Ask a Liberal!

Post Reply New Topic

That's much appreciated, but there's not much to elaborate on. It only refutes a single part of the premise if taken in isolation, though it wasn't an assertion to begin with meaning there's technically nothing to refute. Oh, and that's assuming you can't be talking about the second sentence either, as the presence of other relevant threads would support the suggestion that it's unnecessary.

The key to understanding my original point is knowing that I was using the word "contrivance" in its derogatory context. Paired, as it is, with the "ask a Conservative" thread, in the establishment of a false monolithic ideological dichotomy, this thread was all but guaranteed to either A: lead people to criticise / speak on behalf of ideologies they don't personally share or agree with, B: become a discussion about the terminology rather than conform to the OPs stated goal of seeking representatives to answer questions about policy - as if anyone here has access to the machinations behind the decision-making - or C be ignored.

Looking back over the thread, it seems it's a little bit of all three.

Hopefully that's clarified things.

You claim that the right obsesses over identity politics over the left. WHY?

Because they do.

For example, look at the number of topics on this forum dedicated to social conservatives (not "the right", there are lots of progressives on the right and lots of social conservatives on the left) complaining about identity politics. Then look at the number of topics actually dedicated to advancing identity politics.

And then look at the number of conservatives with an obsession with nationality, religion, and "traditional values". There's also an obsession with political purity but that is shared by (nearly?) all political groups.

A central plank of most socially conservative political philosophies is fear that your identity will stop dominating.

What are some links for these threads? I can understand there is obsession with political purity, but I actually do have some ideas about nationality, etc. Not to the point of being obsessed though.

Okay I have a serious question. This is one of the- actually this may be the only place where people openly know that I voted for Donald Trump. Outside of here, I have noticed that people tend to assume that I am a Bernie turned Hillary supporter and also anti-Trump. I don't feel comfortable exploring where those assumptions are coming from with people in real life. That brings me to my question:

Roughly what percentage of people do you think are liberals/conservatives, and is it a straight black and white divide like this? As in The Left versus Trump? (Formerly Bernie or Hillary versus Trump?)

I guess I have two questions, actually.

Here's the second: Is there a way you can tell the difference between Trump people and anti-Trump people? How they dress or carry themselves? The kinds of things they say maybe?

Neocons accept gender, racial, and religious minorities. The only priority is crony capital.

I think it's a common misconception, about the middle class, that they are never supposed to leverage state resources. There is some great mystery, about how they have gained their social advantage, as though it was religious conservatism or family values. De-construct their work history, retrace their tracks, mannerisms, and work habits. They were never that competitive, while making you feel bad about the handout/hand-up. They were using a resource, while telling you not to use it.

Race (or whichever identity) is a red herring. I see red states and blue states, and think of kids clubs, where teams were divided, arbitrarily, by a different set of colors, like a box of color crayons. Some of the players were so selfish, that they would take over, no matter what their color.

I think status begins with an assumption about yourself, that you are deserving. It's not the result of strenuous, physical effort, so much as guile, including, against your own. We assume that conservatives are racist, when they are more like to be race traitors, just as likely to steal the ball from their own teammates.

Had leftist identity-interests actually been more consistent, I might consider it an example of loyalty.

Self-correction: When I said "black and white" I did not mean race I meant binary. As in liberal and conservative. It seems like everyone these days is in a liberal or conservative box whether they like it or not. I wondered if self-professed liberals were seeing this binary grouping of values, and how one can casually judge which "side" a person might be on if they haven't specifically claimed a political leaning.

Whether people identify by race, or handedness, or whatever, I still think that both sides of the discussion are inconsistent and disloyal.

I'd prefer consistency over consistent adherence to dogma.

why not be a marxist? if you truly care about the wellbeing of human beings, don't you think they should be earning the full worth of their labor, instead of the bourgeoisie exploiting them? i see no real difference between democrats and republicans besides social issues that could easily be solved with the abolition of capitalism, as both parties are capitalist and therefore inhumane.

