|
Phi230 posted:the only question is will liberals choose socialism or fascism (probably the latter) there's a lot of different things a government can be that might not fall on your one-dimensional political spectrum
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 01:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 23:17 |
|
|
Sivart13 posted:yo where it is it you've been spending time on the internet that this harebrained socialism/facism based worldview is the only thing you wanna talk about Look at this moron who hasn't been paying attention to the real world for the past 3 years I mean if you ignore the middle class/upper class that's been voting for ultra far right authoritarians across the world because their privilege and comfort is threatened by decaying capitalism (or the mere threat of social change) sure, you're correct If we ignore the white liberals and middle class/upper class in America who have only benefitted from a Trump admin, and for example in my state, chose a white nationalist over even a milquetoast social democrat, then sure your post works out. Turns out that that dichotomy is increasingly becoming apparent and white liberals/suburbanites only stand to benefit from voting for nazis, and plenty have already realized as much I mean the emerging liberal solution to rising fascism is "gently caress immigrants" out of some desire for appeasement. Like how more absurd can you get Phi230 fucked around with this message at 01:28 on Nov 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 01:10
|
|
|
Inside every liberal is a fascist waiting to come out
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 01:11
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Its pretty telling that Oliver completely danced around the analysis that fascism rises when capitalism fails and that liberal democracy can do nothing to stop it I dunno, while certainly it is handy for many situations for there to be ways that society provides for the needs of its people, it kinda doesn't directly address the political problem. Fascism is largely a response to fictional or self-inflicted problems, not real ones, after all. Preaching for socialism in that context makes it sound like a sketchy cure-all even before you get into particulars (if you even get into particulars). Aside from that, your bizarre dichotomy offhandedly discarding most people in the country as the nonnegotiable enemy sounds entirely wrong, making vague, unsupported assertions to popular support in the quest to destroy a poorly defined, yet very widely encompassing enemy. That's not a good look.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 01:43
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I dunno, while certainly it is handy for many situations for there to be ways that society provides for the needs of its people, it kinda doesn't directly address the political problem. Fascism is largely a response to fictional or self-inflicted problems, not real ones, after all. Preaching for socialism in that context makes it sound like a sketchy cure-all even before you get into particulars (if you even get into particulars). First of all, history shows that in liberal democracies, liberals would rather side with fascists than socialists. This is being repeated today across the world. Second of all, fascism is not a response to fictional or self-inflicted problems. While they use such things as propaganda tools and ways to mobilize, fascism has social and material conditions that are prerequisite. Liberals made the mistake of refusing to recognize fascism as a legitimate mass movement to mostly the left's detriment. The so called "alt-right" were confronted with very real problems - that of an inequitable system that they previously benefited from that is now throwing them under the bus - and instead of seeking an alternative to correct the imbalances of the system and create a more equitable society, their solution to these problems to use to violence to re-assert things like patriarchy, white supremacy, and capitalism to their own benefit. Ultimately, while the fascists do this violence, or use the state to do this violence, for the most part, white liberals and otherwise middle class/upper class (which are a minority in this country mind you) directly benefit from it and sit idly by. The only distinction that history has shown, and that the present day shows, is that liberals are fine with turning the cheek to violence that they benefit from rather than engaging it it themselves. In my own personal experience its you liberals who tut tut at activists when the police use violence against us and then when the right similarly uses violence against people on the left you say "both sides." The reason why socialism prevents fascism and combats it when it arises is twofold - first because socialism does as much as possible to cure the inequalities of capitalism that create a reactionary class and its alienating effects that radicalize said class and second because when fascism rears its ugly head it empowers oppressed groups and dis-empowers the people who support fascists the most (the middle class/upper class) And no, most people are not a non-negotiable enemy. The vast majority of people in the US are working people who are on the receiving end of liberalism's failures. Not all white liberals will go reactionary. The goal is mobilize the majority against the reactionary minority, however people like you seem content with punching left more than (both literally and figuratively) punching right even in the face of a very real threat. Not only have your ideas and policies created the material conditions for fascism to rise, when it finally did, you do nothing but legitimize and enable them rather than fight them. Is it because you really don't care or would you just rather live in a white nationalist society and live comfortably even when people suffer? Phi230 fucked around with this message at 02:06 on Nov 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 01:56
