Its like 60% - 70% of his personality, get a life Tim Walz

Would love to see them turn the guns around and fight for freedom and human decency

Who tf is down voting you on a week old thread.

I dont think youre wrong, and your assessment that ideology is created by material human progress is how I think about it too.

But your phrase “monarchies have gone out of existence because of human progress” sort of side steps my point about private property. I would argue the private property question is inherent to liberalism.

As a leftist however, and this isnt a popular opinion for the online left, I think that liberalism appears to people in different ways. For conservatives, who are a type of classical liberal, the private property question is explicitly paramount, and all considerations of human rights, etc., are maybe given lip service and informal recognition. But materially it is deprioritized and in our era getting wiped out, such as “neo-liberalism.”

For modern day liberals however, and this seems to be the category you are in, human rights and freedoms are paramount. As a socialist, I feel affinity with these people and I believe that socialism is the next advancement of human rights over capitalism. I dont think power can be wrested from capitalists without organization of the masses and struggle. But I do think that our projects are the same in that regard. However since this second category of liberal isnt engaging with the private property questions of who owns the means of production, why they own it, how the mop are used to make stuff, and who gets the stuff, then these liberals actually can’t defend human rights and freedoms, because there is no material basis for the defense, its ideological.

I dont think we can change the effect that corporations have over politics, economics, and the lives of basically everyone on the planet without revolution. And by revolution I dont mean a bloody, head-choppy war, I mean fundamental change in social relations, and this process of emancipation will be a fundamental change called socialism.

The corporations are a front for the actual class that is in power. Analysis that leaves out this class component misses a lot. Corporations can not give this to us permanently. We will have to win it, and we will have to defend it with the same zeal that corporations defend the right to own the material basis for human advancement as well as the right to own people’s time in order to sell the produce of that time for more than they paid us.

However I believe that what is in your heart, the desire for freedom and liberation (“liberal” contains the root “liber” as in liberate) is very close to what is in mine. But I also think that when it comes to our theory of change, we are completely different, and I think the liberal theory of change, when it even exists, actually allows corporations free reign to continue their agenda against the masses. We need to build a new fundamental basis for global transformation, and imo part of that is convincing well-meaning and liberation minded liberals like you to come over to a liberatory socialist program and ditch analysis that has no concrete basis in class relations.

I have a lot of philosophical differences with liberalism, but you can see how long-winded I can be. But my primary focus is the advancement human spirit. And i think in that regard we largely agree.

That is definitely a good definition of liberalism, it is one definition, and it happens to be my favorite one! I’m not testing you or being a way about it.

What do you think about the idea, that liberalism is also the idea that individual freedoms, liberties, etc., are based on a society that enforces the individual’s right to private property? Like before WW1 when a lot of countries still had an autocratic aristocracy, and the revolutionary liberals, over a period of 100s of years, overthrew their kings and queens? I think that was genuinely an advancement for humanity.

But I think that in many cases the individual right to private property is supported by society much, much more than individual liberties of the vast majority. This leads many people, including myself, to believe that the other rights are not defended nearly as strongly as other rights.

Do you think liberalism is an ideology? If so does it have like blind spots, or biases?

Sorry it is so many questions I’m not trying to be pushy or gish gallop. Just curious what you think. Btw I didn’t downvote you, I never do that, some dork did that.

Germany, 1924. The radical German working class had been defeated, but so was the German bourgeoisie. The spartacist uprising began with the split in the SPD in 1914. Over the course of 10 years, fierce political, national, military struggle had led to the splitting or purging of all radical elements. The SPD, what was left of German social democracy as a movement, was objectively opportunistic and fascistic. Not because of ideology, but because of civil war. What we might consider a politically active progressive in our day, would not have been a German social democrat in 1924. It would be like taking the Democrat party and splitting it again and again until all that were left were the most openly bloodthirsty moderates.

Russia 1924. Lenin has died after years of sickness, Stalin is transitioning to power, Russia has not recovered from the civil war that utterly destroyed their entire productive apparatus, nor the disastrous NEP and banning of factions. Russia was in the 18th c. socially, the 16th c. productively, and , in theory, 21st(TBD) c. in socialist governance. Hitler was def a concern but compared to the invading west and white armies, and the mass destruction and active regression of social conditions, for a myriad of different reasons, little could be done either way. Russia would not, could not, invade Germany to carry out the actual first step of Lenin’s plan for international revolution. Uprisings were a constant, urgent threat to the Bolshevik government. Stalin’s Comintern had a part to play, maybe, in the failure to overthrow the German bourgeoisie, but what’s done is done, and success in revolutionary times is, in part, measured in survivors.

