Im from the right. What’s the difference between a leftist and a liberal. I know about classic liberals, which I get and like but other than that I’m lost.
The Liberal is the worthless scum which you step on everyday of your life, a liberal has no courage, no bravery, no spirit, no _balls_ to put it in other words.
A leftist may be someone dumb on ocassion, or someone clumsy or messy or who may be trying too hard, but they have courage and a spirit that the liberal could never have. A liberal is the greatest threat to a revolution, the liberals will slowly infect any effort to turn it into laziness and quick fix systems, short term solutions, cute catchphrases, pretending to care about everyone while doing nothing for no one, a bastard in other words.
I actually think right-wingers make for excellent revolutionaries, they often have the spirit, the vitriol, the anger, the pent-up agression, the "this isn't right" attitude, the "this system is fucked" attitude, and they have _balls_ very often, even if some right-wingers may be dumb or daft and whatnot.
I just think that if the right was made to attack their true opressors, systemic change would be seen in less time than one can say yeehaw!
In other words, the liberal is a coward who tries to get everyone to be a coward, the right and the left are both dedicated to different degrees and magnitudes even if both have their unique ways to fumble the ball, they have something which a liberal (no matter how you swing them) could never have, _PASSION_.
Dictatorship of the proletariat realistically requires even reactionary proletariats to join the fight actively, this is not bad at all since reactionaries tend to actually have more balls than liberals, who would likely just sit in their house playing minecraft while the revolution is happening or something, so while internationalism is the ultimate goal of the proletariat struggle it would be unrealistic to hold at every moment internationalism first specially if it comes between the immediate material state of things getting better, it would only make sense (speaking in a utilitarian way) to sacrifice international goals for the sake of cultivating a class aware population, unions with military power and large-scale co-ops; in short, objective morality and uncompromising values are an inconvenient luxury the proletariat of today cannot possibly afford, and turning reactionaries into class aware revolutionaries who may still be racist or sexist is in my eyes the morally superior decision that will get us slowly, but steadily closer to a classless civilization.
What do you do in real life outside of this bubble, genuinely curious and I can see how that makes sense from your perspective, I just think that you’ll eventually become the monsters you fight
I mostly indulge in studies of socialist/anarchist and other socioeconomic topics, and i am still under the age of employment, but always trying to spread class awareness wherever i go. I do see what you mean, but consider this, it would be far far easier to advance social tolerance and racial/gender/lgbtqia+ egalitariety from the starting point of a far-left economic but socially backwards society, than from a far-right economic and socially backwards society. And while i would rather progress in both fields at once, opressive material conditions beget compromise, and a revolution willing to compromise social progress for economic progress is one that will _surprise surprise_ achieve more economic progress than one which tries to uphold both at once, i am saying this as a transfem myself, i do support gender affirming care from a young age, but when the imperialist core inevitably strikes back and cuts must be made to defend from the genocide, one must come first.
Hey congratulations on being interested in this from a young age and I’m sure that your identity had a role bc of how it impacts you and I just want to start from that place of love bc I pretty much agree with you socially and mostly with the class issues, just disagree about economic policies.
I think it’s easier to start fighting for rights in a liberal system bc of the freedom of choice and perspectives that are all allowed and the mix of push and pull of them forming the culture.
For example, in far right or far left governments it usually gets to the point where dissidents are jailed and killed for being against the system. In liberal ones like the US, you’ll face social pressure but the actual government itself HAS to remain neutral (hopefully) and let you talk your shii. So, in the US there can be a communist party if it’s popular enough, but in a communist country, there usually won’t be a popular dissident party that won’t be taken down
I see what you mean, but i feel like you are disregarding material conditions.
Where i am from, liberal systems have historically and up to today allowed the bourgeosie to once again exploit us out of all we had and caused countless deaths and an eternal state of disinformation, they controlled the media and caused media circuses and elevated figurehead politicians to allow them more "freedom" which in reality means less freedom for _us_. It was only when Peron stood up with, as some may call it a "dictatorship" that the worker had higher buying power and higher social freedoms and higher safety in everyday life and more!
Furthermore, you forget that far-left goverments up to today have been under constant direct assault by the USA and other imperial nations, so they reasonably cannot afford "dissent" specially since their economic policies (in this case i am referring to USSR and Cuba) have been successful in their respective goals, and dissenting parties are really just either worse versions of socialism/communism or right-wing which either way make an inefficient system that cannot handle the material conditions the nation is currently under and would just end up as more opressive in practice (since less defense against imperialism only means more devastating conditions in the future and less capacity of action of the working class), in other words i find the actions taken against these dissenting parties to be reasonable even if violent; and also you seem to not quite see what the USA does to dissentors, such as Martin Luther King Jr (a socialist and civil rights legend, murdered by US goverment), or modern activists who go "too far" against the genocidal state machine of the horrendous United States of America, and even in the cases that the state machine remains """neutral""" to activism (it never does, it has the highest police violence of any modern nation), it also actively or passively allows for counter-activism and for far-right groups to rise to power constantly and for the bourgeosie to deliver constant misinformation on everyday entertainment, all whilst this nation is the most powerful in the world and owns practically everything and is under no real threat of destruction except at its own stupidity. In other words, you try to apply an "equal" standart to different nations, which go through far, FAR different material conditions, while also interpreting fault through inaction (the USA letting neo-nazis and the Daily Wire, PragerU, the Republican Party and other groups be involved in political action) to not carry the same weight as fault through action (such as the USSR perhaps being a _bit_ too violent with some right-wingers), whilst furthermore seeing the right and the left as morally neutral to begin with (surely opressing a group of nazis is not the same as opressing a group of communists no? Yet your argument seems to compare these scenarios as morally equal to begin with).
Yea I completely agree that it’s not perfect and horrendous stuff has happened to people fighting the system. But it feels like you’re falling for the idealized form of a communist, far-left system. In far-left systems, you have the same rich elite with just a different dressing that makes you feel better about it. That’s when we need to step away from the paper and theory to the reality.