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Fascists are middle class suburbanites and other upper class people - pretty much Oliver's audience. Its pretty easy to explain why he'd refuse to tackle the causes of fascism because it would make his audience feel bad Regardless of whatever memed-out reddit version of US geo-politics you think you understand, this is so patently false I can't really support anything else you're suggesting. Oliver's audience is poor, stoned millennials watching his segments for free on youtube. HBO foots the bill because his show is a literally endless source of good PR, he's always in the news, people on other channels talk about what he says. People watching the full program who pay for HBO are probably the slim minority of his viewers, I'm sure the youtube kickback Oliver's channel gets more than makes up for the show's production budget, which is easily less than a 10th of any of their other shows.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 02:08
|
|
|
Bust Rodd posted:Regardless of whatever memed-out reddit version of US geo-politics you think you understand, = bitch read a book and look at some polls and come back to me poo poo not even a book, because plenty of articles have been written about it https://www.thenation.com/article/trumpism-its-coming-from-the-suburbs/ Phi230 fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Nov 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 02:10
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:bitch read a book and look at some polls and come back to me Dude you don't even have an av i can't take u seriously.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 02:15
|
|
|
Bust Rodd posted:Dude you don't even have an av i can't take u seriously. I don't have an av because you privileged lib bastards voted for DeSantis instead of Gillum
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 02:24
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:First of all, history shows that in liberal democracies, liberals would rather side with fascists than socialists. This is being repeated today across the world. I mean here's your big problem right here, you're couching everything in terminology and political theory that's roundabout 200 years old by now with few clear successes to it's name. I'm not really sure what "liberal" means in this context because there's been a lot of wheeling and dealing in the last couple centuries, and the old context of people just pushing for some light voting rights and ability to form political parties against a system of pure monarchy doesn't exist anymore, and they have a nebulous at best relation to the movements that started popping up a hundred years later. Phi230 posted:Second of all, fascism is not a response to fictional or self-inflicted problems. While they use such things as propaganda tools and ways to mobilize, fascism has social and material conditions that are prerequisite. Liberals made the mistake of refusing to recognize fascism as a legitimate mass movement to mostly the left's detriment. Were they, though? The whole current wave seems to have been sparked back when Obama became president, which is one of those problems that's not a problem. They don't ever really seem to talk as if the economy is an issue for them, their focus isn't their conditions, it's just their prejudices that they bother focusing on, and almost all the crises they're focused on are entirely fictional. I don't think I've even heard them talk about the recession. All the rich people taking part in the alt-right sure don't seem disadvantaged. You can't say that the suburbs are both the hub of fascism and that fascists are just responding to being disadvantaged. That's going two different directions at once. Phi230 posted:And no, most people are not a non-negotiable enemy. The vast majority of people in the US are working people who are on the receiving end of liberalism's failures. Not all white liberals will go reactionary. The goal is mobilize the majority against the reactionary minority, however people like you seem content with punching left more than punching right even in the face of a very real threat. I mean like I said before, vague, unsupported, and still blindly dismissive. Trying to maintain some kind of nebulous mandate from an unheard, unobservable silent majority in the face of any amount of criticism is just what Oliver said in the episode that authoritarians relied on. No fuckin poo poo people would draw comparisons to Stalin in there. These sorts of vague assertions are very easy to twist however you want to whatever purpose you want. Phi230 posted:bitch read a book and look at some polls and come back to me Howdy-ho, here's something I could rustle up real quick. http://www.people-press.org/2005/05/10/beyond-red-vs-blue/ Decade-old numbers, but when you're throwing around such big assertions like you are, if 13 years throw all your immortal concepts of society into chaos, they were never worth much in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 03:01
|
|
|
Social democrats in germany had the same shallow analysis you did. See you in the camps I guess, we can continue our convos when the guards aren't looking
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 03:39
|
|
|
Also you seem to be drawing the line at "disadvantaged" when I always, and the analysis always, shows that its the threat of losing social or economic power. The middle class is largely dead or dying in the US, they go fash to reassert capitalism to their advantage. Not hard. Lol that article is from 2005 and is loving useless good try. Lemme guess you live in the suburbs? Phi230 fucked around with this message at 05:36 on Nov 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 04:55
