[SolarCross]

The United States is at permanent war against our countries. So we must be at permanent war against the United States.

I'd say the US government and its associates are at war with the world just as it is at war with those unfortunates already under its dominion. That is the nature of government; to be at war with those not under their dominion with a view to putting them under it and to be at war with those already under their dominion with a view to keeping them there. All governments are like this not just the US it is just that the US government is the most powerful at this time and so can afford to be extravagantly aggressive and over-ambitious in its predations, but it doesn't do anything that any other government wouldn't do if it had the chance. Don't conflate normal US citizens with the government ruling in their name but against their interests.

[yiwahikanak]

There seems to be a problem with how the term liberalism is being used. When I talk about western liberalism, it doesn't matter to me what the differences are between Canadian Conseravtives, Liberals or New Democrats, as all of these political parties draw legitimacy from colonialism. Thus, the distinctions are unimportant, as each group will continue to uphold colonial policies regardless. However, if we are discussing Pinochet's Chile, one must make a distinction between the political ideology of Pinochet versus those he oppressed, else risk generalising to a point of nonsensical vagueness. At the same time, you can recognise that for the indigenous people's of Chile, a further oppression exists which is founded again in colonialism, and you can acknowledge that those non-indigenous people oppressed by Pinochet also benefit from that colonialism. This is intersectionalism at its most obvious, and to ignore this is to render any discussion essentially worthless.

[Pants-of-dog]

Well then Apparently Liberal Capitalist countries are the only ones that are ideologically hypocritical in international relations then, since they support the establishment and proliferation of right wing Capitalist dictatorships in the third world and sometimes even Totalitarian Left Wing dictatorships and religious fundamentalist dictatorships. That hypocrisy is the subject of a lot of resentment and is something that people don't understand. Is that just a mask for the overt colonialism of the 19th and 20th Century which is now covert? You wouldn't expect a Fascist state to support a Liberal or Communist government Same with the Communists.

I completely agree that the US and the UK and other colonial and imperialist nations that are also liberal democracies are hypocritical in their foreign policy.

Having said that, their behaviour is the same as the imperialist and colonialist behaviour of other countries that are not liberal democracies. However, the only reason that the other countries aren't hypocritical is because they treat their own citizens with the same contempt.

I think you are correct when you suggest it is just a mask for modern colonialism.

-----------------------------

Many ideas had their origin in classical times. The founding fathers have adopted those ancient principles that fitted their world view which was, on issues such as freedom of speech and religion, broadly libertarian (by modern standards).

At the very least, they have renewed ideas of freedom (from political over-reach) that have been dormant for thousands of years.

Sure. But you could just as easily say that they were broadly liberal by today's standards.

Again, freedom of speech in modern times came about as a result of democratic reforms in gov't, not through some organic mechanism of the free market or the NAP. Thus, it is easier to consider freedom of speech to be due to liberal rather than libertarian movements.

-----------------------------

Because they are.

Your predilection for assuming all people are either Fascists, radical leftists or "liberal capitalists" is infantile, dismissive, reductionist and simplistic. According to that paradigm, Pinochet and Allende were best buddies.

You should try a paradigm that is consistent with reality.

Ask your wife, since I had forgotten that she actually knows this:

Okay, if you have that perspective, and you think that liberals are at war against you (which they indeed are), then please inform Pants-of-Dog of that fact.

By accepting my beloved's point about Western liberalism, you implicitly accept that within liberalism there are many different movements, often with conflicting agendas. Thus, tarring all of liberalism with the same brush that should be limited to the oppressive ones is, as I said, reductionist and simplistic.

I really like this quote in Smith's article:

Pretty much. It is de facto war, if not de jure. The United States is at permanent war against our countries. So we must be at permanent war against the United States.

And many liberals have also been the victims of US oppression. But according to you, they are liberal capitalists, so they are on the same side. Contradict much?

---------------------------------

The sedition act and espionage act restrict(ed) freedom of speech.

The Supreme Court has recently ruled that speech can be considered to be "material support". So if you advise a "terrorist" to lay down their arms and pursue peaceful methods you could be prosecuted.

Holder v. Humanitarian law.

Freedom of speech is not, and never has been, completely unlimited. Libel and slander laws are another example of restrictions.

I'm curious what liberals think of protest movements that successfully overthrow democratically elected govts (with the assistance of the military), such as in Egypt and Thailand?

In my opinion (and I say that because I have no empirical support for this) the democracy that we have in the West is not necessarily the best or only system. The important thing is to have the powers that run the show be accountable to the people. It doesn't matter if they do it through elections or some other process. The point is to keep the powerful from oppressing the powerless.

