cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/40097729

no comments (yet)

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
there doesn't seem to be anything here
36 comments in c/memes@lemmy.ml view that post
[+] 26 points 11 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)
  • [–] [S] 19 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 17 points 11 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 10 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    I second this. I enjoyed reading Lenin’s Imperialism very much, but it also felt very dated (as it should, it’s well over 100 years old now). I can’t help but think that if Lenin were alive today, he’d agree. That doesn’t mean it’s not an incredibly important work that we can’t draw from today, but we should also understand how the world has changed since.

    I haven’t read John Smith’s Imperialism in the 21st Century yet, but I’ve heard it’s a very good update.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    While I understand that it's statistically likely, I can't believe some people are actually named "John Smith" lol.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 20 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    Can people not understand definitions that are longer than 5 words?

    I dont understand why people on lemmy are trying to remove the meaning of every specific word related to politics, leaving a million synonyms of the same general thing and no word for a specific ideology

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    you've got it backwards: politics changes with the times and too many of us are intentionally taught to use the old definitions that stopped being applicable well before our great great grandparents died.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    My head-cannon of the differences

    US Socialist (social democrat) - Busses should be free for everyone.

    US Liberal - Free bus passes only for poor people

    US Right-wing - Let the free-market decide and somehow only allow US citizens to ride busses.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    Technically you can be an anticapitalist and still not a leftist. You could be one of those weirdo turbo conservative monarchists.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    It's not just weird, it's materially impossible. History doesnt move according to big ideas exclusively, the main driver of history is materialism. Feudalism gave way to capitalism not because someone conceptualized capitalism and made it become real, but because the historical development of feudalism led to the primitive accumulation process of capital, the progressive appearance of a bourgeois class, and this was accelerated by western imperialism and the exploitation of resources in the global south by European powers.

    Once the accumulation of capital had taken place and the main economic driver of the economy had become capitalism, it was impossible to return to feudalism, capitalism became a historical necessity. A return to feudalism is simply unfeasible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago
    [–] 11 points 11 months ago (6 children)

    Curse this ai slop. The fake crayon thing is really bugging me, like. Crack open a box and put a few hours in if you mean it, super accessible style

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 6 points 11 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    From a human perspective it's icky and you come across like 1950s propaganda to make commies look bad. When people express themselves they... you know what, I'm just gonna leave it at "ai sucks". Simulated human output, our entire selves slurped up and analyzed to be extruded by a corporation, if your self-defined "marxist perspective" has an excuse for that it can eat my ass

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children)
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    Your only point is:

    1. If it supports my ideology it's inherently good
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 5 points 11 months ago* (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (2 children)

    The impactful thing here is your output, not that of the slop machine, and I don't think it's having the influence you'd hope for mr. downvote

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 11 months ago* (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago* (1 child)

    The difference is whether we're engaging with one another collectively or being engaged by a machine in isolation. If we couldn't tell the difference we would be "cooked" and it would be "so over" as the kids say. This is why it's important to care about the human element, freebasing materialism has apparently caused you to dismiss your fellow man as confusing baggage

    Further, this (thankfully) doesn't seem very well-recieved, I would say in large part because it is thoughtless, souless, trite, mechanized slop. It's making a room full of countercultural system-smashers who would otherwise agree with at least the general sentiment stop and think that you suck too

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [+] -6 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    We love gross generalizations. Most people I meet just don't really think about it in those terms. I'd say it's probably more accurate to describe liberal voters as not being anti-capitalist

    Now a liberal politician? Yeah 100% pro capitalism

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)
  • [+] -21 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    Lowkey yikes. I don't want to associate myself with either graphic

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 10 points 11 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] -5 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    Because the Soviets were assholes. I didn't realize that would be controversial. I wish folks wouldn't restrict the concept of anti-capitalism to the ussr. Raised fist? Red and black?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago* (2 children)

    What assholes, liberating millions of feudal peasants and modernizing an entire country and eliminating hunger and poverty and spreading literacy and giving women rights and revolutionizing agriculture and medicine and defeating the nazis and inventing space travel and supporting liberation movements around the world. What absolute pricks.

