Bree A. Ullman the lawyer ([1], [2]) deleted the 2nd xeet.😂🤣
Zohar Ianovici is an Isnotrael-based “Jewish Israeli antizionist” who "want[s] Is[not]rael to be a full democracy, across all the territory it currently controls " ([3], [4]).
But there comes a point where you swing far enough Left that you stop being a “liberal” in the traditional sense even if you still hold onto some liberal values. Where exactly that line is can be debated but I’m of the opinion that once you accept that capitalism isn’t unsustainable, isn’t ideal, and should be replaced you cease to be a coherent “liberal” in the traditional sense of the word since liberalism as an ideology exists to protect, legitimize, and expand capitalism.
I’d have to disagree with this assessment. Not because it’s entirely incorrect but because I think it’s confusing cause and correlation.
Someone realizing capitalism is unsustainable and not the best possible system, doesn’t expunge them of being a liberal, it just means that they’ve come to the rational conclusion that capitlist alienation pushes all proles in the direction of. However, if they are not interrogating their idealogy, they are going to still be making liberal presumptions to fill in the gaps made by those realizations.
Their approach to solving problems and analyzing the world will still be liberal idealism, not dialectical materialism or anything else. It’s not just one’s beliefs that make them a liberal, it’s the tendency of idealism. Those beliefs are some of the rational conclusions of liberal idealism, but they are scrutinized by contact with material reality in action.
They don’t have to be traditionally liberal. It’s not really possible to remain traditionally liberal unless you’repart of the bourgeoisie or a well off petit bourgeoisie or labor aristocrat. So what occurs is liberalism morphing itself in contact with alienation, in FDs case, I think it’s fair to say that racism has been the driving wedge into his traditional liberalism. However, since he is still applying idealism to solve these issues the result is still something that preserves the interests of capitlism.
Not to mention that being a YouTuber makes you petty bourgeois, therefore you’re going to have a harder time reconfiguring away from idealism.
Now of course someone could get stuck in this state, but more likely what happens is they end up swinging further to the Left over time especially as liberal democracy fails to deliver.
This is the issue. It’s not just could get stuck in this state, it’s that someone will get stuck in this state if they don’t stop approaching liberation in an idealist manner. I’d argue you’ve demonstrated it to a certain extent actually:
Even if you still believe in liberal democracy as a system you’ve accepted that the concept of private property - a cornerstone of liberal ideology and the foundational block of capitalism - must be challenged. This will inevitably put you at odds with liberalism.
You point out how it’s internally held beliefs that drive someone’s revolutionary journey, but that’s inaccurate. Beliefs are a result of material factors in action, and are arrived at by the way someone approaches the analysis of those factors. It’s not that beliefs are unimportant, but they are a result not a cause for someone’s liberalism fading. You’ll notice that someone’s beliefs will further not align with liberalism the more they apply material analysis instead of idealism.
He clearly isn’t a fan of capitalism but is still hung up on liberal democracy, though is also fairly skeptical of it. Not what I think of when I think of liberals, who tend to be loud-and-proud about voting, would rather take a bullet than have a respectful discussion with anyone on the Left, and have no problems with capitalism at all and whose most radical position is “tax billionaires”.
He doesn’t have to be a fan of capitalism and can be skeptical of liberal democracy, which yes isn’t common amongst traditional liberals, but that doesn’t make him not a liberal. About 2/3rds of American youth have a favorable view of socialism, 1/3rd a favorable view of communism. Are they also not largely liberal still?
They are, but the propaganda of capitalism didn’t survive contact with its enemy. However most of these people are joining orgs like DSA, not PSL, FRSO, or even CPUSA. Likely because that’s what’s available to them.
FD clearly cares about issues regarding the Black community, he has to, it’s a matter of survival, it’s why I care about issues of Islamaphobia. However, he still approaches situations using liberal idealism rather then materialism. He can change, I don’t doubt that and hope he does, but his idealogy should not be confused by beliefs that are rational for someone expiercing racism within the empire. He’s still a liberal due to his approach. That’s not a moral category or condemnation from me, it’s an observation of how he conducts his work and portrays himself.
I don’t think it’s accurate to describe him as a full-on idealist. Many of his videos often touch upon more materialist-oriented perspectives and in some case are fully materialist. This isn’t universal though, and that’s where your point lands: he does end up defaulting to liberal idealism often. I will concede that point.
But I don’t think idealism is enough to make one a liberal. To do so means that anarchists, fascists, monarchists, and utopian socialists are liberals and at that point the word becomes basically useless as politics is reduced to a simple binary of communism and liberalism. For sure idealism is a major component of liberal analysis, and is often the sign of liberal thinking and will often lead to liberal conclusions, but that alone isn’t sufficient (at least not in my view) to classify someone as a liberal simply because it’s not unique to liberalism specifically even if they might be the most famous champions of it.
The contradiction of liberal analysis and anti-liberal positions will inevitably resolve itself either by capitulation to, or rejection of, idealism. This might not occur consciously but it can be demonstrated through one’s own actions and I don’t believe FD has resolved this contradiction in either direction yet.
