Liberalism cannot even protect their own liberal values so let’s not protend they’d really try and fix broken systems
Oh they try. And we see the results.
Future students of geopolitics will take entire courses studying “The Simpsons”
Only the first 6 seasons.
My girlfriend thinks capitalism is fine and doesn’t care about billionaires existing.
She’s never had a minimum wage job or worked in the service industry 🙄
99% of the people that think capitalism is awesome, are not remotely aware of what capitalism is.
Just curious, what is the alternative you propose? We have seen communism, that doesn’t work either.
In my country we also have capatalism but we still have workers rights and all of that. It is just in America that employers managed to get everything their way. Other countries have free markets without abusing their workers.
This is wrong on several accounts.
-
“Communism” the economic system has not been realized. Communist parties have led socialist countries, but communism as a mode of production is a product of the future.
-
Socialism works, the largest economy on the planet is the PRC, which is seeing rapid and comprehensive improvements in the living standards of its people. Even the USSR, now no longer here, achieved impressive economic growth, provided free healthcare and education, and much more.
-
Capitalism, by definition, requires that the capitalists be in charge and the workers exploited. It isn’t just the US.
-
Socialized Democracy.
Basically democracy with robust safety nets, strong regulation on business, strong labor unions, and socialized healthcare and higher education OPTIONS.
Capitalism is good for competition and innovation so we can’t really ditch it completely, but we live in society, not the jungle, so we should have safety nets and socialized options for poor people to gain independence and social mobility.
Social Democracy is just capitalism with welfare, and as such either funds itself via imperialism like the Nordic Countries, or is ultimately going to see capital use its political power to erase the gains of workers. Markets can play a useful role in spurring development of small and medium firms, but the larger firms and key industries should be publicly owned and planned, as market mechanics begin to lose all benefit towards higher development.
Really, it sounds like you just want Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.
I want democracy that works for the people and not just the people with the most money.
Gotcha, so some form of socialism at minimum. You should check out the link to how the PRC functions.
The problem with outright socialism is it always gets toppled, because your success is a threat to the entire world order, and foreign governments can make offensive decisions at a faster rate than you can make defensive ones, since your big decisions have to filter through more eyes and hands in the name of fairness.
When we’re talking about entire countries, we have to be more pragmatic than idealistic, or our plans just don’t work sadly.
China is still here, and still socialist, and it isn’t leaving. This is because of Democratic Centralism, a fast and cohesive way to adapt to changing conditions while retaining democratic input. For less urgent decisions, the PRC has slower, more comprehensive, bottom-up systems, while it focuses more on a top-down approach for system-wide changes and direction. It’s kinda like “top down, from the bottom up.”
I agree with pragmatism over idealism, that’s why I’m a communist and push for socialism. Socialism is immensely practical.
Look at you, making sense and coming to a logical conclusion. Doesn’t sound good in headlines though, so it’ll never fly.
Pro-tip: Channel your frustration into positivity for better reception.
Nothing you said was unreasonable per se. It was just how you said it that’s getting you flak.
You may not give a shit, but if you do… I’m just sayin’
let the people decide that, please. it’s worth a try.
We have seen authoritarian communism that regressed into autocratic nationalist imperialist communism. We have also seen authoritarian communism that has shifted into state capitalism. Just like there are many variations of capitalism that we have and have not seen, there are likewise many of socialism and even communism that we have and have not seen.
Not sure what you mean by “authoritarian,” all governments are instruments of class oppression and socialist states oppress the bourgeoisie, but no socialist state has been imperialist before. Further, “state capitalism” refers to a system of heavily planned but ultimately dominated by private property, such as Singapore, South Korea, and Bismark’s Germany, and as such I’m not sure what you’re referencing here either.
Don’t you mean ex-girlfriend?
Ex-GirlfriendSugar Momma is what I think you meant.The best kind of capitalism 😅
You mean they know exactly what the problem but choose bury their heads in the sand.
What’s the problem? Is it unchecked capitalism? I think it might be unchecked capitalism.
Even checked capitalism is still the problem. Both decay, both lead to imperialism.
