[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / abdl / animu / asmr / boers / cafechan / kc / leftpol / vg ]

/leftpol/ - Left Politics

Winner of the 42nd Attention-Hungry Games
/ara/ - A Place for Mothercons.

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


File: d8080962d34199e⋯.jpg (117.23 KB, 797x960, 797:960, 14962692_1225936984112241_….jpg)

 No.36921

So what is the mindset of liberals, especially American liberals?

They seem to be far to the right of socdems and rely heavily on idpol and make cults of personality around any one who's anti-trump, dem or otherwise.

How do they still have a large chunk of minority support even though Obama deported so many people and didn't do much about mass police brutality?

 No.36924

>Actual solutions to any problem I complain about are far too extreme, I will perpetuate the problems I complain about to perpetuate myself

t, Liberal


 No.36930

File: 781d8806a02ebdc⋯.jpg (371.1 KB, 2070x1588, 1035:794, lefties liberals.jpg)


 No.36931

>>36921

That's a bad panel-comic.

I haven't even opened the thumbnail.


 No.36932

>>36930

That's a better panel-comic.


 No.36935

They'll tell you exactly what their mindset is, this isn't a mystery. They believe in slow, gradual progress and think that radical change is inherently dangerous. If you want to convince them to stop being liberals you need to explain concretely what communism will entail and how you think it could/will happen. It's not that difficult if you're not a spergy "seize the means of production xD" type. Liberals will almost never be convinced by vague revolutionary truisms. Their fetish for gradualism means that abstract or theoretical arguments must aren't effective with them.


 No.36936

>>36935

In my experience centre left liberals are impossible to convert to communism anyway, Socdems maybe.


 No.36939

>>36921

So what is the mindset of liberals, especially American liberals?

manipulation of often contradictory identities and affects by deep state propaganda technicians. conservatives love to claim 'dems are the real racists', while liberals often accuse republicans of hating america and not respecting the troops enough. contemporary american liberalism is a contradiction, on one side they believe in the absolute legitimacy of institutions,AKA 'the system' on the other, they believe in 'equality'. the liberal concept of 'equality' has become muddled beyond all recognition, by this point is just a justification for the system's marketing, social engineering and integration efforts. It's not what you do, but what is done to you that matters. Does anyone else feel like their assigned 'identities' are generic and artificial? t


 No.36943

>>36936

The thing to remember with center-left liberals is that you can't really "convert" them. You can't really "convert" anyone, but center-left liberals have a commitment to "pragmatism" that makes them especially resistant to change. All you can try to do is convince them that communism is a practically realizable goal. They'll either come around or they won't. You shouldn't give a shit beyond that.

>>36939

I feel like you're being more than a little uncharitable here. I hate to defend liberals, but you're reading their ideology through the lens of your own ideology. They don't believe in "the absolute legitimacy of institutions", they just think those institutions already exist, and that there aren't any viable alternatives. Liberals see that some groups are worse off than other groups, and they gravitate towards an identitarian explanation because they view economics and politics as existing in completely separate spheres. If the problem isn't capitalism then it must be bigots to blame for this disparity between groups. It makes sense if you think about it.


 No.36947

Nothing but Pink Reactionaries. Stop being buttbuddies with them, stop taking their side against Conservatives, Stop being their "allies" against a bunch of irrelevant alt-right schizoids.

The Left is so terminally wary of the far right, it completely ignores its own analysis of how they came to power. The Era of National-scale Industrial Capitalism is over. And in this increasingly globalized economy, we're more likely to see a modern, progressive Private Military Contractor than Fashies flying Fasces doing the Commie-killing.

You wanna know why Populist Right Wingers are so effectively garnering working class support? Its in the name cucko, they -in their own retarded way- try to directly address everyday people's grievances and concerns. Though it certainly wouldn't have as much success if the Left nowadays wasn't filled with "Anarchx trans feminist individuals tending towards the wild" that when it comes to current issues like immigration all they do give you a kneejerk reaction about muh borders are spooks, as if that was going to undo the commodification of Labor under Capitalism.

So, again, stop that shit, and I promise you, things are going to get better.


 No.36953

>>36947

>Nothing but Pink Reactionaries.

While I agree with you that leftists should stop siding with them, the claim that they're reactionary isn't exactly true imo. They're not opposed to change because of some idealized view of the past, or because they think progress is intrinsically bad. Center-left liberals generally "oppose progress" because they're gradualists. They believe that they can fix social ills by gradually adjusting things in the current system until the problems go away. They're generally opposed to radical change because it appears less guaranteed to them and because it would invalidate all the tiny, incremental improvements they've made/supported. They are opposed to radical change, but not because they're reactionary.


 No.36955

>>36947

I disagree.