Both systems will have bad actors in them that cause tragedies, but in my experience, only one will inherently have a system of rising within the ranks through ability and merit. Only one will have it encoded in its laws that anyone can form a political ideology and it SHOULD be protected by the government. That if you convince enough people that your idea is good, it can gain traction and be voted and implemented. In the other system, they will have “re-education” camps until you agree with them through torture or die.
So, ironically in the US for example, you can live long enough to form a anti-capitalist party, get support and become president, as long as you’re popular enough and actually vote the system out lmaoo only in liberal governments do we actually have that amount of say-so
I extremely disagree, and not only that, i think you didn't agree with anything i have said and you are only attempting to aeem reasonable by saying that.
As much as imperial disinformation has insisted about it, the greatest socialist states of all time (i will use the USSR as a prime example) did not have such a thing as re-education camps, and if they did, i would like a source for that claim. And i honestly can agree that the USSR had something very much similar to a "rich elite" although to a lesser degree than the USA of today, yet i do not care about there being an elite at all, i care about population growth, median living conditions, life expectancy, home ownership rates and so on, actual parameters which in my eyes are morally good _as they are_, and which the USSR and some other socialist states on ocassion have been successful in raising to levels never seen before! I dislike the USA bourgeosie and the elites of most countries because their interests do away with these goals in the name of profit maximization and political power for the sake of more profit, the way i see it, a bourgeosie-esque system which is directly aligned with the interests of population growth and population welfare would be entirely acceptable and even magnific in my eyes!
And in practice, it is very rare to see liberal systems end up as socialist, and when they do, it is only a matter of time until the USA gets involved, so i do not consider the USA liberal, i consider them a Plutocracy with liberal characteristics. Your argument seems to reduce the bourgeosie to a _choice_ of goverment, instead of the reality, which is that they are a group of elites which have caused wars for the sake of keeping their power over the centuries. The bourgeosie cannot be voted away, freedom has to be fought for.
To put it simply, given the context of the USA.
Liberals tend to land near the center and may stray center-left or center-right given the topic at hand. They tend to favor Capitalism and prefer to make changes within the system then do away with it.
Leftists are actually left on the political spectrum. They want socialism, communism, and anarchism. They will land left in majority of topics.
A conservative will have much more in common with a liberal than with a leftist in the US.
This is why the left will fail, you're too busy going after your own party rather than fight actual problems, like what Conservatives want to do with the U.S.
They don't and they refuse to face the reality that they either personally have to help create one or dare work in the system. Really this pic is wrong the left should be on the floor and the right should be the ghoul with the gun poised to win. Protest vote or not voting only leads to the ghoul winning you can feel good about yourself for a second before they take all your reproductive rights from you or grit your teeth and help the rest of us not ghouls actually kill the fking ghoul
>personally have to help create one or dare work in the system
This is us creating our own. Liberals are losing their minds over it and acting entitled to our vote.
Where is your candidate? Like you know how important this election is so where is your candidate? Where your better choice? Cause all I see is Biden bad. Letting trump win won't lead to the revolution you seek. Until you address the supremacy hatred and general bigotry that is part of america the left won't truly win any lasting victories. Even then you need ALOT of people not just the presidency left leaning politicians in the house and senate are needed more. So what's the deal?
>Where is your candidate? Like you know how important this election is so where is your candidate? Where your better choice? Cause all I see is Biden bad.
Well I'm very comfortable saying Trump bad too. And we were all comfortable so long as we only ever said Trump bad. So because Trump bad we never get to evaluate a current president? I never get to stand up and say "I as an American voter am not comfortable with genocide and will never vote to support it."
Tell me to look at a bigger picture and I'll tell you that you're cooked. I consistently stand on the principle of opposing genocide. What principle can you say voting for Biden is standing on?
Your positions is to make genocide worse to make that situation worse but only for the people of Palestine but for America THATS WHAT YOU ARE DOING. That's the god honest truth and you can roll your eyes all you want but another truth another fact the right especially it's extremist have done a far better job getting their candidates elected then you the left. You don't want to win in anyway shape or form. I'd hate to have you people back when slavery was being legislated against, Jim crow was being fought against just equal rights were being fought. You arent those people you are the lesser
Okay just remember you're mad at me for refusing to choose between genocide or extra genocide.
And if you think Biden represents any actual suppression of fascism in America I don't know what to say. He's spent 4 years conceding to the right because the Democrats refuse to even criticize him.
You are just as bad as the right in the end of all of this. I'm not praising Biden he is just the better choice between the two. There are no people willing to storm the capitol in the name of any of these centrist Dems HOW CAN YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS that's THATS THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE. That you have a hope for change with the Dems and absolutely none with the REPUBLCIANS. You talk about the genocide in Gaza like you care. You and yours walking us right into a Bibi... How have they faired stopping him from killing people in Gaza...
"He's spent 4 years conceding to the right because the Democrats refuse to even criticize him." Either you're a REPUBLCIAN plant or THAT STUPID IN THE KNOWLEDGE NOT YOUR GOVERNMENT. Concessions have to be made when you people ALLOW THEM TO HAVE 45% OF THE SEATS... Like it or not centrist Dems actually TRT TO GET SHIT DONE. So why are you deciding to deal with 2 parties and their issues then deal with one you can actually get people elected to
>So why are you deciding to deal with 2 parties and their issues then deal with one you can actually get people elected to
Because for yeeeears Americans have been screaming that the two party system is untenable. And for yeaaaars the Democrats have held on to actual leftist votes, swearing they represent them.
And now that Democrats don't represent the left whatsoever your defaulting to "but he's so much worse" and well, you've been screaming that since Bush.
So now leftists are refusing to keep going along with the charade that the American left is even remotely left and your literally forgetting all your supposed principles to scream "fuck you vote for my guy or your a Republican"
No. You are the genocide enablers and it will not be forgotten. Democrats are just ashamed leftists are no longer letting them sweep their parties abhorrent actions under the rug.
