Do any of them know what the word “liberal” actually means?
I ‘am’ an anarcho-communist and I don’t like libtards. Libtards to me are ‘progressive capitalists’ that have no systemic insight what so ever and think all it takes to bring upon heaven on earth is to try and be nice.
I mean, you should try and be nice obviously but you are not going to soy latte your way outta this my dudes.
> is anarcho-communist
> accuses others of lacking systemic insight
I’m unsure what you mean by this. Would you be willing to elaborate?
They probably read 2 words that they don’t like.
I like the idealism in communism and I have been thinking about how to implement communism without very authoritarian structures, and the anarchist way seems to be the only way, but I don’t see how it would be able to sustain our current lifestyle and amount of people. Exploitation of dependencies without authoritarian structures seems unavoidable to me and avoiding dependencies would probably require that people provide themselves with the resources ; which requires more labor and resources. As of right now, I don’t see a flawless system. (that includes capitalism)
So personally I think, saying that the other people have a bad systemic insight in the context of any general ideology is ungranted.
At what point does a structure become authoritarian? There are numerous Anarchist and Marxist propositions for how to structure a Socialist and eventually Communist society, so if there’s a definitive cutoff point for you you can find something to research.
What leftist theory have you read? Not as a “read more theory!” Snark, but more so I can give recs based on your answer to the authoritarian question posed in the last paragraph.
Honestly I am not well-read on leftist theory as in formal education. I look into things that I have encountered and think for myself. I would appreciate new ideas and things to look into.
I appreciate the call out on my vagueness in regards of authoritarian structures. Thanks for that.
It isn’t as much a concrete point like “having a police”, but rather the human nature. I see a lot of protective behavior in people. The idea of communism is a sacrificing one in the sense that you give some of yours to get more for everyone. As a system will teach people within the system that the system is good. It is expected that people will be generally protective of the system. So sacrificing some freedoms for the protection of the system seems like a very normal evolution of those ideals. And you don’t need to worry as the system is good which is why you are protecting it. So over time, just like under any hierarchical system, the power will move towards the “core” of the system. Under capitalism the wealthy and under communism the state. Under communism, protecting the system will have a strong hand and will move the power to the “core”. The “core” is the state. the system and the state are extremely similar. So the state will behave as if an Attack on them is an Attack on the system. Justifying additional force and moving power into the core. Under somewhat authoritarian capitalism, we can observe that behavior quite clearly. But the state and the core isn’t as similar and an “attack” on the “core” isn’t an Attack on the state. Creating the shit that we can observe today under capitalism. Where the state are corrupted by the core while pretending to not be and fighting against the elements of the core that haven’t paid them. In communism, the power goes to the state and the state happily accepts it, turning it more and more authoritarian over time.
So from my pov, authoritarian Systems are an issue but are also seemingly required to protect the system and it’s people. Capitalism sucks as it kinda assume hierarchy and “sneaks” exploitation in. But a authoritarian state acts a little bit as a counter force to the “core”. (While a full on authoritarian state will of course take control over the “core”) While any liberal state, enables the “core” to move more power to itself quicker. Communism is much better in regards of assuming hierarchy as it doesn’t. But an even slightly authoritarian state with communism places the “core” and the state together as a unite without a real counter force and will eventually be very authoritarian. An liberal communistic System would avoid hierarchy and by that protect itself from placing the “core” in the hands of the state, but it would live itself vulnerable by “small” actors trying to build an hierarchy as people generally like to do, and enables “small” local exploitation.
I just don’t see a way for any of them to not fail. Currently I believe that the violence of the public is the only way to reset the failing systems. That violence is just usually a little late and not just, fair or merciful. Leading to a lot of unjust pain and suffering.
I don’t see how to escape this shit.
Please call me out on my shit take. Thanks.
I think you have done a lot of thinking, but haven’t really engaged much with Marxism or Anarchism with regards to philisophy.
For Marxism, check out Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Engels.
For Anarchism, The Conquest of Bread by Kropotkin is good.
The “Human Nature” issue is one that every leftist movement has had to engage with and “solve.”
It is true that I haven’t really engaged with Marxism and/or anarchism beyond the basics. I can look into it, thanks.
Out of curiosity, do you think I have a point? What would be your critic? I don’t want to take your time, so only respond if you feel like it. I understand if you don’t have the time.
I don’t like libtards.
You can just call them liberals. You don’t need to meld the term to a slur.
I mean, you should try and be nice obviously
By shaving the first two letters off an r-bomb? Come on, guy. I get what you’re saying, but this is an awful way to phrase it.
