Gamergater here. What's the difference between lefties, liberals, democrats, and communists? The guys in the Gamergate threads always use those interchangably, and I'd like to hear what a board not infested with Zig Forums thinks.
What's the difference?
Hudson Robinson
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
marxists.org
twitter.com
Eli Hughes
Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism. Democrats are a liberal American political party and Communists are, 95% of the time nowadays, some form of Marxists who want to abolish capitalism and begin the construction of socialist society aiming towards the eventual abolition of the state and class-society
Andrew Lewis
leftism is a broad term and can be anyone from socdem to anarchist.
liberals and democrats are both just centre-left at most and don't wish to actually abolish private property, which is what communists want.
communists don't like liberals and democrats, and the only reason we get lumped in with them is because right wingers are smoothbrains who think that anything left of fascism is cultural
marxism.
Owen Anderson
Couldn't have said it better myself
William Sullivan
When spelled like that, usually just a pejorative for anyone the speaker dislikes and considers to be on the left. Leftist, at least here, is usually meant to identify someone who finds their social/political/economic stance at odds with the present system of production and material disposition - usually in line with some interpretation of Marx, to some degree. There's a good deal of complication when discussing issues and when approaching the history of the movement itself, but that above is a good working definition
Those who opt for social progressiveness and the ideal that the issues posed by faults or contradictions within the present system can also be reconciled and fixed within the present system. This has been the predominant ideological cleft in a great number of movements since the 1960's. Again, very reductionist definition, but it works
corporatist party who represent American liberalism, which, itself, is a rightist deviation in that the party is enormously bureaucratic and opts for an agenda that is largely equally amenable to the productive structure of capitalism as their opponents - though they treat one another as enemies, they are orienteers of the same game.
those that accept the Marxist system of thought that seeks to supersede the contradictions seen as imperative and enduring within the present system of production, and by extension all those shortcomings that exist within all other subsidiary spheres of thought.
Brandon Turner
Usually the same thing, some lefties are actual communists though.
Have a worldview informed by a scientific philosophy called "historical dialectical materialism."
dialectical:
materialism:
historical:
The philosophy of communism inspired Marx to criticize capitalism. His criticisms in Capital are a scientific analysis of the economy, and are heavily supported by statistical analysis.
user, please read books.
Jaxon Foster
Liberals are mostly centrists and right of centers. To the left of them are social democrats, who are left-of-center and see capitalism as a necessary evil rather than a preferable choice. Left of that, you get the anti-capitalists, various flavors of Marxism, anarchism and other less common radical ideologies like National Bolshevism.
If someone tells you liberals and communists are the same, they are retarded. In reality, the two American first parties are just different flavors of neoliberalism; the difference between Democrats and leftists is much greater than between Democrats and Republicans, since the US's Overton window is very small. They differ mainly on wedge issues and cultural attitudes that we do not consider nearly as important.
Nathaniel Murphy
The Democrats dabbled with Corporatism in the 80s, and Elizabeth Warren leans slightly in that direction, but they are in no way a Corporatist party. Warren's plan is as close as a Democrat has proposed, and even in that plan shareholders still had majority control.
Aiden White
Corporatism as an actual ideology has always been extremely rare outside of populist movements. The Democrats are just plain as day capitalists.
Logan Johnson
vague
gay
cool
Brody Martinez
...
Jacob Wright
there are still gamergate threads?
Samuel Moore
...
Evan Morris
he's still making videos?
Carson Turner
when he's not showing his hairy ass on twitter, yeah.
David Bailey
He is turning into more of a lolcow by the day, honestly. I’m ashamed I ever took him seriously
Angel Gutierrez
Aiden Perez
...
Liam Nguyen
...
Elijah Sullivan
...
Liam Williams
Lefties: anything that doesn't fit my special brand of Turbo-Fascism
Liberals: Capitalism works! (US version a.k.a. "Modern Liberalism": Capitalism works with welfare!)
Yes, both Republicans and Democrats are Liberals. Republicans simply support Classical/neo-Liberalism, while Democrats nominally support Modern Liberalism.
Democrats: US Right-wing party that larps as Left
Communists: when World Domination is merely the first step of your master plan
Aaron James
Jose Sanders
right there with you, and as someone that is both a communist and identifies with the gamergate movement, browsing /v/ is one of the most insufferably ignorant and retarded places on Earth.