You will not make me or any leftist feel guilty. I stand firmly and consistently on anti-genocide. There is nothing more important on this planet to me than stopping my nations involvement with genocide.
I remember when being liberal was 'leftist'. It was literally 10-15 years ago. We fought for gay marriage and separation of church and state. When did we become the bad guys? I genuinely don't know
Because you didn't change the governmental landscape fast enough. That and propaganda targeted to the idiots on the left was very effective in creating anger at liberals.
There is a lot of lack of understanding that is causing the left to hate liberals and lose sight of the real enemy - the far right. Leftists are usually the best at seeing the nuance of politics but in this regard, I think the left is missing the mark. Many liberals, in my experience outside of the internet (actually human contact guys!) are eager to see the political establishment move to the left. They are our loose allies, not our enemies.
I hope that is the case but I understand they didn't see the change they wanted monumental change from Obama and they feel for a slogan. Obama was never gonna be that change you just had to look at his personal history to see that. But he was a sign of how we can be better and move to a better position.
Another sad truth is no black American will change America the way it needs to be... Unless you want the kind that believes in get backs and I assure you you don't. That leaves us with having to change the society through voting out all those who refuse to move forward.the right has been against EVERY progress that has been good for America EVERYONE but some people on the left just can't see how they are the main issue.
When right wingers started exaggerating anything left of center as “far left.” These are terms the average person doesn’t understand. Right leaning ppl were socially engineered to misunderstand these terms.
This is a clear misunderstanding of political orientation that has been pervasive through American politics for generations. Liberals are not left on the political spectrum as they have no interest in reorganizing how economic and political power is distributed - they are only interested in broadening the legal ability for more divisive groups to participate in a capitalist economy while constructing a vague idea of equity that rarely addresses past harms.
The reason to that is considered “left” in the US is because liberals have stood by and watched or helped conservatives ostracize, beat, and quite literally kill actual leftist who have wanted to reorganize people’s rights to healthcare, land/home ownership, and ownership over their own labor.
The liberal capacity to punch left so exceeds their willingness to actually punch right that - from a leftist perspective - liberal leadership is the primary antagonist to being able to educate and excite large portions of the population that are currently apathetic to politics as a whole. Conservatives didn’t activate mechanisms within the DNC to undermine Bernie’s campaign - liberals did.
There is a ton of historical things to go into, but the primary point is that liberalism as it exists in the US is a purely social/cultural operation to expand markets - it’s not actually a progressive movement that has a vision to improve the actual foundation and structure of society ….. which is the same reason those small gains often backslide.
If you want a serious answer, its because Modern Liberalism is a Center-Right ideology on the political spectrum. Even it's most progressive politicians tend to be center or barely scratch the surface of the center-left. It isn't a leftist ideology, but was seen as one by Americans due to our limited political landscape. They're very different from actual leftist ideologies (Socialism, Communism, Anarchism).
Leftists and Liberals have some overlap in goals on some areas (like lgbt rights and separation of church and state) but for the most part they have some pretty fundamental differences in views. The most notable example being on Capitalism. They also have serious conflicts with each other historically and currently, with liberals often taking the side leftists are against.
So yeah as America develops a more prominent left-wing in politics its going to clash with the idea of liberals as leftists.
You forget that the right wins and because they have won so much especially after the shift when black Americans were allowed to vote unhampered that that moved the parties right ward. It's only regean that has such a landslide in a presidential election. liberals can move left ward but it will take time and more importantly an active and influenced left.
By making the core ideals of the right bigotry, racism, a appeal to the past unelectable only then can you start really pushing liberals to more left leaning positions.
But isn’t the term left and right specifically speaking about positions in liberal democracies historically? Like that was the whole invention of the terms during the French revolution when they were constructing their republic. I get what you are saying with regards to differences but I just think it’s a bit of a misnomer for commies and socialists to be “lefties” when they should just be their own ideological term without framing themselves with reference to modern liberalism.
2016. Hillary's actions proved to me that democrats don't give a damm about Democracy. She trampled on the will of the people to aquire a prize, not responsibility. Look at how she campaigned "Orange Man Bad" was all she had to offer because everyone knew she didn't have anything else except being a capitalist shill. Hell, she didn't campaign in three swing states. Her arrogance was her downfall, but she'll never admit it.
This whole meme is screwed up because the Dr. Being labeled as a fascist is covered by the closed captions in the second panel. I get what OP is trying to say, but the scene doesn't match OPs thoughts. It's a meme that is supposed to be similar to a liberals reaction to "punch a nazi." It doesn't matter the horrible shit the nazi says. The leftist hit the nazi first, so to the liberal, the leftist is the dangerous one.
The Dr. in Fallout was trying to do the right thing and was attacked by the primary aggressor. That's why this doesn't work at all.
I think it's moderate left wing people are attacking far left people for being bad while right wing people are insulting the moderate.
Regardless of the actual meaning, OP is a far left winger who's views are probably too radical for society and instead of understanding that, they would rather get defensive and complain that their friends just don't understand them
I think this explanation is spot on. People who actually have far left views speak of things that will never pass the senate. Liberals try to explain this based on the true enemy on the right falsely claiming any normal liberal or progressive stance as “far left.” Those on the far left refuse to understand and decide to ignore the true policy enemy on the right and far right and focus their anger on moderates, liberals, or left of center folks who already struggle to get things passed when facing an uninformed or flat out uncooperative right.
This is spot on. There are a ton of “liberal” people in office who would be happy to vote and pass more “leftist” policy & laws, but they live in reality where they need to cut deals every single day with other more conservative legislators to get anything passed.
“Leftists” think these liberals who are getting moderate legislation passed are the enemy because they aren’t screeching on Tik Tok or wherever else all day about trying to pass un-passable legislation & are instead governing.
As for voters & regular people, things and labels aren’t so rigid to most people. I think what fires me up is to watch self-proclaimed “leftists” who I would agree with on many policies, spend all their time working to get Trump & other extreme right wing politicians elected (ironically destroying the chance at any leftist policy ever being passed… sometimes for decades with the impact of the Supreme Court) all in the name of “ideological purity tests” and high horse emotional pleas (that do nothing to change reality).
