Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? gaolang>jurota i refuse to pay my taxes is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real men pay taxes say no to sleepy joe scratch that trump is cooked tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you
Radicality is not extremism or synonym of terrorism. Murder should never be acceptable.
Radicality is a spectra, for example I tend to have very radical anti meritocratic and anticapitalistic ideas, this doesn't mean that I want to kill all rich people.
I don't want to create a revolution either, I'm rather a reformist (at least for now).
Radicality can be a very good thing when used positively.
Radicality is a spectra, for example I tend to have very radical anti meritocratic and anticapitalistic ideas, this doesn't mean that I want to kill all rich people.
I don't want to create a revolution either, I'm rather a reformist (at least for now).
Radicality can be a very good thing when used positively.
Yes, for those who are not close to militant circles radicality its often compared with extremism as strawman. This is usually done by the bourgeoisie and liberals to delegitimate any kind of leftist movement that could propose big social reforms.
its also important to note that the "extrem" in "extrem left" is different from the "radical left" and both are not the same thing as "extremism".
A extremist is usually associated with terrorist or violent actions. The extrem left doesn't seek to create violence at all but rather the opposite.
To give you a better understanding:
When liberals are pro-capitalists, the social democrats (soft left) are capitalist friendly, the radical left is anti capitalist, and the extrem left is anti-capitalist/communist/anarchist and (sometimes) is aiming to create a social revolution (not to confuse with a bloody revolution) where the system will change radicaly. (you can position me on the radical left)
Currently, the "Front populaire" in France (who is composed by the ENTIRE SPECTRA of France's leftist parties from social democrates to revolutionnaries) is currently accused of being "extremist" by the liberal block.
In other words, they (and the ENTIRE spectra of mainstream medias who are pro-liberals) are pushing the agenda that progressists like me are as extrem and as dangerous as the far right, fascist or racist people.
The reason for that is that the current political agenda of our "Front Populaire" is a LITTLE BIT more radical than usual, meaning by that : we will tax the rich to help finance our social reforms.
The liberal block (who can also be called sociologically the "bourgeoisie block") are SCARED AS F*** so we are getting nuked with diverse accusations : "extremism" , "incompetences" , "antisemitism" , "the group of the hate" , "very dangerous" etc.
As you can see, radicality is what scares people in power. That's why it must absolutely be used.
its also important to note that the "extrem" in "extrem left" is different from the "radical left" and both are not the same thing as "extremism".
A extremist is usually associated with terrorist or violent actions. The extrem left doesn't seek to create violence at all but rather the opposite.
To give you a better understanding:
When liberals are pro-capitalists, the social democrats (soft left) are capitalist friendly, the radical left is anti capitalist, and the extrem left is anti-capitalist/communist/anarchist and (sometimes) is aiming to create a social revolution (not to confuse with a bloody revolution) where the system will change radicaly. (you can position me on the radical left)
Currently, the "Front populaire" in France (who is composed by the ENTIRE SPECTRA of France's leftist parties from social democrates to revolutionnaries) is currently accused of being "extremist" by the liberal block.
In other words, they (and the ENTIRE spectra of mainstream medias who are pro-liberals) are pushing the agenda that progressists like me are as extrem and as dangerous as the far right, fascist or racist people.
The reason for that is that the current political agenda of our "Front Populaire" is a LITTLE BIT more radical than usual, meaning by that : we will tax the rich to help finance our social reforms.
The liberal block (who can also be called sociologically the "bourgeoisie block") are SCARED AS F*** so we are getting nuked with diverse accusations : "extremism" , "incompetences" , "antisemitism" , "the group of the hate" , "very dangerous" etc.
As you can see, radicality is what scares people in power. That's why it must absolutely be used.
No. Extremism and radicalism are two different political status.
Radicalism is a spectra of political vision. (for exemple, Macron is a radical liberal). Extremism is set on violence.
Radicalism is related to the political vision it fights and the sociological context of the struggle
&
Extremism is not related to the political vision it fight, its the extrem status and nature of the political vision.
Example with FEMINISM:
- Radicality (in our current world) is saying that we must end patriarchy by changing the entire system.
- Extremism would be believing that only violent actions (like the sufragettes) can creates changes for women.
Example with CAPITALISM:
- Radicality (in our current world) is saying that capitalism is one of the disease of the human civilization
- Extremism would be believing that only violent actions or state coup are the only way to take down capitalism
Example with MERITOCRACY:
- Radicality (in our current world) is saying that Meritocracy is what helps Capitalism strive and keep people in situation of inequalities.
- Extremism would be believing that only by killing the rich we can create a equal distribution of wealth.
What you must understand is that Radicality is related to the sociological context of the struggle. Meaning that in a different context, lets say a more social environment, a specific radical statement like "meritocracy is a problem and we must end it" will not be as radical.
Radicality evolves where extremism remains extremism.
The reason why you think I have a very different set of definition, is because you live in a world where definitions are set by those in power. And right now, those in power are radical liberal, capitalist who are also rich pro status co wannabe progressists who try to appear as reasonable people.
The notion of Militantism and clear radicalism goes against their program and their existence. This is why we must use it and not fall into their trap by saying that radicality = extremism
Radicalism is a spectra of political vision. (for exemple, Macron is a radical liberal). Extremism is set on violence.
Radicalism is related to the political vision it fights and the sociological context of the struggle
&
Extremism is not related to the political vision it fight, its the extrem status and nature of the political vision.
Example with FEMINISM:
- Radicality (in our current world) is saying that we must end patriarchy by changing the entire system.
- Extremism would be believing that only violent actions (like the sufragettes) can creates changes for women.
Example with CAPITALISM:
- Radicality (in our current world) is saying that capitalism is one of the disease of the human civilization
- Extremism would be believing that only violent actions or state coup are the only way to take down capitalism
Example with MERITOCRACY:
- Radicality (in our current world) is saying that Meritocracy is what helps Capitalism strive and keep people in situation of inequalities.
- Extremism would be believing that only by killing the rich we can create a equal distribution of wealth.
What you must understand is that Radicality is related to the sociological context of the struggle. Meaning that in a different context, lets say a more social environment, a specific radical statement like "meritocracy is a problem and we must end it" will not be as radical.
Radicality evolves where extremism remains extremism.
The reason why you think I have a very different set of definition, is because you live in a world where definitions are set by those in power. And right now, those in power are radical liberal, capitalist who are also rich pro status co wannabe progressists who try to appear as reasonable people.
The notion of Militantism and clear radicalism goes against their program and their existence. This is why we must use it and not fall into their trap by saying that radicality = extremism
https://www.reuters.com/world/afric...-banning-gay-sex-unconstitutional-2024-06-21/
A namibian court just declared the countries ban on homosexuality as unconstitutional, a surprisingly positive decision in times when most of Africa becomes even more homophobic and evangelical pastors aswell as other extreme clergyman of other religions call louder and louder for either death or expulsion of all LGBTIQ+ from their countries.
A namibian court just declared the countries ban on homosexuality as unconstitutional, a surprisingly positive decision in times when most of Africa becomes even more homophobic and evangelical pastors aswell as other extreme clergyman of other religions call louder and louder for either death or expulsion of all LGBTIQ+ from their countries.
Last edited:
Yeah and funnily enough those tend to be the loudest alongside politicians to claim that LGBTIQ+ were a western colonialist ploy "to destroy african culture", meanwhile the latter are cozy with China and/or Russia, so just another foreign power who are eager to extract the resources that are left in Africa.