Firstly, it is not true that fascism is only the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. Fascism is not only a military-technical category. Fascism is the bourgeoisie’s fighting organisation that relies on the active support of Social-Democracy. Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism. There is no ground for assuming that the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of Social-Democracy.

This definitely rings true to us, but I think the category of “social democracy” is much more broad in our time than in Stalin’s. Social Democracy was more like “German political legitimacy” than a definition of a vaguely left liberal ideology. The lies and failures of the SPD were 1000x more obvious than, for example, the USAmerican Democrats. Regular people today are just now waking up to the two-faced nature of mainstream liberalism, which surely functions as a moderate, legitimizing wing of the bourgeoisie. The actual source of social democracy’s intrinsic link to fascism, is its bourgeois character, rather than something inherent to the abstract ideas of social democracy. But for the Social Democrats, the fecklessness and utter betrayal was painfully obvious to the masses, there was no doubt.

These organisations do not negate, but supplement each other. They are not antipodes, they are twins. Fascism is an informal political bloc of these two chief organisations; a bloc, which arose in the circumstances of the post-war crisis of imperialism, and which is intended for combating the proletarian revolution. The bourgeoisie cannot retain power without such a bloc. It would therefore be a mistake to think that “pacifism” signifies the liquidation of fascism. In the present situation, “pacifism” is the strengthening of fascism with its moderate, Social-Democratic wing pushed into the forefront

Its important to recognize that Stalin is being pretty specific in the social forces he is critiquing. He defines fascism as having emerged out of postwar Europe, a definition that differs drastically from our own iteration of fascism. He also says that the bourgeoisie need the political legitimacy of social democracy to carry out the agenda of fascism, that is, “combating the proletarian revolution.” I would argue this is also different, as fascism has, on its own, attained political legitimacy under its own policies. Our bourgeoisie do not need social democracy to legitimize fascism, as far as I can tell, the international bourg are fucking done with social democracy as a liberalizing force. In 1924, the social democrats are more like moderate republicans, than liberal progressives.

When I see the phrase deployed today, it is 99% online. I have hours and hours of political discussion per week, and I have for years, and ive never seen this phrase used in person, except maybe against the status quo Dems. Online however, its deployed against any confused progressive liberal for even hesitating on the question of revolution. The phrase is applied broad-brush to slander anyone to the left of the sect.

Is a coherent historical critique of reformism, as a social movement that abandons the workers for opportunistic and historically contingent reasons, as prevalent as the deployment of this phrase? I’m not sure, but I doubt it. Its a nice simple formula to win ingroup points when an underdeveloped leftist (often arguing with just a different kind of underdeveloped leftist) starts to lose a debate. In this situation, we dont need a break from the right, we need further development of prolonged political struggle, in order to reshuffle the groups, over and over, until the reformists can no longer hide from the masses.

We can definitely see the fascism in, say, European social democracy, where a large part of GDP is generated by arms sales and exploitation of the third world, but we often confuse a bourgeois ideology, and its deadly dual nature, for the individual views of depoliticized subjects.

One thing that I think we do now, much more than people in 1924, in particular a Bolshevik like Stalin, is that we are much more abstract in our thinking. We apply broad, and not always appropriate, generalizations without even thinking about it that way. This reduces huge swaths of the organic discourse happening among working people, into bitter epistemic squabbling. We dont know that we need to be concrete. We dont even know how to concretize something objectively.

So all we know is the two sided coin, with the truths that we recognize on our side, and the lies that we can’t see projected toward the other. Rather than engage with people and meet them where they are as goes the traditional wisdom of communists, we instead abstract the working class itself as an ideal. Marx called this out in 1844 in Theses on Feuerbach, saying that bourgeois materialism can recognize the individual, or the society (or social movement in this case), but not both, we can’t conceive of how a movement is made up of people, rather than ideology.

When we center human experience in our analysis, which is one of the primary contributions of Marxism and an oft-neglected condition of dialectical materialist thought, when we make our analysis practical and dynamic rather than categorical and static, then we can begin assessing conditions. But a comprehensive method of how to concretize conditions so that a movement or society can change them still eludes the left; most of all online. I think it is an objective social condition that facilitates this developmental stuntedness, rather than ideological difference and error, but we gotta fix that shit quick. A counter cultural movement against unnecessary abstraction, able to link our ideas with the specificities of workers lives, would be a welcome improvement. However it makes me wonder if I am in fact still too abstract to be practical or relatable. I probably am, but fortunately I can’t do the revolution on my own, and I have comrades to support my development, through the collective development of political struggle in our local conditions.

social democracy is the moderate wing of fascism

That is a really good example. I think about it all the time. The way it is used today is so much different than the very specific context in which it was written. But it is as much a polemic as it was then.