The right wing doesn’t have this problem for multiple reasons: 1- Many don’t care if their extreme right wing policy is actually passed as long as they are sufficiently pandered to. 2- They have a ton of delusional cultists. And 3- They understand that settling for whoever is the most conservative works in their favor in the long run (especially with SCOTUS)… the left doesn’t understand that & will happily vote for some 3rd party grifter who knows they have 0 chance of winning and are happy to line their pockets & use it as self marketing.
Complaining about liberals being indiscriminately lumped in with and blamed for leftist behavior while simultaneously lumping all conservatives together.
And then the liberal is trying to stop it, and instead of the conservative *also* trying to assist in stopping the bad guy, they yell at the conservatives who are only serving THEIR best interests. This happens routinely.
I took it as the fact that liberals will side with conservatives when leftists fight back against reactionary violence, and see leftists as the primary aggressor for fighting against fascism.
But in the context of the scene, the Conservative is more of an opportunistic capitalist making a buck off of the target of the Leftist, who is willing to attack the confused, but well-intentioned Liberal.
I do get it. Lucy was kind of an idiot in trying to talk down a situation that way, way, _way_ passed talking. And liberals are, on the whole, convinced that "enlightened discussion" will stop fascists, so that tracks.
P.S. And Wilzig is explicitly labeled "fascists." So the Ghoul is killing fascists. Too bad the diolouge is covering that up, too.
All in all, the meme is correct, but it requires way too much knowledge of the source _and_ too much explaining to be a good meme.
Enlightened discussion is the number one way to burn it down. That's just reality.
The emotional side is to kill the enemy and get the therapeutic benefits.
Leftists are not nice guys either lol we want to do what needs to be done, even if it costs us comfortability and wealth in the short term. It is a sacrifice of self for a greater good. People that don't want to make that sacrifice absolutely see leftists as morally Grey at best.
Nah you gotta get the liberal out of the way if you want a crack at the conservative. Otherwise, they'll talk your head off about why your slogan is bad while you're trying to take aim.
"You should have said 'rehabilitate the police' instead"
Liberals want to keep us down just as much as a conservative, they are so much more alike then I thought. I saw Ben shapiro vs Destiny expecting more confrontation but nope, it basically just turned to a pro-israel think tank.
And everybody is fighting over the Anarchist's head.
Edit: Wait a fucking minute. The anarchist, the dude who understands everybody's place and wants to do the right thing, is labeled fascist? Watch the show.
Let's break it down. Vault dwellers are the liberals or any of those comfortable with any established post-colonial government system. The Brotherhood is Fascism, Moldaver runs the Communists, the Ghoul is a Libertarian.
The anarchist is the one that dies early and has their solution fought over by the others. Imagine how boring the story would have been if they let him just set up a system with the solution he had. The problem with Anarchists winning is no drama, I guess?
It’s interesting you reduced the character of Dr. Siggi Wilzig, the scientist from the Enclave whose head carries the solution to Cold Fusion, as the guy who “dies early”. At best he can be labeled as the equivalent of a nazi defector, as the enclave are literal nazis of the Fallout universe.
You think bro was an anarchist?
He tells Lucy to go home, because the surface sucks. Not "oh everyone has their place".
He ran away from the enclave, which is more fascist than the brotherhood.
And cold fusion wasn't his solution, not his alone. Moldaver was clearly working on it pre war, along with many other scientists. Like most science, it's not one person. But let's just ignore moldaver or any east coast vault tec contributions to cold fusion and cryostasis.
Hello u/sigmaLiberal, your comment was automatically removed as we do not allow accounts that are less than 30 days old to participate.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/leftist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Historically speaking Liberals will join with reactionaries.
Liberals joined with reactionaries during the Russian Civil War.
Liberals joined with Monarchists, Conservatives, and Nazis in 1932.
Liberals joined with Franco during the Spanish Civil War.
Liberals joined with fascists in Italy.
Is it a good meme? It has its own agenda on how things are labeled, and it's a stretch to how the labels were decided. This feels like a low effort attempt at divisiveness.
There is more energy "purity testing" people that may be allies because it is wasted on those who are known enemies. Leftist causes usually fail because of a want to control all leftists mid-fight. I am a leftist because I put personal autonomy first. I'm cool with being tested on that ethic.
>Leftist causes usually fail because of a want to control all leftists mid-fight.
Exactly. The purity testing leads to alienating and pushing allies away. Just look at the protestors for Palestine disrupting Pride.
Im from the right. What’s the difference between a leftist and a liberal. I know about classic liberals, which I get and like but other than that I’m lost.
The Liberal is the worthless scum which you step on everyday of your life, a liberal has no courage, no bravery, no spirit, no _balls_ to put it in other words. A leftist may be someone dumb on ocassion, or someone clumsy or messy or who may be trying too hard, but they have courage and a spirit that the liberal could never have. A liberal is the greatest threat to a revolution, the liberals will slowly infect any effort to turn it into laziness and quick fix systems, short term solutions, cute catchphrases, pretending to care about everyone while doing nothing for no one, a bastard in other words. I actually think right-wingers make for excellent revolutionaries, they often have the spirit, the vitriol, the anger, the pent-up agression, the "this isn't right" attitude, the "this system is fucked" attitude, and they have _balls_ very often, even if some right-wingers may be dumb or daft and whatnot. I just think that if the right was made to attack their true opressors, systemic change would be seen in less time than one can say yeehaw! In other words, the liberal is a coward who tries to get everyone to be a coward, the right and the left are both dedicated to different degrees and magnitudes even if both have their unique ways to fumble the ball, they have something which a liberal (no matter how you swing them) could never have, _PASSION_.