LEFTIES
an effectively meaningless term used to describe anyone that is not "right" of politics, even in it's strictest definitions it is incredibly broad, and it's subjective nature makes it a useless term, if someone called themselves a "leftists" that could mean anything from thinking Hillary deserved to win the 2016 election to believing Stalin was a demigod unironically
quite literally anyone that isn't in the strictest definition far right, black character in your game? you're a leftist, female character with emotions and mood in your game? you're a leftists, someone gay in your game? you better believe you're a leftist. The way /v/ uses it is effectively anyone that doesn't browse Zig Forums regularly and is from a western country.
LIBERALS
different definitions depending on where you are from. In many European countries and Australia and Canada, Liberals are often seen as the center right of politics, liberal being derived from Libertarian, is associated with the idea of more freedom, both economically and somewhat socially as well. In America this term has come to be heavily associated with the democratic party, this is due to the history of the democratic party and it's broad church appeal of being the anti-government interference party. Today it's somewhat the inverse of that thanks to appeal to blue collar workers under the Roosevelt administration, but the term stuck.
effectively anyone advocating for """diversity""" in the game's industry, although the term can be thrown around to just about anyone pro-diversity. Admittedly not a far cry from the real definition in America
DEMOCRATS
simply put, members of the democratic party of America, not much to say
actually personally have seen this term be used too often, can't really say for sure how it's used
COMMUNIST
this big one, follow along with me here, a Communist is anyone that advocated specifically for the teachings or derived teachings of Karl Marx, specifically the ambition to create a stage of society where the working class owns the means of production, and are able to function on the Maxim "Each according to his need, each according to his ability" IT DOES NOT have anything to do with race/sex/religion inherently, while many people working in those areas claim to be communists, communism itself has nothing to do with anything other then a view of society as based on two classes, capitalist and the working class.
effectively anyone on the far left to much of /v/ this means being so much as a BernieBro gets you branded a communist. I still remember the nightmare of a thread where people came to the conclusion that the developer of undertale was a communist based on loose connection in his game and some of his tweets advocating against ethnic cleansing of Jews or some mainstream shit like that.
Charles Butler
embarassing
David Rogers
predictable Zig Forums responses aside, are you guys still hanging out in the kotaku-in-action sub?
Or did you move somewhere
Evan Anderson
While nominally correct (given Marx's role we have no non-Marxist Communists left), Communism existed before Karl Marx.
Imprecise. That's Socialism in general (includes Anarchists, not only Communists).
Communism is about working class as a whole owning means of production as a whole (hence "commune").
Christopher Carter
/v/ is so far to the right that a basic centrist liberal counts as far-left in their view. This is retarded because it would be like using the political spectrum of communism to describe every global ideology. For example, Trotsky is left opposition, Bukharin is a rightist, Stalin became a centrist, this kinda makes sense in terms of the politics of the Bolshevik Party, but anyone in their right mind doesn't use it to describe the entire political soectrum.
More "objectively", you could categorize ideologies like this:
Far left: Communism, anarchism
Left: Reformist socialism, "proper" social democracy
Center left: Social liberalism, basically regulations on the market economy with progressive social values and some public services
Center: Tends to be vague, but christian democracy is a centrist ideology ; economically usually regulated capitalism but with conservative social values, appeals to right-wing populism
Center-right: Classical liberalism, libertarianism
Etc., this is basic shit
Jack Cruz
...
Jack Hall
The Communist Manifesto explains this as it accurately explains many other things…
Brody Lee
Dabdabdab
Don’t mind me just testing if sage field works for me
Lincoln Perry
Apparently, not.
Left is Socialists (Anarchists, Communists).
Center is SocDem.
Right is Liberalism (from classical/neo- to modern welfare-based).
Charles Adams
Lefties = Slur for anyone who is more left wing than the person saying it
Liberals = Nonsense term used to describe people who wish to allow things that the person saying it doesn't wish to allow. Often used to describe an ideology of capitalist egalitarianism.
Democrats = American political party favoring capitalism and egalitarianism, with the most left wing members being "social democrats". Also very infrequently used to describe an ideology associated with being pro-democracy.
Communists = People who advocate for an existence without currency, a centralized government, or socio-economic classes.
