What do you want to reply to something like that ? You just show how little you understand what you are talking about and I know that no matter what I will say, you will parade like you killed the game by saying more BS... It's useless with post like this.
Funny because what you just explained in your first paragraph (about the national assembly) is what I described here:
What you don't get on the other hand, is that politics evolves with time. What is left now is not the same as what was left then.
Back then, the left and the movement of revolution was pushed by the progressist bourgeoisie for the interest of the people. This was the birth of liberalism and capitalism as we know it today. Since then this alliance between the bourgeoisie and the working class was ruptured. Today, the dominant class is the bourgeoisie and thus the battle of the past are not the same as the struggles of today.
While the fundamental values remains the sames (reformism/change/progressism/materialism/equality VS conservatism/idealism/authoritarism/hierarchy) the struggle, actors and overall value are completely different.
When the problem - in the past - was feodalism and the monarchy, the current problem is now capitalism and the class domination of rich over poor.
The bourgeoisie of today is far more progressist than the bourgeoisie of the past. So while liberty and freedom were mainly used by the bourgeoisie for the people in the past to push reforms and change, it's now used by the current bourgeoisie to keep it's priviledges and thus liberty and freedom are used by BOTH sides for two very DIFFERENT things:
Reformism VS Conservatism : The liberty to profit from capitalim and the freedom to live a normal life without oppression.
So now, those who are fighting to maintain "freedom" are usually not leftists, unless we are talking about social movement or minorities, they are rightist. This is why those who talked about freedom the MOST in this thread are people like Ravager or Nameless or you who keep on saying that I want to end "freedom of speech".
The left do not need to speak about freedom 24/7, it's in our blood, we know what it means, our fight are indivisible from the notion of freedom ! But you guys... are appropriating this notion to serve your own interest, to defend the status co and to attack those, like me, who actually want to change things... by pushing an actual change actively.
In other words, you guys are my political enemies, not because you are on the right side, but because you do things that goes AGAINST change by using liberty and freedom as an excuse.
And this is why there is a left and a right today, different from what they were 3 centuries ago and why telling me that I have a narrow minded vision of what the left is or should be is a proof that you don't understand how the political battlefield has evolve across the ages and that you are - without realizing - placing yourself on the side of the dominant class and not the side of those who are oppressed or exploited.
Funny because what you just explained in your first paragraph (about the national assembly) is what I described here:
What you don't get on the other hand, is that politics evolves with time. What is left now is not the same as what was left then.
Back then, the left and the movement of revolution was pushed by the progressist bourgeoisie for the interest of the people. This was the birth of liberalism and capitalism as we know it today. Since then this alliance between the bourgeoisie and the working class was ruptured. Today, the dominant class is the bourgeoisie and thus the battle of the past are not the same as the struggles of today.
While the fundamental values remains the sames (reformism/change/progressism/materialism/equality VS conservatism/idealism/authoritarism/hierarchy) the struggle, actors and overall value are completely different.
When the problem - in the past - was feodalism and the monarchy, the current problem is now capitalism and the class domination of rich over poor.
The bourgeoisie of today is far more progressist than the bourgeoisie of the past. So while liberty and freedom were mainly used by the bourgeoisie for the people in the past to push reforms and change, it's now used by the current bourgeoisie to keep it's priviledges and thus liberty and freedom are used by BOTH sides for two very DIFFERENT things:
Reformism VS Conservatism : The liberty to profit from capitalim and the freedom to live a normal life without oppression.
So now, those who are fighting to maintain "freedom" are usually not leftists, unless we are talking about social movement or minorities, they are rightist. This is why those who talked about freedom the MOST in this thread are people like Ravager or Nameless or you who keep on saying that I want to end "freedom of speech".
The left do not need to speak about freedom 24/7, it's in our blood, we know what it means, our fight are indivisible from the notion of freedom ! But you guys... are appropriating this notion to serve your own interest, to defend the status co and to attack those, like me, who actually want to change things... by pushing an actual change actively.
In other words, you guys are my political enemies, not because you are on the right side, but because you do things that goes AGAINST change by using liberty and freedom as an excuse.
And this is why there is a left and a right today, different from what they were 3 centuries ago and why telling me that I have a narrow minded vision of what the left is or should be is a proof that you don't understand how the political battlefield has evolve across the ages and that you are - without realizing - placing yourself on the side of the dominant class and not the side of those who are oppressed or exploited.