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I mean here's your big problem right here, you're couching everything in terminology and political theory that's roundabout 200 years old by now with few clear successes to it's name. I'm not really sure what "liberal" means in this context because there's been a lot of wheeling and dealing in the last couple centuries, and the old context of people just pushing for some light voting rights and ability to form political parties against a system of pure monarchy doesn't exist anymore, and they have a nebulous at best relation to the movements that started popping up a hundred years later. The main calling cards of liberals are: - No strong political ideology - Happy with things being the way they are - Believes in a need for 'sensible politics' - Thinks that personality is more important policy - Argues that the truth is in the middle - Allows hate speech to flourish on the ~*marketplace of ideas*~ - Thinks the tone of the argument is more important than the content of the argument - Doesn't approve of civili disobedience as a political tool - Cannot draw a distinction between the left and the right - Often self-defines as a centrist And yes, they do enable fascists and you can see it happening across the world right now
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 07:59
|
|
|
I’m sorry but I disagree with literally every single one of those, to the point where I feel like the word I’ve been using to describe myself for the last 8 years can’t possibly be the same word you are using. How is that list not just “a centrist” or rather, what is the difference between what you’ve described and a modern centrist?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 09:01
|
|
|
Rarity posted:The main calling cards of liberals are: They would certainly describe themselves as having no ideology, but liberals are just as ideological as everyone else. They just couch their ideology behind some bullshit terms such as what you enumerated in the rest of your list.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 14:57
|
|
|
Rarity posted:The main calling cards of liberals are: Literally DnD.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 15:06
|
|
|
Political discourse in 2018 is so worthless because everyone is so sure their esoteric definition of any political ideology is the correct one. It’s like trying to argue over a book neither person remembers reading.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 15:16
|
|
|
The problem with trying to herd around political ideologies by name is that none of them are fully internally consistent, and the self-identification definitions don't ever match up at all with the external definitions at all, just like there's the whole rigamarole with what is and isn't socialism again and again and again. And then things change around a whole lot between separate political environments and the way things shift around over time, everything becomes wildly inconsistent when you treat the labels as unchanging. You get things like "classical liberals" who are probably more conservative than anything else and then the liberals of the 19th century probably fit more with modern libertarians.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 16:34
|
|
|
drat, when did this thread turn into the loving Chapo thread filled with edgy socialist memes? I mean it wasn't too long ago that we had someone defend Mao and link to some tankie propoganda about Venezuela, but I didn't expect to have such a large scale resurgence. A brief rundown on a couple of issues I have with what people have said recently 1) Political terminology: Socialists love to construct their own terms that differ from their normal usage in order to make their ideology appear to be the only valid one. To Bust Rodd (and anyone not aware): to socialists, anything that isn't fascism or socialism is liberalism. So a socialist will tell you that liberals support fascists, and that liberals were the voting base for Trump. While they aren't wrong with how they apply their definition, their definitions are also really arbitrary and delicately constructed to radicalize social democrats or more left neoliberals. They can present a really braindead trichotomy of fascism vs liberalism vs socialism, then say that because Trump is technically a liberal by their definition, liberalism = fascism, and thus socialism is the only way forward. Fascists have the same tactics, as they have the entire "cultural marxist" label to tie socialists, social democrats, and generally anything remotely left of center into a neat little package (while simultaneously being a dog whistle for antisemitism). Any radical idelogy (some other examples: anarcho-capitalists, religious fundamentalists, etc) fundamentally need to do this to radicalize people. 2) The entire "capitalism always turns into fascism" thing: This entire meme is really dumb. What actually happens is that harsh conditions generate radical movements. And when the states themselves are weak, these radical movements take over. This is the one actual constant that has been true over history. If you look at peasant uprisings during preindustrial times, the rise of fascism in the early 20th century, the rise of socialism in the early 20th century, the rise of both fascist and socialist movements in Africa immediately after decolonization, and the rise of nationalism that ended the Soviet Union, all of these things can be explained by those two factors. MegaZeroX fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Nov 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 23:45
