We are an a communist instance. American liberals (which includes both of their major political parties) are very imperialist and love to push propaganda about their enemies. It’s why public opinion for China took a nose dive in the last 10 years. Why Iran is so evil, but nobody thinks about Kuwait. Why Tiananmen square gets so much attention but the white terror receives none. China’s the enemy, and “Taiwan” is an innocent friend that needs protecting.
Being communist, we are anti-imperialist, and hate the war mongering propaganda that the liberals seem to lap up. They see this as being conspiracy theorists or contrarian. Hence the conflict about things like this.
Okay, I understand the narative, and agree that western culture has cemented certain opinions on history. But where does the liberal part come in? Maybe I’m misunderstanding that bit. On US social media there is this whole lib vs republican thing going on. In this case does lib just mean “not communism”?
Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism. Thus “liberal” is everyone who support capitalism, that is basically starting at socialdemocracy and everything right of them - which in western countries mean literally entire political mainstream.
They only have two political parties, and it can be hard to tell the difference between them a lot of the time. They’re both still going to push for more military spending, treat social programs with extreme suspicion, and probably go out and attack another country. The Wikipedia definition of neoliberal is this:
Neoliberalism is contemporarily used to refer to market-oriented reform policies such as “eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers” and reducing, especially through privatization and austerity, state influence in the economy.
Which describes both parties pretty well. Americans have a bit of a twisted view of liberal Vs conservative. Both their parties are pretty right wing in comparison to most of the rest of the world, so they often come down to performative acts. For instance, I’m trans. Neither party really cares about me, but the republican base hates me. So they each put on a big show of doing something about me. But they are both primarily interested in the same overall goals in governance, which is in line with neoliberal ideology.
So we just call them all liberals (although I think the republican party is becoming fascist, which is arguably not the same thing). Regardless, an average liberal’s ideology is more compatible with fascism than with us.
To Republicans, “liberal” means communist/vegan/trans/Black/Millenial/baby killers/etc.
To Self-described Liberals, “liberal” means Non-authoritarian socialist/centrist/real patriots/pro-science/pragmatic/etc.
Basically, don’t go on US social media to see political terms being used with any significant amount of accuracy. Most Americans are so politically ignorant that, even to many of those that describe themselves as politically-minded, these labels have essentially lost all concrete meaning.
I personally see tankies as conspiracy oriented because they are, just like all the MAGA people, tribal apologists blind to the bad acts of their team/leaders. Do you really think Xi has the best interests of the people of China in mind? Come on. I’m not dumb enough to think Biden has my best interests in mind.
We understand the material conditions and how that drives not only ideas, but change as a whole. For example by carefully looking at the material world around me, I can safely confirm that Xi and Biden are two different people.
Bit of a late reply, but why is it so hard for you to imagine any leader caring about their people? (This sounded more accusatory than I meant, that’s not my goal, it’s more of a “why is it so hard to imagine a caring leader?” not a personal attack.)
Most of us in the west have never actually had a leader who wants to help anyone other than the stockholders of big companies. So the concept of leadership that actually cares about people is entirely alien to us.
To look at it another way: Do you consider yourself a good person? And if you were in a leadership position somewhere, would you try to do the best to help out the people under you? Good people do exist in the world. Not necessarily saying Xi is one of them, just that it is possible for a leader to care about people. Power doesn’t corrupt, corrupt people are attracted to power. But they aren’t always the ones who get it.
This sounded more accusatory than I meant, that’s not my goal, it’s more of a “why is it so hard to imagine a caring leader?” not a personal attack.
Thanks for being clear, it’s easy to misunderstand emotions via text. I get that we’re having a conversation about topics we’re passionate about and don’t necessarily agree so unless you’re clearly direct an insult at me personally we’re good :) I repect your position and can tell you’re a good person.
I agree with everything you said. Now what happens with those good people in charge step down, die, or are overtaken by not so good people?
I can imagine being a benevolent dictator, that I would do a great many things to help people. And then it would click in my head that this situation is temporary. And other than democracy, there’s no even close to acceptable method of transferring this power and especially in ensuring that it remains with good people. We have history to look at at see how that works.
If it were possible for good people to be in charge and stay in charge, it would’ve happened already. Now you might make that same claim about anarchism, if it were possible, why don’t we see any anarchist states (which would be an oxymoron of course). Any my reply is that anarchism was the effective state (as in status) for a hundred thousand years and is the default status of any group – that is until in a given group the psychopaths win and stop the game (by claiming exclusive right to violence).
Am I a supporter of democracy then? Not really, I think it’s better than alternative methods of choosing state leadership, but it’s not the choosing method that’s the problem, it’s the power that’s the problem.
