Listen to a reading of this article (reading by Tim Foley): During an appearance on ABC’s This Week with Jonathan Karl, Secretary of State Tony Blinken explicitly said that the US would not oppose Ukraine using US-supplied longer-range missiles to attack deep inside Russian territory, a move that Moscow
hey comrade I like dunking on the libs too but this is a little ableist
Ahh yes, I forgot that knowing basic history makes me a capitalist?
When did the modern Russian state become anything close to communist or socialist again?
You’re not a capitalist, you’re just a lib bootlicker
Capitalists don’t waste their time defending capitalism online, they’re busy doing drugs and pretending to work
Lol, liberals aren’t capitalist?
Not generally. The capitalist class is a specific thing, it’s not based on vibes.
Lol, liberalism just isn’t a vibe or a neat slur to throw at people who don’t embrace every single one of your ideologies. It’s an actual political and economic theory proposed by John Locke, built around free market capitalism.
American politics have reshaped the national understand of the word liberal to suit their bi-polar view of geopolitics. But if we utilizing recognized geopolitical terminology, all liberals are proudly free market capitalist.
I don’t really even understand your use of the word if it isn’t recognizing the difference between the preferred economic systems. If liberals aren’t capitalist, what is your problem with them? In your “understanding” of the definition, can a person be a liberal and a socialist?
I suspect you don’t really understand political theory very well.
Of course liberals support capitalism and cannot be socialist. The problem is that capitalist is simply not the word for someone who supports capitalism in the same way that socialist is the word for someone who supports socialism. It’s an unintuitive language quirk, but not a unique one.
If we were to redefine capitalist to mean “everyone who supports capitalism” we need a new word for what capitalist means. And considering “everyone who supports capitalism” is a group consisting basically only of liberals and fascists, I don’t see why such a word is necessary. 99% of the time you would use this redefined form of capitalist, liberal would be sufficient.
I suspect that you are a pig with shit on its balls
Sounds like a long way to explain you’re understanding of geopolitics is based in vibes…
Why would we need a new word? You have drawn a distinction between people who support the capitalist system and “capitalist” but you haven’t given a reason why, or even your definition of the meaning of “capitalist”. You are talking out of your ass.
Post WW1 that’s generally the make up countries supporting capitalism. Liberals who support free market capitalism, and fascist who utilize state controlled capitalism as a means to gather support for their party.
Maybe if you are allergic to nuance, or being correct? The reason we differentiate between these ideologies is because there are large differences in how they operate as a state. You can’t apply the same revolutionary strategies on a fascist state as you would with a liberal one, they vastly different in hierarchical structure.
We both identify as leftist, an ideology built upon bringing people together in unity to stand against empire. You have to wonder what’s the real point of the constant purity testing and gate keeping I keep seeing in these instances. How effective of a leftist are you if you spend so much time labeling other leftist as libs?
This type of attitude is the same reason a lot of the socialist organizations I’ve been a part of in the last 20 years have fallen apart. Combative egos and strict adherence to dogma instead of actually providing mutual aid and open discord.
I wasn’t replying to you liberal
I’m fairly sure they’re talking about the image…
Lol, got an example of the US or the ussr accelerating a proxy war to a hot war over supplying arms?
Dang, you got us you master rhetoritician. There has never been a nuclear war so there’s no reason to think there may ever be a nuclear war. Gosh you’re smart. Especially when your arguments alternate between smug inanity and barely controlled frothing at the mouth.
Opposed to…ah yes, they have nuke, which apparently gives them a license to invade whoever they want. Do you not see the problem with setting that precedent?
Lol, really a bit of a purple prose there. I’m being smug and silly, yet frothing from the mouth?