2

What do you guys have against liberals?

Submitted by Shandy in AskRaddle

I don't get it, you seem to be leftwing, but you talk about us like we're worse than conservatives or something. It's no wonder this site is half dead when you're so hostile to anyone that isn't as elite anti capitalist as you.

Not all of us want to destroy the system and burn down churches.

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

18

ziq wrote

Liberals support capitalism and coercive hierarchies and police and prisons and invading other people's lands to steal their resources so they can live in luxury.

They idolize billionaires and sleep soundly knowing that the state shields their inherited status from the lower classes.

We don't like any of those things :(

-5

Shandy wrote

But that's not even true, lots of us are progressives who want to change the system and would have voted for Bernie if we had been able to...

15

ziq wrote

If you think voting for Bernie would have changed any of the things I mentioned, you're not being very honest to yourself.

-4

Shandy wrote (edited )

That's just silly. Of course change can't come all at once, it needs to be a gradual progression to make our revolution. In the real world, you can't just destroy the whole system and hope that the things that we count on to survive will still be functioning the next day.

We have an advanced civilized society here, and sure there are bad things about it like police brutality but also good things like when the police protect us for legit murderers. If you just get rid of the whole system overnight, a lot of people will get hurt. It has to be a gradual thing or it'll be chaos.

It's not a reasonable position to think that voting for progressive leaders won't lead to change. Since it's literally the only method we have within the confines of our system.

You're talking about throwing out the constitution and hundreds of years of law and progress and that's just idiotic. It would only end up hurting the little man to be so reckless. Our civilization and our safety has to be safeguarded first and foremost. Then and only then can we think about affecting change (through legitimate channels).

14

dele_ted wrote (edited )

If you just get rid of the whole system overnight, a lot of people will get hurt

Of course, but you're missing something here. The state is not the only entity based on hierarchy. There's corporations, gangs and so on. If the state simply broke overnight, it would leave an enormous power vacuum, and all the other hierarchic entities would start fighting to fill the vacuum. If there's anything worse than being dominated by a single entity, it's being dominated by multiple entities all clashing for power.

Anarchism isn't as simple as "smash the state = love and peace". Anarchism means abolishing hierarchy altogether.

Since it's literally the only method we have within the confines of our system.

Let's get rid of the confines of our system then. It's obviously oppressive, and you just agreed, why are you trying to thrive in an oppressive system, instead of fighting to get rid of it?

-8

Shandy wrote

Because I'm a reasonable and logical person who knows getting rid of it would just result in utter chaos. We can't destroy our wonderful and thriving civilization just so you get to live as some kind of holier than thou political activist. We need hierarchies for certain things, I mean, even nature has natural hierarchies... Food chains... It's unavoidable. If we don't elect leaders, we'll have no direction, no one to guide us forward (or backwards, in president Trump's case). But at least its a direction, anything is better than just not trying at all.

9

dele_ted wrote

I'm a reasonable and logical person who knows getting rid of it would just result in utter chaos

I just explained this to you. Getting rid of the state, or "the system" as you call it, will inevitably result in chaos - but that's not anarchism. Read my reply above again, i think you misunderstood something.

just so you get to live as some kind of holier than thou political activist

If you want to understand anything about anarchism, if you actually want an answer to your question, put aside your generalizations and misconceptions. Gets us nowhere.

We need hierarchies for certain things, I mean, even nature has natural hierarchies

No, we don't need hierarchies. We can thrive without hierarchies, in a world where you help your neighbor because he helps you. We've effectively signed out of nature, we are not animals and we are not bound to primitivism.

If we don't elect leaders, we'll have no direction, no one to guide us forward

Leaders is one thing. Leaders can exist without authority. An anarchist society that would have to defend itself against invading capitalist armies would of course have leaders, tacticians that know which move would be the best, and how that move would be executed. The people of the army trust their tactician because tactics is his field, and the tactician trust the fighters because that is their field. However, that's not hierarchy, that's mutual benefit.

anything is better than just not trying at all

Again, put aside your judgemental misconceptions.

11

Tequila_Wolf wrote

When there was slavery, would you have advocated first for smaller whips for the slaves, saying, "Of course change can't come all at once!"

Or would you have advocated for abolition?

-6

Shandy wrote (edited )

I think that's kind of a bad analogy because no one is enslaved here, we have the freedom to move about freely, to practice whatever religion we want, to work for whichever employer we want, and so on. I would of course have advocated for abolition of slavery just like I advocate for abolition for unjust police brutality today.

But that's just one broken aspect of a giant system that mostly functions well. We can be against one bad thing in the system without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

11

jorgesumle wrote

I think that's kind of a bad analogy because no one is enslaved here, we have the freedom to move about freely, to practice whatever religion we want, to work for whichever employer we want, and so on. I would of course have advocated for abolition of slavery just like I advocate for abolition for unjust police brutality today.

