No, you are in .ml which is comparable to the trump supporters on the right. They have been radicalized and used various newspeak to create a unified voice that doesn’t conform with standard knowledge. This is why I have shown all kinds of sources that reinforce the idea that liberalism is center left while everyone from .ml is strictly applying Marxist theory as if it’s fact. Same experience arguing vaccines in r/conservative.
But I did and again this isn’t a source. You claim my sources are from liberal sources then go on to justify a reality they suits you. I’m sorry but this is similar reasoning I saw during COVID with people who denied vaccines and masking. I provided sources from everything from media, authorities like dictionaries and university’s and even historical quotes from political scientist. Marx fits this but is one of many lenses. The status quo is liberals are Left of center with some like classic liberals being more right of center.
What does “left” mean to you? What did it originally mean when it first became a phrase, and how does that apply to modern times? Again, I may be a Marxist, but this is a dominant viewpoint outside of highly western, liberal publications, and it isn’t just Marxists that have this understanding of right and left. Trying to equate my logic to anti-vaxx movements is just a baseless jab that avoids answering the arguments I made.
Not doing this. You tell me what you accept as an authority or source on this and I’ll decide if it is reasonable or not. Just like if I was speaking to someone on vaccinations and they told me something like CDC or other health agencies globally are just too mainstream to do the real science and that they would only accept druthers. I need to know what your sources are to figure out if you’re a serious person or not.
It’s clear that by avoiding the discussion that you aren’t a serious person. I accept sources that aconowledge the historical answers to the questions I asked you.
Again, for the 5th time or so, the categorization of “left” vs “right” originated in France. When debating the power a King should hold, those who were against the monarchy sat on the left, and those who wanted to uphold the monarchy sat on the right. Liberalism, therefore, was a historically progressive and revolutionary ideology, as it was anti-monarchist and pro-bourgeois property. It was left not because it was liberal, it was left because it stood for progression onto the next emerging mode of production, that of bourgeois property.
Now, however, bourgeois property is dominant. Kings hold nearly no power on the global stage. The question of which position is revolutionary, which position stands for progression onto the next mode of production, is to be found in the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, not the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy as was found in the late 1700s. Liberalism is the status quo, as capitalism is the status quo. Socialism, whether it be Marxist, anarchist, etc, is the proletarian position, while liberalism is the bourgeois position, once revolutionary, now reactionary.
The publications that you listed, like Princeton, are portraying a narrow scope based on median viewpoints within liberal society. “Left-liberalism” is used in reference to liberals with socially progressive views, and perhaps supportive of some level of welfare expansion, but this doesn’t fundamentally change the property relations in society. It is “left” in comparison to conservativism (which itself is right-liberalism), but right wing overall.
Now, if you can make the case why you believe liberalism to be left, then please, do so, because you haven’t outside of linking liberals saying they are left in the context of a liberal-dominated society. Liberalism is not a science, it’s a viewpoint, so disagreeing with liberal economists is not the same as disagreeing with the CDC. The PRC’s economists are trained in Marxism, and there are far more of them than there are western liberal economists, so the argument that I disagree with economic consensus doesn’t hold water unless you take a western exceptionalist viewpoint.
You know who else accepts historical sources, sovereign citizens and freemen-on-the-land. Historical texts are not exactly an authoritative source. It’s a classification but isn’t a concrete source.
If you cannot point to an authoritative source then I don’t believe you to be a serious person. You can continue to express your opinion. But without evidence and sources there’s nothing to do here and I think asking you to put forward a source has exposed this.
This is the same problem that radicalized trump supporters. It’s the same argument I’ve seen with them early 2016. Society is broken therefore they used all kinds of niche sources to justify their opinion.
I don’t mean “historical source” as an old source, but one that acknowledges the history of the terms. Your beloved Wikipedia explains the origins of liberalism in the same way I did. If I point you to Chinese economics institutions that agree with me, you’ll dismiss them. Again, liberalism is not a science, it’s an ideology centered around the dominant mode of production.
Even Time Magazine, itself an intensely liberal publication, recognizes the role of property relations in what determines left and right, ultimately chalking up the modern US viewpoint implicitly to the Overton Window, a political outlook that centers the median of any given society, rather than property relations.
This is not the “same argument” that Trump voters made. Again, you rely on equating me to the far-right to emotionally attack me, rather than the logic of my arguments or the overwhelming fact that you only accept western, liberal publications, and precisely the ones that focus on the Overton Window when describing concepts as left and right instead of their origin as property relations. You’re making an appeal to authority as your only argument, yet you don’t accept non-western sources.