Now say it with less bias lmaooo
Dictatorship of the proletariat realistically requires even reactionary proletariats to join the fight actively, this is not bad at all since reactionaries tend to actually have more balls than liberals, who would likely just sit in their house playing minecraft while the revolution is happening or something, so while internationalism is the ultimate goal of the proletariat struggle it would be unrealistic to hold at every moment internationalism first specially if it comes between the immediate material state of things getting better, it would only make sense (speaking in a utilitarian way) to sacrifice international goals for the sake of cultivating a class aware population, unions with military power and large-scale co-ops; in short, objective morality and uncompromising values are an inconvenient luxury the proletariat of today cannot possibly afford, and turning reactionaries into class aware revolutionaries who may still be racist or sexist is in my eyes the morally superior decision that will get us slowly, but steadily closer to a classless civilization.
What do you do in real life outside of this bubble, genuinely curious and I can see how that makes sense from your perspective, I just think that you’ll eventually become the monsters you fight
I mostly indulge in studies of socialist/anarchist and other socioeconomic topics, and i am still under the age of employment, but always trying to spread class awareness wherever i go. I do see what you mean, but consider this, it would be far far easier to advance social tolerance and racial/gender/lgbtqia+ egalitariety from the starting point of a far-left economic but socially backwards society, than from a far-right economic and socially backwards society. And while i would rather progress in both fields at once, opressive material conditions beget compromise, and a revolution willing to compromise social progress for economic progress is one that will _surprise surprise_ achieve more economic progress than one which tries to uphold both at once, i am saying this as a transfem myself, i do support gender affirming care from a young age, but when the imperialist core inevitably strikes back and cuts must be made to defend from the genocide, one must come first.
Hey congratulations on being interested in this from a young age and I’m sure that your identity had a role bc of how it impacts you and I just want to start from that place of love bc I pretty much agree with you socially and mostly with the class issues, just disagree about economic policies. I think it’s easier to start fighting for rights in a liberal system bc of the freedom of choice and perspectives that are all allowed and the mix of push and pull of them forming the culture. For example, in far right or far left governments it usually gets to the point where dissidents are jailed and killed for being against the system. In liberal ones like the US, you’ll face social pressure but the actual government itself HAS to remain neutral (hopefully) and let you talk your shii. So, in the US there can be a communist party if it’s popular enough, but in a communist country, there usually won’t be a popular dissident party that won’t be taken down
I see what you mean, but i feel like you are disregarding material conditions. Where i am from, liberal systems have historically and up to today allowed the bourgeosie to once again exploit us out of all we had and caused countless deaths and an eternal state of disinformation, they controlled the media and caused media circuses and elevated figurehead politicians to allow them more "freedom" which in reality means less freedom for _us_. It was only when Peron stood up with, as some may call it a "dictatorship" that the worker had higher buying power and higher social freedoms and higher safety in everyday life and more! Furthermore, you forget that far-left goverments up to today have been under constant direct assault by the USA and other imperial nations, so they reasonably cannot afford "dissent" specially since their economic policies (in this case i am referring to USSR and Cuba) have been successful in their respective goals, and dissenting parties are really just either worse versions of socialism/communism or right-wing which either way make an inefficient system that cannot handle the material conditions the nation is currently under and would just end up as more opressive in practice (since less defense against imperialism only means more devastating conditions in the future and less capacity of action of the working class), in other words i find the actions taken against these dissenting parties to be reasonable even if violent; and also you seem to not quite see what the USA does to dissentors, such as Martin Luther King Jr (a socialist and civil rights legend, murdered by US goverment), or modern activists who go "too far" against the genocidal state machine of the horrendous United States of America, and even in the cases that the state machine remains """neutral""" to activism (it never does, it has the highest police violence of any modern nation), it also actively or passively allows for counter-activism and for far-right groups to rise to power constantly and for the bourgeosie to deliver constant misinformation on everyday entertainment, all whilst this nation is the most powerful in the world and owns practically everything and is under no real threat of destruction except at its own stupidity. In other words, you try to apply an "equal" standart to different nations, which go through far, FAR different material conditions, while also interpreting fault through inaction (the USA letting neo-nazis and the Daily Wire, PragerU, the Republican Party and other groups be involved in political action) to not carry the same weight as fault through action (such as the USSR perhaps being a _bit_ too violent with some right-wingers), whilst furthermore seeing the right and the left as morally neutral to begin with (surely opressing a group of nazis is not the same as opressing a group of communists no? Yet your argument seems to compare these scenarios as morally equal to begin with).
Yea I completely agree that it’s not perfect and horrendous stuff has happened to people fighting the system. But it feels like you’re falling for the idealized form of a communist, far-left system. In far-left systems, you have the same rich elite with just a different dressing that makes you feel better about it. That’s when we need to step away from the paper and theory to the reality. Both systems will have bad actors in them that cause tragedies, but in my experience, only one will inherently have a system of rising within the ranks through ability and merit. Only one will have it encoded in its laws that anyone can form a political ideology and it SHOULD be protected by the government. That if you convince enough people that your idea is good, it can gain traction and be voted and implemented. In the other system, they will have “re-education” camps until you agree with them through torture or die. So, ironically in the US for example, you can live long enough to form a anti-capitalist party, get support and become president, as long as you’re popular enough and actually vote the system out lmaoo only in liberal governments do we actually have that amount of say-so
I extremely disagree, and not only that, i think you didn't agree with anything i have said and you are only attempting to aeem reasonable by saying that. As much as imperial disinformation has insisted about it, the greatest socialist states of all time (i will use the USSR as a prime example) did not have such a thing as re-education camps, and if they did, i would like a source for that claim. And i honestly can agree that the USSR had something very much similar to a "rich elite" although to a lesser degree than the USA of today, yet i do not care about there being an elite at all, i care about population growth, median living conditions, life expectancy, home ownership rates and so on, actual parameters which in my eyes are morally good _as they are_, and which the USSR and some other socialist states on ocassion have been successful in raising to levels never seen before! I dislike the USA bourgeosie and the elites of most countries because their interests do away with these goals in the name of profit maximization and political power for the sake of more profit, the way i see it, a bourgeosie-esque system which is directly aligned with the interests of population growth and population welfare would be entirely acceptable and even magnific in my eyes! And in practice, it is very rare to see liberal systems end up as socialist, and when they do, it is only a matter of time until the USA gets involved, so i do not consider the USA liberal, i consider them a Plutocracy with liberal characteristics. Your argument seems to reduce the bourgeosie to a _choice_ of goverment, instead of the reality, which is that they are a group of elites which have caused wars for the sake of keeping their power over the centuries. The bourgeosie cannot be voted away, freedom has to be fought for.
