https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack

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

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

https://adata.org/learn-about-ada/

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_suffrage_in_the_United_States

The Battle of Blair mountain caused a steep drop in labor unions, nearly bankrupted the UMWA and these conversations didn’t continue until like almost a decade later.

The French Revolution brought a reign of terror which birthed into an ineffective and corrupt government that then fell to Napleon, who you can talk about in length but he banned worker unions and prioritized employers over employees. History likes to treat him as if he was some kind of regular man’s hero but he wasn’t, he absolutely always sided with power and money.

What are you talking about?

Most rights we got were from voting it is untrue to say we got them through violence. I don’t think it is right to tell people to go die for change when non-violent options lead to solutions.

Disability Act, Women’s right to vote, removal of the poor tax on voting, Indian Citizenship Act.

The Battle of Blair mountain for instance caused an immediate backlash that historians actually believe delayed worker’s rights. Stonewall happened decades before any policy change. Making your voice heard and educating people to join up in collective action is what makes change, violence either causes backlash or completely collapses a government. The French Revolution for instance ended in military dictatorship. Violence will happen but it is absolutely not true to say it causes change, it often doesn’t.

And then there are the dozens of elections that resulted in positive policy change that required no violence, dozens of non-violent movements that did cause sweeping changes directly.

If voting didn’t matter, they would not put so much effort and money into denying people’s vote.

Piece of trash

It is. But I still understand it.

Controversial opinion, a lot of those artists are already paid when it comes to TV. Fuck that, in my opinion.

Glad I spent my teens and 20s getting stoned and reading the shit out of wikipedia before this shit happened. Can’t trust anything written online now.

It actually gives you wiiings. Which apparently they do to avoid false advertisement or some shit?

Look I’m of the opinion that we’re all gonna die and if I’m drinking energy drinks regularly, it’s not cause I am aiming to live a healthy life.

But don’t all those zero calorie, alternate sweeteners also apparently cause heart problems and other stuff as well?

Last post 9 hours ago.

Decides to reply to my random comment down a chain on a thread you had no opinion on beforehand. 7 minutes into your comment you get an upvote?

That seems legit. Exposed yourselves idiot.

You see me often? My 1 month old account you see often? I think I’ve had maybe 3 of these types of conversations. That’s often?

Absolutely lying. Lmfao. Are you guys friends or same account? What’s going on here hm?

Yeah that’s what I thought you idiot. Stop arguing on the internet, go learn how to actual form an opinion and argue for it.

So let’s agree that these are quite literally generalities. Can we start there. You are not speaking about literally any specific historical event, you are talking in generalities.

Aren’t all political theories like this?

Wow would you look at that, cherrypicking me listing examples of political theories becoming what they did not intend because politics is complex and theory vs implementation actually matters? Gee golly.

Communism gives rise to privileged ruling class and tends to take worker’s rights away when in theory it is supposed to equalize and support worker’s rights, planning an economy to distribute goods equally creates inefficiencies

Soviet Union. Ousts the bolsheviks, creates a concentrated single party that lived above regular folk : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavrentiy_Beria best example.

Democracies create plutocracies

The United States golden age: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller

Fascism leads to cronyism

Fascist Italy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianni_Agnelli

Anarchism leaves gaps for might makes right-thinking

Anarchy never holds long enough. Best example you can find are the Makhnovists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makhnovshchina. Unable to assert strong central power they were overwhelmed by the increasingly developing Bolsheviks who had much more stable central authority. Their lack of control opened up space for a more central-focused entity to overpower them.

Monarchies claim divine right and then falls to civil war and assassinations who then claimed the same divine right rule

Are you fucking kidding me calling this a generalization?

So let’s agree that these are quite literally generalities. Can we start there. You are not speaking about literally any specific historical event, you are talking in generalities.___

No because they’re not. Most people understand this about politics.

Look at this mental disconnect you have.

Communism is about the interests of the working class driving the decisions of the state. Which is why every communist project ever has raised the poorest of the poor into food abundance, housing abundance, positive health outcomes, and positive education outcomes.