|
|
|
I’m just so sick of these terms. I wish we’d move beyond philosophical based terms and more into policy ones, but for some reason the word “welfare” is so loaded in America and has made people afraid to say they’re okay with people being tax-eaters and not tax-givers. And yet at the end of the day, people who are okay with the taking of state assistance would rather call themselves socialists then say welfare. About the only well defined term at this point is liberal, and that’s just a person who wants to just keep exploitative systems going, without demanding them shut and without any demand to support the people harmed by those systems. Words are so goddamn tortured that “national socialism” is literal Nazis, but a younger and/or less educated person who wants to tax the rich at WW1/WW2 levels to fund Big Government Stuff wouldn’t be wrong for thinking that term describes them due to how mutilated the language has become.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 00:10
|
|
|
MegaZeroX posted:drat, when did this thread turn into the loving Chapo thread filled with edgy socialist memes? I mean it wasn't too long ago that we had someone defend Mao and link to some tankie propoganda about Venezuela, but I didn't expect to have such a large scale resurgence. The centrism defender has logged on. How long with the both sides rhetoric continue? Note how there is no support for any of your claims, you're just huffing ze pure ideology The country and world have radical problems, and need radical solutions. Nobody buys your attempts to tie the left to nazis. Your post is also categorically wrong, but I guess you're just a chud and don't care. Phi230 fucked around with this message at 00:29 on Nov 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 00:20
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:The centrism defender has logged on. How long with the both sides rhetoric continue? Note how there is no support for any of your claims, you're just huffing ze pure ideology
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 00:34
|
|
|
Dancer posted:Note how there is no support for any of your claims, you're just huffing ze pure ideology First of all he claims that "socialists create their own language" that's somehow meant explicitly to radicalize people but is otherwise meaningless. The terms the left uses comes from actual academia, just as much as liberal terms do. If by that logic socialist theory is "baseless made up poo poo" then liberal/neoliberal theory is similarly baseless and made up. Its a claim made out of zealous anti-leftism that makes no sense. He also claims that political ideas using language to convince people to hold those ideas is somehow unique to radicals? He's making poo poo up to make the left seem illegitimate. Secondly the connection between the decay of capitalism and the rise of fascism is similarly has legitimate academic roots and is not a "meme." There's plenty of analysis of the topic, of which I even posted a news article up the page. His pet theory here is so reductive its meaningless. Phi230 fucked around with this message at 00:55 on Nov 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 00:41
|
|
|
In the context of the segment, bemoaning how so many people in charge are dismantling institutions under the unsubstantiated claim of popular support, perhaps it's possible to see why people are hesitant to rally around the idea of dismantling institutions under an substantiated claim of popular support. Yeah, I get that socialism in theory benefits the majority, but you still gotta actually have the support of that majority. It's bad enough when detractors make the jump from providing for the populace and workers' rights to making lists of people who will be up against the wall when the time comes, it's worse when people pro-socialism insist on making the jump.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 01:14
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:In the context of the segment, bemoaning how so many people in charge are dismantling institutions under the unsubstantiated claim of popular support, perhaps it's possible to see why people are hesitant to rally around the idea of dismantling institutions under an substantiated claim of popular support. Yeah, I get that socialism in theory benefits the majority, but you still gotta actually have the support of that majority. My solution as an alternative to what we have today, as well as the vast majority of those in the socialist movement in america, is to replace those undemocratic and/or oppressive institutions with more democratic ones. Its those very institutions that you defend that give authoritarians the power to usurp them! The specific purpose being to remove power from individuals and transfer it to a group. I mean I understand your hesitation but most people can tell the difference between right and left wing populism. Where did I say that the fash be lined up against the wall? I said specifically in this thread to "disempower them." They are unpopular, yet as privileged as they are, our system gives the middle class/upper class the highest consideration and the most political power. In a more democratic system they would lose that unjust power over others. In a democratic economy they similarly would lose their economic power over others. How can a fascist oppress if he does not have power over any one else?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 01:20
|
|
|
MegaZeroX posted:2) The entire "capitalism always turns into fascism" thing: This entire meme is really dumb. What actually happens is that harsh conditions generate radical movements. What economic mode of production has created all these harsh conditions exactly?  
