Why can't right wingers distinguish between ''left'' liberals like Hillary Clinton and actual leftists?
Why do they mistake actual socialists with capitalists using egalitarian rhethoric (mostly focused on gender and race, not class) to garner voter support?
Because their working class base might get exposed to actual leftist ideas, or they might realise that repubs and dems aren't that different apart from idpol
You expect people who believe in 'muh free market' and 'muh invisble hand' to be radical thinkers?
It's funny most CEOs of big companies even support government regulation, because they know it's needed to keep immoral busineses in check
if almost as if actual Orthodox Marxists are totally irrelevant, and communism becomes an empty buzzword like fascism
huh really makes you think
At least left-liberals have some understanding of economics, unlike radical leftists
>if your view doesn't fit my view where everything is about production and efficiency, you don't understand economics
>muh economics
what's next, human nature?
You know, I've always wondered if the 'government bailouts of banks are communism!' meme isn't the result of pure idiocy but purposeful disinformation.
>but purposeful disinformation
Like so many things such as pic related or pretending liberals are leftists
because they dont want to, its better to lump all they disagree with under one confused umbrella term, so that leftist and liberal mean the same thing, and they are all for 'socialism' and want people to be poor and gay and controlled by the state
its the same among liberals and regressive pseudo leftists, they put everione they dont like under 'fascist', and these are all racist/sexist/whateverist and want everione to be poor and opressed and controlled by the corporations
same goes for conspiracy theorists, and 'greens' and any other distinguishable ideological group
someone somewhere is surely rubbing their hands together at all that crap
or pretending America even has a left wing
>gives examples of people generalizing
>goes on generalizing all problems with 'muh jews'
didnt even mention them at all, your hed is full of memes
I mean, uh, Marxian economics is on the same meme-tier level as Austrian economics.
Of course it's intentional misinformation. If you don't have a substantive critique of something, start name-calling.
I don't see in what world Marxian economics don't make sense.
CEOs, stock market speculators, landlords etc. create 0 (zero) value. It's only very rarely that a CEO is a glorified administrator, but in most cases just delegates administration to other people.
There are other aspects of Marxian economics that are questionable, although I agree with the fact that CEOs barely create any value
Why can't Americans understand what liberal means?
Could you tell me what aspects you think are questionable?
>labor theory of value
the left does exist, but the media spend so much time painting the liberals as the left that the real leftists has lost their voice
Because on the scale of political views that are actually relevant, "left" liberals are the leftists.
You mean the same way Marxists think every right wing ideology is Fascism?
>being a cuck to 'the great job creators'
the factory workers can run a factory better than some guy who inherited the property rights from his rich daddy and has never set foot in a factory
They're not economically leftists in any way when they suck Wall Street dick.
No, I can distinguish between conservatives, libertarians and fascists. I'm not one of those 'trump is hitler!' retards.
>generalizing a group of people to accuse of them of generalizing
In most of the western world being left or right is defined on only one stance nowadays: immigration
Calling someone a "cuck" is not an argument for an outdated economic theory, try again
>tfw anti-immigration leftist
>either you're a marxist or you mindlessly worship free-market capitalism
>health care? regulations? education? lol who cares about that shit
>tfw pro-immigration rightist
youtube.com
>tfw indifferent on immigration centrist
>Why can't right wingers distinguish between ''left'' liberals like Hillary Clinton and actual leftists?
Because the only Left that really exists in the West these days is the Hillary Clinton-kind of social justice warrior, that has completely ignored class.
I used to consider myself a Leftist when I was younger, and part of the reason was because they really tried to open society both in speech and discussion.
But these days they are a very negative force in my opinion, and I can't in good conscience use the moniker any longer.
>tfw anti-immigration leftist but only coz i acknowledge that both native and immigrant working class will suffer more exploitation
The middle class meme completely ruined class consciousness. Now that everyone is considered the middle class, people will think "oh there are people who have it worse than me, I have no right to complain", even though there are only 2 classes: the working class and the privilged class
Me too, user.
I hate how the immigration discussion is mostly about cultural bullshit between 'muh multiculturalism' ''''left'''' liberals and 'muh ethnostates' conservatives instead of 'muh workers' leftists and 'muh job creators' right-wingers.
