove my comment. I didnt realize this was getting so personal so I will take this as the end of the convo, even across the other threads, just letting you know so you don't waste time replying to those.
  It would only be a compliment if you were trying to capture the flaw in liberalism.
  I was.
  Again, I appreciate the compliment. Take care.
  
  Feel free to do that, if I’ve broken the rules they should remove my comment. I didnt realize this was getting so personal so I will take this as the end of the convo, even across the other threads, just letting you know so you don’t waste time replying to those.
  “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” ― Jean-Paul Sartre
  I was. Again, I appreciate the compliment. Take care.
  Glad to hear you've decided to abandon liberalism.
  
  Because you refuse to believe what your senses are clearly showing you! This is the result of multigenerational propagandization. Fine. Don't believe it. Merely suspend disbelief, and it's good faith.
  I'm not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but it's not brain-bending to grasp this concept.
  
  I refuse to believe that which I've seen no evidence for.
  So long as it is more convenient to sarcastically quip about how you're right instead of explaining it, I will struggle to be convinced by your words.
  
  You've commented the evidence yourself.
  
  You realize you've just redefined "liberal" to mean "socialist". And also given a definition where the Democrats aren't liberal, nor is anyone who supports the existence of the US or nation states in general
  
  You realize you've just redefined "liberal" to mean "socialist".
  We get to the same conclusions I realize, but I didn't redefine anything because we get there from different premises. Liberalism and socialism I would argue are ridiculously compatible views.
  Marx's favorite philosopher was Hegel and if you look at Marx's dad Heinrich
  Largely non-religious, Heinrich was a man of the Enlightenment, interested in the ideas of the philosophers Immanuel Kant and Voltaire. A classical liberal, he took part in agitation for a constitution and reforms in Prussia, which was then an absolute monarchy.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx
  And also given a definition where the Democrats aren't liberal, nor is anyone who supports the existence of the US or nation states in general
  Give Albert Weisbord's Conquest of Power a read.
  The fact that practically all of the settlers were poor has led to a sort of idealization in the United States of the poor and common man. In England one would fain forget his common stock; not so on this side of the Atlantic. Yet poor must not be confused with proletarians The mass of emigrants forming the basic “mother class,” a class so large that it believed no other classes existed, and thus no classes at all, was composed neither of proletarians nor of bourgeois but of petty bourgeois middle class elements, trying to find prosperity and plenty. In the Western hemisphere, the idea of class was dissolved into its matrix of mass; that is, there were masses but no classes!
  The lack of great capital and the resultant absence of clearly-defined classes in the West have given many historians the idea that democracy flourished in the West from the beginning. This is not the whole truth by any means. The West has not only given us Democracy; it has also provided us with a wholesome contempt for all government.
  It must never be forgotten that Democracy is essentially a type of State in which the people are supposed to control political affairs, either directly or through representatives. Democracy includes in its fundamental characteristics not only the right to vote and to hold office, but also a host of civil liberties in which the right of free speech, press, and assemblage are the most prominent. Now, in moving West, the tendency of the pioneer and frontiersman was to move away from all government and state laws, however mild. It was not a case of “liberalizing the law"; on the frontier the hand of the law was not to be found at all. Whatever action was necessary was effected by a posse made up directly of the people involved. There were no courts, no police, no prisons, no armed force of the State, no tax- gatherers. The original state of the frontier can best be described not as one of primitive Democracy, but as one of primitive Libertarianism.
  https://www.marxists.org/archive/weisbord/conquest2.htm
  Again, Marxism and Liberalism aren't necesarily disagreeing.
  
  We get to the same conclusions I realize, but I didn’t redefine anything because we get there from different premises. Liberalism and socialism I would argue are ridiculously compatible views.
  Ok, but this is wildly different to how the vast, vast majority of the world uses the word liberal, including liberals. Realize that the definition for liberal that you're a applying to yourself is incredibly divergent to how most people use it, and consider that you might have less misunderstandings if you just say socialist.
  Marx’s favorite philosopher was Hegel and if you look at Marx’s dad Heinrich
  Sure, but that doesn't mean that he agreed with him on everything. Yes, marxism grew out of liberalism, but liberalism in turn grew out of feudalism. It doesn't mean they're the same or even aligned.
  Give Albert Weisbord’s Conquest of Power a read.
  Yes, that's all well and good, but it still not anti-capitalist or marxist.
  