    Edit: just saw you lower down being relatively chill

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    I was going to send a DM to cowbee, but it may be worth knowng for others. I'm a bit older and may be a "normie" leftist with moderate anti-cap views and have unexamined prejudices about the USSR. I liked what I read from Lenin/Marx (one work each, i know!) but don't like the reality of what I know of Stalin so don't want that association. After reading some more, I'll reexamine the USSR prejudices. So thanks to cowbee and folks who didn't assume malice

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago

    Civil and Fair, so thanks. I'll also pay more attention to the instance in the future if only to not be so baffled. Even if folks consider the Soviets progressive for the time, my 2 cents is that tying modern anticapitalism to the realities of USSR, especially Stalinism, does a disservice to progressive movements and even Marxism. But as you say, it's a minority opinion, so I'll accept my downvotes. Thanks again

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    18 comments in c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 10 points 11 months ago (15 children)

    Why are you booing them, they're right.

    Liberalism is literally the ideology of capitalism.

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (12 children)

    Not really.

    It can refer to social progressives. And that's how a lot of people think of it.

    Neoliberalism is definitely pro capitalism.

    Maybe y'all mixing up libertarians with liberals.

    Here is Google output:

    Core Beliefs: Emphasizes individual freedom, rights, and self-determination, with a belief in government's role to protect these rights and promote equality.

    Classical Liberalism: Focused on limited government, private property, and consent of the governed (think John Locke).

    Modern Liberalism: Seeks broader social justice, economic equality, and government action to solve societal problems (e.g., welfare, civil rights).

    Key Values: Fairness, harm reduction, liberty, democracy, human rights, and rule of law.

    Liberalism doesn't believe the government should dictate a lot of small things but still believes the government should ensure everyone has equal rights. And should protect the people from some harms like exploitation, dangerous products, pollution, etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (9 children)

    Im absolutely not confusing "libertarians" with liberals. The points you list say nothing of anti-capitalism because they have never been anti-capitalist. Ever.

    Liberalism in its many forms is the dominant ideology of the Western bourgeoisie and has been used time and time again to defend capitalism from radical change for two centuries now. This isn't a new point.

    I suggest reading some Marx over Google.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (5 children)

    Historical use is not the same as modern use.

    Liberalism does not support capitalism.

    It does not have any distinctive pro- or anti- economic style.

    It primarily concerns itself with society and rights.

    Please read the modern definition.

    It's possible people claiming to be liberals are also in support of capitalism. They can also be in support of socialism. The definition of the term does not dictate this distinction.

    You have to be careful with such terms. They are often applied to groups in errors. Intentionally to sway public perception.

    Like Russia calling itself communist. It's not.
    Like Hitler's Germany calling itself socialist. It wasn't.

    Like "citizens United" actually being a bill to allow companies to fuck over civilians by legally bribing politicians.

    Surely you have noticed words are used to obfuscate actual agendas all the time. ?

    Your example only further shows this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (4 children)

    Liberalism does not support capitalism

    Ok show me where the DNC is pushing to abolish property and wage labor, ill wait.

    No I didn't bother reading the rest, have a nice day

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

    Dnc is democratic party , an organization. It's not an ideology.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (2 children)

    👍

    Keep playing dumb, its a good look on you

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 11 months ago* (2 children)

    The points you list say nothing of anti-capitalism because they have never been anti-capitalist. Ever.

    Doesn't need to: it's not for or against it. It's simply an independent concept: liberalism is a political & moral philosophy, not an economic one.

    Socialism can be liberal, and it's probably far superior to the mental disease that is authoritarian socialism. There's even libertarian marxism.

    Liberalism in its many forms is the dominant ideology of the Western bourgeoisie and has been used time and time again to defend capitalism from radical change for two centuries now.

    Biased, inaccurate definition of liberalism: definist fallacy. Try again.

    I suggest reading some Marx over Google.

    Irrelevant authority fallacy: Marx is not an authority on liberalism. Try a proper definition.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago*

    cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/40097729

    No kidding. I have that instance blocked for a reason. Please stop posting that rage-bait garbage here. If any of us wanted to see .ml content, we would go there.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    another case of someone who can't define liberalism

  • source