Kiroff wrote:You must've missed the memo. Somewhere around the 1960's.
Must be a North American thing. Everywhere else the difference between liberal and communist is quite clear, as far as I know.
Kiroff wrote:trying to correct wrongs with stupid solutions
Communists don't try to Band-Aid a rotten system (a stupid solution). They act to overthrow the system (a much better and radical solution).
Kiroff wrote:Social liberalism
Welfare state, if that's what you mean, is nothing but a liberal tool for preventing or at least delaying the revolution. Once people are aware of that, they'll realize communism is contradictory to liberalism.
Kiroff wrote:idealism
All people form ANY political sides are idealists as they all have ideals they fight for or at least believe in. That's moral idealism.
The Marxist philosophy is dialectical
materialism (i.e. the opposite of philosophical idealism).
Kiroff wrote:"white guilt."
This is a problem with communists who ignore the Marxist method of analysis. Communists are both anti-imperialists AND internationalists. They should not be ashamed of what their capitalist governments have done or are doing and more importantly, they should know who's the CLASS ally and who's the CLASS enemy, both at home and in the rest of the world.
Kiroff wrote:I don't know if you've turned on the commercial news anytime in the last few years, but whenever liberals try to do one of the above, it's called socialism.
Maybe if Communist Parties clarified their stance and cared to oppose and denounce liberal policies and ideology coming from both the government and from libertarian think tanks, the situation wouldn't be so f***ed up. For the communist struggle to be successful, it must be done on three fronts at the same time: political, economical and philosophical/ideological. And what about the "News" and their usual crap? It's propaganda from A to Z and should be denounced, like the rest, pitylessly.
Kiroff wrote:The ultimate divide in American and Canadian politics is between city and country. Communists' goal is to unite the two.
And in the end, communism is internationalist. Workers all over the world have the same basic interests whether in the city or the country. Again, this artificial division should be fought against.
Kiroff wrote:Therefore, we will need support from both parties
As it has always been the case: urban proletarians and agricultural workers (precisely those who depend on land and machine owners).
Kiroff wrote:and not be associated with "pinko liberal faggots" by one of the parties and "bloodthirsty murderers" by the other.
Labels are irrelevant when people are class conscious and aware of what communism means. So again, it's the Communist Parties' responsibility to "enlighten".
Kiroff wrote:The conservatives are for the advancement of the countryside, in part by trying to degrade the cities to recentralize on the countryside, as futile as that is, because even if they succeed, there will just be new cities, and the liberals are for a further grip of the cities on the countryside. That's why we, as communists must not associate with one rather than the other.
I'm not sure I follow you anymore. In your first post, were you proposing an alignment of "images" for disinformation purposes or an actual political alliance? Why propose a communist alignment with conservatives, if you understand they've got all things upside down?
Also why do think conservatives and liberals are so different? Conservatives are just liberals who happen to be more religious than others and who use religion and traditions to justify the system even more. Conservative/liberal, conservative/labour, republican-neocon/democrat, fundamentalist zealot/reformist, ... their differences are ONLY in their policy's irrelevant details and NOT in their allegiance to the capitalist system.
The only forces communists must associate with are the progressive forces in society whoever they may be, not proponents of the system (i.e. reactionaries), which both "conservatives" and liberals/libertarians are.