I mean both. And there is some merit to the criticism that both liberals and left can be seen as smug. Again, it’s not all but many from both groups are. Thing is, as many people have been lifted out of poverty, the traditional base of the left that is the working class have become middle class to upper class themselves. Many of those folks may still say they identify as leftist, but they became privileged and do not realise or acknowledge it. They may say that they believe in social and economic justice and mention they feel bad for the poor and homeless; but at the same time block the push for building affordable housing because “it ruins the view from their back garden” or they won’t say that it depreciates the value of their property. “Champagne socialists” and “limousine liberals” are real and rightful pejorative terms after all.
You’re still wrong. That’s not the left, those are socially progressive liberals. The left are not limousine liberals who are concerned about their precious property values. It’s extremely frustrating that you continue to repeat this lie, using liberal and left interchangeably. Liberalism is a right wing ideology and mostly incompatible with the left. of course you think social democracy is the greatest thing ever, it’s a right wing idea (liberalism, but with more reform!) that’s dressed up looking left. It doesn’t threaten capitalism, it barely even reforms it. The hierarchy of power - the bourgeois and petit bourgeois- remain in place but the serfs get a couple more crumbs of bread thrown to them. Oh and every single social democracy that Europeans love to be smug about still rely on colonialism and exploitation of the global south and in norways case fossil fuels. Because social democracy doesn’t change anything, it’s just window dressing to give just enough crumbs to the serfs that they don’t demand more.
This whole little bit reminds me of how liberals and dumb people on the left (mostly progressives and social democrats who aren’t really left but get lumped in anyways because there is no left in America) who’ve been utterly brainwashed into thinking obamacare/aca is the best thing since sliced bread. It’s again, a right wing idea, created by the right wing heritage foundation for Republican mitt Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts. Obama stole it from him, initially added a single payer option, democrat joe Lieberman, owned by the insurance industry single-handedly blocked it, and now we’re left with an insurance industry handout that doesn’t provide healthcare (see deny delay despose for an example of what they do) and yet everyone to the left of the tea party thinks it’s practically universal healthcare that needs to be protected at all costs. It’s fucking delusional. The left wing ideology would be to nationalize the healthcare industry, not this fucking bureaucratic bullshit that creates useless “jobs” that exist nowhere else in the world while denying care.
But many immigrants have different experiences and education so they are less class conscious. What many immigrants only have known in their lives is struggle and making ends meet.
This is an assumption that’s completely incorrect. The tech industry is known for importing all their workers from India, and from the higher castes. These people aren’t poor, but they’ll work for less in America, and on top of that they bring caste bias with them and they are ripe for becoming fascists if they aren’t already (see modi’s India). In my field the legal immigrants are rich college kids from South America on summer holiday doing a “cultural exchange”. They don’t realize they’re undercutting local labor and they’re not the problem, american businesses are the problem.
The main cause I believe is the mismanagement of globalisation. The current international order is actually an anarchy but only very few realise this.
I wish I read this part of your comment first and I would of not even bothered with writing the rest since you have no clue what you’re talking about. This is NOT anarchy. That’s not what fucking anarchy means. I hate how liberals completely fucked up the definition of words themselves to absolutely confuse everyone to the liberal elites benefit. Anarchy in its purest definition is the absence of hierarchy. Our globalist world is the complete opposite of that. There’s a hierarchy, and you and I are somewhere near the middle to the bottom. The globalist elite are at the top. Money and power rule the world, money is just an abstraction of power. There’s very clear rules and order, I don’t know how you get “anarchy” LOL out of that.
And you want a global government? LOL GLOBALIST LIBERAL.
And you blame everything currently going on on “anarchy”? LOL.
International laws are only applied on leaders from non western countries. The UN is a fucking joke. When they arrest George w bush for his war crimes I’ll take them seriously.
Edit: I forgot to respond to your first paragraph. Again, you obviously wasn’t reading that I am separating liberals and left. In any case, it doesn’t matter. Regardless of the spectrum, both liberals and left are still seen as smug and NIMBYs because of these idiots, and it is not without merit. Even Slavoj Zizek made similar observation. Those idiots may give the both ideologies bad name, but unfortunately they are not insignificant numbers, especially during the height of “snowflake” college in mid 2010s, and it adds ammo for the right.
Well, how are social democracies able to deal with other countries that are not fellow social democracies, because the latter have different values, laws and regulations? You obviously ignored the part where I said other countries don’t have legal jurisdictions on other countries’ labour laws. Precisely that’s why there needs to be a world government to streamline the laws and processes.