I’m an enjoyer of “checked capitalism” as in a communist party holds all the political power.
Seems that way through enough experience and empirical evidence. I just wonder what could have happened if we enforced anti-trust law earlier on… they were meant to help prevent monopolistic companies from taking over everything. Maybe it was a lost hope, but I would’ve liked to see the system functioning as intended for once.
Government itself arises out of conflict between classes, and the fundamental mechanism of capitalism is accumulation. The former means without pretty intensive upheaval and reorientation of governmental systems, the institutions are unlikely to interfere with the core function they were designed to protect. The latter means that no matter what protections you put in place, by the very nature of how it works, capitalism will trend towards monopoly.
The truth is that it can’t. In economic formations where private property is the principle aspect, you can’t really take control of capital and plan it to the necessary extent, those at the top are those priests of capital best suited for endlessly profiting and growing. It isn’t “meritocracy,” the system needs profit and will destroy anything that doesn’t help with that. Only socialism can truly be planned.
Why do you make that claim when it has not proven to be true fir almost all capitalist nations?
Butchering the definition, imperialism is the monopolist stage of capitalism, specifically the monopoly of finance capital. This can be expanded but there is no point in doing so here.
The monopoly on finance capital is already formed by a cartel of mostly american+european financial institutions and so on. These countries are what we call imperialist, we do not call Russia imperialist simply because they do not have this monopoly and are actively fighting against it, their future ambitions are a story for another day.
Let’s say that somehow the cartel completely disappeared and banks were to start from zero again, a bunch of local banks would emerge all around the world. As time went on, the most efficient banks would inevitably best its competitors, consolidate their position and gain increasingly more market share, until it becomes a local monopoly, then they go global and the process repeats until a global monopoly is formed, this is what happens on every single industry.
This is an inevitable outcome of capitalism simply due the nature of capital growing, capital stagnates when it faces competition so capitalists inevitably organize into cartels to consolidate a monopoly. The only way to do some sort of “checked capitalism” is to completely strip capitalists off political power through a violent revolution, like China did.
When Cowbee says that capitalism decays and leads into imperialism this is what i think he means, and he is right.
Pretty much exactly what I am trying to say, even down to explaining that if the imperialist countries collapsed overnight, the remaining capitalist countries would try to re-assert themselves as the new imperialists. Very well said!
5·3 hours agoThat’s a nice comment. Too bad QuoVadisHomines will never see it since sh.itjust.works has defederated lemmygrad.
Did they really? Lmao nothing of value was lost.
It’s a trend observable in all capitalist nations. If you develop enough, the rate of profit falls, and so you need to expand outward to profit. This is the basis of imperialism, the carving out of the global south for profit. Across the west, this is a fact, even if it manifests in different ways.
Those on the imperialized end cannot themselves really become imperialist, and the total capital to be imperialized is limited, so you end up with nationalist countries that aren’t imperialist because there’s nothing left to imperialize, but this stays at a crossroads where imperialist countries threaten you into opening up your capital markets to be imperialized.
If it has not happened in most cases you cannot observe a trend because that trend is not actually occurring. Your whole claim starts off flawed.
Observe the resurgence of right-wing nationalism in the West.
It’s not accidental that this phenomenon is occurring specifically within the context of algorithmic social media exclusively controlled by multinational corporations. It is collusion between these companies and certain political entities to consolidate political and economic power within the fortresses of wealthy Western countries, as a defensive posture to the projected collapse of habitability and globalized trade across the world. By exploiting peoples fears and internalized biases, these architects are redefining the West to meet their economic agenda.
Simply put, the political moment the West is living through is a manufactured cultural shift intended to psychologically prime the populace of said regions for the steady collapse of international law and human rights in the face of unprecedented ecological disaster and the resulting mass migration of displaced people.
Instead of reckoning with their fundamental role in creating this dire circumstance and pursuing a policy of redistribution of wealth and resources to minimize the impacts globally, it’s becoming increasingly apparent that the wealthy oligarchs of the world are instead doing away with liberal values and leaning into a nostalgic ideology of social Darwinism and the belief that wealth is a product of intrinsic superiority.
