772
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2023
772 points (94.5% liked)
World News
32089 readers
1263 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
You were called a liberal because of your support of liberal governments, making it related to the topic. The holier-than-thou tone of your response highlights your lack of education on the relevant topics. Seeing as you think no one else provided any value to the discussion and you knowingly chose to contribute nothing of your own (is coat-tail time vampire an established term?) Let's try to salvage something out of this thread. Beyond the derisive tone of this first paragraph, everything beyond is provided as a measure toward engaging in a good-faith conversation.
Why were you called a liberal and why would a communist see this as a fault? To add some clarity before the quote, communists usually apply the term "liberal" to what people in the US refer to as "conservatives" and "liberals." They are lumped together due to their mutual support of liberalism and neoliberalism. The following quote is from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Section 2.4. It does not fully answer the above question, but it will begin to give some context. Any additional clarification can be gained by reading further into Marxist theory.
In responding to Bauer, Marx makes one of the most enduring arguments from his early writings, by means of introducing a distinction between political emancipation—essentially the grant of liberal rights and liberties—and human emancipation. Marx’s reply to Bauer is that political emancipation is perfectly compatible with the continued existence of religion, as the contemporary example of the United States demonstrates. However, pushing matters deeper, in an argument reinvented by innumerable critics of liberalism, Marx argues that not only is political emancipation insufficient to bring about human emancipation, it is in some sense also a barrier. Liberal rights and ideas of justice are premised on the idea that each of us needs protection from other human beings who are a threat to our liberty and security. Therefore, liberal rights are rights of separation, designed to protect us from such perceived threats. Freedom on such a view, is freedom from interference. What this view overlooks is the possibility—for Marx, the fact—that real freedom is to be found positively in our relations with other people. It is to be found in human community, not in isolation. Accordingly, insisting on a regime of liberal rights encourages us to view each other in ways that undermine the possibility of the real freedom we may find in human emancipation. Now we should be clear that Marx does not oppose political emancipation, for he sees that liberalism is a great improvement on the systems of feudalism and religious prejudice and discrimination which existed in the Germany of his day. Nevertheless, such politically emancipated liberalism must be transcended on the route to genuine human emancipation. Unfortunately, Marx never tells us what human emancipation is, although it is clear that it is closely related to the ideas of non-alienated labour and meaningful community.
My comments are simple, direct. I inject nothing and ask questions about statements. If this is offensive, it is inferred without being implied.
Let's address your assertions and questions one-by-one without all the fluff.
A subjectively-observed attitude indicates lack of education.
What does time vampire mean.
You acknowledge an aggressive tone and suggest the next paragraph will contain a shift.
You provide a contextual quote.
My responses.
Disregard, I draw no connection between attitude and education so choose not to engage, defend, or otherwise.
I'll admit, this is close to a joke/slang term. Colloquially, time vampire is someone who takes your time as a hobby. Related to "bullshit asymmetry" aka, the amount of effort required to debunk bullshit is always greater than the initial bullshit. Giving the bullshitter infinite ammo to destroy the time of a good faith responder. A vampire takes blood, a time vampire would take time. I am sure you can draw the connection from the above info.
No response required. Clear.
This is where the assumptions go wrong, I do not support neoliberalism. I support clarity of discussion. I responded because I found the initial comment to be misleading, unclear, and poorly framed. On liberalism I have no stance due to lack of education on this topic. Your quote is interesting, I'll have to read more on this.