This thread is permanently archived
Why do you support the liberals movements?
| You are not implying that anarchism and communism are parts of liberal movements, right?
| Communism is definitely on the liberal spectrum. And with the exception of the neckbearded anons, anarchism in the form of antifascism is also adopted by some on the extreme liberal left.
| L I B U R U L
| All you fucking turds. Using all these arbitrary terms. JUST KISS ALREADY
| L i B e R A l L e F T
| liberals ≠ communists/socialists ≠ anarchists
Liberals are PRO-CAPITALISTS. They just call it "free" market.
On superstructure politics there are left-winged liberals and right-winged liberals. When it comes to the (economic) basis, liberals are usually right-winged (during cold war there really were "social-liberals", but when "communism" ended, they dropped their pants, which means they are a rare exception these days).
(Why) is that so hard to understand?
| >>320444
>Communism is definitely on the liberal spectrum.
Fuck no. Liberals represent the bourgeois classes seeking for freedom from the old feudal/clerical elites - but also becoming a new ruling elite: the bourgeoisie.
Communists represent workers who are opressed/exploited by the new ruling class, the bourgeoisie.
| >>320569
Liberals are fucking hypocrites for at least 2 major reasons:
1. To fight communists, the "liberal" bourgeosie ally pretty often with non- or antiliberal conservative, fascists and nazists douchebags.
2. Liberalism is theoratically the idea of individual freedom. In practice it means (simplyfied) the freedom of the rich (capitalists) to rule over the non rich (proletariat). It's a pretty social-darwinist thing.
| the only thing fascists and commies share is hate of liberalism
| >>320609
As a communist I can assure you that I don't "hate" liberalism. I appreciate the liberals role in getting rid of medieval/feudal elites like clerics and god legitimated "nobles" such as monarchs.
| >>320637
Also I appreciate liberals by recognizing questions of economy, materialism and the idea of freedom and independence as essential things. I just don't like liberals for fooling the masses with old lies as soon their economic system as source of their power is questioned (private property of means of production).
| Okay heres some facts and events about why your "free market" 1 is just as utopic and 2 is bullshit.
Gilded Age, worst wealth desparity in American history. Continued because aside from slavery (which you know very well corps would use)
It only ends in monopolies, see Rockefeller and the ISPs and those "regulations cause the oiligopolies" were made for ISPs to have a noncompete excuse.
Corruption, see previous for example see US for more...
| Then after that we have the fact unchecked capitalism is the leading factor for illegal immigration. Because the employer pay under the table and less than minimum because they can. "FREE MARKET" the thing causing another problem you cons have.
Lets remind you of the 2008 housing crisis. The one that bankrupted a fuck ton of people and put us in a recession. Unchecked banking. Or "too big to fail" as you put it.
Ever heard of the south sea bubble?
And no I'm not a communist.
| It doesn't work unless there was full automation of all work.
And has never solved the issues capitalism has just hides it.
I'm an actual social darwinist not the misquoting tards.
"It is not the strongest of the species that survives but the one most adaptable to change."
| >>4d98fe >>da108e >>4be66e >>1e2cfd >>6d0caa >>af4523 >>ed26b6 and all you:
When I refer to Liberals, I mean leftist. It is a term widely used in America.
| And, yes, anarchism leans left.
| actually, only a few did not understand. :p ignore the mentions
| >>320713
>>320714
>When I refer to Liberals, I mean leftist.
Then you just use the wrong terminology.
Again: communists/socialists are not liberal and liberals are basically not leftists. Learn the fucking difference!
>It is a term widely used in America.
Not in Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Cuba, and any other American countries. I know this kind of douchebagish twisted terminology only from rightwingers in the USA.
| >>ed26b6
>>Communists represent workers who are opressed/exploited by the new ruling class, the bourgeoisie.
Wtf? Where did u hear that? Most of communists/socialists are hypocrites bourgeoisie, fact. It's easy to support these ideas when u living in capitalism.
| >>320739 Well, I used a most popular term today, I don't believe that term is used only by American conservatives. It's much older, but people want to put new terms in everything today.
| I'm going to criticize capitalism. This must mean I'm a communist.
I'm going to criticize communism. This must mean I'm a capitalist.
| Peopke are always finding new and innovative ways to gain power for themselves, regardless of what -ism is being employed.
| >>320767
formerly, at the time of English colonization in the U.S., this term was used to distinguish those who wanted an idependence (liberals) and those who wanted it to remain as colobia (conservatives). See how the terms change? No matter what name is being used now, but the idea.
| *colony
| Okay once and for all:
There are actually three main types of *political philosophies*:
- Conservatism
- Liberalism
- Socialisim
There also are two directions of *political orientation* (historically based on the phyical placement of representants in the national convent during the french revolution era): left (historically liberals a.k.a. "progressivists") and right (historically conservatives a.k.a. "reactionists")
| >>320853
Each *political philosphy* has it's own branches (that can overlap with the other two) and with different *political orientations*.
| >>320858
Some Examples:
- liberals: social-liberal (centre-left), libertarian (right), neoliberal (right), ordo-liberal (centre-left), etc.
- socialists: communists (left-right), anarchists (left), social-democrats (centre-left), etc.
- conservatives: neocons (centre-right), religious conservatism (centre-right to far right), national conservatism (centre-right to far right), social-conservatism (centre-left)
Of course this is just a simplified overview.
| >>320862
These categories are tied to
- the (US-)american independence declaration
- french revolution
- industrial revolution.
Of course there are many places on earth which did not yet reach that state of development. But they will one day. Also countries like japan, germany, china and russia did had very special transitions from feudal systems into bourgeois capitalist democracys via autocratic commando-capitalist regimes (partly on pretty stupid ideological grounds).
| >>320872
Besides the theory each *political philosophy* has globally dominating branches but also can differ from country to country and from time to time.
Examples:
From the 90s to end of 00s, "liberalism" was globally dominated by the centre-right "neoliberal" branch, conservatism by the centre-right "neoconservative" branch and socialism by centre-left "social-democrat" branch.
| I think the issue arround OPs question is a very (us-)american-centric world view combined with pretty low political education (which both are unfortunately is pretty common and typical in the USA)
| And to say it a very last time:
- Liberals are not necessarily "left" (not even majorly) as they are pro-capitalists (economical social-darwinism) and ally with conservatives, and in a crisis situation even with far-right forces to fight socialist/communists movements.
- Socialists/Communists are "left"
(as long they are not in power :P) but not "liberal" (especially when it comes to economic-related politics)
In short: liberalism is not equal to leftism and socialism/communism.
| ITT : >amerimutts in charge of not being politically illiterate
| It really seems like everyone in the US is spending so much time defining "left" and "right" that they aren't actually even representing their political views using a political party. It really seems like people would be better off defining their political views and identity through actual action, not just a bunch of shittalk about the imaginary enemy created by a "left" and "right" representation or any other representation for that matter.
| >>321264
Classically in the USA many good programmes and candidates have no chance for beeing branded as "evil satanic communist/socialist" things.
On the other side this country seems pretty open to reactionists and nazi-bullshit in many ways. There was some hope for change, but they all get sucked by the power of commerce, giving the cruel system a pretty face and beeing confused/upset when the ugly underlying truth reveals.
I hope the cold war generation dieing out changes stuff
This thread is permanently archived
| Serious, that not make sense. The most part of the users here criticize the capitalism using utopics ideas, like anarchism, communism etc., I sincerely can't understand this.