Liberal cringe thread?

I saw this during the Oscars and knew this place would love it.

Time for a shitposting project?

rosa edit when

...

2spoopy

This is getting autistic.

medium.com/race-law-a-critical-analysis/is-black-bloc-a-racist-tactic-in-the-trump-era-why-white-activists-should-stop-wearing-masks-at-f7cf45390292#.38xmpn55g

Surely this will stop the GOP.

Well god kek and meme magic won the Trump Presidency.

So is kek now turning his favor in support of the liberals? As much as I'd hate it, it would cause the most butthurt.

Every protestor should wear a mask even non black bloc people.

They wouldn't be trying to make ti illegal if it wasn't effective.

Here is something cringy, people still think a failed ideology that has been implemented many times will ever work

How is life treating you pol?

OK, my cat ran away but I just got some pizza. Thanks for asking

>every successful revolution lead by individuals that risked life and limb for achieving socialism became hilariously oppressive states because…???

How are capitalism and fascism faring these days? Maybe if were luckily their failures will collapse together. We're usually not lucky though if history is any indication.

Jokes about modern life aside, your question gets answered on a daily basis numerous times, stick around and through osmosis you will gain enough information to see past your wwwideologeeee.

Really makes (x) think became a stale meme last year.

t. "Actually no socialist state has ever existed, SO YOU CAN'T CLAIM THAT CAPITALISM IS SUPERIOR TO SOCIALISM"

Oh, and every historical revolutionary that overthrew their government in favor of establish a state based along ostensibly-socialist principles just happened to be a massive fucking tard that didn't know what they were doing

Because people advocating capitalism and gullible fools buying everything they're told say so and it just totally is what happend.

Yeah… no.

You seem really mad my friend. Lets make heaven a place called earth together.

But Fascism has never been tried! Nazi Germany was Hitlerism, Italy was Mussoliniism.

Realtalk though, why can't successful socialist revolutionaries establish countries that outpace their capitalist peers?

Without, y'know, Stalinist-tier horrific loss of life

Because states tbh

Cause of the boogyman we call capitalists

this has my eye twitching

...

Here come the tankies aka

Because greed is the only possible incentive for people to do anything.

Except when it isn't.

Us socialists are just really stubborn and want to deny basic facts about humans biological predestination when it comes to "always existing" capitalism.

Sometimes when I'm feeling vulnerable, I admit to myself for just a second that maybe those failures in the past really were real deal red in the face socialism, but then I remember what I learned in secret meetings with the Elders of Zion at the Frankfurt school no socialist can ever admit the failures of those societies and try to learn from them…

Except when they do, but there aren't many socialists self critics willing to do that. Except about 90% of the ones that have existed passed the 1940's and some that came before but who is counting them?

You know Murray Rothbard didn't have the same definition of capitalism as Milton Friedman and when they would disagree on it they would yell "not true capitalism" at each other in esteemed schools of learning. Joseph Schumpeter has a bizarre definition of Austrian capitalism that includes some Marxist critiques. Most people on the street have a common sense definition of capitalism they think they know. It's almost like thinkers and societies develop complex definitions about certain ideologies and not everyone agrees on certain definitions or whether that definition is the thing they're defending. Nah that cant be the case we just do it because we're scared of socialism looking bad.

Nope the only socialism that ever existed was the height of Stalinism and the Great leap forward famines. Just like the only real capitalist countries that exist by my definition are Pinochet's Chile, the Shah era Iran and blood diamond African countries. I know other thinkers and people disagree with my absurdly decontextualized and myopic definition of capitalism, but something about it just feels right to me when I'm trying to escape the problems with my own philosophy… I wonder if people on the other side do this. Probably not, who could possibly be that intellectually dishonest?

They say that losers are always looking at the winners.

Facism was tried and it nearly won an unwinnable war.
Communism has issues, Holla Forums needs to work them out.

Because half either go full conspiratorial ''akchooaly everything the USSR supposedly did bad never happened or was exaggerated" while the rest simply declare that since it wasn't TRUE socialism there is nothing to learn from their mistakes

But socialists compare socialism as they imagine it to capitalism as it actually is, and of course socialism is always going to win out. Everything bad with IRL capitalism is a feature, not a bug, everything bad with states ostensibly created by socialist revolutionaries and organised on socialist lines is just because welp Lenin/Stalin/Mao etc were just illiterate fuckwits that didn't know what they were doing

Make a thread on it and maybe you'll find out.

fits your flag you fucking larper.

People often do this, it's the excesses of ideology and in a lot of weird ways the extremes come to dip back on themselves. Mirrored opposition is as much a literary concept as it is a facet of real life.

As an example: Have you ever noticed anarcho-capitalists and libertarians want all the benefits of modern "capitalism" as most people on the street understand but they want to escape all it's downsides with new definitions, euphemisms and phrases? "Crony, mixed-economy, Corporatism, statism, etc."

I don't think libertarians do this because they nefariously want to lie to my face about what they believe. I think they do it because they nebulously want a better society but cant come up with invariant examples of what that better society would look like without pointing to the good aspects of "what is." I believe most people are well meaning in their political intents no matter how sinister it may appear on the surface.

Similarly I admit the socialism and communism inspired some genuine failures and by some peoples definitions they get lumped in with the particular political ideology I happen to espouse, but I wouldn't agree with that for (X) number of reasons. People can only defend what they're willing to defend and own up to what they feel responsible for. Every political ideology does this, to me what matters is their priorities and the end goal and how much those square up with reality.

Most political philosophies are impossible in a puritanical sense. There is no end point until the human race goes extinct for one reason or another. The time of ecological equilibrium of ideologies has long been over. To say it in the most cliche way possible "everything is made to be broken." It's not about what will last forever and be free from instability, societies cant always make those decisions of their own accord and there might be a million mitigating factors as to why that is and how. Socialism, communism, fascism, liberalism and capitalism are no different in that sense. The point is to advocate what you think will address the problems of today and the near long term future in the best way possible.

I'm glad tankies focus on the important things like the shit posting flag I chose to respond to this one pol-star with. Truly this tiny icon of Che defines my life and everything I stand for. Now we can be bros together.

Nah, they don't.

This is why you cannot apologize for the Soviet Union as a Socialist. It's weak.

Furthermore, one cannot look at each socialist state individually, disregarding their history, their circumstances, their neighbours and their relation to existing states (eg. USSR, China, …). For many, the Soviet Union was the example for the question how socialism should be done. Especially in the west, were regular people didn't know much about them, except for totally contrary propaganda from both sides, people were attracted to it. Another example is Mao, his cultural revolution, and then effect it had on the youth in the 1960-70's.

Ultimately, the worst one can do is to be too committed to the "socialism in one country" -meme, propagated by Stalinist, and accepted by the west, just by turning it into "capitalism in one country", as if their success or failure would only be dependant on internal factors and their domestic economy. In my eyes it's painfully obvious that this has never been, and cannot be the case. Why did the eastern block states have fallen apart around the same time, if they were all operated independently of each other?

...