Theres a beautiful video circulating of Seun Kuti speaking to a crowd and telling them that if Europe (and by extension, the West) can free itself from the destructive ideologies of its past, it will inherently lead to resolution of the conflicts in Gaza, Sudan, and the Congo. It iterates the point I am presenting here in a beautifully succinct way and I recommend watching it.
It’s happened in all possible cases, where do you think it hasn’t happened?
Most capitalist nations are not engaging in imperialism especially those in the global south.
.ml is why
Can you name a developed capitalist nation that doesn’t practice imperialism? The global south cannot become imperialist because there’s nowhere else to imperialize, either they become nationalist, socialist, or remain imperialized.
Some liberals don’t even think there’s a problem. They think movements like MAGA and Brexit are just low information voters being riled up by algorithms and populists.
Liberals literally marry into Maga and fascist families by fooling themselves using this sophistry.
to some degree its true. they just fail to grasp what lies beneath it, for one reason or another.
why are those people choosing to be low information? how can algorithms be so effective? why and how are populists so effective in rounding up a nation’s worth of fascists…?
they be living the most insane and obvious property crisis ever and they would still say it’s just people voting wrong.
They don’t just think they’re low information voters, liberals make completely casual attributions to low IQ i.e. scientific racist garbage but completely normalized.
Bonus points for jumping onto latinos and blacks who didnt turn out for Biden/Harris and immediate show that they are deeply racists twats who just virtue signaled before, to get these communities to vote for them.
who didnt turn out for Biden/Harris
And this isn’t even true. There was just a shift in the margins
The media needs to stop talking about racial groups as if they are voting blocs.
There’s a ton of people on all sides of the political spectrum who are low information because they do not understand how to vet sources.
Honey you are making an ass of yourself in exactly this way in this very thread
Only if you accept Marxist/leftist theory as facts and you shouldn’t dothat since so much is unproven or proven to not be true. This is true for any political theory
Pure mind palace stupidity. You’re walking extremely worn paths used by people who are stupid but trying to sound smart. The “everyone is wrong” armchair wisdom that serves no purpose other than giving you an excuse to not investigate your own words.
You don’t even seem to know what ‘marxist/leftist’ theory is categorically but you have the vague notion that ‘so much’ is disproved.
Put actual brain work behind that statement. I’m sick of watching you get treated with deference despite your bad faith and proud ignorance.
Yes, only a tiny fraction of the population can be part of the enlightened liberal elite that votes correctly like you and magically makes crapitalism function properly for everyone.
Well it certainly takes a failure of those skills to utilize many of the socialist publications as a primary resource.
Eglin Chairforce heroes being useful again.
I spent my weekend protesting ICE and feeding people in a soup kitchen. What the fuck are you doing to make things better for anyone else?
Yeah protesting ICE, soup kitchen volunteer and anti-communist cold warrior arguing in favor of capitalism and whining about tankies on lemmy. The libertarian type of imaginary liberal lol.
Holy fuck this is spot on.
I’m so tired of hearing “they’re so racist”
It’s such a terminating clause. Like we don’t need to actually understand at a deeper level why guy born a Mexican, still is Mexican but is voting for Trump because… They’re racist against Mexicans???
I’m so done with the left. It’s so tiring. They even adapt their messages. I can go back 15 years and still see the exact comments of “they’re racist” while right wing dominate spaces seem to come up with new things every 6 months. Soy cuck Wojack probably conjures up a whole era all our minds right? What about “man they’re racist” what does that conjure up?
The left should lose the right to call anyone low information voters until they sort themselves the fuck out
Libs arent generally considered left.
I think you’re confused, liberals aren’t left. The commenter you are replying to is complaining about liberals, ie “moderate” right wingers, failing to understand far-right wingers.
Liberalism is the start of the left unless you are incredibly eurocentric. Most of the world is still arguing liberalism vs authoritarianism and Europe is adopting that once again.
Liberalism was “the left” in the 1700s and has desperately tried to maintain that label ever since, all while doing anything it can to preserve the status quo with violence.