Move freely? I cannot move freely to another country without being stopped or even killed for my opinions, atheism, etc. Let's not talk about work please... A person who is forced to work where they don't want or else they die? At least, there aren't plenty of jobs where I live, so many people work even if they hate their jobs to survive.

But that's just one broken aspect of a giant system that mostly functions well. We can be against one bad thing in the system without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

How dare you say that the system mostly works well? You mean it works well oppressing the poor people or foreign nations. Who has made your shirts, trousers, computer, etc.? Under which conditions? Were that people free? The extinction of millions of species is OK too? Killing animal species by climate change is a fact. Also, the enslaved animals from farms... For whom does the system works well? For the 1% of the 0.000...1% species on the planet Earth.

7

Magma5 wrote

Why do you think that the legit murders happen?

11

buzz wrote

I see this difference in perception the gap between liberals and people on the left; understanding how we socialise as a product of our enviroments is the first step from breaking away at the capitalist retoric that we grow up on and never question.

-1

Shandy wrote

Greed, jealously, anger.

6

Magma5 wrote

Any why do people who feel these emotions take it out on others in such a violent way?

-5

Shandy wrote

Because of our primal nature to dominate others and show the rest of our group that we are powerful.

5

Magma5 wrote

Do you have any sources to back this up?

-4

Shandy wrote (edited )

I mean, it's just common sense. Why do you think powerful people hurt less powerful people?

9

Magma5 wrote

Because they want to keep or expand their hierarchy over someone

-4

Shandy wrote

That's what I just said.

9

jorgesumle wrote

No you didn't. You said something about our nature as a species. But the behavior of authoritarian people doesn't represent the whole human species.

10

dele_ted wrote

The political system is nothing but an illusion of choice. You get to decide who's going to be your dictator, and perhaps you get to be one in a million votes on whether to change the age of retirement with one year.

No candidate in the political system will fix any of the issues that we, and with we i mean the world, face. Politicians is nothing but a fancy way to manage the structural violence of the capitalist system, and trust me, no candidate that wants to abolish this structural violence will ever appear (and even if they did, they would quickly lose sight of their purpose and goals; power corrupts).

-3

Shandy wrote

Oh, come on! Are we really going to pretend that America has a dictatorship? We the people elect our leaders, for better or worse.

And yes it blows that the majority vote for an awful candidate like president Trump, but that's democracy in action. It's the best system we have.

6

dele_ted wrote

We the people elect our leaders

We the people elect our dictators. They are not leaders, they are authorities with the ability to dictate what others can and cannot do. I never said America is a dictatorship, it's simply a system where the majority gets to dominate the minority.

And to be real, we all know our president doesn't hold much actual power. Those in power are not elected, they elect themselves. They are the banksters and the billionaires, they are the leaders of the weapons industry and the heads of corporations.

It's the best system we have.

I get the feeling you haven't even tried to understand what anarchism is. "The system" as you keep calling it is failing, just take a glimpse at the spread of wealth and you'll see why. Take a look at once beautiful countries such as Syria, which have been obliterated in a matter of years, in the name of profit (or, if you choose to believe those that invaded, because of freedom. Listen to the fascists sing).

-2

Shandy wrote

We the people elect our dictators.

If they were dictators they wouldn't be limited to 4 year terms. They're literally not dictators as long as term limits and open elections exist.

If all the people are dictators because the minority has less say than the majority, then you're basically calling democracy a dictatorship... That's obviously not logical. A dictatorship is when 1 person decides everything and no one else can complain or they get killed.

Those in power are not elected, they elect themselves. They are the banksters and the billionaires, they are the leaders of the weapons industry and the heads of corporations.

It makes sense that the richest people would have a big stake in choosing who runs the country because they have the most to lose if someone is elected who doesn't know what he's doing. They have the most to lose if our complex society / economy is damaged by someone unequipped to manage it.

I get the feeling you haven't even tried to understand what anarchism is.

I had no idea this site was for anarchists, I thought it was for all leftists. I didn't ask this question on the anarchist board so I don't know why everyone is telling me I need to understand the anarchist position. The position of anarchism as far as I know is to destroy the system entirely, and as I've said, that's a dreadful idea.

9

dele_ted wrote

Let's leave the dictator thing alone, there's many definitions for 'dictator', one of them being 'a person with unlimited governmental power', which is what a president is supposed to be. Remember there's a difference between dictatorship and a dictator. Doesn't matter much what we call him, let's call him a ruler from now on to avoid digressing.

It makes sense that the richest people would have a big stake in choosing who runs the country

You've misunderstood something. The fact that somebody can be richer than another, and hold more freedom than another being who was born equal to him, is deeply corrupt.