  Ok, but this is wildly different to how the vast, vast majority of the world uses the word liberal, including liberals. Realize that the definition for liberal that you're a applying to yourself is incredibly divergent to how most people use it, and consider that you might have less misunderstandings if you just say socialist.
  I think that misunderstanding can actually be a good thing because it allows me to explain how capitalists coopt ideology.
  Whatever the dominant philosophy in a culture is, you'd expect capitalism to grab its grubby hands around it and twist it into something it's not.
  Capitalist liberalism and liberalism are not the same thing, and there's value in helping people understand this.
  Sure, but that doesn't mean that he agreed with him on everything.
  Exactly, just like I don't agree with John Locke on everything.
  Karl Marx critiqued liberalism and the social contract where he felt it deserved to he critiqued. He didn't equate it as the same thing as capitalism, or strawman if as I've seen done in this thread.
  People are using the word liberal to describe things that capitalism did.
  Yes, that's all well and good, but it still not anti-capitalist or marxist.
  I'm sorry..what?
  Youre criticizing me for saying the Republicans aren't liberal but that marxist.org link isn't Marxist enough?
  Albert Weisbord (1900–1977) was an American political activist and union organizer. He is best remembered, along his wife Vera Buch, as one of the primary union organizers of the seminal 1926 Passaic Textile Strike and as the founder of a small Trotskyist political organization of the 1930s called the Communist League of Struggle.
  Here's a pamphlet of him being advertised as the guest speaker at the 10th anniversary of the Russian Revolution in the Soviet Union
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Weisbord#/media/File:27-weisbord-leaflet.jpg
  I don't even know what to say to this. What am I missing?
  
  I think that misunderstanding can actually be a good thing because it allows me to explain how capitalists coopt ideology.
  I assure you, socialists already know how capitalism coopts ideology.
  Whatever the dominant philosophy in a culture is, you’d expect capitalism to grab its grubby hands around it and twist it into something it’s not.
  No, only liberalism. It doesn't happen under other ideological systems.
  Capitalist liberalism and liberalism are not the same thing, and there’s value in helping people understand this.
  Sure, every ideology has an idealised "on paper" version that doesn't' look like the real thing.
  Exactly, just like I don’t agree with John Locke on everything.
  Great, sounds like you're not a liberal.
  He didn’t equate it as the same thing as capitalism
  Yes he did.
  And no, Marx was not a liberal.
  People are using the word liberal to describe things that capitalism did.
  Yes, because they did it under a liberal system. Liberalism allows capitalists to do these things. Thats the problem with liberalism.
  I don’t even know what to say to this. What am I missing?
  I don't even know what point you're trying to make.
  
  I assure you, socialists already know how capitalism coopts ideology.
  Then there should be no issue in using the term liberal without anyone getting confused. But yet..
  Yes, because they did it under a liberal system. Liberalism allows capitalists to do these things. Thats the problem with liberalism.
  Correct. Liberalism let it's guard down to capitalism for too long under the idea that competitive markets increase efficiency and now society is having to face with that mistake.
  I don't even know what point you're trying to make.
  I posted a Marxism.org link to quote a Marxist philosopher I told you to read and you replied
  "Yes, that's all well and good, but it still not anti-capitalist or marxist."
  
  Then there should be no issue in using the term liberal without anyone getting confused. But yet…
  Like I said, you're using a wildly heterodox definition of liberal. When you use a definition of a word that is different from its general usage, people are going to get confused.
  Liberalism let it’s guard down to capitalism for too long
  Letting the guard down to capitalism is a core part of liberalism. In order to not let your guard down to capitalism, you would have to abandon liberalism.
  I posted a Marxism.org link to quote a Marxist philosopher I told you to read and you replied
  To make what point?
  
  Letting the guard down to capitalism is a core part of liberalism. In order to not let your guard down to capitalism, you would have to abandon liberalism.
  Yes I understand you want me to believe that.
  I have my guard up and describe myself as a liberal. You see my guard up and say I'm not a liberal.
  At the end of the day these are just labels. Losing our minds at someone describing themselves as "socialist" or "liberal" is not worth it to me if we agree on the concepts.
  So many people here seem to be more focused on the label than the concept.
  To make what point?
  Read the original context. It all makes sense if you read what I was quote responding to.
  You said, to paraphrase cause I don't want to go find it, "if liberalism means that then the US isn't liberal" or something, so I quoted a Marxist who described the development of the frontier less as a liberal democracy and more as primitive Libertarianism.
  
  Yes I understand you want me to believe that.
  Yes, I'm glad you understand how a discussion works. Presumably you then don't want people to believe what you say?
  I have my guard up and describe myself as a liberal.
  Is it? Because capitalism has rolled over the top of you none the less. My whole point was that liberalism ideologically compels itself to hand over material power to capital. That's why, even though 'your guard is up', you can't do anything about it; because you're just a random person with no power. Having your guard up is meaningless when they've already stormed the fortress and thrown you in the dungeon.
  So many people here seem to be more focused on the label than the concept.
  That's because we communicate using words, we can't just directly transmit pure concepts to each other. If people can't understand your labels they can't understand you concepts.
  Marxist who described the development of the frontier less as a liberal democracy and more as primitive Libertarianism.
  So not as socialism. I'm sure hoping you don't think mob rule by bands of genocidal settler colonists is socialism?

404 comments