What kinda funny name u call liberals? The Poll

cucks?

You only get the choices available, or make up new ones. i'm going to change my legal name to tardlib gaycuck, for example.

"Cultural Marxists"

I'm thinking this guy's on the lower end of sophistication as far as these things go. I'm wondering about demonsexuals, though, do liberals have a sexual attraction to demons, or are they the demons themselves?

I am into demons

I would be honored to be recognized as a commiequeen tbh

Like, I at one point seriously considered changing my name to Rosa, so it's only fair

Cultural Marxists is an excellent choice.

no 'shitlibs' no credibility

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

does anyone know the etymology of "cultural marxist"? at least as it's used by contemporary conservative writers.

I think Paul Weyrich is supposed to have helped popularise the term?

Those who came up with Political Correctness, which we more accurately call "Cultural Marxism," did so in a deliberate fashion. I'm not going to go into the whole history of the Frankfurt School and Herbert Marcuse and the other people responsible for this. Suffice it to say that the United States is very close to becoming a state totally dominated by an alien ideology, an ideology bitterly hostile to Western culture. Even now, for the first time in their lives, people have to be afraid of what they say. This has never been true in the history of our country. Yet today, if you say the "wrong thing," you suddenly have legal problems, political problems, you might even lose your job or be expelled from college. Certain topics are forbidden. You can,t approach the truth about a lot of different subjects. If you do, you are immediately branded as "racist", "sexist", "homophobic", "insensitive", or "judgmental."

http://www.nationalcenter.org/Weyrich299.html

I'm trying to think of funny names for liberals that are only used by their opponents on the hard left rather than by right-wingers e.g. "gliberals"

I like the different versions of "gauche caviar" used around the world:

It is broadly similar to the English Champagne socialist, the American Limousine liberal, the German Salonkommunist, the Italian Radical Chic, the Brazilian Portuguese esquerda festiva, and the Danish Kystbanesocialist, referring to well-off coastal neighborhoods north of Copenhagen. Other similar terms in English include Hampstead liberal, liberal elite, chardonnay socialist and Bollinger Bolshevik.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauche_caviar

I wonder how far back those terms go? "Bollinger Bolshevik" comes from what Brendan Bracken supposedly said to Nye Bevan at a partly held by Max Beaverbrook:

"You Bollinger Bolshevik, you ritzy Robespierre, you lounge-lizard Lenin, look at you, swilling Max's champagne and calling yourself a socialist"

and that was apparently recounted in the press for the first time in when Bracken died in 1958

That isn't an argument against Socialism--it's an argument against the hypocrites who pretend to be Christians--the people who profess to "Love their neighbours as themselves"--who pretend to believe in Universal Brotherhood, and that they do not love the world or the things of the world and say that they are merely "Pilgrims on their way to a better land". As for why I don't do it--why should I? I don't pretend to be a Christian. But you're all "Christians"--why don't you do it?'

I don't mean to suggest that the variations on "Champagne socialist" are examples of terms used by left-wingers btw, those were two unrelated thoughts.

"gliberals" seems to come from this 1973 Ishmael Reed column? I hadn't realised:

http://www.nytimes.com/1973/03/31/archives/gliberals.html?_r=0

where are the lefty names for liberals? we hate them just as much.

i just lump them in with all the other right wing scum

how do left-wing people who hate liberals identify themselves? communists? nowadays seeing a lot of people calling themselves 'democratic socialists' which seems like a cop-out

People have been calling themselves 'democratic socialists' for about 130 years.

but how is that different from being a liberal?

there's a US/UK (maybe the rest of Europe?) divide between the meaning and usage of "liberal". i'd say in the US it connotes a position further to the left than it does for us

ok, so it's just a matter of degree

also confused by the UK having a historical Liberal Party, now the Liberal Democrats, more or less - both parties largely supported capitalist market economics

still find it amusing that wikipedia's list of "notable democratic socialists" includes both Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Billy Bragg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism#Notable_democratic_socialists

my feeling is that in the economic sphere a liberal is somebody who broadly favours capitalism but would like to take the edge of some of its worst excesses so they can sleep better at night

xp also finds room for Rosa Luxemburg and Denis Healey so it seems a fairly non-specific category

so is democratic socialism leninism with elections? do you have to be strictly anti-market, like a pure command economy?