No, you are in .ml which is comparable to the trump supporters on the right. They have been radicalized and used various newspeak to create a unified voice that doesn’t conform with standard knowledge. This is why I have shown all kinds of sources that reinforce the idea that liberalism is center left while everyone from .ml is strictly applying Marxist theory as if it’s fact. Same experience arguing vaccines in r/conservative.
Deeply unserious behavior. Again, see my comment here.
But I did and again this isn’t a source. You claim my sources are from liberal sources then go on to justify a reality they suits you. I’m sorry but this is similar reasoning I saw during COVID with people who denied vaccines and masking. I provided sources from everything from media, authorities like dictionaries and university’s and even historical quotes from political scientist. Marx fits this but is one of many lenses. The status quo is liberals are Left of center with some like classic liberals being more right of center.
What does “left” mean to you? What did it originally mean when it first became a phrase, and how does that apply to modern times? Again, I may be a Marxist, but this is a dominant viewpoint outside of highly western, liberal publications, and it isn’t just Marxists that have this understanding of right and left. Trying to equate my logic to anti-vaxx movements is just a baseless jab that avoids answering the arguments I made.
Not doing this. You tell me what you accept as an authority or source on this and I’ll decide if it is reasonable or not. Just like if I was speaking to someone on vaccinations and they told me something like CDC or other health agencies globally are just too mainstream to do the real science and that they would only accept druthers. I need to know what your sources are to figure out if you’re a serious person or not.
It’s clear that by avoiding the discussion that you aren’t a serious person. I accept sources that aconowledge the historical answers to the questions I asked you.
Again, for the 5th time or so, the categorization of “left” vs “right” originated in France. When debating the power a King should hold, those who were against the monarchy sat on the left, and those who wanted to uphold the monarchy sat on the right. Liberalism, therefore, was a historically progressive and revolutionary ideology, as it was anti-monarchist and pro-bourgeois property. It was left not because it was liberal, it was left because it stood for progression onto the next emerging mode of production, that of bourgeois property.
Now, however, bourgeois property is dominant. Kings hold nearly no power on the global stage. The question of which position is revolutionary, which position stands for progression onto the next mode of production, is to be found in the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, not the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy as was found in the late 1700s. Liberalism is the status quo, as capitalism is the status quo. Socialism, whether it be Marxist, anarchist, etc, is the proletarian position, while liberalism is the bourgeois position, once revolutionary, now reactionary.
The publications that you listed, like Princeton, are portraying a narrow scope based on median viewpoints within liberal society. “Left-liberalism” is used in reference to liberals with socially progressive views, and perhaps supportive of some level of welfare expansion, but this doesn’t fundamentally change the property relations in society. It is “left” in comparison to conservativism (which itself is right-liberalism), but right wing overall.
Now, if you can make the case why you believe liberalism to be left, then please, do so, because you haven’t outside of linking liberals saying they are left in the context of a liberal-dominated society. Liberalism is not a science, it’s a viewpoint, so disagreeing with liberal economists is not the same as disagreeing with the CDC. The PRC’s economists are trained in Marxism, and there are far more of them than there are western liberal economists, so the argument that I disagree with economic consensus doesn’t hold water unless you take a western exceptionalist viewpoint.
You know who else accepts historical sources, sovereign citizens and freemen-on-the-land. Historical texts are not exactly an authoritative source. It’s a classification but isn’t a concrete source.
If you cannot point to an authoritative source then I don’t believe you to be a serious person. You can continue to express your opinion. But without evidence and sources there’s nothing to do here and I think asking you to put forward a source has exposed this.
This is the same problem that radicalized trump supporters. It’s the same argument I’ve seen with them early 2016. Society is broken therefore they used all kinds of niche sources to justify their opinion.
I don’t mean “historical source” as an old source, but one that acknowledges the history of the terms. Your beloved Wikipedia explains the origins of liberalism in the same way I did. If I point you to Chinese economics institutions that agree with me, you’ll dismiss them. Again, liberalism is not a science, it’s an ideology centered around the dominant mode of production.
Even Time Magazine, itself an intensely liberal publication, recognizes the role of property relations in what determines left and right, ultimately chalking up the modern US viewpoint implicitly to the Overton Window, a political outlook that centers the median of any given society, rather than property relations.
This is not the “same argument” that Trump voters made. Again, you rely on equating me to the far-right to emotionally attack me, rather than the logic of my arguments or the overwhelming fact that you only accept western, liberal publications, and precisely the ones that focus on the Overton Window when describing concepts as left and right instead of their origin as property relations. You’re making an appeal to authority as your only argument, yet you don’t accept non-western sources.