Because I don't want to starve to death like in North Korea.
Because I don't believe the means of production should be owned by the state.
Because I don't want to idealise my own state.
Because there has never been a successful Marxist state in history.

the means of production wouldn't be owned by the state, though. the means of production would be owned by the workers--you. the people.
under socialism, not everyone makes the same amount of money--the wages are determined by the amount of work one does. under capitalism, let's say you're in a factory. the costs of creating a single product, taking into consideration the cost of materials and maintaining machines and whatnot, ends up being $50. the factory owner says because of the costs of the materials and machine upkeep, you are to earn less than what your labor is worth. you made a product worth $50. you made the product. the factory-owner takes the credit, and the money. he doesn't just take the money necessary for the materials necessary to create the product. he wants to make money from the products you make, so he takes more. he leaves you earning $7 an hour, despite the fact that you're creating several products worth $50 every single day. the factory owner is filthy rich, because of you, the worker, the product-creator, as he does nothing.
under socialism, and, eventually, communism, there would be none of this exploitation and one would earn what their labor is truly worth, as the workers would own the means of production.
communism has yet to happen, and may never happen, but under communism the goal would actually be to eradicate any 'state' and have the people, the workers, run everything without any specific rulers.

the state wasn't 'idealized,' but the people of the USSR did admire a lot of socialist figures; but, this wasn't due to any brainwashing--even stalin objected to compliments from the people of the USSR because he felt unworthy of large amounts of praise.

the USSR was pretty successful in its run, it didn't 'collapse,' but rather they decided to dissolve due to a variety of reasons, none of which were due to socialism being any kind of failure. look at yugoslavia.
north korea, aka the DPRK, isn't a very good example of socialism. the DPRK is juche which involves extreme isolation. i support the DPRK's resistance against imperialism, but i recognize that it's not perfect and it definitely isn't a place in which would want to live. a lot of what's said of north korea is propaganda.

Because capitalism works and Marxism doesn't. The evidence is very clear.

Capitalism, with appropriate checks and balances, is the best system for maximising welfare. Marxism is a terrible system which has failed repeatedly. If you care about the poor then you should be a capitalist.


That's stupid. What about the quality and usefulness of the work they do?

For example, let's say someone invents a machine that makes it easier to harvest grain. Should they be paid the same as someone who dusts their home just because they work as hard?


Then you don't have to work for him. You could always go it alone and set up your own money-making machine. You could refuse to work unless you are paid what your skills are worth.

How is it determined what someone's labour is truly worth?


Ah, a "no true Scotman" argument. Whenever a communist state fails, the communists say "that wasn't real communism! Let us try again and we'll make it work!".


Hahahahaha. No. Millions died unnecessarily due to the failures of hardcore socialism.

While it's true that the reasons for the collapse were complex, resentment of capitalism was one of the main ones. The independence movements were often explicitly anti-communist and it's no surprise that nearly all of post-Soviet republics implemented dramatic pro-market reforms.

The different strains of Communism and anarchism are saying beautiful things, sometimes. Every once in a while, I see a really nice, idealistic person, wearing the naughty uniform. (Red and black face coverings, otaku, paramilitant...)

But, statists have always used it for destabilization.

communism literally hasn't happened, though. socialism has happened.
if you think that any country has been communist, you have not read any writing by karl marx. even a simple scanning of the tiny manifesto would show you how incorrect you are in asserting that marxists claim that countries weren't communist simply because they "failed." marxists have never claimed any countries have been communist, only liberals and right-wingers have ever claimed that any countries were communist. the USSR was never communist, china was never communist. your argument that marxists claim that certain countries were only not communist simply because they reverted to capitalism or state capitalism, after western intervention, or, as you say, "failed," is a strawman.

socialism is seen as a prerequisite to communism by marxist-leninists, but not anarchists. most agree that the goal of socialism is to attempt to strive for communism.
"from each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds (socialism). from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs (communism)."
the countries that were socialist and ended up either capitalist or state-capitalist didn't "fail," but rather western intervention caused them to become unstable and dissolve.