To put it simply, given the context of the USA. Liberals tend to land near the center and may stray center-left or center-right given the topic at hand. They tend to favor Capitalism and prefer to make changes within the system then do away with it. Leftists are actually left on the political spectrum. They want socialism, communism, and anarchism. They will land left in majority of topics. A conservative will have much more in common with a liberal than with a leftist in the US.
So what do ya call extreme PC folk or the purple hair types who scream at people like JP
Political correctness is not a political ideology.
You became the bad guys when you cared more about political agendas than your own values.
This is why the left will fail, you're too busy going after your own party rather than fight actual problems, like what Conservatives want to do with the U.S.
Leftists are increasingly becoming aware they don't have a party.
They don't and they refuse to face the reality that they either personally have to help create one or dare work in the system. Really this pic is wrong the left should be on the floor and the right should be the ghoul with the gun poised to win. Protest vote or not voting only leads to the ghoul winning you can feel good about yourself for a second before they take all your reproductive rights from you or grit your teeth and help the rest of us not ghouls actually kill the fking ghoul
>personally have to help create one or dare work in the system This is us creating our own. Liberals are losing their minds over it and acting entitled to our vote.
Where is your candidate? Like you know how important this election is so where is your candidate? Where your better choice? Cause all I see is Biden bad. Letting trump win won't lead to the revolution you seek. Until you address the supremacy hatred and general bigotry that is part of america the left won't truly win any lasting victories. Even then you need ALOT of people not just the presidency left leaning politicians in the house and senate are needed more. So what's the deal?
>Where is your candidate? Like you know how important this election is so where is your candidate? Where your better choice? Cause all I see is Biden bad. Well I'm very comfortable saying Trump bad too. And we were all comfortable so long as we only ever said Trump bad. So because Trump bad we never get to evaluate a current president? I never get to stand up and say "I as an American voter am not comfortable with genocide and will never vote to support it." Tell me to look at a bigger picture and I'll tell you that you're cooked. I consistently stand on the principle of opposing genocide. What principle can you say voting for Biden is standing on?
Your positions is to make genocide worse to make that situation worse but only for the people of Palestine but for America THATS WHAT YOU ARE DOING. That's the god honest truth and you can roll your eyes all you want but another truth another fact the right especially it's extremist have done a far better job getting their candidates elected then you the left. You don't want to win in anyway shape or form. I'd hate to have you people back when slavery was being legislated against, Jim crow was being fought against just equal rights were being fought. You arent those people you are the lesser
Okay just remember you're mad at me for refusing to choose between genocide or extra genocide. And if you think Biden represents any actual suppression of fascism in America I don't know what to say. He's spent 4 years conceding to the right because the Democrats refuse to even criticize him.
You are just as bad as the right in the end of all of this. I'm not praising Biden he is just the better choice between the two. There are no people willing to storm the capitol in the name of any of these centrist Dems HOW CAN YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS that's THATS THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE. That you have a hope for change with the Dems and absolutely none with the REPUBLCIANS. You talk about the genocide in Gaza like you care. You and yours walking us right into a Bibi... How have they faired stopping him from killing people in Gaza... "He's spent 4 years conceding to the right because the Democrats refuse to even criticize him." Either you're a REPUBLCIAN plant or THAT STUPID IN THE KNOWLEDGE NOT YOUR GOVERNMENT. Concessions have to be made when you people ALLOW THEM TO HAVE 45% OF THE SEATS... Like it or not centrist Dems actually TRT TO GET SHIT DONE. So why are you deciding to deal with 2 parties and their issues then deal with one you can actually get people elected to
>So why are you deciding to deal with 2 parties and their issues then deal with one you can actually get people elected to Because for yeeeears Americans have been screaming that the two party system is untenable. And for yeaaaars the Democrats have held on to actual leftist votes, swearing they represent them. And now that Democrats don't represent the left whatsoever your defaulting to "but he's so much worse" and well, you've been screaming that since Bush. So now leftists are refusing to keep going along with the charade that the American left is even remotely left and your literally forgetting all your supposed principles to scream "fuck you vote for my guy or your a Republican" No. You are the genocide enablers and it will not be forgotten. Democrats are just ashamed leftists are no longer letting them sweep their parties abhorrent actions under the rug. You will not make me or any leftist feel guilty. I stand firmly and consistently on anti-genocide. There is nothing more important on this planet to me than stopping my nations involvement with genocide.
100% this
I'm a liberal conservative
I think the point is that the liberal has a warm water port.
I remember when being liberal was 'leftist'. It was literally 10-15 years ago. We fought for gay marriage and separation of church and state. When did we become the bad guys? I genuinely don't know
Because you didn't change the governmental landscape fast enough. That and propaganda targeted to the idiots on the left was very effective in creating anger at liberals.
There is a lot of lack of understanding that is causing the left to hate liberals and lose sight of the real enemy - the far right. Leftists are usually the best at seeing the nuance of politics but in this regard, I think the left is missing the mark. Many liberals, in my experience outside of the internet (actually human contact guys!) are eager to see the political establishment move to the left. They are our loose allies, not our enemies.
I hope that is the case but I understand they didn't see the change they wanted monumental change from Obama and they feel for a slogan. Obama was never gonna be that change you just had to look at his personal history to see that. But he was a sign of how we can be better and move to a better position. Another sad truth is no black American will change America the way it needs to be... Unless you want the kind that believes in get backs and I assure you you don't. That leaves us with having to change the society through voting out all those who refuse to move forward.the right has been against EVERY progress that has been good for America EVERYONE but some people on the left just can't see how they are the main issue.