Friend I’m not a friend of liberals myself but can we please not use ableistic terms that end with “-tard”?
Reserve that shit for the right wing
Ok, even though I know this will make no difference to ‘you people’ (sorry just cannot help myself xD).
In this case I choose to use this specific word because it’s so obviously a dogwhistle for right wing extremists that in the context of this meme I think it’s funny, since my actual stance is neither authoritarian or rightwing.
I don’t seriously mean to perpetuate negative stereotypes with regards to people with mental handicaps.
Just as a curiosity, are you by any chance from the US? I just cannot imagine anyone from Europe making such a big deal about a joke like this, let alone use the term ableist.
I guess my brain has just rotted as a result of a few decades of being on the internet. Inside i’m still an edgy teen apparently. No actual offense meant :)
I get it, i know how it is. I’m an Israeli anarchist, you can tell by a previous post and my user name.
I’m making a bit of a fuss over it because i find this trend within myself, having grown up in a nationalist family and a religious school, i tend to say those words as instinct as well and am trying to unlearn this behavior.
I grew up as an edgy teen as well so i guess i can relate, but now I’m intp young adulthood and trying to be better to not repel potential friends.
That sounds like a worthy and potentially wholesome effort indeed. I would just like to say that I think sincerity is more important than seriousness. Best of luck to you my friend.
Much respect for being an anarchist in Israel btw, especially in these interesting times.
Solidarity from The Netherlands.
Libtards
Is a right wing fascist term. I don’t think you’re an anarcho-communist. I think you’re a right wing pretending to be leftist to try to suppress the Democratic vote. You guys have tells.
Lmao check out all the salty libs seeing themselves get called out in these comments.
- sincerely, an anarcho-syndicalist
The only time I ever see evidence of Anarcho types they are being literally as annoying as possible.
Edit for clarity, it’s never “I started this charity/group/political campaign with signups/events/or public engagement.” Only ever “fuck everything, I can’t wait for society to fall apart such that the magic future can begin”
Bro you gotta be constructive not destructive if you want to sway opinions
Anarchists are pretty active in their communities, with mutual aid and direct action being cornerstones of the ideology and whatnot. If you spent any time in activist spaces you’d know that
The point is they need to bring the nice side to public spaces, not be insular with the nice, and turn the mean to everything else.
I think what you’re describing is less of an anarchism problem and more of a “people in general” problem. I’m an anarchist and I’d like to think I conduct myself pretty well for the most part, even in political discussions. I won’t say I haven’t been an ass online or in person before but that’s not due to my ideology. I’m just an ass sometimes. Same as everyone else. I will concede that we can be a bit insular at times and that’s certainly a weak spot for many anarchists
…you said, being literally as annoying as possible and contributing nothing constructive
…he said, fully cognizant of the hypocrisy, which is why he decided to contribute a snarky editorial comic
Yeah, that
Bro you gotta be constructive not destructive if you want to sway opinions
At least I admitted my hypocrisy and did something about it. You’re just doubling down on a lazy stereotype to avoid engaging with constructive criticism.
To paraphrase your own claim, it wasn’t “I started this charity/group/political campaign with signups/events/or public engagement.” Only “fuck anarcho types always annoying me”
This is a thread about how folks act. So this is a “meta” politics thread.
This isn’t the place I, or leftists would describe /do that. I’m describing other times and places where said behavior was observed.
Critical thinking.
I returned because I noticed your edit. I was being a bit snide, mostly because the meme is assuming everyone who calls someone a lib is authoritarian-aligned. If you’d like to know about the positive work I do as an organizer, I’d be happy to share. However, to me those actions are just the right thing to do and not worth bringing up randomly.
That’s fair. Below I clarified as well, this is a meta.thread. of course no one is discussing their work here. Also my opinion is anecdotal. Of course there are leftists who work very hard to move the window, and help others.
Pretty much. “Lol why don’t you like libs?”
…cause we don’t like things the way they are, and the only goal of the libs appears to be prevent any sort of progress. Maybe we are allowed relief from existing problems, but fuck you if you wanna fix em!
the only goal of the libs appears to be prevent any sort of progress.
“Liberal” in America is literally synonymous with “progressive”. The entire point of the party is progress.
@Cowbee@lemmy.ml here’s another one
No, the entire point of liberalism is continued private property rights.
*Economic liberalism.
Liberalism.
Ah, so you’re not just unaware that the different terms cause confusion
You are maliciously spreading that confusion
My fault for giving you the benefit of the doubt, I don’t normally do that.