“Authoritarianism” isn’t an ideology, nor does it have a corresponding mode of production. That isn’t the argument. The increased despotism in Europe is a consequence of capitalism’s decay, it’s a very liberal despotism.
Liberalism is not the start of the left. Liberalism is the status quo in capitalist society, it’s the ideological component of capitalism. The start of leftism is socialism, the start of rightism is capitalism.
No “authoritarianism” is a end point on the binary that should used rather than capitalism vs anticapitalism it reflects the actual debates going on in non-Western nations
You whole position is eurocentric because it accepts capitalism and liberalism as a default state.
This is wrong.
First of all, ideologies are not recipes, nor choices made by people, but a product of material conditions and reality. There isn’t a debate between “authoritarianism” and “liberalism,” there’s a decaying liberal capitalist system and different classes pushing for their own interests.
Secondly, it isn’t a Eurocentric view. The majority of the world is liberal. Countries like China and Cuba that have managed to move into socialism are not the majority. What’s left and right isn’t determined by the median opinion, but between moving onto the next mode of production or trying to retain the current system (or even move backwards).
There is no “authoritarian vs liberalism” debate, they aren’t even antithetical to each other. It isn’t a spectrum. Most liberal countries are despotic.
That’s a very marxist perspective. There very much is a debate going on all across the planet as to how much freedom from government and religion that people should have. If you bother to educate yourself on the politics of Muslim dominant nations you will see they are having those discussions right now.
To be clear Cowbee, you are talking theory and I am asking you to pull your head out of your books and look at the world around you.
Liberals are left
big no. neoliberalism is a capitalist ideology. right wing.
Only if you are eurocentric and accept liberalism as a default state. I would argue eurocentric perspectives are inherently problematic.
dude is openly liberal, regardless of what the default is in their part of the world (and its usually neoliberalism anyway)
Neoliberalism is absolutely not the default when we look at the whole world. If we look at the developed world it is the default. That is not the case for everyone.
Your binary only makes sense for some of the world. That’s why I keep pointing to how eurocentric it us.
Someone hearing for the first time that Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher are staunch liberals.
That entirely depends on whether we accept liberalism as a default which most nations do not. Most of the world is still arguing authoritarianism vs liberalism right now.
Are you guys being serious right now? This is insane. Liberal values are left of center.
Which century are you from? 18th?
Liberals -> want the means of production to remain privatized aka capitalism
Leftists -> want the means of production to be publicly owned aka socialismThat presumes the binary is focused on economy when most nations are still debating freedom from the government and thus liberalism should be the start of the left.
No, it fucking has not. It is quite literally the definition of where “the left” begins. In the wake of the French revolution the liberals sat on the left side of parliament.
Classical liberalism is an iteration of liberalism. It is not liberalism. There are also Democratic liberalism and social liberalism among many others. Almost all lean left of center with classic liberalism being more center
I just wish that people here would take time to explain why liberals are not left instead of just attacking you.
Liberalism is not left because by definition they are socially progressive but economically conservative.
I used to think the liberals are “left” because of the Americam mainstream media (by intentionally muddying political terms) interchange liberal between left. But thanks to Philosophy Tube’s beginner’s video explaining what it means, now I know better.
Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism. They emerged together and the former was formed to justify the latter. Over the years it has branched out and there are many forms such as classical liberalism, neoliberalism, social liberalism, etc. but they all defend capitalist property rights and the market. Socialism emerged as the working class response to/critique of liberalism. In the US the term only refers to social liberals, who are in reality centrists. Americans call them leftists only because centrists are slightly to the left of right-wing politics.
We’re against liberalism as a whole because it’s the ideology that justifies capitalism. We’re against social liberals because they’re seen as fence-sitting cowards and dangerous compromisers.
This is a very introductory overview to liberalism:
The most in-depth delving into it is Losurdo’s Liberalism - A counter history, but you’d have to read many more foundational texts before that one.
It should be the other way around that capitalism was created to justify liberalism because you have liberal philosophers writing decades to centuries before the capitalists.
