ITT: 'liberal pretending to be leftist' dead giveaways
Give me your best ones, bois.
ITT: 'liberal pretending to be leftist' dead giveaways
Benjamin Murphy
Cameron Davis
So the bourgeoisie don't look after their own interests and in the process they don't end up incidentally fucking up the working class?
Eli Russell
The groups per se don't. The individuals do, but we express it like this in language. Just like 'Country X legalizes marijuana' means that the government of country X legalized, not the country per se.
Kayden Campbell
idpol
Luke Collins
Electoral politics can be a legitimate strategy for exposing the system though.
Logan Ward
Only if you do it like Brewster.
Jackson Barnes
These are all vulgarizations, right? Simpler, easier versions of more accurate but slightly unfamiliar concepts.
I want to say you should see these as an opportunity to educate, but I wonder how possible it really is to overcome these sorts of gross simplifications. Almost every progressive vulgarizes feminism, antiracism, etc, too.
I think it might actually be necessary to try to create new gross simplifications that are still basically right but just incomplete, and get people closer to the right idea. The vulgarization of 'the the 1% who own 99% vs the 99% who own 1%' might actually be a good example of that. To create vulgarizations that are still useful and try to push out the harmful ones.
These are people who would jump off a bridge if sargon of akkad made a video about why you should not jump off a bridge.
These people should be fucking sectioned.
Christian Foster
>thinks that we must "support" on Facebook puppet states of non-American countries in their fight against American imperialism
Brayden Jones
Exploitation is different than oppression, but the proletariat are oppressed by capitalism, overtly by the state and covertly by artificial scarcity of shelter, food, etc. We have no reason not to acknowledge this in tandem with the exploitation inherent in wage labor.
While not perfectly synonymous and it is important to stress we want to abolish social relations as opposed to just distribute wealth evenly, I would be surprised if "capital" did not correlate to "rich" over 90% of the time. Furthermore I'd argue rich proletarians, such as executives and politicians who don't own capital, have interests more aligned with the bourgeoisie than they do with the proletariat, and can be expected to side with reaction.
"Democratic Socialism" is completely meaningless and we shouldn't use it at all.
Seeing immigration solely in economic terms is liberalism, it treats us only as resources to be used by capital in production.
This could mean anything. We should be skeptical against "science" and "rationality" in the sense of not buying into "Ben Shapiro Destroys Leftists With FACTS And LOGIC" shit that gets dressed up as rational or scientific advice to make the proletariat suffer so corps can continue to waste resources.
What the fuck does this even mean. If you don't like sports or capeshit films don't be a dick and pretend your enlightened taste makes you superior, but feel free not to enjoy dumb shit.
Jace Adams
What hes talking about are radlib tumblr drones who jump straight past the skepticism of ideology being framed as 'rational scientific truth' on to distrust of the concept of scientific rationality, just because certain rightards invoke it as a mask.