Why do you hate Liberals?

I have been lurking your board for a while, and notice you guys seem to have a real hate-on for liberals. Why is that?

Liberalism as I know it stands for ideas like egalitarianism, individual liberty, free markets, and a general open-mindedness towards other ideas.

These do not sound like innately bad ideas, although I know why you oppose free markets (communism, socialism, etc.).

I have a few ideas why you might hate Liberals, tell me if I'm correct, expand upon them, etc.

-Maybe you see Liberals as enablers for the corporatism which runs rampant in our society today.
-Maybe you see Liberals as apologetic towards identity politics.
-Maybe you see Liberals as responsible for the failure of the left.

I'm honestly very curious about the Liberal/Leftist divide, so please tell me your thoughts.

Other urls found in this thread:



Beatween us and the MoP there are two walls, one made of bricks made by porkys
The other is a human chain of Liberals holding hands and if we try to tear them down they will revolt, call porky and made a brick wall taller and thicker

liberals are shit and they support the status quo, they'll never be anything other than useful idiots

Liberals would gladly hang themselves if they thought it was in the service of their god, "justice". They refuse to understand that such things do not exist, no one will stand up for you, and power perpetuates itself with a pretty face instead of naked barbarism.

Are you the autistic liberal kraut from yesterday?

So then the opposition is largely because you see Liberals as a barrier to achieving your goals.

My natural question is, do you honestly believe that if you destroy Porky (a representation of the elite who are at the head of capitalism), that you will be able to achieve your vision?

Let me rephrase, do you believe your economic theory has enough information, testing, and maturity to yield a society that is more fair than capitalism?

If so, how will you deal with people who after living in your society after generations, want to create a capitalist society?

I'm curious, ultimately, in whether you believe in your philosophy because you KNOW it works or because you WANT it to work.

I hate liberals most because they've fucked over the average worker by distracting them with idpol instead of focusing on the things that matter.
It's due to cowardice really.

Yes, why wouldn't it?

Not testing but theory should cover every mistake that could happen.

It'll be the same as the people who want to return to fedalism or hunting&gathering

learn2 materialism cousin

I love how that guy got all his arguments btfo and then declared "victory" at the end

Well, I have a number of friends who live in Venezuela and I've been in touch with them through the Chavez years until now. During Chavez they were pretty happy, but towards the end when Maduro took power is when they really started to complain.

I bring this up because it shows me how vulnerable a system can be towards external influences, but also because it makes me skeptical of so-called alternative economic systems.

I have no doubts that there are other economic models outside of capitalism that work (it would be stupid if our universe only allowed one abstract model to function). My skepticism comes more towards the robustness of these systems. In Venezuela's case, all it took was a shift in oil prices and leaders and BOOM it all went south.

I'm very curious to see alternatives pop up. It excites my inner scientist. But that's where my skepticism comes from.

Can you clarify? I think you mean they would be a fringe of society which are allowed to do what they want, as long as they remain harmless?

They still have private property and production for profit
the best case of the limits of welfare

They will be harmless because no rational human will be willing to give away their rights

I find it interesting that you attribute the failure of Venezuela to the lack of robustness of socialism rather than the policies of the government itself.

As you said, all it took was a shift in oil prices for their economy to collapse. Nowhere in socialist theory does it say an economy should not diversify. In fact, diversification is essential in a socialist economy if one aims to minimise outside influence from capitalist systems.

I feel that your type of argument is all too common to many criticisms of "socialist" governments. In the sense that if a country fails or struggles, rather than look critically at specific policies of the government, we look to blame socialism as a whole as if that's a sufficient explanation in itself.

However, the opposite seems to be the case for capitalism. For the almost global economic crashes in the 1920s, 1980s, early 2000s and 2007/8, what was criticised more, the inherent instability of capitalist economies or the actions of individuals within Western governments and businesses?

That you would put your question in these terms shows what a fucktard you are. What someone honestly believes holds little weight. What can be argued or better yet demonstrated is what matters.

Not necessarily, no. But I know for sure that it won't happen if we don't get rid of the system that Porky symbolizes.

If leftism is missing anything it's field tests. We have an over abundance of theory and comparatively few real-life examples to work from. Trying to build socialism is what we need right now, so that we can refine the old theories according to the new attempts.

They won't be able to because capitalism requires the workers to work for the capitalist. Everyone will be used to working for themselves and their community under socialism, so even if they try out the capitalist system they won't like it and will choose to work under socialism instead.

I KNOW that it makes sense on paper (ebin meme aside) and that it has seemed to work for the time that it was allowed to exist before foreign porkies stomped it out. More importantly we can see that capitalism doesn't work (any more) and needs to be replaced with something better.

I said alternative economic system, not socialism. Also, if memory serves, Chavez was fighting against capitalism (well, specifically American meddling in SA).

