Why is that every leftist website/forum ends up resembling the cultish...

The internet is forced into right-wing social relations, even on leftist boards, due to the nature of power on the internet.
You can't just make something only run hierarchically and then expect it to not be awful.

He hasn't proven anything except that he uses the term liberalism in a very odd way.

The context here being political ideologies. As for the "So?" ; you keep your ideology intact by naming it differently when it conflicts with your idealized version of it, which creates an insular understanding sealed of by word play, leading to endless "but that isn't real x" defenses that exhaust you so much when used by everyone other than yourselves.

I sell vegetables that never rot, it guarantees so on the label. When they do start rotting, they aren't my vegetables because as I have said, they never rot.

I enjoy learning about how popular consensus = fact and definition

I enjoy learning how you became the greatest linguist that ever lived by proving that the meaning of words comes from objective definitions (bonus points if you can also prove that these definitions come from Holla Forums)

tfw the mainstream media gets to decide reality now

Just admit that you have no idea what you're talking about.

In this context, "liberalism" refers mainly to social liberals who call themselves leftists but replace class politics (material relations) with race, gender, nationalism, and other such forms of identity politics while also being extremely critical of anyone who drifts from the line. Call them SJWs maybe, but most of Holla Forums is not at all like them.

Consensus does equate definition, although there is something to be said for intentionally redefinining things if the definitions are no longer useful (see: any -ism in America, where you will be endlessly strawmanned from all sides and are better off declaring in very simple terms what you concretely want). Fact is a complicated issue in general and not worth discussing here.

Get your eyes off the idiot box, the boobtube will make you a rube dude.

Because tankie scum infests every left-wing organization and Marxism-Leninism is literally a cult.

The pattern is obvious to every single true anarchist. Power corrupts. The cause of it is not some ideological degeneration but the social structure, which differentiates between mods and users.

Also, I see that you're calling a No True Scotsman on socialism in general. There is a very strict definition of socialism, and saying that past attempts haven't met it is perfectly fair.

Your dispute was that we're using words improperly because they're "alien from common use," not that we're renaming our "ideology" (as if there is a singular ideology here). "Redefining" would be correct, but that's characteristic of all words still in use.

Your example is invalid because a word comes to mean what it means within its societal context. When you use a word purely subjectively (i.e. if I define "hall" to mean "can"), then it's nonsense, of course, because there is no social context. If we as a community have a collective understanding that "hall" means "can," then the usage would be valid within that context.

Really, your point betrays a lack of understanding of how words function generally.

Two main things genuine leftist organizations should actually worry about are being bogged down by identity issues and having to deal with anarkiddies who think that all authority is equally bad.

"Official" authority is always bad, though. It's spoopy af

You forgot the rest of your sentence, I'll help.

Anarchists don't "think all authority is equally bad"
t. Bakunin, "God And The State"
Stop getting your ideas about anarchism from Lenin. He repeatedly strawmanned anarchism in "State And Revolution" because he had mental issues and couldn't deal with the idea of people not agreeing with him on every little thing. He would shout people down and order them socially isolated for the smallest disagreements. You're following a long-dead madman, a tragic figure best left to the annals of history as an example of what not to do.

Don't forget about the Bookchin cult followers who think that anti-imperialism is a waste of time.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
That should answer your question, user.

Lenin never claimed anarchists thought all authority was equally bad. He said that anarchists were utopians obsessed with the conceptualization of perfect societies with little in the way of how to get there.

Fine, then I can change the statement to say that all political authority is equally bad, and that is what is relevant here. The non-political authority of technical specialists or parents for that matter is a separate issue. Some political authorities (like the USA and the CIA) are much worse then others.

I didn't forget about them, Bookchin has many misguided ideas due to the rejection of Marxism.

You're conflating the whole of leftism with a small part of it, orthodox marxism. The purity process here is very similar to salafists who do not call themselves salafist but just muslim, seeing all muslims who aren't salafist as not being real muslims.

Such an oversimplification prevents understanding. It is not as much power as such, as it is the power of concern trolling.