Beliefs are informed by conditions, yes, but they’re also what drive actions. You don’t act on something if you don’t believe in it first. Why would you? Conditions teach but beliefs motivate. This is why workers can experience exploitation for years but never move toward pro-revolutionary sentiment because they don’t believe in revolution or the radical politics that promote & foster revolutionary ideals. I can attest to this personally as I didn’t become a socialist until five years after entering the workforce whereas there are people who’ve been working jobs with even worse conditions than any of the ones I’ve had for literal decades before I was born who are still ideologically liberal despite having it even worse than I do because they don’t believe in socialism as a viable system.
I’d have to disagree with this assessment. Not because it’s entirely incorrect but because I think it’s confusing cause and correlation.
Someone realizing capitalism is unsustainable and not the best possible system, doesn’t expunge them of being a liberal, it just means that they’ve come to the rational conclusion that capitlist alienation pushes all proles in the direction of. However, if they are not interrogating their idealogy, they are going to still be making liberal presumptions to fill in the gaps made by those realizations.
Their approach to solving problems and analyzing the world will still be liberal idealism, not dialectical materialism or anything else. It’s not just one’s beliefs that make them a liberal, it’s the tendency of idealism. Those beliefs are some of the rational conclusions of liberal idealism, but they are scrutinized by contact with material reality in action.
They don’t have to be traditionally liberal. It’s not really possible to remain traditionally liberal unless you’repart of the bourgeoisie or a well off petit bourgeoisie or labor aristocrat. So what occurs is liberalism morphing itself in contact with alienation, in FDs case, I think it’s fair to say that racism has been the driving wedge into his traditional liberalism. However, since he is still applying idealism to solve these issues the result is still something that preserves the interests of capitlism.
Not to mention that being a YouTuber makes you petty bourgeois, therefore you’re going to have a harder time reconfiguring away from idealism.
This is the issue. It’s not just could get stuck in this state, it’s that someone will get stuck in this state if they don’t stop approaching liberation in an idealist manner. I’d argue you’ve demonstrated it to a certain extent actually:
You point out how it’s internally held beliefs that drive someone’s revolutionary journey, but that’s inaccurate. Beliefs are a result of material factors in action, and are arrived at by the way someone approaches the analysis of those factors. It’s not that beliefs are unimportant, but they are a result not a cause for someone’s liberalism fading. You’ll notice that someone’s beliefs will further not align with liberalism the more they apply material analysis instead of idealism.
He doesn’t have to be a fan of capitalism and can be skeptical of liberal democracy, which yes isn’t common amongst traditional liberals, but that doesn’t make him not a liberal. About 2/3rds of American youth have a favorable view of socialism, 1/3rd a favorable view of communism. Are they also not largely liberal still?
They are, but the propaganda of capitalism didn’t survive contact with its enemy. However most of these people are joining orgs like DSA, not PSL, FRSO, or even CPUSA. Likely because that’s what’s available to them.
FD clearly cares about issues regarding the Black community, he has to, it’s a matter of survival, it’s why I care about issues of Islamaphobia. However, he still approaches situations using liberal idealism rather then materialism. He can change, I don’t doubt that and hope he does, but his idealogy should not be confused by beliefs that are rational for someone expiercing racism within the empire. He’s still a liberal due to his approach. That’s not a moral category or condemnation from me, it’s an observation of how he conducts his work and portrays himself.
I don’t think it’s accurate to describe him as a full-on idealist. Many of his videos often touch upon more materialist-oriented perspectives and in some case are fully materialist. This isn’t universal though, and that’s where your point lands: he does end up defaulting to liberal idealism often. I will concede that point.
But I don’t think idealism is enough to make one a liberal. To do so means that anarchists, fascists, monarchists, and utopian socialists are liberals and at that point the word becomes basically useless as politics is reduced to a simple binary of communism and liberalism. For sure idealism is a major component of liberal analysis, and is often the sign of liberal thinking and will often lead to liberal conclusions, but that alone isn’t sufficient (at least not in my view) to classify someone as a liberal simply because it’s not unique to liberalism specifically even if they might be the most famous champions of it.
The contradiction of liberal analysis and anti-liberal positions will inevitably resolve itself either by capitulation to, or rejection of, idealism. This might not occur consciously but it can be demonstrated through one’s own actions and I don’t believe FD has resolved this contradiction in either direction yet.
Beliefs are informed by conditions, yes, but they’re also what drive actions. You don’t act on something if you don’t believe in it first. Why would you? Conditions teach but beliefs motivate. This is why workers can experience exploitation for years but never move toward pro-revolutionary sentiment because they don’t believe in revolution or the radical politics that promote & foster revolutionary ideals. I can attest to this personally as I didn’t become a socialist until five years after entering the workforce whereas there are people who’ve been working jobs with even worse conditions than any of the ones I’ve had for literal decades before I was born who are still ideologically liberal despite having it even worse than I do because they don’t believe in socialism as a viable system.