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, the right to private property, and equality before the law.[1][2] Liberals espouse various and often mutually conflicting views depending on their understanding of these principles but generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion.[3] Liberalism is frequently cited as the dominant ideology of modern history.[4][5]: 11
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
Emerging together does not mean they are dependent on each other.
We just have a more nuanced understanding of politics than you do.
No, you are using a different binary and I would argue you are using the incorrect binary as most are not dividing over support for capitalism.
Yea but you’re all not authority on any of this. So it doesn’t matter. The rest of the world knows liberalism as left of center. Just facts
They are taking a frankly eurocentric perspective which presumes the debate is anticapitalism vs capitalism when I would posit that most nations are still debating liberalism vs authoritarianism hence the claim that they are eurocentric as the binary only makes sense for Europe.
I agree which is what I was waiting for someone to say. Just want to let you know I appreciate you from saying it. Until then I was just having fun here 😆
You’re arguing with people on lemmy.ml.
I got nothing better going on.
No, they aren’t. Liberalism is the ideological superstructure of capitalism, while leftists support socialism of various fashions. The driving distinction between right and left is retaining the current system, or progressing onwards to the next.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/left-liberals
Liberal/Left-leaning people embrace social services and government intervention in the economy. Conservative/Right-leaning people support lower taxes, free markets and less government intervention in the economy. Libertarians advocate both personal and economic liberty (freedom). Authoritarians favour strict obedience to authority and government control, at the expense of personal and economic freedom.
https://www.dictionary.com/e/leftright/
the word left is applied to people and groups that have liberal views.
What is “center” supposed to mean here?
lmao what is it with people trying to map abstract political concepts onto geometric and spacial shapes?
The colloquial meaning of “liberal” used by some Americans does not align with how it’s used in political theory. That’s okay, words have different meaning in different contexts.
“Left” and “right” stem from the French Revolution (1789!) where the people who sat on the left of the National Assembly were progressives that supported the revolution and people who sat on the right were conservatives that wanted to preserve the old system. Liberalism (as defined in political theory, not colloquially) is the dominant global ideology and thus is no longer progressive or radical. It may have been progressive when monarchy was the main form of government, propping up feudalism as the main economic structure. But that’s obviously not how the world works 200+ years later
This is a very typically American point of view, which tends to lump a lot of people together as “liberal” despite this internationally not being the norm at all.
Here’s a definition of liberalism:
Liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology that emphasizes individual rights, liberties, and limited government. It promotes ideas like free markets, free trade, and social equality, while often advocating for a strong emphasis on individual autonomy and civil liberties.
Note specifically how it says individual rights. The idea with liberalism is that if everyone is similarly unrestrained by the government, and has the same civil liberties, there is an even playing field in which individuals can personally grow and excel. This neatly links together with the liberal belief in a free market, free trade, etc…
A strict liberal idealogy will also adopt several progressive policies w.r.t. civil liberties, like gay rights (as this causes social equality -> level playing field for competition). But liberalism is still a strictly capitalist idealogy, with a strong emphasis on the free market and free trade.
Generally, this individualistic approach to rights is considered socially progressive and economically right-wing. And we see that this is the case in most countries around the world, e.g. Australia’s liberal party or the Dutch VVD. The Dutch VVD is a good example to look at here, they are considered very firmly right-wing, but their party platform most closely matches to that of the DNC. In the US, the two major parties are both righg-wing, one is a moderately progressive right-wing party (with some left-wingers in there, but they aren’t very influential w.r.t. party policy because it’s such a small minority) and the other is a conservative/authoritarian right-wing party.
Because both parties sit firmly on the right of the spectrum, they’ve come to distinguish themselves on social policy rather than economic policy. They’ve remapped the progressive-conservative axis on the left-right axis and called it a day. But in most countries, these axes are very much distinct. Here’s the “political compass” for the Netherlands for example:
Note how there are only two fairly fringe parties to the right of the VVD. Also it’s interesting to note here that the PVV (the “far-right” party with the bird symbol near the bottom) isn’t even all that far right. Their economic policies aren’t actually all that focused on free market dynamics, and they do promote certain social policies. But their hardline immigration stance pushes them very firmly in the conservative camp. And although there’s certainly a correlation between left-progressive and right-conservative, there are still major differences between the parties along this diagonal axis.
