Liberals

Has there ever been a non-joke version of these two dimensional political scales?

Liberals regularly dose themselves with ignorance and ideology, in order to suppress the massive amount of cognitive dissonance that would result from them understanding how hypocritical and hollow their political philosophy is.

kek

Liberals never realy speak out against Marxism, they kind of help us.

The places where "liberal" fall on both pictures are actually pretty accurate.

It's impossible to have a non-joke version of these because two dimensional political scales are a joke in itself.

Help us? With the "OMG Hillary is the most progressive candidate evar". Liberals are a significant reason why this election is such a train wreck.

it's not just conservatives saying "communism only works in theory", bud

They do, I've even heard some American B████ supporter use the word "Marxism" as if it means "the scariest aspects of the evilest USSR". A lot of Americans still seem brainwashed by the red scare.

The American political terminology is completely fucked up in general, I think we can all agree on that. I think it's their oversimplified education system and media spectacle.

tbh very few people of any political affiliation are entirely pro-freedom of speech. leftists included. It's just not a defensible position

Clearly talking about the countries that purport to have implemented Communism

Free speech is like, from a hard historical basis, the paradigmatic liberal "right". Stop believing in reactionary memes.

'"Freedom of speech"' is a liberal thing and a real thing, but "freedom of speech" never exists in a vacuum, instead it can be realized and organized only within the liberal system whereby speech is neutralized and rendered meaningless. So you can say what you want, but it has no effect. You can criticize, but nothing changes. This is true of freedom in general, it can only be realized within a controlled environment and in a banalized form (you can buy and own whatever you want, but only because police protects private property).

Instead we should replace "freedom of speech" with a different notion, like '"battle of speech"', or "propaganda war". Any speech is a type of weapon among other weapons and a part of some broader strategy. Sabotage of enemy's speech makes just as much sense as sabotage of anything other enemy's technique.

underage tankiddie fuck off. A capitalist is someone that own private industry. Liberals support capitalism, but they are not capitalists (except for the ones that are).

Ok, so they all just happen to support capitalism wholeheartedly but are not capitalists. A huge, monumental distinction that is.
Noted.

It really is though.
Capitalists are the class enemy, liberals are just false conscious proles

Yes that's what I was saying. I'm not necessarily against the idea of effectively "neutralizing" certain types of speech in the same way speech is neutralized now. For example I think it's much more practical to try to not give a nazi a platform/make him look like a crackpot than to react violently against them in many cases. That is to say I think liberalism actually offers us an effective guide for how to essentially neuter dangerous groups with a pretty decent amount of success.

So we have to study how the Spectacle work?

Any socialist worth their salt ought to be a supporter of free speech tbh.

Freedom of speech only mean the government cant imprison you for speech, which they will ignore if they want to. Go stand on a street corner and start preaching about revolution, theyll throw your ass in jail as soon as they see you

They can try to ignore it, but it's through freedom of speech that political movements grow and proliferate themselves. If your message resonates with enough people then the government won't be able to ignore it for long.

Actually they won't, since doing so isn't illegal and in court they wouldn't have a case.

Freedom of speech is one thing that classical liberals got right, and it would be idiotic to throw it away.

The point I'm trying to make by replacing "freedom of speech" with "battle of speech" is that starting from the latter it makes perfect sense to sabotage, for example, corporate media that spreads counter-revolutionary propaganda. This would be blasphemous to liberal mentality, but the latter creates its hegemony precisely through preventing any battles, disarming any speech of its political force.
Under liberalism you can say whatever you want as long as you do it in a way that isn't dangerous to the liberal order itself. You can write books that are then sold in bookshops as commodities (and critique of capitalism is a hot commodity right now), but you can't incite violence against the status quo in your speech - that would be "hateful speech" and "undemocratic". So you see, freedom of speech only works when any kind of attack is pacified and integrated, otherwise the speech itself disturbs this controlled system from which liberal freedoms arise.

The general point I'm making is that freedom as such is an invention of liberalism, a relatively recent invention in the history of power. It is not something eternal nor natural but is produced within a controlled system. For someone to be free to do X, there must be a security system put in place that insures no resistance to X is possible. Hence freedom and security (control, surveillance, etc…) are not opposites of each other, instead one arises from the other.
Any politics that wants to overcome liberalism must overcome the ideology of freedom, otherwise we will keep recreating variations of the same system. I propose that we replace "freedom" with the notions of both "struggle/war" and "commune" as the core values of the future politics.