I’ll just ignore your other remarks because they’re reductive and show that you simply didn’t read my comment (as you confirmed in your other reply)
Liberals can be trusted when they pretend that liberalism is compatible with democracy? Fascists can be trusted when they pretend to be doing something in the interests of nationalism?
No, those are the contradictions in their ideologies. I know that they’re contradictory and they get spun around in circles when they try to figure out those contradictions. That’s why I’m not a liberal or a fascist. But when you read liberal and fascist texts, they don’t really hide their motivation. The liberal wants the victory of freedom over backwardness and enlightenment over dogmatism. The fascist wants the victory of the will and the ubermensch over the rabble. They don’t really obscure those motivations, they’re clearly spelled out and intelligible. I’m asking you why it is that when communists state exactly what they are motivated by, they are the ones that actually mean the opposite.
Lol! To those with institutionalised power ideology is not a science, tankie. It’s art. It’s not contradiction - it’s merely the paint they work with. You know… institutionalised power? That thing you tankies are only comfortable talking about as long as it’s only liberals and fascists that have it?
The liberal wants the victory of freedom over backwardness and enlightenment over dogmatism.
Do we live on the same planet? The one on which I live liberals want whatever it is that makes the rich richer and the poor poorer - and that is pretty much it. And yes… everything they say and do is designed to obfuscate that.
Perhaps we should investigate why it is that you have such a hard time seeing that - I sincerely doubt it’s purely due to naivety.
You’re conflating ideologues and pragmatists. John Locke and Stuart Mill vs. Actually Existing Liberalism. Kamala Harris believes in nothing, I’m honestly not concerned about what goes on behind those eyes, but it helps to know what the people who do believe in something that are setting the tone for where the state is headed are talking about. FWIW I think the most relevant people to look into for that end are the neoreactionaries, people like Nick Land and Curtis Yarvin. It seems like Thiel and other billionaires currently setting the course for how America will deal with its waning hegemony are following in that model.
I’m very familiar with the postmodern condition and how power wields hegemony to make reality what it will, what this means for people that are in danger of being defined out of existence and exterminated. That’s an important thing to understand and criticize.
Look, obviously institutional political power and the state are things that naturally lend themselves to oppression. “While the State exists there can be no freedom; when there is freedom there will be no State.” Are MLs usually a bit annoyed to argue about this point a lot? Yeah, because when someone who hasn’t read Lenin but is familiar with that quote gets in an argument like this, they start to make a lot of claims like “Lenin just wanted to make his own dictatorship to replace the Tsar” or something similar to that. You start to argue that, actually, it would’ve been best for nothing to have happened because all attempts at seizing power are inherently corrupt and reactionary. I don’t have a lot of patience for that, and I’m not even really an ML personally, I just think that it’s a very privileged position to have that because all states are oppressive the workers ought to just nobly stop having a state at all.
I’ll just ignore your other remarks because they’re reductive and show that you simply didn’t read my comment (as you confirmed in your other reply)
No, those are the contradictions in their ideologies. I know that they’re contradictory and they get spun around in circles when they try to figure out those contradictions. That’s why I’m not a liberal or a fascist. But when you read liberal and fascist texts, they don’t really hide their motivation. The liberal wants the victory of freedom over backwardness and enlightenment over dogmatism. The fascist wants the victory of the will and the ubermensch over the rabble. They don’t really obscure those motivations, they’re clearly spelled out and intelligible. I’m asking you why it is that when communists state exactly what they are motivated by, they are the ones that actually mean the opposite.
Lol! To those with institutionalised power ideology is not a science, tankie. It’s art. It’s not contradiction - it’s merely the paint they work with. You know… institutionalised power? That thing you tankies are only comfortable talking about as long as it’s only liberals and fascists that have it?
Do we live on the same planet? The one on which I live liberals want whatever it is that makes the rich richer and the poor poorer - and that is pretty much it. And yes… everything they say and do is designed to obfuscate that.
Perhaps we should investigate why it is that you have such a hard time seeing that - I sincerely doubt it’s purely due to naivety.
So no, tankie… you are not the only one.
Does that make you feel better?
You’re conflating ideologues and pragmatists. John Locke and Stuart Mill vs. Actually Existing Liberalism. Kamala Harris believes in nothing, I’m honestly not concerned about what goes on behind those eyes, but it helps to know what the people who do believe in something that are setting the tone for where the state is headed are talking about. FWIW I think the most relevant people to look into for that end are the neoreactionaries, people like Nick Land and Curtis Yarvin. It seems like Thiel and other billionaires currently setting the course for how America will deal with its waning hegemony are following in that model.
I’m very familiar with the postmodern condition and how power wields hegemony to make reality what it will, what this means for people that are in danger of being defined out of existence and exterminated. That’s an important thing to understand and criticize.
Look, obviously institutional political power and the state are things that naturally lend themselves to oppression. “While the State exists there can be no freedom; when there is freedom there will be no State.” Are MLs usually a bit annoyed to argue about this point a lot? Yeah, because when someone who hasn’t read Lenin but is familiar with that quote gets in an argument like this, they start to make a lot of claims like “Lenin just wanted to make his own dictatorship to replace the Tsar” or something similar to that. You start to argue that, actually, it would’ve been best for nothing to have happened because all attempts at seizing power are inherently corrupt and reactionary. I don’t have a lot of patience for that, and I’m not even really an ML personally, I just think that it’s a very privileged position to have that because all states are oppressive the workers ought to just nobly stop having a state at all.