Now is the moment to take advantage of their demoralization. You're not going to reach Joe Biden, but you'll definitely be able to connect with Elizabeth Warren supporters. I've heard traditional liberals on the streets of Kentucky talking about socialism so we're making an effect. Furthermore many liberals are abandoning idpol. Keep that momentum going.

However, giving up on them ensures they run hand in hand with the centrists into the arms of a safe choice.. once again Biden. This will be a lost chance. Lenin lost a chance and had to wait until the 1917 to get another one.

No. Not everyone will be a purist, but they will come to rely on you. Being 100% more motivated and politically savvy you can help shape their reactionary narratives.. partly because we're mostly not reactionary in here so that's a strategic advantage.

We also need the right wingers too. Bring them in through NazBol. Now you're in Alexander the Great territory. You need to balance the needs of NazBol with the needs of Warren type supporters. To navigate succesfully try to abandon a sense of loyalty to leaders like Trump and Warren to newer up and coming leaders. The void is empty, but build the base and they will come.

Yes plenty of people will stay in their cults of personality, but you can shave off the ones that matter… motivated, free thinking activists.

We can do this!


 No.36959

>>36955

I think the anon you're replying to is talking about trying pander or appeal to liberals by adopting positions that appeal to them. They're right, but for the wrong reasons imo. Like I said in >>36953, The policies that appeal to liberals are gradualist ones, which means they're at odds with leftist policies.

By all means we should try to appeal to liberals, but doing so by changing our politics seems like a mistake.


 No.36963

>>36953

>what is reactionary?

Are fascists even properly "reactionary" by your definition? While they make appeals to "the good old days", isn't their vision for society radical and unprecedented?


 No.36967

>So what is the mindset of liberals, especially American liberals?

Whatever it is it's rapidly vanishing. It's a mistake to assign them any intricate set of beliefs, they don't really have any. Whatever they believed at one point or another has been replaced by cults of personality and escalating conspiracy theories and cultural resentments.

>How do they still have a large chunk of minority support

By default. The Republicans are the party of legalized ethnic cleansing and police terror. American liberals don't care about those issues beyond shallow moral grandstanding but they seem to be the lesser of two evils.

American liberals,that is politically active and engaged and therefore wealthy people, have historically been relied on by the establishment to purge communists within the ranks of their movements and organizations. Liberals might be amenable to some social reforms or oppose the worst excesses of empire but when push comes to shove will bow to pressure from the security state to keep their positions as favored subjects. Your average person who doesn't vote is another story, but the reliable bases of the two parties are very far gone.


 No.36970

>>36963

>>what is reactionary?

I don't recall ever asking this tbh. Made me think. 🤔

>Are fascists even properly "reactionary" by your definition?

I don't recall ever giving a comprehensive definition for "reactionary" tbh. Are you sure you meant to respond to my post?

>While they make appeals to "the good old days", isn't their vision for society radical and unprecedented?

Reactionaries don't wish to return to the status quo ante literally or entirely. Primitivists do, but they're a very particular kind of reactionary. Loads of reactionaries have supported modernism and futurism. The book Archeofuturism is a common text among basic bitch online reactionaries these days, and it's literally propaganda for a kind of reactionary futurism.


 No.37000

>>36953

>They're not opposed to change because of some idealized view of the past, or because they think progress is intrinsically bad.

Au contraire mon frere. If you listen to them you will discover is that what they really want is to go back to the 1940s-1960s when wages were high (where they lived anyway) and there was a robust welfare state. They are all about an idealized past.


 No.37006

>>36959

Ya I wasn't totally clear. I don't think we should ever change our politics, but I do believe we should recruit. The people who stay will.be the ones we want anyways.

We just want to catch them before they get scared and go to the metrics based anything to win against scary Trump route. It will likely get worse with Trump, before better so plan for that weather.


 No.37013

>>36970

>return to the status quo

Whatever is happening right now is the "status quo".

>re·ac·tion·ar·y

>adjective

>(of a person or a set of views) opposing political or social liberalization or reform.

Obviously this applies to conservatives, but does it really apply to fascists? Aren't they radical "reformists"?


 No.37018

>>37013

I wrote "status quo ante" not "status quo", you complete brainlet. Also, nice dictionary definition, moron.


 No.37019

File: db496d707d933e6⋯.jpg (55.87 KB, 728x546, 4:3, radical-reactionary.jpg)

>>37013

>(of a person or a set of views) opposing political or social liberalization or reform.

this defines conservatives better

>Obviously this applies to conservatives, but does it really apply to fascists? Aren't they radical "reformists"?

yes and no, they want to go back to a past that never was, a pre-lapsarian world where all was right and natural etc. etc.

here's a hastily-edited graph that explains the basic ideological paradigm in polisci terms


 No.37023

>>37018

>status quo ante

Hadn't heard this term before, sorry. Thought it was just a mistake. I Should have realized what it meant.