Generally, actual left-wing people (be they progressive or conservative) don’t like being lumped in with liberals, because they don’t focus on as much on individual freedom but rather on collective freedom and on policies that benefit the collective. Hence their insistence on actually looking at the full political spectrum rather than the simplified/reducted version of it.
You’re not wrong that people in the US tend to call liberals “left-wing”, but it’s a very reductive, American perspective not shared by political scientists or the rest of the world.
Yes, liberals tend to define the entire scope of political economy to a narrow, capitalist viewpoint. That doesn’t make it correct. A huge range of viewpoints narrowly occupies the “radical” portion, while an absolute mountain of space comparatively is given to subdivisions of capitalism. It’s a deeply silly graph.
I think I get it. Right wing groups like koch Bros and heritage institutes push the left to fracture into very niche small subsets in order to isolate making it hard for those groups to organize and easier to kill them off. Much like how a cheetah separates a young calf from the herd. So what groups are you talking about for your “huge range of viewpoints”
Totally not silly at all to get hyper specific about political ideology. I’m a liberal right center neo cat Audi rhino born a capitalist but transitioned to a socialist somewhere around 1992 when political synergy was at its peak
Liberals are rightwing.
There was a brief moment the US democratic party went social democratic, from Roosevelt to Carter and these days there’s a small resurgance with Mamdani.
But Clinton, Obama, Biden, Harris and Cuomo are all at the very least centre-right wing.
Yea what about in Canada
Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism. They emerged together and the former was formed to justify the latter. Over the years it has branched out and there are many forms such as classical liberalism, neoliberalism, social liberalism, etc. but they all defend capitalist property rights and the market. Socialism emerged as the working class response to/critique of liberalism. In the US the term only refers to social liberals, who are in reality centrists. Americans call them leftists only because centrists are slightly to the left of right-wing politics.
We’re against liberalism as a whole because it’s the ideology that justifies capitalism. We’re against social liberals because they’re seen as fence-sitting cowards and dangerous compromisers.
Canada’s two main parties are both right-wing. They support capitalism, and the rule of capitalists over the economy and government. The canadian conservative party agrees with them in that.
Or look at Australia. Their two main parties are Labour vs the liberal party (both are pretty right wing, but in that country the liberals openly position themselves to the right of the other party).
Or take Japan. Their far right party is called the liberal democrats.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
Yea I get it. Liberalism is left of center. There’s no denying it. A lot of you just moved far left to the point that you all think the center moved with you. It did not. The political spectrum is not centered on socialism/capitalist. The options are not support socialism or capitalism. That is very lazy way to categorize the political spectrum. There’s more to it.
This is a discussion about liberals in the US, not the liberal party of Canada, which is decidedly left of US politics as a whole.
No, this was not specific to US.
How can liberals be left when liberalism is the hegemonic ideology in the US. Both parties are liberal and both parties represent oligarch interests, the only difference between them is in how to manage the internal contradictions of the country.
It’s a failure of terms used in US politics. When we say “left” and “right” we pretty much exclusively are talking about their position in respect to one another as opposed to the actual policies the parties hold.
Republicans are much more “conservative” (right wing) than Democrats (liberals) are, so the Republicans are the right and the Democrats become the “left” as they aren’t as conservative and therefore they are “to the left” of Republicans.
If you were to look at global definitions as to what it means to be a left wing party, Democrats really don’t fit there.
It’s crazy what absolutely no knowledge about various political and philosophical movements does to a mfer.
No they’re not, I hate to break it to you but most conservatives are liberals. What you’re referring to is liberals picking up on social policies championed by the left.
Yes they are. A Liberal for most political subgroups in liberalism are left of center with the odd leaning center right. Liberalism values mostly are left of center values.
Please define liberalism for me.
They are racist though though. Non white people can still accept and prop up systemic white supremacy. Anyone who supports the US or NATO is doing this. I see it all the time among my family and friends who are not white. To leftists racism isn’t just prejudice based on race, its prejudice based on race + the power in society to enforce that as a system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice_plus_power
What if a leftist invented wojack?