Nah, you just lie ✌️
Lol which party is pushing for progress?
The one throwing kids in jail for protesting genocide?
The one funnelling money to Israel hand over foot?
The one that let Republicans stack the judiciary while crying that it was “unfair” but not actually working to stop it?
Fuck the D’s bunch of cowards.
Yes.
Fuck the GOP. They’re doing everything you criticise the Dems for, except worse. That’s what “progress” means. Not that everything is instantly perfect. That it’s less bad.
That is absolutely NOT what progress means, you fucking dipshit.
prog·ress noun /ˈpräɡrəs/
forward or onward movement toward a destination. "the darkness did not stop my progress"Moving slightly slower on enshittofication than the other guys does not meet that definition.
Improvement, actual improvement, is what is required by progress.
I’m not asking for everything to instantly be better. I’m demanding that things stop slowly getting worse.
It’s getting less bad over time too, dumbass.
“Liberal” in America is literally synonymous with “progressive”. The entire point of the party is progress.
What are you even talking about? There are numerous Democrat politicians who don’t label themselves as progressive.
I didn’t say “Democrat” at all in my comment.
All progressives are Democrats, not all Democrats are progressives. The Democratic party is a coalition.
Does that mean there are Democrats who aren’t liberal?
Lib bashing in left spaces is the mating cry of the tanky
It might be cathartic every so often, but too much makes the wrong people feel safe.
Liberals do not belong in left spaces, left is literally defined by anticapitalism.
No, left is defined by liberalism. Anti-capitalism is far right authoritarian bull shit.
Having a fight over who is or isn’t allowed in left spaces instead of having the discussion about leftist policy is what got the left where it is in today’s political discussion.
Defining a movement by who’s not allowed in it leaves you without any ability to get anywhere legitimately.
This is an environment of welcoming. And you should just get the hell out of here.
You should stop contradicting yourself to keep getting to lib bash without feeling responsible for drawing the wrong people in.
Hang on guy, I’m with you. https://youtu.be/CzX-fFPUigQ
There’s no fight.
A space for people opposed to capitalism isn’t gonna have people who are pro-capitalism.
Liberals aren’t left though. They are a centrist position by their very definition.
Once again, a movement based on exclusion is never going to achieve legitimacy.
The only way to achieve legitimacy in the eyes of liberals is liberal policy, the singular thing we are all against.
Based on your interpretation every group could simply be redefined into illegitimate.
- We are for democracy
- Oh so you think that monarchy is bad and you want to define yourself as excluding loyal subjects of the king! That will never be legitimate.
Leftist think that democracy should extend into the economic realm as well and what we should do with the means of production should be governed by the people and not just whoever happens to own the capital. One way to word that would be anti-capitalist, but another way would be to word it as economic democracy.
So if you require an inclusive definition for something to be legitimate, there you go. Liberals in America do not seek to do away with capitalism, you would be hard pressed to find any that do. If you support capitalism, then by the fact that capitalism’s private ownership is mutually exclusive with democratic control of the economy, you don’t support a democratic control of the economy.
You can’t have a vegan meat eater, not because of any moral assessment on veganism or meat eating, but because those two terms are mutually exclusive.
I’m on the left, but I’m far from a communist, much less an authoritarian one, and I 100% use lib or liberal as an insult. I think to most people younger than 50, Liberal refers to a certain type of Democratic voter. They’ll hang a BLM sign in their window but support NIMBY policies that keep people of color out of their neighborhoods. They’ll talk a good game about labor rights and unions, but still go to Starbucks and throw a shit-fit if their order is wrong. They cared very deeply about Iraq and Guantanamo when Bush was President, but stopped bringing it up once Obama was in office.
The Third Way Democrats of the 90s basically turned American Liberals into Neo-Liberals. I will still support them when I have to, since they hold all the levers of power over the only ostensibly progressive party in America, and not siding with them at this point basically ensures the rise of fascism, but I have no love for Liberals.
Op, are you in the US?
In the US, the choices for voting are Republican and Democrat.
Which of these parties is “liberal?”
The argument being made when non conservatives dislike liberals is when the liberals in question align with the Ds, because the Ds have every interest in pushing vaguely progressive policies during elections and never actually follow through in office.
Remember student loans? Still out there Remember universal healthcare? Still gotta pay for insurance Remember tax reform? Still paying higher rates than people who can’t conceivably spend all of their money.
The primary goal of the Dems when in power is to maintain power. Fuck those guys. Not quite as hard as Republicans, but it stands.