>>37019

Ah, that helps, thank you.


 No.37028

>>37018

>nice dictionary definition, moron.

I mean, if it's a dictionary definition then obviously that's a commonly understood definition….


 No.37032

File: d269a18003f08ec⋯.png (390.7 KB, 991x1000, 991:1000, redistribution is not soci….png)

>>37028

and socialism is when the state does stuff

let's try to have some higher standards on this board


 No.37034

>>37032

Well I'm glad it's been cleared up for anyone who was confused, like me.


 No.37035

>>37019

I'd put the status quo much further to the right. The reactionaries are in charge and have been for some time, and they are highly organized. That's party of the reason liberals and their twins the conservatives are flailing around unable to even recognize the world around them. They inhabit an obsolete place in political discourse.


 No.37036

>>37035

Remember that these are just what the words mean not what the people who use them to describe themselves actually are.


 No.37041

>>37035

>The reactionaries are in charge and have been for some time, and they are highly organized.

No, the liberals/Keynesians are in charge. They are the status quo. Conservatives want slightly lower taxes and spending than that. Some liberals want slightly more. You might say that they people who WERE "liberals" are now conservatives, while the people who WERE "conservatives" are now reactionaries.


 No.37046

>>37041

The electorates of bourgeois democracies have no real power. Liberal or conservative, they aren't the ones making decisions. The reactionaries, the extreme right wing, are the ones in control. They have no compunctions about breaking any and all laws, which sets them apart from conservatives who at least pretend to respect democratic institutions. Neoliberalism is a reactionary ideology which is why so few people will identify themselves as such, and instead those who accept the status quo struggle to even identify the system they inhabit.


 No.37047

>>37046

>The reactionaries, the extreme right wing

Then why is there still a welfare state, public education, subsidized/free healthcare for many people…. Why is weed legal in many states now?


 No.37050

>>37047

Those things exist in some sense but for many they don't at all. Gaining access to healthcare and quality public education is a significant hurdle for most people, and that's by design of the reactionaries. The decrepit state of public services is no accident, people are tortured and terrorized by the systems that supposedly serve them. It's part "bread and circuses" part public crucifixion.


 No.37053

>>37050

Sounds like standard "liberalism" to me. It's unfortunate that these terms have both historical and relative meanings…. it's confusing.


 No.37054

>>37046

>Why is weed legal in many states now?

I'd call that pretty conservative. Literally nothing can go wrong it's the safest drug of all time.

>why is there still a welfare state

Because getting rid of it all at once would cause big problems? The neolibs them hate it but think of it as a necessary evil.


 No.37058

>>37054

>Literally nothing can go wrong it's the safest drug of all time.

You can def do dangerous things while too baked. Also, it's dangerous for the system, because it gets people to think about things in new ways.


 No.37062

>>37058

I don't mean nothing can go wrong while a person is high. I mean't there was nothing that could go wrong with the legalization process. Simply compare it to alcohol which has been legal for most of our history to see why legalizing marijuana is simply a no-brainer.


 No.37063

A lot of liberals are just LARPing as Leftists to defend their class status & preserve capitalism / state. Nearly controlled opposition. And yes the deep state interactions with US Dems and similar groups are known.

We can respond to the Right without resorting to liberal ideology / method and ought to. Showing doubting folks on the Right that Left != Liberal can sway some.

>>36947

Yes - pink reactionaries - "allies" - http://www.indigenousaction.org/accomplices-not-allies-abolishing-the-ally-industrial-complex/


 No.37071

>>37062

>legalizing marijuana is simply a no-brainer

And yet it's only now happening and most states haven't legalized it and it's still illegal federally.


 No.37073

>>37071

Yes it's beeing opposed by the reactionary forces of capital, religion, and race idpol.


 No.37076

>>37062

Fair warning to all of you guys who want weed to be legal: I live in a place that did legalize weed, and it has some rather unpleasant side-effects. The biggest change is that the price of weed quintuples. Retards will say that it's because of taxes and regulations, but the big reason is that the supply gets throttled. When weed is legal the market for the underground stuff collapses. That leaves local growers trying to meet the needs of everybody. Also, since brick-and-mortar shops staffed by workers are a hell of a lot more expensive then just having a guy stand at a bus stop, the cost of retail gets passed on to the consumer. Then, of course, the city and state take their cuts. Suddenly the business of selling weed requires a ton of capital. People actually smoke less since it was legalized.

On the positive side, the quality of the product is just worlds better.


 No.37077

>>37071

That's cuz stoners are lazy and most farmers are conservative and so they don't work in their own best interests.