Even better to my point then that the right was more effective with using it. Something about the left is super passive which is weird because they’re so loud with what they’ll do one day if ever they had the opportunity to do something about the thing they’re really mad at for that day they’ll totally do it.
I mean the internet is the worst place to do politics so idc if the right used some meme I made up. Want to do politics go outside, it was campaigning and canvassing that won the election for Zohran, it’s also what got Die Linke 10% of the vote in Germany. Real politics happens in the real world. Yeah the right wing is loud online, but they’re fucking cowards in real life. Most of the leftists I know are doing shit in real life not posting. FYI I told the wojack joke in real life then somebody posted it on the web, same with shocked pikachu also a joke told in real life. You’d be suprised how much doing stuff in real life achieves.
Everything is online. Nobody knows you knocked on doors in the neighborhood while people were eating supper. After supper people are logging into their favorite social media and engaging with content. Content which right now is leaning heavily on the right and affecting generations. I’ll argue all day that everything you said is exactly what the left is fucked and totally losing everything for the foreseeable future.
Zohran I hope to God succeeds but he’s going to need so much support online and the left removed themselves from every platform, they have no connection, structure or voices to organize online, they have no tools to assist. They all hate AI. They think every platforms is racist except fully leftist ones.
TPUSA, Heritage foundation, Cato institute, Koch Bros fucking UFC and barstool sports are all going to really amplify and sabotage Zohran. They have so many ins with business and media, they’ll all self sandstone sabotage to make sure the numbers can be amplified ONLINE to as many people as possible. The left is so far behind the times, they have no ability to counter this very foreseeable future.
Lol ok mr very online guy. You know that those media organisations you mentioned are all funded by billionaires. People like me aren’t funded because we say stuff that is uncomfortable and I don’t give a shit about appeasing advertisers. The biggest difference you can make is in the real world, being there for your community volunteering tennant unions etc. Posting is the lowest effort and easiest thing you can do. Actual struggle happens in real life.
Then why the fuck do you people show up to protest??
How does it make any sense to you that people will drive miles to some street and stand around while police kick your heads in. You cannot argue protesting publicly is effective yet engagement and capture online is not. What is really fucking crazy is how a lot of the left are convinced a public protest is Mecca while online engagement (which every one is putting money into as you said) is crap.
Almost like the people who put money into the effective methods are convincing their opponent to do the ineffective thing while they convince them the effective methods that they’re all invested in is useless.
They’re funding what you are doing for free right now. It’s insane how thick minded so many of you are. Every comment or content you all make costs them money to counter. It’s a numbers game. It costs you nothing. Take every protester willing to show up in the streets and teach them how to create media.
The left is cooked. So much brain rot on the left. You’re all calling people who have beat you in every arena as low information. Yet they beat you all, everywhere. How’d that no Kings protest work out?
Online is where opinions are shaped and formed. It’s a force multiplier. I’m so done with the left. Have no idea what they’re doing. It’s like watching people click their fingers in a park all over again.
“Okay one second can someone draw each side as dark seid and batman so I can understand what’s going on?”
When a capitalist system collapse, the always make an reset with a war.
If you want to know more, Lenin described this in more detail in “Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism”.
Yes, but the current heatwave in Spain I was not going to put here all Lenin’s manuscript here because of an axiom like this.
The Great Man just decided it should collapse.
I wish it were more difficult to go through your life while refusing to understand that cause and effect apply to politics just like everything else.
“We can’t take that chance.” “You always say that! I want to take a chance!”
This is still the best Simpsons episode ever.
Which episode is this? Cause it’s really bugging me that I can’t place it. I want to say it’s the Globex / Scorpio episode, but I can’t say for sure.
And I will politely disagree about it being the best episode. If it is the Scorpio one, it’s still very, very, good. But S01 E05 Bart the General will always be my favorite.
You Only Move Twice S08E02 For me it’s the best. I love Hank Scorpio and the joke density in that episode is insane. It’s one great joke after another.
“Have you ever seen a man say goodbye to a shoe?” “Hehe, yes once.”