It’s an extremely thought provoking subject!

Hm, I’m not sure. I was thinking more like this post was a piece of propaganda or discourse, so the coin would also be a piece of propaganda.

I think part of the problem in our analysis is a problem of abstraction. Capitalism is actually the treasury that mints the coin, the social relations that turn the coin into profit. But it’s true that the appearances of capitalism is fundamentally different than its actual function.

I like the comparison of chattel slavery as a contra example. Chattel slavery was an institution that was morally reprehensible, even to the founders of the US. It shocked the conscience of virtually anyone who considered it (although a good lesson in social humanity is the tendency to just not consider it, as a defense) meanwhile it was true that some slaves lived somewhat better cared for materially than many white workers, whose destitution was necessary to uphold the practice of mass subjugation of the slaves. The severe cruelty of the ownership of one person over another somewhat hides the material reality of slavery. The historic matetial basis for the abolition of slavery was the fact that northern industrialists were better at getting more labor our of workers and paying them an individual wage much less than the cost of maintaining the life of a slave, which often included the old and young who could not work.

On the contrary, capitalism has all the appeals of freedom, democracy, self a actualization, when it is actually itself a form of part-time slavery. We consent, via contract, to sell our time and energy to a boss who pays us a wage that is worth less than the commodities that are produced using the tools the boss “owns”.

Liberal ideals give rights to everyone on paper but capitalism denies rights to most people in practice. The capitalist state manages the political contradictions that arise, since the cold industrialized reality that pits worker against owner is fundamentally unstable. A middle class is an ideological project that stabilizes the contradictions, splitting the masses of people between a mass who aren’t willing to give up their individual privileges even if they hold " liberal" values, and the masses who are so exploited they lack the time and energy to fight for the liberation of all workers. All these groups are split further, of course, along lines of race, gender, etc., the illusions are sustained by having people’s direct experience contradict narratives of oppression and resemble the liberal values that capitalism heralds.

The two sides of capitalism are, objectively, the exploited workers and the owning capitalists. That relation is the base, but the superstructure creates the illusions and social relations that facilitate the base.

Back to the coin, the two-sidedness of the discourse can be expanded to practically any polemic, propaganda, rhetoric, etc., so that only one “side” of the coin is apparent to the people on each side of the discourse.

How this relates to the original meme, as leftists we can see our side of the Maduro discourse, we see the fascism of red and blue MAGA, but they don’t see that part even when they express views that are objectively fascist. Their side of the coin doesn’t have a coherent perspective on what fascism even is, they arent able to self-criticize in a way that shows them what we see.

So the coin as an objective thing works better as an allegory for a piece of propaganda rather than the thing itself. Once we start considering the actual qualities of the people who hold certain views, and how this all relates to production of capitalist relations among the masses, I think the example starts to fall apart since it deals with individuals projecting our desires and expectations, which are based on feedback we get from an objective system whose essential nature the system has to hide from those of us the system exploits.

Sorry got carried away there, I appreciate your context because it opens up the subject quite a bit more than my comment did.

Then define liberalism

Its more like a coin with liberal values on one side and fascism on the other. And when we hold it up to look at one side and describe what we see to someone with different beliefs, all they see is the other side.

o7

Trump is going to be so embarassed when he finds out he is breaking laws

Yeah youre completely missing my point. If the current China is part of the transition to socialism, sure, sounds like stageism but fine, but then how does that process progress without critique and criticism? Why is criticism worthy of ridicule? When Marx criticized Feuerbach, was it to ridicule him? To me, your suppression of any views contradictory to your One True Marxism Leninism, your defense of state bureaucracies’ use of suppression to quell all criticism, including naturally occurring internal criticism that happens in response to the activities of the party, is exactly the definition of authoritarianism that people are criticizing you for. By your own method, you contradict the definition of authoritarianism as proletarian administration. it’s incredibly unconvincing to anyone who uses critique in order to develop a perspective, you know, people like Marx.