Truthfully it's hard to point to a socialist government which has survived for a length of time. It is a very new idea, relative to mercantilism, and capitalism.

Not to mention that if you point to an example of a socialist state, someone will always say "But that's not socialism!"

For example, if I point to the Soviet Union as an example of a socialist state which failed, lots of people will tell me I'm wrong because it wasn't socialism. Same with China, and so on.

But what of Social Democracies like the Nordic states? They seem to be surviving (except Sweden, which was projected to be like a third-world country in 15 years).

To the rest of what you wrote, I was speaking about alternative economic systems, not socialism specifically. However, the fact that Venezuela nationalized its oil production, and medicine, and so on, sounds a lot like a variant of socialist theory.

Well, to be quite honest, even after those crashes (and even more if we go back further), the capitalist nations mostly survived. The United States is still here. To my mind that speaks of robustness of a system.

No matter where you are on the political spectrum, if you have anything going for you at all, you hate liberals. There is no definition of a political liberal that makes them good in any way.

The only time "liberal" means something positive is when it's non-political, meaning something like generous or accommodating.

lel what a womanlet. Is she under 5' tall?

one time bill clinton ambushed in the parking lot and chased me around my car with a a copy of The Wealth of Nations welp thats my liberals story

True. Would you just call them a welfare state, then?

I thought they were trying to implement an alternative economy. The people I talk to who live there tell me about how there's more than one currency and more than one economy going on at the same time, and I read about their nationalization of oil. Isn't nationalization a form of socialism?

You should have read further then, because that is what I asked, albeit in more polite phrasing.

Alternative question: Suppose you get rid of what Porky represents, will the growing bureaucracy not simply come to represent a new type of Porky? I know that this is a common criticism of alternatives to capitalism, that the bureaucracy forms a new elite class.

If you admit that, wouldn't it make more sense to start small (buy a large amount of land, build a proto-state on it, try out the theory, and so on)?

One thing that that concerns me about all this talk of revolution is that, like you said, there aren't a huge number of real-world examples to draw from and we all know how theory can fail when it lacks hard data.

Put another way, it seems like revolution in a country like the USA is biting off more than anyone could possibly chew. I think even if your theory had decades of testing behind it, the margins of ultimate success would be rather low because that's just how politics works. Pulling it off with an experimental framework seems way too ambitious.

I remember reading ages ago about a sociological theory which supposed that some people are born with the desire to have a saddle on their backs, and others are born to ride the saddle. Have you heard of this? I don't know if it would remain true in a socialist state, but you reminded me of it.

I agree with these sentiments. I'm simply reserved towards replacements, because history has shown us how insanely complex nation-states are to manage effectively and successfully.

I laughed because I could honestly image him doing that.

Not really
Depends of how it is run in the end.

Because they essentially want to keep the status quo going, co-opt socialism by saying that "We need a mix of capitalism and socialism", and make everyone left of them look bad with fucking idpol.

Socialism and leftism generally are the true inheritors of the liberal Enlightenment tradition—equality, liberty and so on.

The difference is that we apply those principles fully toward a critique of society as a whole, not just the formalistic superstructures. That means, for example, democracy in the workplace, not just in the parliament.

They are moralists scum

Bureaucracy isn't necessarily a part of what comes next. Even if it is, it doesn't necessarily entail a new class. Class is a matter of the relations of production. Bureaucrats fall into a different category. State capitalism may happen, but it's not a necessary part of a failed workers' state. I'm an anarchist so I don't want a state to begin with. I want locally-managed communities that collaborate in a confederate system.

No because of the reason I gave for socialism "failing" in the past - external forces will conquer and reinstate capitalism. Starting small makes this worse not better.

If the problem is lack of data the solution is to acquire it. Enter: revolution.

It would work better than capitalism, going by previous attempts at socialism. Even if it has huge flaws they will be less than the flaws of capitalism in the USA (for instance).

Wow in a society built to serve the interests of the bourgeoisie, someone came up with a theory that people just like to serve the bourgeoisie? Wow no I have never ever heard of such a thing. You have turned my worldview around 360 degrees. I didn't think it was possible for people to justify a shitty system because it was the status quo.

I would argue that this is because of their top-down structure. Most leftists (including me) would argue that this is mostly a function of keeping the system running while capitalism faces crises left, right, up, down, center, inside, outside, in the fourth dimension, etc.

Hey OP.

The political spectrum isnt just a liberal-conservative scale (see pic). If you only think that way, then many on this board are indeed liberal. But some here see a distinction between their beliefs and mainstream 'liberals' (i.e. US democratic party)

Fuck liberals. Fuck progressives even more… Neo-Libs? Fuck em.

They are the out-of-touch bourgeois.