[Rei Murasame]

There seems to be a problem with how the term liberalism is being used. When I talk about western liberalism, it doesn't matter to me what the differences are between Canadian Conseravtives, Liberals or New Democrats, as all of these political parties draw legitimacy from colonialism.

I consider all the parties you just named to be liberalism.

According to that paradigm, Pinochet and Allende were best buddies.

Pinochet was part of the liberal agenda, and Allende was a socialist. They were as such, complete opposites.

And many liberals have also been the victims of US oppression. But according to you, they are liberal capitalists, so they are on the same side.

Such as who?

Don't conflate normal US citizens with the government ruling in their name but against their interests.

They have a choice, so we shouldn't let anything stop us from classifying them as an enemy, if they don't turn against their own government.

[Pants-of-dog]

I consider all the parties you just named to be liberalism.

You really should address her point if you are going to reply to her post.

Pinochet was part of the liberal agenda, and Allende was a socialist. They were as such, complete opposites.

You are usually smarter than this.

The former killed people for political dissent. The latter championed elections and explicitly said he was not making Chile socialist. He was planning on putting Chile on a "path towards democratic socialism".

Thus Pinochet was a capitalist authoritarian, and Allende was a democratic socialist. Please note that democratic socialism is closer to modern liberalism than authoritarian capitalism. Your paradigm, however, is incapable of making these distinctions.

Such as who?

Are we talking only about Chile, or would you like me to list non-Chileans as well?

[Rei Murasame]

I don't know planet you are living on.

Yiwa just re-established that we are all in a war, a war that was declared by western liberalism, which is epitomised by the United States, against everyone else (ie, you, me, and whoever else). And that in fact the war was not declared, in fact the United States - the embodiment of western liberalism - IS WAR, and that it is basically white haute-bourgeoisie privilege over the entire planet which is IS WAR.

Therefore, logic should lead you to eventually understand that we are de facto at war against white hegemonic liberal-capitalist Judeo-Christian heteronormative-patriarchy. Do you accept that? Just say yes, and spare me the uphill argument to convince you of this.

[yiwahikanak]

I don't know planet you are living on.

Yiwa just re-established that we are all in a war, a war that was declared by western liberalism, which is epitomised by the United States, against everyone else. And that in fact the war was not declared, in fact the United States - the embodiment of western liberalism - IS WAR, and that it is basically white haute-bourgeoisie privilege over the entire planet which is IS WAR.

Therefore, logic should lead you to eventually understand that we are at war against white hegemonic liberal-capitalist Judeo-Christian heteronormative-patriarchy. Do you accept that? Just say yes, and spare me the uphill argument to convince you of this.

You stated that capitalist authoritarians are liberal.

This is only true in the context of western liberalism as expressed throug slavery, genocide and colonialism, where all internal political divisions amongst settler colonials are rendered unimportant.

It cannot also be true, however, when discussing those self-same divisions, as one must when distinguishing between people like Allende and Pinochet. You acknowledge these differences exist, and matter, thus it is not the case that you operate only from the first position.

Classifying capitalist authoritarians as liberal works only when viewed through the first lens. The conversation cannot be limited to one lens, as doing so ignores intersectionalism and once again....renders this conversation essentially pointless.

This is where I am having difficulty with what you are saying.

[Rainbow Crow]

I thought fascists loved war?

[Pants-of-dog]

I don't know planet you are living on.

Yiwa just re-established that we are all in a war, a war that was declared by western liberalism, which is epitomised by the United States, against everyone else. And that in fact the war was not declared, in fact the United States - the embodiment of western liberalism - IS WAR, and that it is basically white haute-bourgeoisie privilege over the entire planet which is IS WAR.

Therefore, logic should lead you to eventually understand that we are de facto at war against white hegemonic liberal-capitalist Judeo-Christian heteronormative-patriarchy. Do you accept that? Just say yes, and spare me the uphill argument to convince you of this.

No offense, but this last post was gibberish.

You seem to be ignoring reality so that you can continue with your unrealistic paradigm.

What would you call a black socialist living in the US that fights every day against US oppression through non-violent means?

[Rei Murasame]

I thought fascists loved war?

Against you, yes.

Classifying capitalist authoritarians as liberal works only when viewed through the first lens. The conversation cannot be limited to one lens, as doing so ignores intersectionalism and once again....renders this conversation essentially pointless.

