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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Except when they do.
Here in Brasil, LGBTphobia, racism and nazism are against the law. It’s that simple. And that’s the bare-minimum.
Only on paper, in practice the ones that brought it are the only ones that are free, like I already argued.
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.
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
So, the exact same thing?
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.
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.
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.
Capitalists are doing the genocide. Liberals are enabling them.
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.
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.
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.
Just lol. I must have hallucinated the amount of “but do you condemn Hamas” liberals I see on the internet then.
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.
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.
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.
No, it’s scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds.
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
Respectfully, that’s where I tried to leave it 2 comments ago
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
:'(
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.
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.
He didn’t, and it’s bad faith of your to say he did.
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.
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
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.
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.
Great, I’ll make sure to report you to the mods if your openly admitting to acting in bad faith.
No, because the comment you ignored was extensive and full of reasonable points, which you then ignored with the excuse of a brief nitpick.
It would only be a compliment if you were trying to capture the flaw in liberalism.
Sentences like this certainly push the needle towards 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.
I was.
Again, I appreciate the compliment. Take care.
“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
Glad to hear you’ve decided to abandon liberalism.