Correct me if I fucked something up, Zig Forums.
Zachary Lopez
You could be more honest in saying that Liberalism is a slang for social liberal, but the historical definition meant anyone who subscribed to market liberalism or social liberalism, or anyone that subscribes to the ideals derivative of enlightenment philosophers (eg John Locke, Adam Smith)>>2709800
Dylan Cox
The sole purpose of Identity politics is to divide the proletariat and to make groups that should be natural allies into enemies with forced arguments.
Brayden Bailey
And I would expand this by saying identity politics is just the latest incarnation of the old principle of divide and rule.
Lincoln Flores
Jacob Fisher
Robert Diaz
That would be a decent photo if you took out Marcuse - as it stands right now, it just makes the creator and the poster stand out for not knowing anything about the Frankfurt School and just chocking it up to "queer theory and intersectionality"
Leo Hughes
Top kek
Robert Barnes
Typically those who advocate for worker controlled means of production and society, removal of capitalism and (variably) installation of a revolutionary vanguard, or complete abolition of the state.
Centre-right leaning. The typical "the free market will fix it now stop man-splaining" crowd. PC/SJW culture is found here.
Political party representing and largely consisting of the above, who believe merely having a female president is the cure for all of societies' ills.
A general term for those who believe in the breakdown of capitalist and oppressive hierarchies, total worker control, and eventual dissolution of the state.
Zig Forums is the very definition of intellectual dishonesty, fuck them. Always wrong.
Justin Ortiz
Funny thing is that the person who created that shithole once tried to make it private, but then the head honchos of reddit made it public again for some reason.
Josiah Moore
Since no one explained this yet. Democrat is just people of the Democrat party in the US which is named after Democratic Republicanism. The Republican part also gets it's name from this. Neither names have much to do with standing policy. Democratic Republic is the USs official government type.
Austin Jones
Jaxon Morgan
lol newfags Zig Forums was created ‘‘because’’ of GG
Jayden Fisher
Have you ever seen a vagina that doesn't end in .jpg?
Gabriel Rivera
It was created because Zig Forums is a torture chamber.
Liam Campbell
A pretty broad term whose definition will always depend on who you ask. To me, anyone who wants to prioritize the interests of the working class over those of financial and political elites deserves being called a leftist. This includes communists, anarchists and (some) socdems.
Right-wingers who generally advocate for individualism, privatization and identity politics. They supposedly defend "freedom" but fail to realize that a free market and the freedom of (most) individuals are diametrically opposed. The Western political status quo of the last decades is one of neoliberalism: a policy of large-scale privatizations and austerity that increases wealth inequality and ultimately only benefits the rich. Neoliberals try to legitimize this through the myth of "trickle down economics" (the idea that poor people will also benefit from the rich people's wealth "trickling down") but there exist no examples of this actually happening in practice.
A "center-right" political party in the United States that ultimately serves the interests of corporate groups just as well as the Republicans, in spite of their differences on some social issues. Pic very related.
People that strive for a classless and stateless society where people can keep the full fruit of their labor instead of having to give a large part of it away to the capitalist they work for. The transition from capitalism to full communism has to happen gradually (although this is exactly what anarchists deny). Much like the transition from feudalism to capitalism didn't happen at once but through several revolutions, periods of reaction and gradual socio-economical changes, "early" communist society will be (as Marx put it in Critique of the Gotha Program) "a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges." Lenin introduced the convention of calling this early stage "socialism" and the later stage "communism". The socialist states of the 20th century were socialist, not yet communist, which would imply the full abolishment of classes and the state.
Angel Hughes
Eli Wright
There is no ideological difference between republicans and democrats. They adhere to the same ideology. The only thing you might say is 'hm democrats being against guns is authoritarian' since its when the state should go above individual rights. But other than that I don't really see any kind of distinct ideological differences. Being for or against abortion is ethical, homosexuality is an ethical irrelevant question, minorities face discrimination is optics. The last one is optics because under the US law everyone should receive an equal treatment therefore anything regarding race will be used as bait since you have equality under law which stems from egalitarian views. Communism doesn't need to be egalitarian necessarily though, but I think this becomes mandatory for liberalism to even function. Otherwise the notion of equal freedoms get broken. Nonetheless equal freedom gets broken frequently in liberalism since people with more capital can exploit their individual freedoms to limit those of others.