That being said, in a utopian ideal of what anarchy is, it is self-organising society and independent or autonomous from each other. Well, what do you think are nation states? Isn’t it already an entity with a self-organising society? As we speak, the supposed international order and rules-based order are neither ordered nor have rules. If you read the fine print, many legal definitions are not actually legal. For example, the word “guarantee” is not actually guaranteed. “Agreement” is not actually an agreement. In international “law”, those latter words do not have legal weight. Parties can break them without penalty. In essence, these types of deal are based on principle and mutual understanding, and therefore no actual arbitrary penalty for breaking. That’s why in many cases, international courts could condemn individuals but do not have the power to actually arrest and prosecute them, because they have no legal power-- out of jurisdiction. The global agreement on climate change is the same. There is no legal punishment for any countries that failed to follow the guidelines to reduce carbon emissions. Nicaragua was right about it when they initially refused to sign the Paris climate change agreement because it did not go far enough. As I mentioned, it is simply an “agreement” after all. Many countries in the global south received grants to improve their infrastructures to reduce carbon emissions and build renewable energy technologies, but findings reported that much of those money went to building luxuries like hotels deemed to be carbon-neutral because it has solar panels and whatnot. The only case where an international deal have legal and serious repercussions is if the agreement is actually signed as “treaty”. But the Paris climate change is not a treaty because it is by intention.
Anarchism only works on small scale with similar-minded folks. But as you can see, much of the world at the moment are not like-minded. The world is too big for it at the moment. Bigger societies (read countries) bullying smaller ones, it is impractical. International “laws” are not respected because there is no legal teeth to enforce them. Perhaps if future technological advances allow for improved communications and transportation to allow better cultural exchanges, which facilitates different cultures to coalesce and converge into one common culture, then why not. I would be an anarchist if I wasn’t a social democrat. But like I mentioned, we are already in anarchy, but it’s the one you imagined and it’s not pretty as no doubt you cannot deny.
The reason why the UN is powerless is because they are not given power. You complain about the UN being useless, but would you approve to give them power in order to stop wars and enforce global wide laws in order to stop climate change? I thought so. Most people don’t realise about this farcical contradiction but now you know.
Indians are not the only immigrant groups. There plenty of other nationalities with different mindsets because of different cultures. I worked with Somalis and they work too hard (and I assume you probably already know what is going on in their home country so you get the idea why they work too hard). One hasn’t even taken holidays for the entire year and was forced by management to take all of it before the year ends. But it’s not even Somalis, other immigrants also even make you feel guilty if you do not do overtime almost almost seven days. I think is tinge of envy and think I am rich. I am not by any stretch of imagination, but I have enough savings as safety net and I don’t live beyond my means (unlike most people from my experience). And I think a lot of immigrants neither have a concept of hobby nor do other activities outside of work, because I work to live not living to work. And it makes sense, most immigrants come for economic reasons. Although, work is meant to put food on the table, put roof over my head and afford the occasional frivolties and fund my hobby. I value my own personal happiness first than some CEO’s yearly bonus.
You’re still wrong. That’s not the left, those are socially progressive liberals. The left are not limousine liberals who are concerned about their precious property values. It’s extremely frustrating that you continue to repeat this lie, using liberal and left interchangeably. Liberalism is a right wing ideology and mostly incompatible with the left. of course you think social democracy is the greatest thing ever, it’s a right wing idea (liberalism, but with more reform!) that’s dressed up looking left. It doesn’t threaten capitalism, it barely even reforms it. The hierarchy of power - the bourgeois and petit bourgeois- remain in place but the serfs get a couple more crumbs of bread thrown to them. Oh and every single social democracy that Europeans love to be smug about still rely on colonialism and exploitation of the global south and in norways case fossil fuels. Because social democracy doesn’t change anything, it’s just window dressing to give just enough crumbs to the serfs that they don’t demand more.
This whole little bit reminds me of how liberals and dumb people on the left (mostly progressives and social democrats who aren’t really left but get lumped in anyways because there is no left in America) who’ve been utterly brainwashed into thinking obamacare/aca is the best thing since sliced bread. It’s again, a right wing idea, created by the right wing heritage foundation for Republican mitt Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts. Obama stole it from him, initially added a single payer option, democrat joe Lieberman, owned by the insurance industry single-handedly blocked it, and now we’re left with an insurance industry handout that doesn’t provide healthcare (see deny delay despose for an example of what they do) and yet everyone to the left of the tea party thinks it’s practically universal healthcare that needs to be protected at all costs. It’s fucking delusional. The left wing ideology would be to nationalize the healthcare industry, not this fucking bureaucratic bullshit that creates useless “jobs” that exist nowhere else in the world while denying care.
This is an assumption that’s completely incorrect. The tech industry is known for importing all their workers from India, and from the higher castes. These people aren’t poor, but they’ll work for less in America, and on top of that they bring caste bias with them and they are ripe for becoming fascists if they aren’t already (see modi’s India). In my field the legal immigrants are rich college kids from South America on summer holiday doing a “cultural exchange”. They don’t realize they’re undercutting local labor and they’re not the problem, american businesses are the problem.
