Exh esgytfvbb

 

Even though I agree with this screenshot in theory, I have other conflicting thoughts on it too:

I mean yes, Liberal 2.0ers are bad, but “Liberal 2.0ers = Nazi” is got a double speak ring to it. Maybe I am out of touch with off social media politics

Some leftists who go overboard with this are a cult whose membership is based upon nonsense and

This is why leftists like me have and could make an about-face every month and all just go along with it like in the USSR. Us leftists like me are conditioned to believe whatever conveniently off compass absurdities way before such a point.

“The totalitarian-ideological class in power is the power of a topsy-turvy world: the stranger it is, the more it claims not to exist, and its force serves above all to affirm its nonexistence. It is modest only on this point, because its official nonexistence must also coincide with the nec plus ultra of historical development which must at the same time be attributed to its infallible command. Extended everywhere, the bureaucracy must be the class invisible to consciousness; as a result all social life becomes insane. The social organization of the absolute lie flows from this fundamental contradiction.”

I read an unlike translation from this but the meaning of it is the same.

Authoritarianism (like saying “all liberal 2.0ers=nazis” or who go overboard with that comparison),  is a disease..

This may only apply to the do nothing centrists that are too squeamish to refer to themselves conservatives. 

Though people like Social Corporatists or base Liberals (who are the good part of Liberalism) end up having the same ends as most of true left wing people (i.e each person on our planet having a fine and fulfilled life) 

But Social Corporatists or base Liberals (who are the good part of Liberalism) believe that the economy is only a tool that allocates capitalism effectively and that these ends have to be achieved via government regulation, taxation and welfare.

It feels strange to me for us leftists to be very very wary of people like Social Corporatists or base Liberals (who are the good part of Liberalism) who have essentially similar ends to us because we disagree on the means of achieving these ends and I know that I trash the bad Liberals (like Liberal 2.0ers) but there is some important big tent action available here if we can coalition build until there are a sufficient amount of people truly agreeing on the ends in so that we can functionally even disagree on the means but without sacrificing the goal.

But but, if Social Corporatists , base Liberals (who are the good part of Liberalism) , Liberal 2.0ers and other liberals don’t want to abolish class society, they are not an ally or comrade to us left wingers and never can be. The path to the ends might be too narrow

Labor division constantly will cause unequal outcomes. A lot of Anarchists like me are mutualists and market socialists, which creates outcomes that are not equal but are still socialist.

Class society pertains to a person’s relationship with capital; a lower stage type of communist society can still have labor divisions.

Mutualist anarchism is not socialism, and no, market socialism is not really socialism. They are far left and infinitely preferable to the other market systems ,but they are not socialist as they don’t abolish production for exchange. 

Same thing goes for anarcho-collectivists, Georgists and specific anarcho-syndicalists. A Far left and basically cool ideology, but not socialists in the same vein that Marxists and anarcho-communists are socialists.

That's just one marxist approach though. Class theories persist for way longer than Marxist theory ever existed. And a lot of non-market socialists say that all markets create class division.

Socialism is collectivized production, market socialism thus can be seen as socialism in that perspective. The abolition of the production for exchange is far narrow and sort of unrealistic.

The Marxist approach is a very key systematic and consistent view of what socialism actually is. You don't need to be a Marxist to acknowledge this either, because anarchist communists do just that.

Textbook Socialism is collectivized production

Many things that are clearly perpetuating capitalism as a system are at the same time socialist, which is highly questionable. A collectively owned enterprise could continue to have every element of a capitalist mode of production.

But, socialism is in a perfect world best defined as capitalism's negation. I'm ok with other far-left non-socialists using the label "socialism" colloquially since honestly who gives a hoot, yet if you want to be intellectually rigorous you'll have to fall back to Karl Marx's definitions of capitalism and socialism so you do not contradict yourself.

Various and conflicting theories have emerged since the period of Aristotle.

Capitalism is customarily described as a system where the majority of production is private, markets are prevalent and capital accumulation is real. Though markets have already existed before the time of capitalism, no one would say that this description of capitalism is not correct because it is simultaneously feudalist, now would they? 

If markets predate capitalism, they might in theory outlive capitalism too. Besides, almost every revolutionary movement has elements of previous systems. No planned economy is 100 percent planned, no market economy is all market based, no system in practice is pure from an ideologically standpoint, which is the reason I say that some socialist definitions are a much-too-narrow definitions. And no, a co-op run economy would not potentially have every single element of a capitalist type of production, since the main one, the differences between worker and owner, is entirely erased, as too wage labor. Private property would cease to-exist.

Feudalism and slaving empires are too non-capitalist, but they're also not socialist. And this is how come I can’t use the above definitions with formally or outside of left social media. 

They're really purely axiomatic, appropriating an other definition of socialism just leads to different implications, not per say to self-contradiction. My definition of socialism I formally use in the real world is a bit broader than Karl Marx's, this though doesn’t make his definition the only true one, or intellectually rigorous one, just simply a more precise definition

Hypothetically if we are able to achieve social equality whilst the economic mode remains as capitalism would that be acceptable with leftists like me or is the abolition of capitalism itself the true only aim? I don't got the same ends as other leftists but in the here and now the difference between us is minute.

We are living in a democracy bottom text, I can't muse much longer in this post over whether capitalism is able to be regulated into being a socially equal system or if it must be abolished while half of the population vote conservative.

We need a big tent just to even pass Public healthcare policies, believing that we need the breathing room to at minimum think of being opposed politically where there exists disagreement is a pipe dream.

If we want to see any positive change in any way shape or form and not allow conservatives populist culture war their way into some Anarcho capitalist state we need to be on the same page and organize together to a agreed upon ends as it is here at present, right?

Imagine we’re just speaking to a loved one and they're say "ohh uh huh I dont care about politics too much but i didnt actually like 45 and Joe Biden seems maybe somewhat good," and rather of talking with them and possibly moving them left  (to actually help the leftist cause), we screech at them that they're really a nazis.

We can be their frens

Cleaning our room is counter-revolutionary. No, it’s a pushed claim made by the known Nazi war criminal, Jordan Peterson. So if he spews that it’s step one to leading a productive and fulfilled life, it actually means that Jordan is slowly conning you toward the alt-right

Tankies are so hecking alienating to potential left wingers. Non stop banning sympathetic liberal 2.0ers and left progressives from leftistish communities doesn't do any good.

And the right wing doesnt do this like the Tankies in the screenshot do. They will accept literally anyone whereas it would seem like you had to be born a copy of das kapital to be considered a leftist to them. The right wing accepts literally anyone, they're much more better at getting new people than the leftists