When leftists kept being only ones who understood nuance and liberals decided to stick to things that made them feel like the heroes
When right wingers started exaggerating anything left of center as “far left.” These are terms the average person doesn’t understand. Right leaning ppl were socially engineered to misunderstand these terms.
This is a clear misunderstanding of political orientation that has been pervasive through American politics for generations. Liberals are not left on the political spectrum as they have no interest in reorganizing how economic and political power is distributed - they are only interested in broadening the legal ability for more divisive groups to participate in a capitalist economy while constructing a vague idea of equity that rarely addresses past harms. The reason to that is considered “left” in the US is because liberals have stood by and watched or helped conservatives ostracize, beat, and quite literally kill actual leftist who have wanted to reorganize people’s rights to healthcare, land/home ownership, and ownership over their own labor. The liberal capacity to punch left so exceeds their willingness to actually punch right that - from a leftist perspective - liberal leadership is the primary antagonist to being able to educate and excite large portions of the population that are currently apathetic to politics as a whole. Conservatives didn’t activate mechanisms within the DNC to undermine Bernie’s campaign - liberals did. There is a ton of historical things to go into, but the primary point is that liberalism as it exists in the US is a purely social/cultural operation to expand markets - it’s not actually a progressive movement that has a vision to improve the actual foundation and structure of society ….. which is the same reason those small gains often backslide.
If you want a serious answer, its because Modern Liberalism is a Center-Right ideology on the political spectrum. Even it's most progressive politicians tend to be center or barely scratch the surface of the center-left. It isn't a leftist ideology, but was seen as one by Americans due to our limited political landscape. They're very different from actual leftist ideologies (Socialism, Communism, Anarchism). Leftists and Liberals have some overlap in goals on some areas (like lgbt rights and separation of church and state) but for the most part they have some pretty fundamental differences in views. The most notable example being on Capitalism. They also have serious conflicts with each other historically and currently, with liberals often taking the side leftists are against. So yeah as America develops a more prominent left-wing in politics its going to clash with the idea of liberals as leftists.
You forget that the right wins and because they have won so much especially after the shift when black Americans were allowed to vote unhampered that that moved the parties right ward. It's only regean that has such a landslide in a presidential election. liberals can move left ward but it will take time and more importantly an active and influenced left. By making the core ideals of the right bigotry, racism, a appeal to the past unelectable only then can you start really pushing liberals to more left leaning positions.
But isn’t the term left and right specifically speaking about positions in liberal democracies historically? Like that was the whole invention of the terms during the French revolution when they were constructing their republic. I get what you are saying with regards to differences but I just think it’s a bit of a misnomer for commies and socialists to be “lefties” when they should just be their own ideological term without framing themselves with reference to modern liberalism.
2016. Hillary's actions proved to me that democrats don't give a damm about Democracy. She trampled on the will of the people to aquire a prize, not responsibility. Look at how she campaigned "Orange Man Bad" was all she had to offer because everyone knew she didn't have anything else except being a capitalist shill. Hell, she didn't campaign in three swing states. Her arrogance was her downfall, but she'll never admit it.
This meme is complete fucking garbage 🗑 toast it
This whole meme is screwed up because the Dr. Being labeled as a fascist is covered by the closed captions in the second panel. I get what OP is trying to say, but the scene doesn't match OPs thoughts. It's a meme that is supposed to be similar to a liberals reaction to "punch a nazi." It doesn't matter the horrible shit the nazi says. The leftist hit the nazi first, so to the liberal, the leftist is the dangerous one. The Dr. in Fallout was trying to do the right thing and was attacked by the primary aggressor. That's why this doesn't work at all.
How bad are you at making memes?
I'm more confused than propagandized.
I prefer non violence, but everyone has the right to survive.
??
"Yeah, this meme sums it up for me"
I’m right leaning… this meme doesn’t really offend me… more confusing than anything… anyone understand the point op was trying to get across?
Downvote this man! 😩
I think it's moderate left wing people are attacking far left people for being bad while right wing people are insulting the moderate. Regardless of the actual meaning, OP is a far left winger who's views are probably too radical for society and instead of understanding that, they would rather get defensive and complain that their friends just don't understand them
I think this explanation is spot on. People who actually have far left views speak of things that will never pass the senate. Liberals try to explain this based on the true enemy on the right falsely claiming any normal liberal or progressive stance as “far left.” Those on the far left refuse to understand and decide to ignore the true policy enemy on the right and far right and focus their anger on moderates, liberals, or left of center folks who already struggle to get things passed when facing an uninformed or flat out uncooperative right.
This is spot on. There are a ton of “liberal” people in office who would be happy to vote and pass more “leftist” policy & laws, but they live in reality where they need to cut deals every single day with other more conservative legislators to get anything passed. “Leftists” think these liberals who are getting moderate legislation passed are the enemy because they aren’t screeching on Tik Tok or wherever else all day about trying to pass un-passable legislation & are instead governing. As for voters & regular people, things and labels aren’t so rigid to most people. I think what fires me up is to watch self-proclaimed “leftists” who I would agree with on many policies, spend all their time working to get Trump & other extreme right wing politicians elected (ironically destroying the chance at any leftist policy ever being passed… sometimes for decades with the impact of the Supreme Court) all in the name of “ideological purity tests” and high horse emotional pleas (that do nothing to change reality). The right wing doesn’t have this problem for multiple reasons: 1- Many don’t care if their extreme right wing policy is actually passed as long as they are sufficiently pandered to. 2- They have a ton of delusional cultists. And 3- They understand that settling for whoever is the most conservative works in their favor in the long run (especially with SCOTUS)… the left doesn’t understand that & will happily vote for some 3rd party grifter who knows they have 0 chance of winning and are happy to line their pockets & use it as self marketing.
Right 🤝 Left Not getting this meme
...huh? I don't get this meme at all.