They have the most to lose if our complex society / economy is damaged by someone unequipped to manage it

What makes you think that these people have more right, or are somehow better at managing the lives of others, on their behalf, simply because they hold more capital? There's nothing justifying their rule, the only reason why they have risen to power is because they were able to set aside ethics and exploit the earth, the working class or the animals.

I had no idea this site was for anarchists, I thought it was for all leftists

Do your research then, it's very obvious.

The position of anarchism as far as I know is to destroy the system entirely

That's not anarchism, I've explicitly said this many times now. Here's two good introductions to anarchism if you want to understand it:

Accidental Anarchist, a pretty good and short documentary that explains the basics of anarchism with a very relevant real-world example.

The Secret is To Get Started, a written introduction with some of the classic questions that newcomers have. If you have more questions, just shoot me a PM or comment here, I'll gladly clarify.

12

Tequila_Wolf wrote

A lot of people have replied since I started typing mine, but this is it:

There are really a wide variety of ways to answer your question. You’re really asking us to write a book for you.

First off, often, there are a wide variety of things that ‘liberal’ means. In the US, it refers to a conservative political party and their followers and the spectacle that their very small world creates, recreates, and enforces together with its sibling party, the republicans, to the benefit of very few and the grave detriment of many. For you, it seems that when you say ‘liberal’ you’re referring to the most left-leaning of state-capitalists. And often what people are referring to when they speak of liberals here is anybody who is for state-capitalist representative democracy, which would probably include those you call conservatives.

Anarchists are anti-capital and anti-state and anti-hierarchy. Liberals are (hierarchical is implied) capitalist statists who’s every subscription (laws, police, prisons, government, money, debt, rights) even in their most pleasant forms, serve to legitimate and thereby maintain the global-state-capitalist-colonialist complex by presenting these things with a nice face, while they function in a range of ways to disempower people and create and exploit marginalised people. That is, liberals are, in a very meaningful way, complicit in the things that they themselves are against. Section B of the anarchist FAQ touches on many of the directions your question could go.

That’s really just the beginning of it, but this is all I have time and energy for at the moment. There’s an entire perspective that emerges from positioning yourself as an anti-authoritarian which really is not simple to convey in words. Hopefully you’ll have some luck in finding your answers.

0

Shandy wrote (edited )

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

One more question, are liberals really more complicit than you guys? Don't you guys buy the same clothes made by sweatshops and eat the same food made by cutting down the rainforests? But you're not complicit just because you label yourself an anarchist?

8

Magma5 wrote

This is a concept in socialist circles called 'No Ethical Consumption Under Capitalism.' This means that no matter what you buy or do, you will be contributing to someone else's oppression, even if you're fighting capitalism.

7

jorgesumle wrote (edited )

are liberals really more complicit than you guys? Don't you guys buy the same clothes made by sweatshops and eat the same food made by cutting down the rainforests?

Well, some people here are vegan (see f/vegan), buy from worker cooperatives or choose not to breed, etc. We fight to destroy the oppression created by the capitalist system, attacking the roots of the problem. So it's not the same as legitimizing it voting. However, some liberals have made great things (like Richard Stallman with the free software movement).

10

_ziq_ wrote

You know conservatives are liberals too, right? Since you're clearly from the US, there's very little difference between what you call 'liberals' and 'conservatives'. I'd argue the 'liberals' are actually worse since they adore the government and prop up all kinds of disgusting imperialism perpetrated by it. At least conservatives are theoretically isolationists who want minimal government (but in practice, both parties are identical in praxis).

2

Nikki wrote

I'd argue the 'liberals' are actually worse since they adore the government and prop up all kinds of disgusting imperialism perpetrated by it.

The Republican party does the exact same thing. Except unlike Liberals they rarely, if at all condemn American imperialism.

At least conservatives are theoretically isolationists who want minimal government

In rhetoric? Yes. In practice? No.

0

Shandy wrote

How are conservatives liberals? They're literally the polar opposite of that. So you guys really would rather side with ring wing bigots than left wing progressives? Okay...

7

leftous wrote (edited )

No one here has really explained that leftists use the real definition of liberal (wikipedia). Whereas you are using the colloquial US definition as a synonym for "progressive".

However, while most anti-capitalists do agree progressives are more humane in their form of capitalism, we do see it for what it is and has been around the world: capitalist exploitation on life support with no revolutionary potential.

6

Magma5 wrote

While on social issues US conservatives are much worse, on economic issues they are only slightly worse than the liberals.

1

ziq wrote

I'd say US dems only play lip service to social issues. Look at how they fucked over the Dreamers at the first opportunity for example. Or how Clinton shielded an abuser that worked for her.