The liberal news media shortens everything to a 5 second sound-byte because they believe that we, the people, are too stupid to understand intelligent discussion

Liberals want to take away guns. They believe that we cant handle them, that we only kill each other with them, while they, the ruling party, keeps them all to themselves and use them to fund secret wars around the world.

Free market you say? If you can call supporting monopolistic conglomerates via pay-for-play to the highest bidder, then yes. The market is free… for the bourg.

Individual liberty you suggest? Im sorry, but the Libs are just as controlling as the Cons (in the US)…

Open-mindedness to ideas? Why is this liberal? This suggests that anyone who isnt liberal is close-minded. Thats very close-minded of you.

Yes. The American liberal party (democrat) fully supports corporatization. They have allowed certain companies to become more monopolistic than ever… Podesta emails showed the collusion between media conglomerates and the dem party.

Yes. Libs/dems separate people into racial/identity groups more often than any other political party, except possibly Nazis

Yes. I see dems responsible for the failure of dems.

There really is no alternative to capitalism beside socialism that is currently viable. There are only various flavors of each. The reason for that is that a society cannot revert to a less productive mode of production without an apocalyptic collapse.

Chavez may have made friends with Castro and talked a lot of shit, but at the end of the day he built his country into a simple resource extraction node for global capitalism. Nationalizing the primary export does not make an economy socialism. It just makes it not a banana republic.

Some marxists will say that it was, because the vanguard was acting in the best interests of the proletariat. The Trotskyists and Left-communists will argue that it was not, because the proletariat itself never actually had control of the state and the economy. The anarchists will say that it was not socialist, because the state itself functioned as a bougeois class that exploited surplus value.

Maoism is class-collaborationist trash. The fact that Mao tried to give socialism "Chinese characteristics" should let you know what you are in for with that. National identity, no dictatorship of the proletariat, and no attempt to eliminate class? What the hell about that is "socialist?" What about that is not just plain capitalist?

Those are just post-industrial capitalist countries that happen to be in the global economic center.

Socialist theory is not "when the government does stuff."

Up until recently they survived through expansion and war. Expansion allows for an increase in production that temporarily increases living standards within the society. Unfortunately, capitalism has run out of Earth to expand into.

Whoa there, cowboy. Your theory is getting there, but you need to lurk and read a bit more first.

Political spectrum being a spook aside, that political spectrum is terrible.

The bourgeoisie aren't defined by political beliefs. Lurk the fuck more.

Switch monarchism and fascism at least fuck

(Assuming you're referring to our modern "left"-liberalism) It's the new face of capitalism tbh. The biggest fear for many of us is that it essentially presents itself as something benevolent and liberating while at the same time hiding a viciousness which is all too familiar.

It's rather easy to oppose right-wingers when they are in power. They do not make any attempt to mask their cruelty, but rather justify it after the fact (criminals deserve punishment, the poor deserve to starve, etc.).

What is worrying then about liberalism is that in a similar way to what fascists historically did with the rhetoric and symbolism of leftism, it adopts a lot of the core values of leftism and perverts them to fit global capitalism, to the point where a rebellion from the left is impossible. It defends itself using the language of equality and social justice. You can think of Hillary's liberal feminist stance against Bernie in this sense. It always finds a way to paint itself as the goodguy.

In this sense you can think of leftliberalism as analogous roughly to the parent who has learned to guilt their child into obedience rather than beating them into submission. The child is no longer disciplined by an external force, but by an internal sense of duty. Whereas earlier the child could point to the violence used against him as something which he can clearly isolate and oppose, now when he disobeys his parents he throws away all obligation to them, all responsibility, etc.

I do not wholly oppose feminism, black liberation etc. (I recently read a very good critique of modern intersectional social movements from a marxist perspective here which I strongly recommend: unityandstruggle.org/2013/09/12/i-am-a-woman-and-a-human-a-marxist-feminist-critique-of-intersectionality-theory/). But all the same there is a way in which they are used which is deeply hegemonic. You cannot oppose the bourgeois without being an unenlightened and intolerant fascist who needs to get with the times.

This is the challenge for the left which requires subversion in order to even begin to institute change. "Left"-liberalism essentially takes subversion away from us while leaving us with a society that is still capitalist to its core.

Because their tribalism makes them do some of the stupidest, most counter-productive face-palming shit.

It really wouldn't. Capitalism is parasitic. It must be outlawed.

100% this.

Liberals essentially co-opt leftist language and present their thoroughly capitalist policies as left-wing stances.

As a result, their failures are be attributed to the left and "socialism" rather than the capitalist ideology that they embody.