Realistically, a right-winger would be pro-immigration and a left-winger against it. But politics is more about identity politics and culture war nowadays.
The problem is also that it's harder for the Right to ignore the Left and treat them with contempt when they are talking about the working class. Because the working class is such a large part of society, and the last thing the Right wants is disorder.
Because they're still left of center-right, even if that's just center.
>tfw right-wing politicians will never be honest and just outright say 'fuck the workers, we're here for the business owners'
>a Marxist doesn't like "economics"
Holy shit you can't make this stuff up
Yeah, but it's also not true that they are always like that either. Because if they were, most European nations wouldn't be social-democracies. The Right and Left could actually agree on a lot of things in some distant past, or at least have a dialectical discussion, unlike today, where every single discussion is reduced to evil or bigoted motivations on either side.
>there's only one school of economics
But there are only a few that are relevant and putting modern economists into schools kind of misses the point since they tend to draw on multiple schools in practice
>privilged class
Sorry, that's all the white cisgendered Christian males that are privileged, not people who come from actually wealthy and politically influential backgrounds.
do children really not bully each other any more or what
Despite the massive intellectual feat that Marx's Capital represents, the Marxian contribution to economics can be readily summarized as virtually zero. Professional economics as it exists today reflects no indication that Karl Marx ever existed. This neither denies nor denigrates Capital as an intellectual achievement, and perhaps in its way the culmination of classical economics. But the development of modern economics had simply ignored Marx. Even economists who are Marxists typically utilize a set of analytical tools to which Marx contributed nothing, and have recourse to Marx only for ideological, political, or historical purposes. -Thomas Sowell
Marx was an important and influential thinker, and Marxism has been a doctrine with intellectual and practical influence. The fact is, however, that most serious English-speaking economists regard Marxist economics as an irrelevant dead end
-Robert Solow
"Economists working in the Marxian-Sraffian tradition represent a small minority of modern economists, and that their writings have virtually no impact upon the professional work of most economists in major English-language universities"
-George Stigler
>actual socialists
>zizek
>if I keep spamming this, it will eventually be true!
>I can't argue against two nobel laureates stating what is blatantly obvious to anyone who has even taken a class of economics
They do, but they get political correctness drilled into them from an early age.
Remembering the pseudopolitical bullshit they'd try and teach me in early education makes me awful mad in retrospect.
>zizek
>actual leftist
They call liberals left because they are the only relevant opposition left of them.
The entire 20th century proved what a meme Marxism really is.
Reminder that Zizek is a fascist.
t. buttblasted liberals
>LVT
user pls stop
>Nobel in economics
not a real nobel prize
Not an argument you fucking ignorant faggot. Go back to whatever shithole you came from
He doesn't have an actual alternative to capitalism. He only """"" critiques"""" capitalism by applying psychoanalysis (aka meaningless deconstructionist frog drivel) to it.
>He doesn't have an actual alternative to capitalism.
He's a communist.
Zizek is a nazi and he ain't my comrade.
He likes capitalism, as long as it does a lot of charity.
His constant Starbucks green coffee donating to South America and Africa examples show so.
this is satire right
ethics of consumption, cultural capitalism, voluntary distribution of wealth with charity and donations, etc.
>He's a communist.
So he doesn't have an alternative
those are all things he criticizes though
he doesn't believe in dumb shit like ethical consumption and lifestylism
Communism has never been tried.
Plymouth Bay Colony
>I can't argue against two nobel laureates stating what is blatantly obvious to anyone who has even taken a class of economics
>I still haven't forgiven Sraffa for his demolition of Hayek.
Liberals are the OG left wing bruh.
It's the same mentality that leads liberals to see moderate conservatives as mouth-foaming stormfags. There's just too much polarization.
liberals are right-wing though
>actual leftists
Is this another leftcuck meem like "real socialism"
Why cant leftists distinguish between "right" conservatives like Mike Pence from actual Rightists?
Why do they mistake actual capitalists for fascists using egalitarian rhetoric (mostly focusing on gender and race, not class) to garner voter support?
Keep telling us how that economics is working out mate. Stagnant wages, increased rents, increases in regressive taxes like VAT. Yeah, really successful.
