https://old.reddit.com/r/greentext/comments/qa292t/anon_goes_on_reddit?sort=controversial
Edit: guys, instead of mocking the antiwork lowcows here where it's comfy, why don't you guys go post your snazzy comebacks there so you can actually contribute to the drama?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Not really. I'm an ML, we're very anti-antiwork of all sort - our whole point is to remove the parasitism of buttholes that live off "owning" shit or "investments" and make them do something productive. Modern-day baizuo r-sluration has nothing to do with us.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I was asking more about the patronizing attempts at proselytization that are all too common with Marxists.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Depends on the time and place and your definition of patronising. All sides have r-slurred proselytization attempts coming from utter nutters, except, maybe, neolibs, which don't seem to want to talk to outsiders at all and just "adopt" children into it. Kinda like gypsies.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Because the only neolibs who call themselves neolibs are online and usually on Reddit. Outside of it, itβs just a leftoid to rightoid slur.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
But it's actually a useful term, whether or not they refer to themselves as that or not. There really isn't a better existing name for people like modern burger neolibs in existence.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
No, the term is absolutely useless. Iβve seen it used to describe from Bernie, AOC and the Left parties in Nordic countries to Trump, Bolsarno to Pinochet.
It is worse than the word fascist in this regard.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
That's the usage of the term, which is the case with any term that carries negative connotations for it's user. Rightoids called everyone from Bernie, through Obama, down to even Biden - socialists. Why? Because in their mind it's an insult or something without any particular meaning other than government doing stuff.
As a descriptive term outside of derogatory usage, "neoliberal" kind of does make sense - it describes the sort of centrist, pink capitalist progressives that came about in the early 21st century. They abandoned all pretense of their Social-Democratic roots, and are just a force against dismantling an existing safety net, patching up the holes in it caused by ever-increasing inequality, and pushing through the agenda of the special interest alliance that they have as a captive voter base. There isn't a better term for it, as liberal is too broad and progressive can mean whatever the frick you want it to mean, depending on your position in time and space.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
First of all, I donβt necessarily disagree about that assessment about progressives and social democrats in the second paragraph but I donβt agree with it either. I can see someone arguing both ways and still be somewhat right.
Second, the thing is, no one outside those who are terminally online or circlejerking in academic and political circles ever uses the word βneoliberalβ. It is also extremely new, in the hyper-βgeneralizedβ way it is used now. Socialism by contrast is a word politically important to those all across the political spectrum and has been so for 200+ years, including the arch conservatives and/or reactionary (rather than radical/βoverlyβ-populist) right. In fact, Vladimir Lenin deliberately renamed the Social Democratic Labor Party of Russia (Bolshevik) to the Communist Party of Russia (Bolshevik) as well as other parties around the world specifically for the reason that just identifying as socialist did not showcase their radicalness to the otherwise somewhat acclimated bourgeoisie. As compared to βneoliberalβ it has roots that are obscure and only stays in certain circles but has no definition.
The only place where people self identify as βneoliberalβ is literally on Reddit. That should be telling how small of a presence the term has the wider political world. And despite of that, itβs function remains as diluted as the words βfascistβ and βsocialistβ.
In regards to needing a term to describe something, itβs not really necessary. You guys on the left think too much in terms and categorizations of categorizations. An almost completely different mindset comparatively.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Mommy is soooo proud of you, sweaty. Let's put this sperg out up on the fridge with all your other failures.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Because it's important. It legitimately annoys me when people say Biden, Clinton, or Blair are "left". They aren't by any stretch of the imagination, unless you're looking at them from the point of view of fricking Mussolini or something (and even then, tbh...)
So, yeah, you need labels for political movements in order to not lump in Lenin with fricking Sanders or Churchill with Hitler. It's nonsense...
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
How the frick are you a machine that's learning?
Your ideology is r-slurred, sorry.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
This landphobia, please do better.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context