 No.37080

>>37076

If you like smoking crappy brick weed then yeah it's a problem. I pay at least 20% more for the same quality where I am (illegal state) than my cousin in does in a legal state. The problem now is that the really good quality stuff that takes a lot of labor and has lower yields is being replaced by mass market high yield but ultimately lower quality stuff.


 No.37083

>>37080

I can buy an ounce in a legal state, quite easily, for $60. In illegal states it's generally $100+, and not so easy ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.


 No.37085

>>37083

Yeah a hundred dollar onion here is gonna be brick with seeds and sticks and barely any bud.


 No.37100

>>36953

>the claim that they're reactionary isn't exactly true imo.

Maybe not if we're talking relative to the current state of things but that can also refer to a reaction against the implementation of socialism, and you can definitely expect quite a lot of push-back from liberals in that situation.

>Center-left liberals generally "oppose progress" because they're gradualists. They believe that they can fix social ills by gradually adjusting things in the current system until the problems go away. They're generally opposed to radical change because it appears less guaranteed to them and because it would invalidate all the tiny, incremental improvements they've made/supported. They are opposed to radical change, but not because they're reactionary.

I don't know how true this all is. Some liberals you could maybe make the case for that they're spooked by too much change too quickly but I've encountered many that are vehemently opposed to certain leftwing ideas no matter how gradually they come into being. You talk to hardliner democrats or republicans and you'll encounter this kind of resistance a lot, though there are exceptions. You seem to be implying that most liberals would be perfectly ok with full blown socialism as long as it was implemented slowly enough and I don't think it's that simple.


 No.37112

File: cffc67a02c32cf4⋯.jpg (234.4 KB, 1086x806, 543:403, 180px-Superweenie.jpg)

>>36921

"Liberals" here

they're correct on all the panels except the final one. The ones who think it's Bernie Sanders fault are incredibly stupid.


 No.37135

>>36953

> "oppose progress" because they're gradualists they're gradualists

Yeah, since the time of FDR they've been supporting the gradual regression of everything the working class has achieved! Not to mention imperialist wars.


 No.37136

>>37083

>$60 oz of legal weed

Really?


 No.37137

>>37083

>$100 per ounce

Jesus, where the fuck was it ever like that?


 No.37138

>>37137

Texas.


 No.37143

>>37138

>>37137

We must be talking about shitty weed here? Because I'm in California and $150/oz for dank is a good price.


 No.40243

>>36936

>Socdems maybe.

as Corbyn proved, it is only a matter of semantics, any socdem's subconscious reasoning process is based partially on communist and collectivist principles


 No.40268

>>36921

>So what is the mindset of liberals, especially American liberals?

That the most brutal, privatized forms of Capitalism, including Pinochet is leftism as long as they support affirmative action and some safety/Environmental regulations. European Social Democracy is far-left socialism, that just won’t work because of muh supply and demand. Don’t ya know that free healthcare always leads to the NKVD paying clouds not to rain. Also don’t you know that free healthcare discriminates against People of Color you privileged cishet white male.

t Burger who unfortunlay has to deal with these people. Seriously American liberals would be rightfully considered far-right in most countries.


 No.40276

>>37143

>We must be talking about shitty weed here?

Probably. I only ever smoke at parties and after concerts, so I don't exactly go looking for quality. I save that for acquiring scotch.


 No.40394

>>36955

kek at this entire post

>communists

>free thinking

>accusing others of being in cults

>implying liberals aren't balls deep into idpol

>implying communism isn't universally despised

>implying workers can relate to your desire to starve them to death or murder them in gulags


 No.41363

Trump got voted in because men are treated like shit, and are given nothing by the left.

Trump hates men just as much as the left, so working class and middle class men are stupid for voting him in, but there you go.

You are all basically "liberals" when it comes to gender issues. You believed women are oppressed when they are in fact socially dominant over men.

Enjoy your left wing failure.


 No.41369

>>41363

It is a curious choice of name that you chose while forwarding that opinion.


 No.41371

>>41363

>You are all basically "liberals" when it comes to gender issues. You believed women are oppressed when they are in fact socially dominant over men.

Frankly, I don't think so. We get shit sometimes, they sometimes get shit because patriarchy exists, even if it's exaggerated by SJWs.

Anyway, I agree with the rest of your post.


 No.41384

>>41371

>patriarchy exists

How is Saudi Arabia this time of year?


 No.41394

>>41384

Is this a binary issue? Either it exists, or it doesn't?


 No.41417

>>41394

Things do not exist partially.


 No.41418

>>41417

Unless they are subatomic, that is.


 No.41442

>>41417

Things exist to different extents.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / abdl / animu / asmr / boers / cafechan / kc / leftpol / vg ]