Landon Martinez
Fake, but I am bored.
The only useful ones are Marxist Communists. They are against the market and for the abolishment of class society through the destruction of private property.
The only useful ones are the Communists.
Depending on your definitions, this csn mean anything. The only definition I like is
Communists
Nicholas Jenkins
youtube.com
America is the epitome of divide and conquer.
Right now the workers here are constantly getting shafted by the DNC and GOP. Every time the left or right insinuates violence with one another, the bourgeoisie laugh. They're allowing us to kill each other so we pose less of a threat to them.
Killing fellow workers is simply not an option, only in the worst case scenario should we consider it as one.
I might be overestimating the mental capacity of dixiefags and Trumpers, but maybe they can be redeemed. All we have to do is show them how their beloved system falls apart and hopefully they'll be enlightened.
Carter Adams
How can one suppress a class system if we are humans and not robots? Class systems should be a result of fair meritocracy but not infringe upon the rights of those who do not benefit from it.
Easton Cooper
I can't make heads or tails of this sentence. A class based society, arrived at through "fairness" (defined by who I wonder), in which people who don't benefit from the existence of classes, which would include basically anyone in an exploited class, aren't "infringed"? What am I supposed to imagine here?
Jacob Morales
The people below them would be guaranteed to rise above them/their class if so their merit dictates is what I call fair. Once this is not the case and is unfair it is no longer meritocratic but is still a class system.
Christopher Smith
I think you have a misunderstanding of what we're talking about when we say class. In the US for example it's typically used to describe tiers of wealth, but that definition is highly subjective and has limited utility. It doesn't have anything to do with personal capability either. Classes are defined by their relation to eachother. In Capitalism, the main dynamic is between those who own capital and those who must work it. Despite the worker doing 100% of the necessary labor to maintain capital, and being the agent necessary for capital to produce anything of value, he is only entitled to a pittance of the value that he produces. The lion's share goes to the capitalist. With no productive input on his own part.
What is meant by the elimination of classes is the mutual ownership of capital by and for the working class, who are the producers of all wealth.
The exploitation of workers by depriving them of the wealth they produce is highly hierarchical, deeply anti-meritocratic. Even if we can imagine that this system is capable of producing brilliant entrepreneurs and self-made men who can conquer the system that is designed to continue exploiting them and use this as a justification for its continued existence, like American liberals tend to, we still have the majority situation of plenty of dim-witted capitalists ruling over workers who might be their superior. That's not to say I think this is always the case, that capitalists as a matter of course are stupid, it's probably not. Just that merit is not a consideration in the construction of a capitalist system and it never has been.
But how much merit would a person need to posses to gain the right to exploit the labor of other people? By what standards could he possibly prove that he should own the fruits of labor done by hundreds or thousands of other people? I can't imagine a system where that distribution is justified. Certainly not through "merit", which I should point out is a flexible enough term for any tyrant to redefine as that being which is most like himself.
Lenin has a letter that pertains to this idea somewhat, that socialism is a zealous adherence to an abstract "equality". marxists.org
Of course, we can all tell that aptitudes and capabilities differ between person to person. This is not what liberation from class is about. Classes are not defined by their capabilities and socialists do not wish to eliminate inequality between individuals. Such a desire is obviously absurd, which is why no one holds it.
William Murphy
But the substantive delineation between classes is not one that can be retained in the presence of meritocracy. There is no meritocratic and justified division of capital into class structure that is not predicated by the amassment and reproduction of said capital in the favour of certain classes over subordinated classes. The present system for the expansion and aggrandizement of productive forces is, by its most fundamental nature, conducive to a system that would derelict meritocratic works.
Within this orientation, one might expect that good taste and public weal might lead to a symbolic reference to meritocracy, a sort of: "Work will take you as far as you can go, so work hard!" but it will always be subject to the basic rules of the productive system – and thus, meritocratic in name and stature only, without any substance
Jackson Ramirez
This literally never happened
Jayden Hall
Benjamin Morgan
Learn your history, bitch ass nigga.
Joseph Garcia
there's being polite online and there's ignoring 50 year old counterintelligence initiatives because a subreddit's footer tells you to
Jordan Hernandez
It still amuses me someone grabbed my random doodle gif and made something with actual use and timing to it