3

not_AFX_lol wrote

Or how they keep trying to fuck over Chelsea Manning to keep an old white Zionist guy in the Senate

5

dele_ted wrote (edited )

The ultimate anarchist dream is a world that effectively functions as a single organism, since it will, if we continue down the path of exploitation of everything that can be exploited for profit, ultimately collapse. An organism at war with itself is doomed.

The liberals want to continue down the path of destruction. They believe that what they call "The Free Market" is the best option for humanity (or that nothing else is possible, because it, according to them, is human nature to abuse the environment and all beings that live in it if it results in profit).

The liberals also accept private property as a universal truth. Everyone should be able to own institutions and tools that enable them to gather more profit, by exploiting the workforce of those less fortunate than he who privatized the property. Anarchists aren't left-wing, or at least not what most people think of when they think left-wing. They don't believe in private property - the means of production should be owned by the community, and the same goes for the resources that our earth offers us. The fact that somebody can own these resources, make it theirs, so that nobody else can benefit from them, is absolutely sick and is the cause of the insane wealth inequality we see today, as well as large-scale wars, hunger and poverty.

The matter of fact is, there's plenty for everyone on this earth. We have the power to create abundancy, to make sure that everyone is well-fed and safe from threats that they can do nothing about, such as killer drones bombing their country every other night, while the countries that sent out the killer drones is refusing their immigration.

The cherry on top is, liberals never have a way to argue against anarchism. They simply refuse to see the truth it holds, ignoring it completely and often resorting to the propaganda of the state that's been sitting with them all their lives, that tells them anarchism is terror, chaos, barbaric slaughter where only the strong and those recruited into gangs survive. It's not, and it never will be.

If you consider yourself a liberal, it's high time that you reconsider your opinions and values. Think about your beloved private property, capital and currency and free market again, truly think. Try to look at it from a human perspective, and not according to your liberal rulebook or what your ideology tells you. Anarchism is not an ideology, but an idea, and it is fundamentally different from everything you've ever known (mostly because it doesn't have a centralized author; it's nothing but an idea that lies in everyones nature, an idea of a life without hierarchy), and this is exactly what makes it so difficult to figure out for many coming from liberalism (resulting in the ignorant behavior i talked about earlier).

Good luck on your journey, i really hope for you that you'll be able to see the world, society and yourself in a different light, put aside your condemning ideas of what anarchism and human nature is, and create some original thoughts. Something that rings true with you, not because you read somewhere that it's the best solution, but because you feel that it's the right thing.

4

selver wrote

I hate that these terrible posts whining about this site not being made for liberals/Nazis/etc get so much attention.

I'll happily have fewer people here if it means not having to listen to your terrible politics.

1

DissidentRage wrote

I'll happily have fewer people here if it means not having to listen to your terrible politics.

but muh optics tho

4

surreal wrote

Well liberal ideology is like a leaf in the air, it goes wherever external forces push it without resisting. This community is all about resisting so these two can't fit together.

Also please burn down churches.

3

Defasher wrote

Everything you said in here sums it up. Liberals are useless.

3

DissidentRage wrote (edited )

Not all of us want to destroy the system

That's where we disagree. The system, working as intended, screws people over regularly, and limitations placed upon it do not last because it inherently seeks to break free of its restraints. There is absolutely no merit to mere reformism in a capitalist system. Look at the few advancements made under eight years of Obama being rolled back within a year of Trump's presidency. Look at the other things that were rolled back even under Obama (like the civil rights act), Bush (privacy rights via the Patriot Act), and Clinton (repeal of Glass-Steagall which helped create the 2008 recession). Even New Deal era labor rights - which only came into existence under threat of socialist revolution during FDR's third term - had been slowly widdled away for decades, with their impending and final demise being discussed in SCOTUS.

While left-liberals may also say they champion progress, their narrow scope means shallow concessions that change appearance without altering the underlying structures that lead to the problems in the first place. Obama was elected for having a better platform than McCain and Romney, but it's obvious that he was also elected to represent the US in a way that would show that racism was a losing platform. However, while in office he refused to challenge any of the systems that make it difficult for POC to thrive, even though he was elected with majority support in Congress. Things like this come to mind when you raise our ire by promoting "gradual, pragmatic change." The reality is that it stands for, at worst, no change whatsoever, or change that can be readily shaken off the moment power changes hands.

Lastly there's also historical precedent. In the early 20th century Germany it was the Social Democrats who outright murdered leftists who wanted to change a failing system. Those same people paved the way for the fall of the Weimar Republic to Hitler. It wasn't much better in the US, with liberals taking the side of the police and government during strikes that they broke up using large-scale and unprovoked violence, and during court cases against anarchists and communists (which often lead to the death penalty or disenfranchisement).

2

selver wrote (edited )

Liberals are barely better than conservatives. The difference between the two is mostly just a middle-class politeness from the former, with a couple more handouts from the government.