Signed, Not a fucking tankie
Democrats tried to fix all those things but were blocked by Republicans in Congress and on the Supreme Court. And that is Democrats fault somehow? Give us more numbers, we’ll get you more results.
I vote D because I have no other valid choice. When Obama was in the president seat, he had both houses of congress and only managed to get the aca. Don’t get me wrong, telling insurance they have to cover preexisting conditions is a good thing, but only by the standard that we are required to use insurance anyways. We need single payer.
Don’t misquote me. I don’t think D and R are the same thing. I know that I suffer less under D leadership than R, however, things only actually ever seem to move further right. For example, why are we throwing college kids in jail for stating the obvious: that supporting the massacre of civilians is heinous? I think that D and R are playing the same game, Power, and the little people who aren’t rich are the ones paying their dues.
I don’t think D and R are the same thing.
BUT
I think that D and R are playing the same game
Suuuuure.
For example, why are we throwing college kids in jail for stating the obvious
That’s not moving right. The US has always done this. You’re just too young and/or uninformed to know about the countless time this has happened throughout history.
I like how the fact that “this has happened before” is somehow a valid excuse for it to happen now. Dismiss me if you like but you still aren’t offering any actual rebuttal.
Since the 80s, and Reagan bot major parties have facilitated the transfer of wealth away from the middle class and to the rich specifically.
I don’t need to call that out because it’s been there for everyone to see for 40 fucking years. What the actual fuck are you on about.
That’s not moving right.
Rebuttal above.
I am not, and I’ve observed that every American seems to have their own definition of what “liberal” means, which is not really very helpful when trying to use the word in a discussion
I’m reasonably sure making discussion difficult is the goal. When the right refers to libs, they mean “anything left of me” without ever acknowledging that a significant number of people being referred to are neither progressive lib or left. The American D party is a center right organization, so how do I, as a leftist express “fuck the platform of the ‘liberal party’ is pushing, they’re clearly bought and paid for too, and are serving the bourgeoisie and don’t give a fuck about me, but I still have to put the guy in charge back in charge cause the alternative is dictatorship.”
Yep, sounds about right.
The democrats are the liberal party. They support abortion, religious freedom, police reform, civil rights (sometimes), drug decriminalization, etc.
That being said, they are trying to encapsulate and entire half of the political spectrum. There’s going to be gaps, disagreements between individual party members, and places where one policy or value has to override another.
Nah, your first statement is close, but you miss by a bit:
“The democrats are the liberal party. They [pretend to] support abortion (when trying to get elected), religious freedom (when trying to get elected), police reform (when trying to get elected), civil rights (when trying to get elected), drug decriminalization (when trying to get elected), etc.”
When not trying to get elected they don’t actually DO anything.
Drug decriminalization was a big deal in the 70’s and we are maybe just now kinda getting around to it.
I didn’t even call out the shit behavior on civil rights, you did that.
They seem a-ok with police fucking with college kids right now.
They’ve had 50 years since roe v wade to guarantee the right to abortion, and they didn’t.
What DID they do?
Helped give money to people who are already rich through tax breaks. Helped give money to people who are already rich through deregulation they allowed through. Helped give money to people who are already rich through defense contracts. Helped give money to people who are already rich by overthrowing foreign governments with control over resources out oil barrons want.
Id call those “gaps”, yeah.
Literally everything Democrats do is bad, especially the good things they do.
Got it.
Definitely not sounding like fash talking points at all.
When choice 1 is kill me slowly (maybe suggest slowing down oil emissions but not actually enforce it), and choice 2 is kill me quickly (lets sell Alaska to Exxon), what is the correct choice?
I would honestly prefer choice 3 which is stop fucking trying to kill me.
Should I commend the D team for not being quite as bad as R? Jesus man, I just want to have options that aren’t two different versions of wrong.
Seriously, how do you not understand that this is an ENGINEERED false dichotomy?
Additionally, everyone is coming at me going “the liberal party is progressiveby definition” and yet no one gives any examples of ACTUAL progress o. The D platform that ever a tualky gets acted upon. So far I’m the only person here who’s even. Rought up the ACA, and I do grant that it is mild progress, for the US, not for anywhere else in the developed world.
Choice 3 is just choice 2 with a fake mustache.
Should I commend the D team for not being quite as bad as R?
Yes.
Jesus man, I just want to have options that aren’t two different versions of wrong.
Sucks, welcome to being an adult.
and yet no one gives any examples of ACTUAL progress
It’s pointless because every time we do you just throw out a red herring. Or start screaming that doing something to fix the problem is somehow worse than making the problem worse. Or you just go quiet.
