Keep in mind that the main tool to devide people is to subvert or even invert the meaning of words. So that even people with the same oppinions begin to argue.
One of the most memorable examples is to lable the agents of international globalist as "left", " leftwing", "socialist" or "communist". This was pushed so far that even memes derived from it (This isn't true socialism, etc).
So, here is one simple question to determine if somebody propagates real left-wing politics or just is """ left-wing""" in the sense of being a globalist shill (open borders, welfare state, gender equality,... all within a consumeristic capitalistic system) and therefore a international capitalist puppet.
Ask him:
What is the enemy of the communism movement? >faschism >capitalism
A real commie has, of course, to go with the letter answer. A shill says it's faschism. Now here is additional info: most will argue that the one also implies the other. Pin them to one answer! Of those who refuse you can be sure they are also shills.
Don't let you devide!
tl;dr Ask a """ leftwinger""" who the enemy of the communistic movement is with only the two possible answers "capitalism" or "faschism" left. Any other answer than capitalism, further explanations, relativizations or connetion to faschism will debunk a shill.
Anthony Phillips
Yep
They changed the meaning of liberal to mean what it's not
Liberal today means "social liberal" in reality, which is socialism lite
Connor Richardson
By the way, keep also in mind this:
The current conflict is not a war of economic systems. It's a war between lies and truth.
Lies are the weapons of the traitors. You can't use lies against them because every lie serves the Liars.
That's true. Liberal now means forbidding other oppinions. Always be aware.
Kevin Clark
>A real commie has, of course, to go with the letter answer. A shill says it's faschism.
Not sure if trolling or full flaming retarded.
Grayson Martinez
THICC
Nicholas Nguyen
Yes, 'liberals' aren't really liberal. There is nothing liberal about them. Liber=/= whacko authoritarians. Don't call them liberals, call them what they are.
Hunter Robinson
one of the things that really piss me of with then is that they say democracy when they actually mean socialism
Tyler Nelson
Care to elaborate or are you gonna shill all day?
How about you point out which of my arguments is not valid instead of behaving like a little kid?
And if you're willing to do so keep in mind I'm not promoting a certain economic or ideologic system I just want to raise aweraness that traitors and liars are subverting every form of civilization or community.
Noah Reyes
It gets confusing down under, where the Liberal party is actually the party of small government and individual rights, and you have to go on boards with americans where liberal means government control of everything.
Wyatt Ortiz
In Germany > CDU (Christian Democratic Union) pomotes the islamization of the continent. They also oppose plebiscites since they find it somehow "less democratic" then descicions through representatives
>The Greens are a lobby party who block research founds for fusion technology which has a real 0 carbondioxide emmission rate and subsidize wind power parks who are not much different in terms of emmision than a regular power plant
>equality promoters force more power to minoritiy lobbys
>gender equality means it's all men's fault
this list goes forever on.
Angel Parker
fascism and communism are very similar both are collectivist ideologies where the people work for a greater cause than themselves, benefitting everyone in their nation and not just themselves
James Thomas
But both Capitalism and Communism agree that we want a globalist society that erases all borders and racial distinctions.
The only difference between them is Communism insist on economic and social egalitarianism, capitalism does not. They are still both globalist ideologies, in comparison to fascism which is a nationalist ideology.
Wyatt Cooper
Communism is the ideology of escapism Fascism is the ideology of dudebro-ism Liberalism is the ideology of Chads and normies, and of the elites
Cooper Reed
Yes, that's true but that's also the main reason why societies were found in first place. Radical individualism leads to the destruction of every society. And individuals not organized in communities and states are always subjected to those who are.
Like I said I'm not promoting any models. Just beware of traitors in whatever community you live.
globalists don't want a global society. Globalists don't want a global government. Globalist fear a global court in which everyone could defend his right.
When globalist say global society they actually mean equality by force (which isn't there). People start fighting.
When globalists say global goverment they actually mean a puppet state in which the representatives have no power and those who are in power don't need to fear an election or a coup because whoever come "to power" will be their servant.
Andrew Watson
Nothing is wrong with globalism, capitalism or communism per say. All great ideas. the problem is human nature. It's unavoidable. >inb4 funny hats
Jonathan Bailey
Does moral relativism count as a funny hat?
David Smith
also forgot to say:
If you don't believe me look at the third world countries and which different states they went through.
They were archaic societies (most some kind of monarchy), then under colonial rule, then they were either capitalistic or communistic indendent countrys.
And in each state there was an interaction with european (or civilized) countries. This was mostly through trading. Now, ask yourself what makes this independent countries less globalistic than the form today's globalist perceive?
The difference was that they were independent. And that's the problem globalist try to subvert national souvereigny through giving power to private companies which in many cases aren't controlled by any court because there isn't any court which would by resposible for that.
That's why """globalists""" don't want a global state because there would have also be a global court. Private companies prefer private courts.
What do you consider to be real leftism and do you support it/what are you thoughts about it?
Josiah Brooks
I don't understand how liberals do not see how their policies erode a society from the inside out and eventually collapse it, it's mind boggling. Is it because they are too selfish to give up their delusions for the good of the majority?
Connor Ramirez
It's actually pretty simple (basically the definition after the French Revolution):
>econimic left: equal distribution of resources >social left: equal rights and duties for every citizen (no additional rights by birth)
>economic right: the successful have more power than the less successful >social right: modular social system with separated rights and duties
I would say I'd prefer the social left system but I have to say that a unified homogenous community is more important than the system itself-
Jackson King
But I have to say that even both systems at once don't have to be necessary a contradiction.
Take this example:
>Let's say you have children. 3 of them. So, you are willing to distribute the resources you spend on them equaly. >Your neighbour has also a kid. Although your neighbour is your fellow countryman, maybe even your friend, and you are willing to help him more than it is your duty, it still doesn't mean you have do distribute your resources amongs your children as well as your neighbour's
Okay, I have to admit this example is very simple but still it should show that two systems can live along each other as long as their is a real society in which people look after each other.
Lincoln Gonzalez
I've spent the last year or so learning about different schools of economics, the history of economics and how they relate to today's issues.
I would say with the advent of fiat money in most economies in 1971 the social left vision is entirely possible. The main issues to me is how right been thinking has been institutionalised and made to become the status quo. People have accepted many economic myths that help to restrain society in a straight jacket that fuels redistribution to those with wealth.
If you have time and haven't heard of it always I would recommend reading about Modern Monetary Theory. It combines several strands of heterodox economics and the workings of the current monetary system to create a new consensus to replace neoliberalism.
If applied correctly it may be entirely possible to retain capitalism, because it could only be applied by acknowledging the supremacy of the state. For that reason too or is dangerous, in that it could just as easily be used to fuel war.
Benjamin Rogers
I agree, a better way I think to phrase or is to have a equitable society where everyone is guaranteed at minimum the access to a social inclusive lifestyle. Not necessarily equal, I don't care is people are rich, so long as it is not exploitative.
Not in the Marxist sense, but as in selling fraudulent mortgages then getting government bail outs because you are systemically important. There not to day there shouldn't be good labour laws to protect people from labour exploitation.
Michael Ortiz
Could you try to be less of an Econ 101 student? Right now, you're on mount stupid on the Dunning-Kruger graph, and you're just regurgitating terms you've learned that are complete irrelevant to the discussion, because you think it makes you sound smart.