I wish I read this part of your comment first and I would of not even bothered with writing the rest since you have no clue what you’re talking about. This is NOT anarchy. That’s not what fucking anarchy means. I hate how liberals completely fucked up the definition of words themselves to absolutely confuse everyone to the liberal elites benefit. Anarchy in its purest definition is the absence of hierarchy. Our globalist world is the complete opposite of that. There’s a hierarchy, and you and I are somewhere near the middle to the bottom. The globalist elite are at the top. Money and power rule the world, money is just an abstraction of power. There’s very clear rules and order, I don’t know how you get “anarchy” LOL out of that.
And you want a global government? LOL GLOBALIST LIBERAL.
And you blame everything currently going on on “anarchy”? LOL.
International laws are only applied on leaders from non western countries. The UN is a fucking joke. When they arrest George w bush for his war crimes I’ll take them seriously.
Edit: I forgot to respond to your first paragraph. Again, you obviously wasn’t reading that I am separating liberals and left. In any case, it doesn’t matter. Regardless of the spectrum, both liberals and left are still seen as smug and NIMBYs because of these idiots, and it is not without merit. Even Slavoj Zizek made similar observation. Those idiots may give the both ideologies bad name, but unfortunately they are not insignificant numbers, especially during the height of “snowflake” college in mid 2010s, and it adds ammo for the right.
Well, how are social democracies able to deal with other countries that are not fellow social democracies, because the latter have different values, laws and regulations? You obviously ignored the part where I said other countries don’t have legal jurisdictions on other countries’ labour laws. Precisely that’s why there needs to be a world government to streamline the laws and processes.
That being said, in a utopian ideal of what anarchy is, it is self-organising society and independent or autonomous from each other. Well, what do you think are nation states? Isn’t it already an entity with a self-organising society? As we speak, the supposed international order and rules-based order are neither ordered nor have rules. If you read the fine print, many legal definitions are not actually legal. For example, the word “guarantee” is not actually guaranteed. “Agreement” is not actually an agreement. In international “law”, those latter words do not have legal weight. Parties can break them without penalty. In essence, these types of deal are based on principle and mutual understanding, and therefore no actual arbitrary penalty for breaking. That’s why in many cases, international courts could condemn individuals but do not have the power to actually arrest and prosecute them, because they have no legal power-- out of jurisdiction. The global agreement on climate change is the same. There is no legal punishment for any countries that failed to follow the guidelines to reduce carbon emissions. Nicaragua was right about it when they initially refused to sign the Paris climate change agreement because it did not go far enough. As I mentioned, it is simply an “agreement” after all. Many countries in the global south received grants to improve their infrastructures to reduce carbon emissions and build renewable energy technologies, but findings reported that much of those money went to building luxuries like hotels deemed to be carbon-neutral because it has solar panels and whatnot. The only case where an international deal have legal and serious repercussions is if the agreement is actually signed as “treaty”. But the Paris climate change is not a treaty because it is by intention.
Anarchism only works on small scale with similar-minded folks. But as you can see, much of the world at the moment are not like-minded. The world is too big for it at the moment. Bigger societies (read countries) bullying smaller ones, it is impractical. International “laws” are not respected because there is no legal teeth to enforce them. Perhaps if future technological advances allow for improved communications and transportation to allow better cultural exchanges, which facilitates different cultures to coalesce and converge into one common culture, then why not. I would be an anarchist if I wasn’t a social democrat. But like I mentioned, we are already in anarchy, but it’s the one you imagined and it’s not pretty as no doubt you cannot deny.
The reason why the UN is powerless is because they are not given power. You complain about the UN being useless, but would you approve to give them power in order to stop wars and enforce global wide laws in order to stop climate change? I thought so. Most people don’t realise about this farcical contradiction but now you know.
Indians are not the only immigrant groups. There plenty of other nationalities with different mindsets because of different cultures. I worked with Somalis and they work too hard (and I assume you probably already know what is going on in their home country so you get the idea why they work too hard). One hasn’t even taken holidays for the entire year and was forced by management to take all of it before the year ends. But it’s not even Somalis, other immigrants also even make you feel guilty if you do not do overtime almost almost seven days. I think is tinge of envy and think I am rich. I am not by any stretch of imagination, but I have enough savings as safety net and I don’t live beyond my means (unlike most people from my experience). And I think a lot of immigrants neither have a concept of hobby nor do other activities outside of work, because I work to live not living to work. And it makes sense, most immigrants come for economic reasons. Although, work is meant to put food on the table, put roof over my head and afford the occasional frivolties and fund my hobby. I value my own personal happiness first than some CEO’s yearly bonus.