Then let's not continue it, I don't think that anything can be gained from this. Ultimately, the only lens I will look through will be what you call 'the first lens'. I'm not interested in dialogue with white liberals, because I despise them, and they have no interest in doing anything that cuts against their own interests.

You can talk to them and try to find common ground with them if you want, but it's a waste of time. There is no common ground.

No offense, but this last post was gibberish.

No problem, I don't have an interest in trying to convince you because I don't genuinely think that you'd listen to me.

What would you call a black socialist living in the US that fights every day against US oppression through non-violent means?

I'd call that person a black socialist. And I might even have a half-way productive conversation with them.

[Pants-of-dog]

I'd call that person a black socialist.

But he is from the US and does not try to overthrow the gov't. You have called others liberal capitalists for doing the same thing.

What if he was a latino leftist (i.e. supports leftist economic policies but not a dictatorship of the proletariat)?

[Rei Murasame]

But he is from the US and does not try to overthrow the gov't.

I'd criticise him for not being interested in organising against the government, if that emerges to be the case.

What if he was a latino leftist (i.e. supports leftist economic policies but not a dictatorship of the proletariat)?

Be more specific. You already know that I praise the EZLN.

[Travesty]

@ POD

So there are distinctions among liberals on domestic issues and in foreign policy, some advocate non-violence while others don't etc. Just like there is a broad spectrum of far rightists and far leftisits some of which advocate non-violance (and those groups are extremely marginal just like Pacifistic liberals).

What you are doing is preventing your ideology (and by extension the globalist neo-colonial agenda pushed by said ideology) from being attacked by differentiating the various sub groups of liberalism and blaming it on them. Blame the neo-cons or the conservatives they don't really represent liberals. Stalinist's will also blame Trotskyst's for all their problems that didin't stop Liberals from painting the entire Radical left with the same colors during the Cold War. Thus far you have really claimed that the colonial puppets that Western Liberal governments install and proliferate in the third world are not liberals and don't represent you. Well congratulations.

And how do you propose that the Imperialist colonial agenda be contained or resisted? Violently? Non-Violently? Or do you think that other liberals in the West will just convince them to change their ways?

[Pants-of-dog]

I'd criticise him for not being interested in organising against the government, if that emerges to be the case.

He is organising against the gov't. Please read more carefully.

Be more specific. You already know that I praise the EZLN.

You know what, let's do this the easy way.

Please provide a clear definition of what you think a liberal is. Thank you.

------------------------------

@ POD

So there are distinctions among liberals on domestic issues and in foreign policy, some advocate non-violence while others don't etc. Just like there is a broad spectrum of far rightists and far leftisits some of which advocate non-violance (and those groups are extremely marginal just like Pacifistic liberals).

Yes. Liberalism comprises many different people and movements.

What you are doing is preventing your ideology (and by extension the globalist neo-colonial agenda pushed by said ideology) from being attacked by differentiating the various sub groups of liberalism and blaming it on them. Blame the neo-cons or the conservatives they don't really represent liberals. Stalinist's will also blame Trotskyst's for all their problems that didin't stop Liberals from painting the entire Radical left with the same colors during the Cold War. Thus far you have really claimed that the colonial puppets that Western Liberal governments install and proliferate in the third world are not liberals and don't represent you. Well congratulations.

Please don't accuse me of supporting " the globalist neo-colonial agenda pushed by said ideology" if you don't even know what my ideology is. Thank you.

You are correct that I think that only those groups that actually support imperialism should be accused of supporting imperialism. Is that a problem?

And how do you propose that the Imperialist colonial agenda be contained or resisted? Violently? Non-Violently? Or do you think that other liberals in the West will just convince them to change their ways?

It depends on the specific situation. Alternatively, you can just do what Rei does and support racist and oppressive gov'ts because they pay lip service to opposing US imperialism.

[Rei Murasame]

What you are doing is preventing your ideology (and by extension the globalist neo-colonial agenda pushed by said ideology) from being attacked by differentiating the various sub groups of liberalism and blaming it on them. Blame the neo-cons or the conservatives they don't really represent liberals.

That's a pretty good assessment of the situation, Travesty. I can't help but feel that all that twisting and turning that's going on is because for some reason Pants-of-Dog doesn't want to become a socialist or a third positionist, and doesn't want to advocate any form of committee organisation or violence.

So he ends up defending a special and rarefied version of pacifist bunny liberalism, while calling me 'simplistic' and 'reductionist' because I immediately designate it part of white liberals and thus the enemy.

He is organising against the gov't.