Stagnant wages is a myth and taxes on consumption are literally the only reasons you have a welfare state and are infinitely better than taxes on corps or income
>unironically believing in the left/right dichotomy
Get out, all of you!
>all those things
>the work of left-liberals
It's obviously real in some ways.
Capitalists and fascists want hierarchies for different reasons which is a traditionally right-wing ideal.
In fact, fascist hierarchy is much more preferable to a capitalist hierarchy from a leftist viewpoint, because fascism espouses ideas of national unity rather than capitalist-style division.
>not the fault of centrists who fell for the neoliberal meme
All the neoliberal-tinged centrists really did was push Reaganomics to the rest of the world. And now we're fucked.
Increased rents have often occurred with liberals unhealthy love of rent controls
sounds like there's a whole lot of wealthsplaining in that post to me
ourworldindata.org
Oh no we're all doomed! Whatever you do, don't look up global income inequali- oh no it's too late! Someone has posted it
ourworldindata.org
>And now we're fucked.
Oh boy, China has gotten rich off of state-sponsored capitalism and India has gotten some scraps, too! This obviously means that Western economies are in great shape and not in danger of imploding!
Now I'm happy for the Chinese and Indians, but I'm more interested in the economic health of the Western democracies whose economic collapse will threaten the stability of the rest of the world.
>reagan
>thatcher
>centrists
Name a single Western country that is neoliberal.
The largest economy in the world and leader of the Western bloc has an economy based on neoliberal concepts.
Russia in the 90's is a far better example of where neoliberals will take a country if left unchecked.
literally only gotten wealthy after neoliberal reform
My nigga
Or how they seem to be pushing Catholicism, when this guy is in charge.
Both the Democratic and the Republican party are interested in supporting the wealthy. That's the job of this government and it always has been. The only reason we don't live in a hell, the only reason the very working class that supported trump doesn't live in hell, is because of those "socialist" policies, designed not to help the workers directly, but to keep the workers from revolting against the system by keeping them just happy enough to be complacent. That's the purpose of the democrats: to keep the workers happy enough without making the wealthy lose anything.
Even from the beginning, the working class called the American Revolution a "rich man's war".
>Russia in the 90's
>neoliberal
When will this meme die? From 1992 to 1997 Russian government revenues oscillated at about 35 to 40 percent of GDP, from 1993 to 1997 Russian government spending oscillated at about 42 to 50 percent of GDP. Under Gaidar, Russian government spending oscillated at about 65 to 71 percent of GDP, while import subsidies were just about 10.5 percent of GDP. In 1997, Russia had an average tariff rate of 13.4 percent. Right now, Russia is much more economically liberal than it was under Yeltsin.
I'm a right winger, and I am fully aware of the difference between US Democrat-leftists and Socialist/Communist/More traditional leftists.
You are wrong.
Your post is wrong.
Delete it.
No one gives a shit you fucking autistic leftist.
Dear God I have to wonder why you lot larp on so much when you don't even have a seat at the table
hillary clinton supported policies that redistributed wealth in an attempt to engineer social welfare thus she was a socialist
OP was talking about right wingers as a whole. Not just you.
Of fucking course government spending rose as a percentage of GDP when the entire GDP itself shrunk so much. Fat cats will always be fat cats, regardless of the circumstances.
Simply looking at percentages gets you nowhere without some context.
But I'm 100% sure that I am not the ONLY one.
Good for you
How? They sat on the left of the national assembly, giving the left-right dichotomy meaning.
You might wanna tell the rest of the right wingers on pol about that.
They can and do, we knew Hillary is a snake who will call herself whatever she needed to take power. Most people knew she wasn't a leftist, the part they really disliked was that the was Hillary Clinton.
Consider this, how many times did you hear ANYONE accuse Hillary of being a "communist"? I have never heard anyone publicly or privately claim that Hillary is a secret marxist who would try to bring socialism to the states, unlike what we heard about Obama. Even your most backwoods gun-totin' redneck didn't call Hillary a communist, they just hated her because people know she is a corrupt, power hungry, disgusting excuse for a human being.
>burger education
>burger politics
this is why trump winning was a good thing