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 01:40
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:The centrism defender has logged on. How long with the both sides rhetoric continue? Considering that I'm a US progressive, or internationally speaking a social democrat, who watches the big people on leftytube (Contrapoints, Shaun, Hbomberguy, etc), getting called a centrist is hilarious. Phi230 posted:Note how there is no support for any of your claims, you're just huffing ze pure ideology Your posts also didn't have substantive claims. The only thing you cited was an article from The Nation, which literally only cited a single 538 article which itself only cited primary exit polls. And even then, Trump's base was only a few percentage points away skewed richer than Berine's base. And in comparison to his republican competitors, he was definitely the one bringing the most working class support. Phi230 posted:The country and world have radical problems, and need radical solutions. Nobody buys your attempts to tie the left to nazis. LOL. Apparently pointing out that pointing out that all radicals tend to paint the world in a binary in order to radicalize others means that I'm secretly trying to tie the left to nazis!  420 Gank Mid posted:What economic mode of production has created all these harsh conditions exactly? Wow, what a genius analysis. Certainly there were no other factors other than capitalism that could have lead to some issues. Nope, certainly not any wars, or imperial legacy, or over a decade of economic stagnation under a socialist government, nosiree. You have found the one single factor that magically fixes everything, good job! Phi230 posted:First of all he claims that "socialists create their own language" that's somehow meant explicitly to radicalize people but is otherwise meaningless. The terms the left uses comes from actual academia, just as much as liberal terms do. If by that logic socialist theory is "baseless made up poo poo" then liberal/neoliberal theory is similarly baseless and made up. Its a claim made out of zealous anti-leftism that makes no sense. He also claims that political ideas using language to convince people to hold those ideas is somehow unique to radicals? He's making poo poo up to make the left seem illegitimate. Please, show me all of this academic evidence of this. My brief search on Google scholar has given me nothing on the rise of fascism in regards to capitalism. And I have yet to see academics use the term "liberal" to mean "someone that supports liberal democracy as a government type." If you can actually provide evidence otherwise, that would be fantastic as well. MegaZeroX fucked around with this message at 04:56 on Nov 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 04:54
|
|
|
MegaZeroX posted:Please, show me all of this academic evidence of this. My brief search on Google scholar has given me nothing on the rise of fascism in regards to capitalism. And I have yet to see academics use the term "liberal" to mean "someone that supports liberal democracy as a government type." If you can actually provide evidence otherwise, that would be fantastic as well. If you want some great reading about how capitalism and enforced racial hierarchies are inextricably intertwined I have many suggestions starting with quote:I want to say to you as I move to my conclusion, as we talk about "Where do we go from here?" that we must honestly face the fact that the movement must address itself to the question of restructuring the whole of American society. (Yes) There are forty million poor people here, and one day we must ask the question, "Why are there forty million poor people in America?" And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising a question about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth. When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy. (Yes) And I'm simply saying that more and more, we've got to begin to ask questions about the whole society. We are called upon to help the discouraged beggars in life's marketplace. (Yes) But one day we must come to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. (All right) It means that questions must be raised. And you see, my friends, when you deal with this you begin to ask the question, "Who owns the oil?" (Yes) You begin to ask the question, "Who owns the iron ore?" (Yes) You begin to ask the question, "Why is it that people have to pay water bills in a world that's two-thirds water?" (All right) These are words that must be said. (All right)
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 08:39
|
|
|
MegaZeroX posted:Considering that I'm a US progressive, or internationally speaking a social democrat, who watches the big people on leftytube (Contrapoints, Shaun, Hbomberguy, etc), getting called a centrist is hilarious. The US far left tends to be centrist, internationally speaking, yes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 11:44
|
|
|
I just wanted to talk about Russell Crowe.
Veskit fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Nov 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 18:19
|
|
|
Veskit posted:I just wanted to talk about Russel Crowe. I hear he loves making movies, making music, and fighting 'round the world.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 18:25
|
|
|
tarlibone posted:I hear he loves making movies, making music, and fighting 'round the world. He certainly fought his way out of this divorce!
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 18:47
|
|
|
Imagine a world where there were 20 Master and Commander movies instead of Marvel ones a future denied
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 21:12
|
|
|
I still have that really nice OG deluxe DVD set of Master and Commander. I’ve only actually sat down and watched the whole movie a few times in the 14 years I’ve had it. It’s always The Release I think of when I reflect on the glory days of DVD, when movies still came with booklets, cases didn’t have holes, and you didn’t have to import from Korea for a real collector’s edition (Not my photo) I should get that on blu-ray. Thanks for reminding me of this underrated gem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 21:31
|
|
|
tarlibone posted:I hear he loves making movies, making music, and fighting 'round the world. haha! Like in the cuss word cartoon
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 16:27
|
|
|
TXT BOOTY7 2 47474 posted:haha! Like in the cuss word cartoon YES AND
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 17:17
|
|
|
NOT ONLY BUT MOTHERFUCKER
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 17:17
|
|
|
TXT BOOTY7 2 47474 posted:haha! Like in the cuss word cartoon I love how you're dunking on them for that reference, the same reference you got because you watched the same cartoon. Jesus Christ
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 17:30
|
|
|
It’s very possible to have seen something many years ago, and then, because you grew up in the subsequent decades, reject those old trappings of youth while still remembering that was a thing you once knew. C’mon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 17:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 23:17 |
|
|
pwn posted:It’s very possible to have seen something many years ago, and then, because you grew up in the subsequent decades, reject those old trappings of youth while still remembering that was a thing you once knew. Hahahaha 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 22:16
|
|