Well, if it works, more power to him.

You know what, let's do this the easy way.

Please provide a clear definition of what you think a liberal is. Thank you.

Nope. I am leaving you in the hands of Travesty now. He's doing a better job than me. After all, I feel that you are about segue into the subtle ways in which I am technically racist toward white people and Jews (that line you put in about 'racist and oppressive governments, likely being a reference to my support of Ba'athism and so on), which is an interesting angle, but it will take us too far off topic and I don't want to step on Travesty's shoes.

[yiwahikanak]

Then let's not continue it, I don't think that anything can be gained from this. Ultimately, the only lens I will look through will be what you call 'the first lens'. I'm not interested in dialogue with white liberals, because I despise them, and they have no interest in doing anything that cuts against their own interests.

I'm curious...do you consider Allende to be a white liberal?
Because I do.

The first lens is always my focus, but I try to make that clear, because otherwise people believe I am discussing internal settler political divisions. PoFo is particularly unsuited to anticipating 'first lens' discussions given the fact that most posters here are white males from western nations.

You can talk to them and try to find common ground with them if you want, but it's a waste of time. There is no common ground.

Another question. Would you consider Allende to have been an ally?
Because I don't. Socialist or not, he never questioned the legitimacy of colonial power. Perhaps he may have eventually done so, but we will never know.

And yet, when it comes to who was worse for all people living in Chile, it is clear that Pinochet was the worst of the two.

If we only ever look through the first lens, then both Allende and Pinochet, white settler colonials, are equally the enemy, and that is where things become problematic. There are degrees of badness. This is where I was confused because you do seem to jump between 'first lens' and internal liberal divisions, unless you feel that Allende's socialism somehow elevated him out of settler colonialism?

[Pants-of-dog]

That's a pretty good assessment of the situation, Travesty. I can't help but feel that all that twisting and turning that's going on is because for some reason Pants-of-Dog doesn't want to become a socialist or a third positionist, and doesn't want to advocate any form of committee organisation or violence.

Again, please refrain from making personal comments about me that are based on ignorance.

Third positionists are, frankly, useless and worse than the US.

Socialism is dead in the water since the proletariat is no longer a unified class anywhere in the western world.

So he ends up defending a special and rarefied version of pacifist bunny liberalism, while calling me 'simplistic' and 'reductionist' because I immediately designate it part of white liberals and thus the enemy.

Again, you are ascribing positions to me that I have never espoused.

Well, if it works, more power to him.

So, people who live in liberal nations and use democratic means to try and keep their gov'ts accountable are now not liberals?

Nope. I am leaving you in the hands of Travesty now. He's doing a better job than me.

I see, you probably have no coherent definition.

[yiwahikanak]

Be more specific. You already know that I praise the EZLN.

I know that many socialists want to claim the EZLN as their own, and while they do access socialist ideology from time to time, mostly to appeal to allies, they are nonetheless are fundamentally and uniquely an indigenous organisation that cannot be characterised according to liberal criteria...and to be clear, I consider socialism to be a part of settler colonial ideology.

[Rei Murasame]

I'm curious...do you consider Allende to be a white liberal?

No, of course not.

Another question. Would you consider Allende to have been an ally?

Yes.

Because I don't. Socialist or not, he never questioned the legitimacy of colonial power. Perhaps he may have eventually done so, but we will never know.

Well, it stands to reason that since he was a socialist, he would be the one that would be more likely to be willing to be open and clear about ethnic issues in so far as they intersect with economics.

If we only ever look through the first lens, then both Allende and Pinochet, white settler colonials, are equally the enemy, and that is where things become problematic.

How? I don't even understand how you reach that conclusion. One of them is a liberal and the other isn't.

So, people who live in liberal nations and use democratic means to try and keep their gov'ts accountable are now not liberals?

If merely 'keeping them accountable' and other platitudes, is what you were referring to, then I would actually question whether that person is socialist at all.

Third positionists are, frankly, useless and worse than the US.

Socialism is dead in the water since the proletariat is no longer a unified class anywhere in the western world.

So you have left yourself no choice but to work within the presently-existing system!

I know that many socialists want to claim the EZLN as their own, and while they do access socialist ideology from time to time, mostly to appeal to allies, they are nonetheless are fundamentally and uniquely an indigenous organisation

I view them as a form of 'third position' (racialised left-nationalism), since they have basically combined socialism with ethnic nationalism.

[mikema63]

I consider socialism to be a part of settler colonial ideology.

What in socialist theory calls specifically for settlers and colonialism?