Completely avoids talking how it played out.

First off, regardless of anything else, the idea that Liberalism is constrained exclusively to the intentions of the “philosophers and minds” of the people who came up with the concept is ridiculous.

???

You’re a hypocrite. Every argument you form is literally a strawman, you literally start everything you say with setting up what someone’s opinion is, then attacking it. Then you try to do t he complete opposite with your arguments.

You contradict yourself.

I did not said plutocracies are only produced by liberalism.

Liberalism creates plutocracies.

This is all called equivocating, it is one of the first things you learn when taught how to argue your point and discuss this sort of stuff.

You do not know what the hell you are talking about.

So let’s look at this position of yours. First off, regardless of anything else, the idea that Liberalism is constrained exclusively to the intentions of the “philosophers and minds” of the people who came up with the concept is ridiculous. Liberalism is a real political phenomenon, not a fixed naive ideal minted once and then complete.

Stopped reading there. See

You’re talking about the ends of Liberalism but never from the basis of the philosophers and minds who came up with the concept. This is the same disconnect people have with socialism. They view how it was played out, not what the core philosophies are.

I wouldn’t say it is wrong, but it is definitely a perspective of how one can view a political theory, through theory or in practice. Do you view all governing philosophies with this lens?

Again for the millionth time.

I did not say that. Learn to read. Jesus kid.

development of Liberalism while you have made broad and clearly inaccurate generalities

Never did that.

established that you think history has no bearing on theory

Literally did the opposite.

tated a single position that liberalism’s foundation is abstract universal rights

Nope I did not.

anyone who disagrees with that position is not only clearly uneducated but has a media-rotted brain and is incapable of discussing theory.

Nope.

Are you like actually retarded? I don’t ask this lightly. I went into your comment history and you do this to a lot of people and they express having the same experience I have. That you just wildly flop around claiming things, move goal posts, claim nonsense and it’s almost like you’re on drugs when you’re reading.

This entire thread has you doing laps disconnecting the historical context liberalism came from claiming it has this nefarious start of merchants basically lying. Your historical context is skewed and really just absolutely incorrect.

Merchants wanted the wealth they were hoarding to translate into power, but they couldn’t buy power because power was tied to land and land was tied to nobility which was entirely determined by the unitary sovereign which was entirely determined by heredity.

That’s skewed and wrong.

Merchants wanted their wealth to translate to power, so they developed a new political theory for where power should come from

Stupid perspective.

So they started to invent abstract concepts to disconnect power from reality so they could reassign power

Stupid

They invented the concept of abstract rights, and they put a right to private property into a list of things like the right to print whatever they wanted in newspapers that they owned and the right to buy and sell anything.

Stupid

Liberalism is the political philosophy of merchants and land owners that gives them political power on the basis of their effectiveness at accumulating wealth and makes the bare minimum concessions to the laboring masses required to get them to fight against the kings on behalf of the merchants.

Stupid

It is the political philosophy of settler colonialism, of privatization, of chattel slavery, of Thomas Jefferson’s breeding plantations, of Coca Cola hiring death squads, of the Opium Wars, of killing all the buffalo so that land could be taken from the Lakota, of getting people addicted to drugs in order to get them into debt.

Very fucking stupid, do you think Thomas Jefferson created liberalism?

Liberalism is the political movement that destroyed the social safety net that feudal societies maintained through nobilesse oblige and impoverished the masses everywhere until it forced the emergence of a labor movement and the creation of labor unions to give the masses a vehicle to fight the liberals, which the liberals crushed with military and paramilitary violence.

Completely ignorant.

It’s all stupid and ignorant because you’re completely failing to understand the environment these ideals were thought under, multiple people in this thread have pointed it out. Liberalism was not thought up by a cabal of merchants, it wasn’t created by the Illuminati with a goal, it wasn’t fashioned as a tool. It came about from people realizing the increasing failures of monarchies and realizing they were able to move away from the crown as a backbone of society and establish something else. It was literally the only educated folk at the time stumbling into the darkness and searching for something more. They did their best with the language and understanding they had to cobble together an argument for individual’s rights. Literally the easiest way to ever make anyone understand is to teach the origins of the word villain and then ask them how to argue against that concept in the face of a king or noble. Those first few steps will lead anyone towards basically liberalism, the concept of self-determination becomes obvious. Everything else follows.