The fact is there is zero evidence that China is currently progressing toward socialism. Have they made steps in that direction in the last 100 years? Yes, without a doubt. Are they a counterbalance to imperialist hegemony? In some ways, although they’ve gone back and forth on that over the years. But you can’t prove that they are actively negating capitalist relations. They do an immense amount of suppression, surveillance, and yes exploitation of labor, particularly migrant labor. As long as the bourgeoisie doesnt get too Jack Ma, and government corruption is kept informal, their bourgeoisie still live better than huge swaths of the country. I think they function really well as a social democracy that sustains an aspirational middle class, and the party seems like it has been successful in preventing a capitalist “vanguard” from organizing against the party. But there is no revolution happening there now, and I think that the trend is going in the opposite direction. You can not prove that the party has a proletarian character while it exploits labor, suppresses opposing political views, nurtures capitalist relations, nurtures petty bourgeois middle class delusions and presents itself as a state bureaucracy. This is the bourgeois character of the party, it is tangible and well documented. I dont understand why its so hard to admit what is so obvious, you massacre your own credibility. Like its not even that bad by comparison, its better than many other places and they do show up in Africa, South America, and in many parts of Asia. But it isnt perfect, in fact its kinda fucked up in a lot of ways, and we should be able to be honest with each other about it without resorting to “ridicule”.

Rather than quoting my words and then talking right past me, it would be more productive imo if you actually like tried to digest what people say even a little. Thank god I get to have actually productive organizing discussions to keep me grounded.

Well, I dont appreciate the implication that my views are based on imperialist talking points. I am an admirerer of the Chinese project, but i don’t consider it revolutionary. Again I think youre being obtuse when you say you dont know what bourgeois principles are. I think you know that I’m not an imperialist parrot, on the contrary, I think you dismiss my perspectives too eagerly. However I appreciate the push back on the state capitalist definition. My most recent study of those conditions are based on formulations by Loren Goldner, based on formulations of Bordiga. Its not that I subscribe to them explicitly but its clear I need to develop a stronger critique.

Also

The reason Marxists ridicule those accusing socialist states of “authoritarianism”

I am hearing that I am not a Marxist because i acknowledge the substance of a criticism, and that ridicule is in fact a viable mode of political discourse. This speaks such volumes. This is exactly the sectarianism I am most principally concerned with.

A party that coexists with the bourgeoisie is reformist, a party that sustains a depoliticized middle class also sustains exploitation for the sustainance of their bourgeoisie. The petite bourgeois and middle classes are the way that a state obfuscates class antagonisms.

I dont think it is a stretch to insist that a party that sustains a bourgeois class would have a bourgeois character. It would surprise me if the Chinese party didn’t have a detailed and thorough history of this problem. The bourgeois nature of the party is expressed through state bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is not 1:1 with proletarian administration, bureaucracy is self-sustaining. The CCP has no incentive to abolish itself or to wither away, on the contrary! Whereas you wish to purge opposing viewpoints, I argue the CCP needs to purge its bourgeois reformism before it can ever meaningfully resist imperialism. The idea that the party affects the class, while its essential character is independent of that class is just pure idealist rubbish. You seem to think the party state is buying time for socialism, but I dont think you can prove that it isnt social democratic in nature, that is, withering away of the power of proletariat.

However I did refer to the party as a bureaucratic class which is not accurate either, it is not a class, but rather, a social relation created to mitigate class antagonisms. This also will require further development on my part.

I guess I just kind of wish that you could be straight with me instead of being like a propagandist/apologist? Like I know you have criticism of the CCP, I’m sure you would share them with others who you felt comfortable going so. But rather than viewing me as a comrade, I’m an imperialist parrot deserving ridicule. If you knew three things about me you’d choke on that assumption. Which shows your connection to all this is alienated, because you can’t directly connect with me as an organizer, Marxist, socialist or fellow traveler. All connections between people are mitigated through ideology, through affectation and epistemology rather than anything genuinely respectful of difference. Its the puritain, purging mentality of state bureaucrats, not revolutionaries.

It only confuses if you decide to use a non-Leninist definition of the state. The state exists to manage class contradictions. Are the classes being managed different than in capitalist states? No, but their political class has a different character than in the west. The party is larger, more powerful, tangible and broad though still operating with bourgeois principles, interests and aspirations. The bureaucratic class sustains the bourgeois class, gives concessions to the working class, maintains a petite bourg middle class, as a project that obfuscates the capitalist class in opposition to, and exploiting, a working and toiling classes.

Is the “socialist state” withering away? No, it is growing more powerful. IMO an ideology more concerned with socialist states over socialist internationalism is the ideology of state bureaucrats, not proletarian revolutionaries. Which makes sense since the worker/peasant revolution failed in China, their politics are more Dengist than Maoist, the party even rejects the concept of class antagonism! I don’t see how they can even be considered Marxist.

The bureaucratic class uses the state apparatus to sustain the bourgeois class, while the toiling classes are fundamentally proletarian, that is, despite social democratic concessions they still have nothing to sell the capitalists but their labor. People are heavily exploited in “special economic zones”. Communal land is becoming more privatized, not less. The rural agrarian population is insular and petty bourgeois, the urban middle classes are becoming less political but more aspirational and individualistic. Housing, while abundant, is still commodified.