why is it that you think the solution to being exploited is to become the exploiter? that's a terribly sad mindset and if you fail to see why this is so sad i'm afraid you're what some would call a 'classcuck.'
"yeah, we're all being exploited, but why not just become an exploiter instead?" why would you want to do that? who would rather exploit than attempt to fix an inhumane and rigged system?
one cannot simply 'refuse' to work unless paid what their skills are truly worth, and if people skills were paid what they were truly worth, that'd be socialism. if people refused to work, they'd die. there're these things called food, water, and shelter you need. considering the amount of reserve labor (unemployed) waiting in the wings, they'll laugh at you and tell you you're fired.

wages are determined by not only the amount of work one does but what their work is worth considering the materials and methods necessary to carry out said work. the example i gave of being in a factory and being paid less than what your labor is worth isn't just applicable to factory work or this specific scenario, it applies to all labor under capitalism. even if you got a different job that paid more, you are still not earning what your work is worth.

it's absolutely atrocious that a CEO makes millions by exploiting workers and taking all the credit. the CEO is only rich because of the workers. they are nothing without the workers that make their products.

if someone invented a machine that 'made it easier' to harvest grain, the workers utilizing this machine would still earn what their work is worth. what is their work worth, you may ask? that would depend on the availability of the grain and of the machines.

as for your claims about millions dying--these numbers are heavily disputed.
holodomor didn't happen, although there were famines, but none of these famines were man-made like people say. the famines that did occur were due to agricultural issues like dry land. the US had the dust bowl, but no one says it was a man-made famine. it wasn't a man made famine. neither were the famines that occurred in the USSR.
there were people killed, and there were purges, and in the process of these purges there were a number of innocent people killed, but millions billions gorillions of people weren't ruthlessly murdered for fun by stalin and lenin galloping through barren soviet fields.
the people that were killed were mostly nazis and fascists, and people that were hoarding grain during famines. people were starving due to a famine induced by land difficulties, and there were people hoarding an abundance of food that could have easily be shared during a time of crisis then later be compensated, yet they refused out of selfishness. this wasn't a simple manner of them needing the food and wanting to keep what they had to survive. they had a large abundance of food and refused to share it.
as for pol pot and whatnot? yeah, no actual marxists defend that guy. none. no one that admires pol pot is a marxist, socialist, communist, whatever, of any kind.

all of your questions pertaining to gauging the amount of money one makes are answered in 'wage labour and capital' by karl marx. i highly recommend reading this, as it will explain a lot, and even if you don't 'agree' with the sentiments expressed by marx, if you wish to argue with marxists, shouldn't you at least know what they actually think rather than fuel your arguments with lies fed to you about what communism is?

That's the great lie of socialism. They tell the people the means of production will belong to the people. Really the means of production belongs to the state.

The means of production includes farmland. If the farmland belonged to the people in the Soviet Union, would the Holodomor have happened?

If the farmland belonged to the people, then would the state be able declare 100% of crops from that farmland belonged to the state? Would the farmers and their families have starved to death if it was really there land?

That doesn't sound like the people owning the means of production to me.


So you say that wasn't true communism because the means of production didn't belong to the people. A country has a lot of people in it. Different people have different views on things so a governing body would be needed to reach consensus as to how to handle the means of production. This governing body would have control over the means of production. They would effectively own the means of production. That sounds an awful lot like we're back to the state owning the means of production.


One of the problems with people trying to build utopian societies such as "true communism" is they think the society they will eventually build will be so good for humanity that the ends justify any means nessessary.

Just ask the Khmer Rouge. They thought they would build the perfect society which would spread to benefit the whole world. Surely the lives of a few million people are nothing compared to ability to one day save billions of people, right? False economy. They didn't end up saving anyone.

Communism puts the needs of the nation above the needs of the individual but what is a nation but a multitude of individuals?