There is a very strict definition of my vegetables; they never rot.

You do the former because of the latter. I specifically said renaming, as this is about the weight of the brand, the ideology, the name, for it implies that you are the true carrier of the name, with the rest being impostors.

You are correct that words have a different meaning dependent on context, homonyms and polysemes however have nothing to do with purity definitions and their function in ideology.

There is no one "ideology" here. If it's the true carrier of the "name," single, then it would be redefining, with the labeling of others being posterior to the definition. When others are said not to be such-and-such, the definition within the context necessarily has to exclude them prior, otherwise they would belong to that definition.

Restating your point isn't demonstrating it.

And this again…

...

You seem to misunderstand me. Like salafists claim the name of islam for themselves, marxists claim the name of leftism. As the name is what those who hold the name have to live up to, this is something else entirely than a word having different meaning in a different context as the word "bow" does in archery and shipping.

Limiting a whole which you belong to, to the set of said whole which you belong to, is a purity definition. Or we could call it a banana of course.

The consequence of your prescriptivism will raise its head again and again.

You're assuming what you're seeking to demonstrate by way of your definition, then.

I don't think you know what "prescriptivism" is. "Words come to mean something only within a community" isn't prescriptivism.

I'm not even a Marxist. Every major ideology here - anarchism (starting with Bakunin - very few anarchists still adhere to Proudhon's metaphysics), Marxism (the actual varieties, mind you, not tankies), egoism, etc. - is materialist, because materialism is what consistently stands up to investigation from a wide variety of different angles, even if the varieties aren't all identical in the end.

Let me show you the first time the term "scientific socialism" was ever used
t. Proudhon, "What Is Property?"
Lenin either didn't know what he was talking about or intentionally misrepresented ideas.

Fucking no. That's not at all what Bakunin is saying. If you can't back up your proposals concretely and convince people, why should they listen to you?
The only political authorities which are "good" in any sense of the word are those which are subject to recall if they abuse their mandated authority. It should be noted that Bakunin was the first to advocate workers' councils and a praxis integrating them ("Revolutionary Manifesto", 1866; when he talked of the "invisible dictatorship" in "Statism And Anarchy", he refers to arguing for anarchist ideas on the floors of workers' councils without subordinating them to strict control), in opposition to Marx's staunch advocacy of either parliamentary seizure of power or the calling of a constituent assembly. This only changed after the Paris Commune.

even if the varieties of materialist ideologies aren't all identical in the end*

I was assuming that you could engage with the issue of purity definitions, its workings and consequences without an "Ha! You ascribe meanings to the words you use too!". My assumption was incorrect because it overlooked that this community who defines itself as correct, and is therefor correct because meaning derives from use in community, could engage in a meta-discussion regarding itself. Imagine your response when a libertarian tells you "the nazi's were left-wing because they were statists" to gain an idea of how I stand in discussion.

"That's not real leftism because it doesn't prioritize the marxist axiom of bourgeois vs worker" however, is. Though puritism might be a more apt term than prescriptivism, which has a broader connotation.

I don't see what materialism is supposed to mean in this context, usually marxists use it to indicate that the acquiring of stuff is what determines people and if not, should do so.

Because you can back up your claims with violence, obviously. This isn't some utopian where everyone will peacefully reach agreement.

They wouldn't just reject the recall, if they were truly abusing their power, in which case you'd need your own organized system of violence to overthrow them. But that isn't that point here, the point is not all authorities are equally bad, or equally dangerous. The USA is not equally dangerous to the federation states of micronesia for example, its important to have perspective and see certain problems which are greater then others . All the different authorities are problems to different degrees.

Not a Bookchinfag, but I agree with him here.

We are still under the feudal system in the West. Stuff like "democracy" is just window dressing, and not real. You have the occult rulers, and their minions. Then you have everyone else. Any political system will lead to the same stooges operating the same gatekeeper and overlord roles. Political movements and religions are all puppets of the occultists.

Holy shit you just busted my spooks so hard I felt it. Please give me anarchist theory. I think I just got btfo.