Let’s try. Biden has forgiven $153 billion in student loans that would not be forgiven under the GOP. That is progress.
Commence with the mental gymnastics.
Debt forgiveness is a decent step… Again unless educating your populace is as high a priority as it should be, in which case higher education would be freely available to any who wanted it. That’s not a moving goalpost, that’s simply how it always should have been.
Under that, there simply is no student debt. Also, worth noting that debt forgiveness doesn’t actually fix the problem, it just gets people to shut up and go away, so yes I am still screaming for good and free public education for the public good.
There it is. No progress is good enough. Ever.
Fuck you and your “biden bad” propaganda.
They support
- Abortion (in campaign ads and fundraising emails)
- Religious freedom (by wagging a finger when Republicans don’t and then doing fuck all about it)
- Police reform (by throwing cash at cops for “better training” while refusing to actually change the inherently abusive system)
- Civil rights (sometimes) (when it won’t effect the bottom line of their owner donors like AIPAC and the fossil fuel industries
- Drug decriminalization (in theory, but never in practice)
they are trying to encapsulate and entire half of the political spectrum
No. They are trying to be IN CHARGE OF over half of the political spectrum. The only ideologies other than their own (which is center right to right wing) that they ever try to appeal to is the couple dozen “undecided that are almost but not quite Republicans” left in the country.
There’s going to be gaps, disagreements between individual party members, and places where one policy or value has to override another.
Nope, there’s going to be nothing but neglect and abuse towards anyone to the left of the leadership, which is now to the right of Reagan.
In spite of the name, the Democratic Party is not democratic or even a party. It’s a private for-profit corporation controlled by a small group of people who are in turn controlled to varying degrees by rich people, other corporations, and industry lobbying groups.
Almost like AuthComs are authoritarian before they are communist, and thus have more in common with the American Fascist Party than any actual leftists.
I use lib for shared objects.
When the horseshoe becomes a circle…
I will not stand for this anarchist erasure
It’s more that OP seems unable to fathom anyone to the left of them being both rational and uncool with liberalism. That’s why they specifically said “Authouritarian Communists,” the SpOoKiEsT LeFtIsTs.
I tend to see the derogatory ‘Liberal’ and moreso ‘Lib’ used for Neo-liberals and those supporting the neoliberal policies that have dominated the last few generations.
I otherwise see it used in the context of the phrase “scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds” which is pithy but tracks with history and typically the more antagonistic usage. It is almost entirely used to provoke a reaction from the ‘libs’ it is directed at, accuracy notwithstanding.
With context it is almost always pretty self explanatory which is being used.
“Authoritarian” would require that we, you know, have some authority. Which we don’t.
Neolibs do. And they just used it to arrest a bunch of students and people protesting against a genocide.
You all project so fucking hard it’s ridiculous.
“Authoritarian” would require that we, you know, have some authority.
No, it would require you to support the idea that there should be some central authority telling people what they should be doing. Which you do.
Lol okay bud. Then tell me how you justify 44 Democrat senators, 36 Republican senators and Joe Biden working together to block the rail strike? I can’t wait to observe your abilities as a mental contortionist.
I don’t. That’s precisely why I’m against authoritarianism.
That’s pretty much every non-anarchist ideology then, no?
Secret lovers.
don’t usually agree on that much
Where have you been the last 8 years
Yeah Tankies/AuthComs are just such an odd mixture of accelerationists, “own the libs” and just general stupidity of “a strong man makes strong men” bullshit that they support any fascist if it means maybe someday they might not be on the chopping block.
If Tankies were an actual voting bloc they’d be somewhat impactful for the first time since maybe 1949. That would imply going outside however.
Remember, men who want a strong man want to be dominated, therefore they are themselves weak
They agree on a lot more than you’d think, once you parse out each cult’s different groupspeak
FDR, Churchill , Hitler, and Mussolini also had a lot in common when you get down to it. Same as humans and chimpanzees. It’s the differences that actually matter.
I mean they each protected capitalism in their own way:
FDR, being old money who’d just seen MacArthur send in the tanks to raze a camp of rebellious soldiers and knew how these things tended to go, invested in guillotine insurance via the New Deal.
Hitler and Mussolini used the other approach, privatizing/selling off state assets and applying colonial methods they’d perfected in Africa back home to buttress capitalism and protect profits.
I’m not gonna get started on Churchill.
North American, upper middle class authoritarian communists. That shit is just cosplay for them lol