The party uses the state to maintain capitalist relations. State capitalist. The only thing confusing is that in our world there is always a state protecting the bourgeois class. So it’s really just capitalism, like social democracy. So maybe “party capitalist” is more accurate. I’m not too invested about slandering China, but your criticism is the same disingenuous attitude that insists “authoritarian” is meaningless. The term exists, people use it in political discourse, not engaging with it, and pretending it doesn’t exist is intentionally obtuse. No Marxist should concern themselves with epistemological word games.

“Authoritarian” can be concretely defined and understood. Overlooking the self criticism of, “it is very convenient that I refuse to believe in the existence of a verifiable phenomenon that is used to criticize me,” trying to prove the phenomenon is fake rather than engaging with it as criticism, betrays the socialist principle of ruthless criticism, as well as Marxist materialism. No one believes you except those in your own camp. It’s sectarian idealism.

I care! And I assume you do too. We dont need Chomsky for that

We dont need them we need each other

Here is a video of Chomsky from 2020, before the connection between JE and Chomsky had been revealed. He gets a little indignant and defensive about Epstein, interesting flavor info.

Heres the business insider article from 2023 https://www.businessinsider.com/noam-chomsky-mit-wsj-wall-street-journal-jeffrey-epstein-2023-4

And then you have the latest revelations https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/22/noam-chomsky-jeffrey-epstein-ties-emails

Chomsky, 96, had also reportedly acknowledged receiving about $270,000 from an account linked to Epstein while sorting the disbursement of common funds relating to the first of his two marriages, though the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) professor has insisted not “one penny” came directly from the infamous financier.

The banality of evil: how Epstein’s powerful friends normalised him Read more The emails disclosed on 12 November by the Republican members of the US House oversight committee generally detailed the correspondence Epstein had with political, academic and business luminaries, including the Bill Clinton White House’s treasury secretary Larry Summers and Steve Bannon, the longtime ally of Donald Trump. Further, they reveal Epstein and Chomsky were close enough to discuss musical interests and even potential vacations.

Perhaps the most telling of the Chomsky-related documents in question was a letter of support for Epstein attributed to Chomsky with the salutation “to whom it may concern”. It is not dated, but it contains a typed signature with Chomsky’s name and citing his position as a University of Arizona laureate professor, a role he began in 2017, as first reported by the Massachusetts news outlet WBUR.

It reminds me of this old Chomsky video https://m.youtube.com/shorts/AnFUWrjr25A

“I’m sure you believe what you are saying but if you believed something different you wouldnt be sitting here.”

Really calling the kettle on this

Well, as a leftists I think its just extra disappointing. Like I’m not a syndicalist or anarchist, he wasnt my guy, but he was a left voice. He was critical of imperialism and shined a light on corruption and injustice.

Like when Chris Tucker appeared in flight logs its like, “oh the comedian? Weird,” and maybe if I was a comedian I’d feel different. But CT also denied any actual associations. Chomsky’s just like “yeah he’s my friend, its none of your business” honesty is a virtue and all that, but the way he has attacked and criticized other leftists over the years, to see him defend this literal avatar of abuse, corruption and imperialism, is quite revealing.

But my personal orientation toward Norm hasn’t changed much. I had read a couple of his books but he’s kind of meh imo. Obviously a very hard working and prolific academic, though academics can be disappointing from a leftist perspective. I doubt he had much time or interest to engage in the kinds of abuse that made Epstein notorious.

I think Norm knew about the abuse and corruption, and definitely about his role in geopolitics. And maybe Epstein helped him out once personally in a way that deeply affected him. People are complicated, and Chomsky’s loyalty is maybe admirable, though such circumstances are speculation. But if I found out my best friend was hanging out with Jamie Dimon, Donald Trump, and Alan Dershowitz, as well as a cavalcade of notorious villains and literal monsters, that he had created a global network of underaged women who he exploited for sex 3 or more times per day, literally anything that we’ve found out about JE, I would cut them off immediately. And if I found out a different friend was hanging out with Jeffrey Epstein and was unrepentant, I’d cut them off too. That’s all I need. The association is bad enough that I dont need further evidence, personally.

Other than being a fuckin loser? I haven’t heard of any deep associations between JE and Dawkins. I have to go back to check what Gladwell’s associations were as it has been a while since I heard about their connection. It’s possible that I’m over stating his connection because I really don’t like his dumb books and he looks like such a fucking creep