We are an a communist instance. American liberals (which includes both of their major political parties) are very imperialist and love to push propaganda about their enemies. It’s why public opinion for China took a nose dive in the last 10 years. Why Iran is so evil, but nobody thinks about Kuwait. Why Tiananmen square gets so much attention but the white terror receives none. China’s the enemy, and “Taiwan” is an innocent friend that needs protecting.
Being communist, we are anti-imperialist, and hate the war mongering propaganda that the liberals seem to lap up. They see this as being conspiracy theorists or contrarian. Hence the conflict about things like this.
Okay, I understand the narative, and agree that western culture has cemented certain opinions on history. But where does the liberal part come in? Maybe I’m misunderstanding that bit. On US social media there is this whole lib vs republican thing going on. In this case does lib just mean “not communism”?
Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism. Thus “liberal” is everyone who support capitalism, that is basically starting at socialdemocracy and everything right of them - which in western countries mean literally entire political mainstream.
Yeah, this is definitely better than my reply. I’m tired after arguing with the liberals all damn day. I need some cigars and brandy.
They only have two political parties, and it can be hard to tell the difference between them a lot of the time. They’re both still going to push for more military spending, treat social programs with extreme suspicion, and probably go out and attack another country. The Wikipedia definition of neoliberal is this:
Which describes both parties pretty well. Americans have a bit of a twisted view of liberal Vs conservative. Both their parties are pretty right wing in comparison to most of the rest of the world, so they often come down to performative acts. For instance, I’m trans. Neither party really cares about me, but the republican base hates me. So they each put on a big show of doing something about me. But they are both primarily interested in the same overall goals in governance, which is in line with neoliberal ideology.
So we just call them all liberals (although I think the republican party is becoming fascist, which is arguably not the same thing). Regardless, an average liberal’s ideology is more compatible with fascism than with us.
To Republicans, “liberal” means communist/vegan/trans/Black/Millenial/baby killers/etc.
To Self-described Liberals, “liberal” means Non-authoritarian socialist/centrist/real patriots/pro-science/pragmatic/etc.
Basically, don’t go on US social media to see political terms being used with any significant amount of accuracy. Most Americans are so politically ignorant that, even to many of those that describe themselves as politically-minded, these labels have essentially lost all concrete meaning.
I personally see tankies as conspiracy oriented because they are, just like all the MAGA people, tribal apologists blind to the bad acts of their team/leaders. Do you really think Xi has the best interests of the people of China in mind? Come on. I’m not dumb enough to think Biden has my best interests in mind.
We understand the material conditions and how that drives not only ideas, but change as a whole. For example by carefully looking at the material world around me, I can safely confirm that Xi and Biden are two different people.
Must be nice on the holodeck.
Bit of a late reply, but why is it so hard for you to imagine any leader caring about their people? (This sounded more accusatory than I meant, that’s not my goal, it’s more of a “why is it so hard to imagine a caring leader?” not a personal attack.)
Most of us in the west have never actually had a leader who wants to help anyone other than the stockholders of big companies. So the concept of leadership that actually cares about people is entirely alien to us.
To look at it another way: Do you consider yourself a good person? And if you were in a leadership position somewhere, would you try to do the best to help out the people under you? Good people do exist in the world. Not necessarily saying Xi is one of them, just that it is possible for a leader to care about people. Power doesn’t corrupt, corrupt people are attracted to power. But they aren’t always the ones who get it.
Thanks for being clear, it’s easy to misunderstand emotions via text. I get that we’re having a conversation about topics we’re passionate about and don’t necessarily agree so unless you’re clearly direct an insult at me personally we’re good :) I repect your position and can tell you’re a good person.
I agree with everything you said. Now what happens with those good people in charge step down, die, or are overtaken by not so good people?
I can imagine being a benevolent dictator, that I would do a great many things to help people. And then it would click in my head that this situation is temporary. And other than democracy, there’s no even close to acceptable method of transferring this power and especially in ensuring that it remains with good people. We have history to look at at see how that works.
If it were possible for good people to be in charge and stay in charge, it would’ve happened already. Now you might make that same claim about anarchism, if it were possible, why don’t we see any anarchist states (which would be an oxymoron of course). Any my reply is that anarchism was the effective state (as in status) for a hundred thousand years and is the default status of any group – that is until in a given group the psychopaths win and stop the game (by claiming exclusive right to violence).
Am I a supporter of democracy then? Not really, I think it’s better than alternative methods of choosing state leadership, but it’s not the choosing method that’s the problem, it’s the power that’s the problem.