The way you express yourself is this weird frankenstein view where you’re looking at the ultra rich liberals and claiming those are the core beliefs of liberalism. It was not because merchants had a goal, it is because society moved away from what it was before and people felt it.

Yes, I view all political philosophies through a historical concrete lens and not through an abstract idealist one.

You think this sounded smart, but it means fucking nothing. Political theories are abstract, they are ideals. When anyone tries to point out even in the slightest way that your view is crooked you respond like this:

Please read a book before posting this sort of embarrassingly ignorant shit

You’re a child, you’re an asshole and above all you’re a fucking idiot suffering from some hardcore Dunning-Kruger energy. You think you know, when others reply normally and push back you embrace your inner little bitch energy and just completely crumble. You do not discuss, you cry.

Then you say shit like this :

No. Liberalism creates plutocracies. Your definition of democracy is limited to existing liberal democracies. Real democracy is when the people have the ability to influence the state, which is what communist movements have done successfully despite being called “undemocratic” by the Liberals. Mostly because Liberalism cannot abide a state deciding to nationalize its natural resources.

And expose exactly why you’re so dumb. Because you decided what you believe, not the actual truth. Communist movements have not successfully done that, they have always created a massive divide in wealth under the umbrella of equality. They are usually ruled by a wealthy privileged elite, really only Cuba you could make an argument hasn’t done that but they still have the same issue where citizens who have access to foreign currency exist far above those who do not.

You say shit like this:

And Democracy isn’t what produced the the plutocracy in Rome.

and then instantly contradict yourself.

Roman plutocracy emerged because its systems were literally organized by wealth with wealthy people having more say in bodies like the Comitia Centuriata and with wealth requirements for holding office, especially for senators.

So no you can’t discuss theory, you can’t even discuss. You cry, insult, bitch, complain, you’re nasty and immature and really just fucking stupid. You don’t understand history. You contradict yourself, you move goalposts, you equivocate what you say, you try all these mental gymnastics because like I said, you’ve decided what you think is true and not actual reality. You’re fucking dumb. Stop talking to me lmfao

You try so hard to be insulting but you’re just pissing on yourself while you do it. I tried to talk to you before, you increasingly got pissy and rude so why would I bother?

The amount you try to wedge words in to change what you’re saying is a joke. Every argument you make relies on equivocating so you can bend it.

Liberalism creates plutocracies.

Ok

I did not said plutocracies are only produced by liberalism.

Oh okay.

You’re a moron, talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. Playing chess with a pigeon. You have no clue what you’re talking about, you literally don’t even know what liberalism is. Get a job.

I’m literally not separating them. You are. Everything you’ve said about Liberalism in your comments above is specifically about a time period that isn’t where Liberalism started. You keep saying things that make no sense, you’ve learned how to argue online but not how to argue a point. You’re just repeating phrases you have heard others say.

You don’t get to separate

Never did

You don’t get to separate

Never did.

The USA was not the first country to imagine what manifest destiny was all about.

Because history isn’t a vacuum. But yes they did.

The fact that liberalism in the US led to mass poverty doesn’t discount all the subsequent liberal revolutions that also led to mass poverty.

Most revolutions do. When you dismantle a system’s infrastructure, it causes pain.

I think you just seem to believe history sprouted up randomly, independently. You don’t accept ideas lead into other ideas.

Talking to you is like talking to a wall, you’ve decided what you think not what reality says. Liberalism didn’t exist in Rome. Communism absolutely has it’s own woes and your cheerleading of it just makes you look very silly. I guess the Aral Sea never existed.

Your brain is rotted by media. It’s very funny how many “communists” screech theory and then aren’t able to discuss theory.