Clearly this fucks with the public's perception of the left making it nigh on impossible to promote class consciousness. Third Way politics has done more damage to the left than right-wingers could've ever have dreamed of causing…

because liberals are reformists or worse

no one that stands for these things in the last half century has called themselves a liberal

these are all true and symptoms of their real disease; trying to slightly modify the status quo instead of risking failure


Uh, no, most did not in fact survive the Great Depression and fell into fascism. A few managed to survive by taking serious pro-egalitarian measures which spread to the rest of the first world once fascism failed. This gave them a period of unprecedented prosperity that gave them a new false confidence in capitalism. Then the belief that they need to pander to capitalists more gave them the current crisis.

Now we see anti-liberal rightists slowly taking over, and we can't yet be sure what their actual rule will look like and what it will lead to. But we can at least assume that the neoliberalism of the last 40 years is on its death throes.

For much of my adult life I did. Then after the last couple years I distanced myself from the word because I didn't want to associate myself with what you see now on the mainstream left.

Are you talking about the fall of empires after world war 1? Forgive me if my memory is a little foggy on early 20th century history, but I recall many of the European nations surviving the last hundred years. Also, we survived the great depression, and the 2008 housing bubble.

Like it or not, after two such apocalyptic events our economies survived. You might hate capitalism, and corporatism, but it clearly has durability.

The closest durability comparison I can think of for socialism is the Soviet Union, but it ultimately fell.

Not to say that after the housing bubble, and impending student loan bubble, that capitalism has me cheerleading for it.

I've been keen on this since maybe 2012 or so. There is a very upsetting trend for those on the left who call themselves progressives to invade all facets of life, take command, and then impose controls which keep people feeling alienated and powerless. Even the means of fighting the system is engineered to have no effect: protests, demonstrations which only exist to create a media cameo, and virtue signaling on the internet.

You should. They are the tools of Porky, to borrow your language. I've come to realize that they serve no purpose but to (for feminism):
-Divide us against each other based on sex, and any growing number of sexual permutations.
-Deconstruct our cultures, traditions, and make everything relative to everything else, so as to demoralize us and make our lives feel like trivial pursuits of pleasure (which feeds consumerism and sexual hedonism).
-Rigidly control our sex lives when it involves women, so that we're self-conscious and afraid, and thus easily manipulated and subjugated by authority figures.

For black liberation:
-Much the same as feminism, but centering on race. Dividing us against each other based on our skin color.
-Keeping black people in a permanently weak state because they blame everyone else and never look to themselves. Thus they become dependent, while at the same time an easily provoked force against scapegoats.
-I'm not sure yet, but I have wondered if black culture in America exists as a kind of testbed for ideas and music which spreads consumerism and dependency to the rest of the population.

I think when history looks back on us, it will judge us harshly for sacrificing large amounts of our people to the false god of consumerism.

I see many of you on here with good ideas for subversion, and I also lurk pol as well and see them aiming for the same thing. You are both diametrically opposed ideologically, but wish to accomplish the same thing ultimately, which is to hold our leaders responsible for their crimes against us, and toss away the corpse of our presently corrupt, heinous corporatist economic system.

The only differences really come in how you plan to rebuild after that. Pol wants an ethnically pure, fascist state. You guys want… well, a variety of different left-aligned political and economic systems.

It will be interesting to see who "wins" this. If it can be won, after all.

Sorry, my reply for you is here.

Which part of
do you find impossible to comprehend?

Almost none of the pre-Great Depression economies survived, that's a fact. By 1945, their downfall left the entire Europe (and significant parts of the rest of the world) in literal ruins. The ones that did survive (US, Sweden), did so by going more egalitarian, restricting corporate greed and implementing some socialist policies. This formed the image that many other world's economies would be rebuilt in, often from scratch. It was, unfortunately, still capitalism, but it was a completely different kind of capitalism. The pre-1929 economy is long dead.

And if you insist that the "nations" survived, please note that this is not a particularly high bar to clear. Irish nation survived a famine that halved the island's population. Jews and Armenians survived genocides. People can survive a whole fucking lot, would you imagine?

certain sorts of non-class movements are, of course. But others are absolutely necessary as a part of a leftist program. This is essentially what the article I linked to was about. The problem with most modern movements for non-class social groups and even, to an extent, class movements is that they are identity-focussed. They draw their politics from current experience entirely and are thus static. Amadeo Bordiga pointed out that classes only really exist in the Marxist sense when they are in movement. They do not themselves just mean a difference in living conditions. Progressive intersectional politics has once again reduced the idea of social groups to groups of people who face different living conditions without the crucial understanding of the need for the abolition of these groups. It seeks to define people according to these labels, these so-called axes of oppression "I'm a woman, black, queer" etc. But it does not seek the abolition of these groups. What is important for them is representation, and to have these groups coexist with traditionally muh privileged groups in a capitalist society. The goal of any properly leftist movement should be the liberation and abolition of these groups.

M8, I'd take capitalism and all the exploitation that comes with it over Mao's cultural revolution any day. Liberalism isn't that bad.