ime, the pejorative use of 'liberal' in the US often comes with a critique of identity politics (vs class politics), incrementalism (vs pushing for substantial short-term reform) and faith in the market.

it's not obvious to me that Democracy can replace the market as a system of allocation. how do democratic socialists imagine it working, you vote for what colour t-shirt you want to wear?

i think the broadest definition of socialism that's still socialism requires a belief that a nation's - or ultimately the world's - economic activity should be managed in the interests of the whole population, and that economic activity focused on private interests should at the very least be strongly managed by whatever form of State exists

that definition includes liberalism

as i say, not here

and don't even look at "economic liberalism" in Wikipedia cos that's thrown me right out

but this is more or less my version of liberalism: "a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with representative democracy under the rule of law and emphasizes economic freedoms in economic liberalism."

The general idea (never properly realised) of classic post-war democratic socialism was arguably that housing, healthcare, transportation, education, utilities, etc, should be taken out of the realm of profit and centrally organised for the benefit of all. I've not come across many (any?) US liberals following the same line.

It used to be that liberals were someone who believed in liberalism. In Denmark the 'Liberal Alliance' are ultra freemarket fundamentalists, as in Ayn Rand worshippers. In the olden days, the two biggest parties in the parliament was the party of the aristocracy, who sat on the right side, and of the bourgoisie, who sat on the left. For that reason, the main right-wing party in Denmark is still called Left, even though a bunch of parties has appeared that are more leftwing, including the most centrist of them all, confusingly called Radical Left. This development never happened in the US, I guess.

someone with socialist principles as you define them could still conclude that the market is in many (or even most) cases a good way to manage economic activity in the interest of the whole population (particularly given practical informational and political constraints). this is what most liberals (prob in the UK and US) believe: people who support capitalism don't like rapacious greed and inequality in and of themselves (individual successful capitalists probably do), they just see the process as an efficient way of producing the stuff

unless you have some categorical moral or practical objection to the market itself, i don't get why define a separate ideological category for someone who you disagree with only as a matter of degree

i have a categorical moral objection

but (not really) joking aside, i don't think of liberalism or socialism as simply "whatever system produces the greatest amount of material goods, irrespective of their distribution", which feels like what you're saying unless i misunderstand?

i don't really go around worrying about who my ideological enemies are btw, i figure that's for the show courts to decide

The general idea (never properly realised) of classic post-war democratic socialism was arguably that housing, healthcare, transportation, education, utilities, etc, should be taken out of the realm of profit and centrally organised for the benefit of all. I've not come across many (any?) US liberals following the same line.

this is a pretty useful definition, actually. so basically markets for non-necessities, but everything else you line up for. aside from housing, this basically describes how the economy of where i live (Québec) is organized. it's ok, i guess? people complain about corruption and inefficiencies all the time but it's hard to really know how much of that is unique to us for other reasons. i'm not sure i would want housing to be provided by my government, we have agreeably low rent as is, and i was always able to find a nice place to live in the neighborhood i wanted.

i think the definition of liberal you guys are using is what's now called 'libertarian' or 'classical liberal'. annoying inconsistent terminology. imo liberals of today often feel a tension between libertarian arguments of economic liberty (which they value), and egalitarian or social justice arguments (which they also value). for example, many liberals like cash redistribution because it balances both: giving poor people rich people's money is egalitarian, but also liberal: they can spend the cash on whatever they want. maybe democratic socialists value economic freedom less, and think it's better to spend that money on housing, healthcare, transport, and all the other things ShariVari mentions above. that would be a pretty useful distinction. but i think most people are between the two, not one or the other

i have a categorical moral objection

― you can't drowned a duck (Noodle Vague), Sunday, September 4, 2016 12:56 PM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

what is it?

was joking, sort of. but freedom to exploit resources natural or human is something i find morally dubious. you can accept capitalism's evolutionary importance in human societies without believing it's a desirable end point?

i don't necessarily think of the political as mapping onto the ethical tho.

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

3 cheers for our side

http://68.media.tumblr.com/9092d7cd63573ed8a52441c5a012c474/tumblr_nsyt55m5ew1ucinouo1_400.jpg

In the US, it is popular amongst our 'liberals' to call anyone who is to the left of the NY Times editorial page "purists," whereupon lefties hit said Clintonistas with a sock o' manure.