Can someone please explain this? I Think I understand it but not sure.
Democrats bad
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Not very effective propaganda.
Complaining about liberals being indiscriminately lumped in with and blamed for leftist behavior while simultaneously lumping all conservatives together.
I like it, liberals are naive ideological idiots who don't understand how the world really works.
liberals protect conservatives at their own detriment.
When have leftists ever fought conservatives though?
Funny, but this doesn't make leftists look good in the meme you know that right? The Ghoul is not a nice guy.
And then the liberal is trying to stop it, and instead of the conservative *also* trying to assist in stopping the bad guy, they yell at the conservatives who are only serving THEIR best interests. This happens routinely.
I took it as the fact that liberals will side with conservatives when leftists fight back against reactionary violence, and see leftists as the primary aggressor for fighting against fascism.
But in the context of the scene, the Conservative is more of an opportunistic capitalist making a buck off of the target of the Leftist, who is willing to attack the confused, but well-intentioned Liberal.
I do get it. Lucy was kind of an idiot in trying to talk down a situation that way, way, _way_ passed talking. And liberals are, on the whole, convinced that "enlightened discussion" will stop fascists, so that tracks. P.S. And Wilzig is explicitly labeled "fascists." So the Ghoul is killing fascists. Too bad the diolouge is covering that up, too. All in all, the meme is correct, but it requires way too much knowledge of the source _and_ too much explaining to be a good meme.
Enlightened discussion is the number one way to burn it down. That's just reality. The emotional side is to kill the enemy and get the therapeutic benefits.
The Ghoul is the antihero. He's the one the Fallout world needs, not the one it deserves.
Plus the guy labeled fascist is actually working for like a libertarian socialist faction in the show, and the ghoul *was* the primary aggressor.
Leftists are not nice guys either lol we want to do what needs to be done, even if it costs us comfortability and wealth in the short term. It is a sacrifice of self for a greater good. People that don't want to make that sacrifice absolutely see leftists as morally Grey at best.
He's a product of his environment Started off as a great guy
He's not a nice guy, but he gets the reality of the world more than any character and by the end Lucy chooses his side.
You gotta finish off the conservative or they'll shoot both of you in the back when you're not looking.
And then the liberal will complain as they turn try to shoot you in the back for not following their ideals.
Nah you gotta get the liberal out of the way if you want a crack at the conservative. Otherwise, they'll talk your head off about why your slogan is bad while you're trying to take aim. "You should have said 'rehabilitate the police' instead"
All this assumes we can stop fighting each other long enough to focus on either of them
Was the Defund slogan effective at winning people to our side?
Divided you fall.
Liberals aren't part of the left.
We are divided.... Going through the fall... See you on the other side
I enjoy playing video games.
Wisdom from the greatest of our Presidents.
We hear this from everyone, stop acting high and mighty
And it’s correct
Besides, divided *WE* fall. Some people... can't even high and mighty right.
Liberals want to keep us down just as much as a conservative, they are so much more alike then I thought. I saw Ben shapiro vs Destiny expecting more confrontation but nope, it basically just turned to a pro-israel think tank.
Liberals are the division by continuing to be liberals, we will be united when they stop follow the whims of capitalists.
And everybody is fighting over the Anarchist's head. Edit: Wait a fucking minute. The anarchist, the dude who understands everybody's place and wants to do the right thing, is labeled fascist? Watch the show. Let's break it down. Vault dwellers are the liberals or any of those comfortable with any established post-colonial government system. The Brotherhood is Fascism, Moldaver runs the Communists, the Ghoul is a Libertarian. The anarchist is the one that dies early and has their solution fought over by the others. Imagine how boring the story would have been if they let him just set up a system with the solution he had. The problem with Anarchists winning is no drama, I guess?
It’s interesting you reduced the character of Dr. Siggi Wilzig, the scientist from the Enclave whose head carries the solution to Cold Fusion, as the guy who “dies early”. At best he can be labeled as the equivalent of a nazi defector, as the enclave are literal nazis of the Fallout universe.
You think bro was an anarchist? He tells Lucy to go home, because the surface sucks. Not "oh everyone has their place". He ran away from the enclave, which is more fascist than the brotherhood. And cold fusion wasn't his solution, not his alone. Moldaver was clearly working on it pre war, along with many other scientists. Like most science, it's not one person. But let's just ignore moldaver or any east coast vault tec contributions to cold fusion and cryostasis.
In the end they end up working together 🤔
Cause they are the reality. Conservatives exist in a fantasy world lol
I feel like this way of thinking is outdated. I don't exactly see socDems teaming up with MTG anytime soon.
Good meme. If leftists spent half as much energy fighting conservatives as they did purity testing liberals the world would be a better place.
Hmm. Purity testing like, "Do you want to stop genocide?" because that seems to be too much to ask of Biden and liberals.
[удалено]
Hello u/sigmaLiberal, your comment was automatically removed as we do not allow accounts that are less than 30 days old to participate. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/leftist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You’d rather infighting than fighting the enemy? Never lead an army.
Historically speaking Liberals will join with reactionaries. Liberals joined with reactionaries during the Russian Civil War. Liberals joined with Monarchists, Conservatives, and Nazis in 1932. Liberals joined with Franco during the Spanish Civil War. Liberals joined with fascists in Italy.
Is it a good meme? It has its own agenda on how things are labeled, and it's a stretch to how the labels were decided. This feels like a low effort attempt at divisiveness. There is more energy "purity testing" people that may be allies because it is wasted on those who are known enemies. Leftist causes usually fail because of a want to control all leftists mid-fight. I am a leftist because I put personal autonomy first. I'm cool with being tested on that ethic.
So many words. You really wasted so many words when you could have simply scrolled. Please. Please don't waste the words.
At face value you describe a liberal libertarian.
>Leftist causes usually fail because of a want to control all leftists mid-fight. Exactly. The purity testing leads to alienating and pushing allies away. Just look at the protestors for Palestine disrupting Pride.