6 ms·

There is zero progressive representation among the elite. The American Revolution wasn't "progressive", it was one of many steps that led to the genocide of Ind

There is zero progressive representation among the elite. The American Revolution wasn't "progressive", it was one of many steps that led to the genocide of Indigenous Americans. Using the military to murder Muslims isn't "progressive" either. You should talk to actual lefists, they hate neo-liberalism even more than the right.

monideas 13d ago
This is just simply and profoundly wrong. This is a prole leftist take and proles by definition are very ignorant and don’t understand elites or what they’re seeing (if someone could they would be an elite). A prole leftist is basically just a sad walking disaster that is angry and wants free stuff and wants others to suffer. They’re not engaging with leftism on an intellectual level, they’re not romantically captivated by it. As far as mass murder goes, generally speaking the purpose of the Great Leap Forward, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution and other types of leftist movements isn’t to kill massive amounts of people but that is a very common result of putting progressive ideas into action.
- newspaper1 13d ago
  You're incorrect and historically inaccurate. Using the US military is not a leftist position, it's imperialism. > don’t understand elites or what they’re seeing (if someone could they would be an elite You can't become and elite through observation. You have to be born into it, or successfully do the bidding of those who are. Even then, you'd only be "new money". > Great Leap Forward, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution None of these extend beyond the borders of the nation in question. That's my point, imperialism is not and never has been leftist. I'm not a prole nor an elite, I am however a leftist and I assure you that neither the Democrats or The New York Times are even remotely leftist. They're right wing neo-liberals.
  - monideas 13d ago
    Leftism and “imperialism” are orthogonal concepts. “Imperialism” isn’t even a thing, it just basically means “conquering other land” or “imposing your views/culture”.
    - newspaper1 13d ago
      Imperialism is definitely a thing and it indeed means conquering other land. It's not orthogonal to leftism at all. Lenin literally called it the "highest stage of capitalism". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism#Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism#Definition
      - monideas 13d ago
        The USSR practiced “imperialism” by definition, forced deportations, annexations of territories. Again, “imperialism” is just conquering territory + negative valence. It’s not actually a thing itself, it’s some other actual thing + It feels bad/it’s against my interests. There are lots of words used in political discourse that are like this. It’s just juvenile nonsense.

monideas 13d ago

This is just simply and profoundly wrong. This is a prole leftist take and proles by definition are very ignorant and don’t understand elites or what they’re seeing (if someone could they would be an elite). A prole leftist is basically just a sad walking disaster that is angry and wants free stuff and wants others to suffer. They’re not engaging with leftism on an intellectual level, they’re not romantically captivated by it. As far as mass murder goes, generally speaking the purpose of the Great Leap Forward, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution and other types of leftist movements isn’t to kill massive amounts of people but that is a very common result of putting progressive ideas into action.

newspaper1 13d ago
You're incorrect and historically inaccurate. Using the US military is not a leftist position, it's imperialism. > don’t understand elites or what they’re seeing (if someone could they would be an elite You can't become and elite through observation. You have to be born into it, or successfully do the bidding of those who are. Even then, you'd only be "new money". > Great Leap Forward, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution None of these extend beyond the borders of the nation in question. That's my point, imperialism is not and never has been leftist. I'm not a prole nor an elite, I am however a leftist and I assure you that neither the Democrats or The New York Times are even remotely leftist. They're right wing neo-liberals.
- monideas 13d ago
  Leftism and “imperialism” are orthogonal concepts. “Imperialism” isn’t even a thing, it just basically means “conquering other land” or “imposing your views/culture”.
  - newspaper1 13d ago
    Imperialism is definitely a thing and it indeed means conquering other land. It's not orthogonal to leftism at all. Lenin literally called it the "highest stage of capitalism". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism#Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism#Definition
    - monideas 13d ago
      The USSR practiced “imperialism” by definition, forced deportations, annexations of territories. Again, “imperialism” is just conquering territory + negative valence. It’s not actually a thing itself, it’s some other actual thing + It feels bad/it’s against my interests. There are lots of words used in political discourse that are like this. It’s just juvenile nonsense.