Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine #votebluenomatterwhat are you having fun al? are you having van al? gaolang>jurota i refuse to pay my taxes imagine thinking trump is the good guy is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? it's over for trump life goal sister harem loli mfw kamala harris can actually win tax is the best thing ever happened to us they tried to kill trump because he's the good guy trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you worst thread ever
Using the term left wing and right wing to label political families originated the French Revolution of the late 1700s. France revolted against the monarchy, and when it was time to decide what role the King would play in society, those who supported to the old monarchy sat on the right side of the National Assembly. Those who supported the revolution and the new republic sat on the left. Hierarchy and staus quo on the right and later become conservatism, emancipation and liberty on the left and later become progressive. This became the core values that got more broad as centuries passed.
Then there's the history of liberty and freedom as a political value dating back to Ancient Greece, Acient Rome and the Athens. To keep this part from being too long, they settled on the definition of freedom as being "Freedom is both ruling and being ruled by, and the being able to live as one wishes without interference from others." During the conceptualization of Democracy, they made it quite clear that Freedom and Democracy is impossible without equality.
From history alone, Equality, liberty and freedom were left wing ideals.
Then there's the history of liberty and freedom as a political value dating back to Ancient Greece, Acient Rome and the Athens. To keep this part from being too long, they settled on the definition of freedom as being "Freedom is both ruling and being ruled by, and the being able to live as one wishes without interference from others." During the conceptualization of Democracy, they made it quite clear that Freedom and Democracy is impossible without equality.
From history alone, Equality, liberty and freedom were left wing ideals.
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.
I literally said the terms became more broad as centuries passed, blatantly saying they changed. At least get that right when you preach.
And once again, stick to how things are now, instead of using your own idealism to create new versions of words under the guise of "language evolves." Your versions are yours alone.
And once again, stick to how things are now, instead of using your own idealism to create new versions of words under the guise of "language evolves." Your versions are yours alone.
I'm the mirror. I'm only showing you who you are :)
Saying it and understanding it are two different things. When you claim that I don't understand the left and you give me the state of the left of the first french assemblee... It gives me the message that you don't really get how it evolved.
My version is not my "own".. it's simply how leftism is today. Like I already told you many times before, I'm not an extrem leftist and I'm mainly showing you things that make consensus on the left.
Idealism was part of leftism 3 hundreds years ago. That's why it's not pertinent to talk about a real conflict between materialism and idealism then (even tho it was already there), the problem was the monarchy and to defeat it, we needed to be idealists and materialist at the same time, we needed to think outside of the divine carcan.
This is not the case anymore. Now, we can see why idealism do not work and why a materialist approach is a necessity. THIS, is the current state of the right VS the left today.
So yeah, you don't get that, because where you live (if I recall you live in the US ?), idealists have the power when materialists are not even organized enough to fight the streets efficiently.
This is not me inventing words or relying on the evolution of language. This is the state of the major conflict today, that might change our society forever !
ANYONE that call themselves an idealist on the left today, do not understand their real place on the political spectrum !
Saying it and understanding it are two different things. When you claim that I don't understand the left and you give me the state of the left of the first french assemblee... It gives me the message that you don't really get how it evolved.
My version is not my "own".. it's simply how leftism is today. Like I already told you many times before, I'm not an extrem leftist and I'm mainly showing you things that make consensus on the left.
Idealism was part of leftism 3 hundreds years ago. That's why it's not pertinent to talk about a real conflict between materialism and idealism then (even tho it was already there), the problem was the monarchy and to defeat it, we needed to be idealists and materialist at the same time, we needed to think outside of the divine carcan.
This is not the case anymore. Now, we can see why idealism do not work and why a materialist approach is a necessity. THIS, is the current state of the right VS the left today.
So yeah, you don't get that, because where you live (if I recall you live in the US ?), idealists have the power when materialists are not even organized enough to fight the streets efficiently.
This is not me inventing words or relying on the evolution of language. This is the state of the major conflict today, that might change our society forever !
ANYONE that call themselves an idealist on the left today, do not understand their real place on the political spectrum !