Why was leftism repressed in the US more successful than in Europe?
>>1099272
The instability of the post-WWII period needed strong government.
>>1099272
>Why was leftism<?> more successfully repressed in the United States than in Europe?
Fixed that for you.
What's leftism by the way?
>>1099276
Post-WW1 repressions were more violent and severe
Can we have a single day without 5 Marx threads?
>>1099272
Cold War. Just like when Hitler was on okay terms with Russia, then he changed the story to WWII being a war of ideologies. Same with America, okay during WWII, then when facing off in the Cold War, war of ideologies.
>>1099298
>were more violent and severe
Than white terror in the Soviet Union, Finland, Poland, Hungary, Germany, Japan, China?
Do you read before you open your gob?
>leftism
>rightism
>Americans
Where Germans might have some political philosophy like say for example, Real politik.
Americans have what we would call, Chaos politik.
That is to say none at all.
>>1099335
Sorry Hans but considering your recent record taking political advice from you seems like a bad plan
>>1099284
*tips*
>>1099272
Because the United States has a hostile business class fighting a one-sided class war against labor.
>Leftism in USA meme
"Leftists" in America are center-right at most
>>1099329
European standards are insane. you dont have any right wing except for some fringe nationalists
>>1099361
>European standards are insane. you dont have any right wing except for some fringe nationalists
This is some batshit shit.
>>1099347
>Because the United States has a hostile business class fighting a one-sided class war against labor.
All you've done is blame the proletariat, by the way, the KoL, AFL, IWW and CIO fought back.
>>1099272
the powers that be sat their balls on america and england, so those countries thrieved economically... so there wasn't a big field for the left wing to gain momentum.
>>1099327
I thought you were talking about the US and the post-ww2 red scare
>le yurop is more left than america meme
Completely retarded. Yurops right is basically full blown nazi roleplaying. Yurops left is in full suicide mode.
Meanwhile America's right is liberal, and our left is authoritarian.
>>1099425
>so there wasn't a big field for the left wing to gain momentum.
Remind me again of how many presidential votes for socialist candidates at the turn of the century?
>>1099428
There were two major red scares. Both at the ends of world wars.
>>1099477
your socialist candidates are hardly lefties
usually they're just less conservatives than the conservatives but they're still conservatives but usually there's a huge difference between both because the right wing tends to offer the worst hillbilly candidates they can find
>>1099487
>yuropoors commenting on american politics
>>1099487
The turn of the century, not 16 years ago you historically illiterate fucktard.
>>1099506
>yuropeons commenting on anything American
For a bunch of people who love to call us ignorant, they sure aren't doing themselves any favors.
>>1099272
Anglos vs Continentals
Anglos always win nigger: a better system of law, economy, finance and politics.
Continentals always have weak forms of government and society plus their rabid philosophers are always coming up with inventive ways to justify killing large amounts of people
>>1099272
Because during the Great Depression, leftism found a voice in some Democratic governors, the so called "New Deal" Democrats. Couple that with a strong economy and lack of war damage, militant socialism never had a chance to really breed and spread following the early Red Scares, which were more afraid of Anarchists than actual gommies.
>>1099272
The same reason fascism was.
OP just don't make threads that are even vaguely political, they are always shit
>>1099272
It was not repressed, it never took hold because Americans are (were?) far too individualistic and attached to freedom to fall for the snake oil which is leftism.
>>1099276
No, the post-WWII devestation in Europe was worse, hence the European people's reaction to the chaos of war was more severe. Their extreme liberalism was a reaction to the ideologies that had led to war in the first place.
>>1099637
why werent brits and swedes fascist then they there the most cucked by monarchy?
>>1100017
But there was a strong fascist movement in Britain before the gnatzees made being a fash uncool.
>>1099671
No. It did take hold but came up against two fatal enemies: the cold war and the civil rights movement. Racism split the proletariat, just like it did in South Africa, and the result was that the white proletariat saw themselves as having more to gain by siding with the white business class than with the black proletariat. Having successfully divided the proletariat and divorced the white portion's economic self interest from their political views, the business class was free to use the white proletariat's mandate to restructure the economic climate to suit themselves and sell the lie of >muh individualism and >muh liberty to the white proletariat alongside cans of carbonated sugar water.
The lie of individual autonomy is a useful one for advertisers to appeal, which I why we now have wankers walking around festooned in brands like some weird mobile advertising hoarding. People will actually pay money to advertise other peoples brands.
>>1100053
>liberty is a meme
t. aussie/yurotrash fucknut who's never experienced true freedom.
>>1100056
>he drank the kool aid so hard he shills it to others
You truly are a faithful tool of your masters. Like the abbatoir goat.
>>1100053
>No. It did take hold
No it didn't. There has never been a single credible socialist party in America during the first half of the 20th century (so before the cold war and the civil rights movement). Compare that to Europe where during the same period socialist parties were in power almost everywhere.
>some shitty marxist interpretation of racial tension in America
I can't argue with people who believe in Marxism. It's like arguing with people who believe in scientology.
>The lie of individual autonomy is a useful one for advertisers to appeal
Yeah, I'm sure the founding fathers were just trying to sell their products when they chose to make liberty one of the cornerstones of American society.
>>1099272
Dunno, leftism seems pretty popular in USA too these days.
Common law and civic nationalism, both of which associated the political system as something which was existed within society and not above it.
The adeptness with which the American political system has delivered legitimate political power to those with the resources to pursue it.
Dollar hegemony causing the dollar to be overvalued relative to private international trade, making it more efficient to offshore production. Especially considering the US is one of few developed nations with shores on the Atlantic and Pacific.
Political leftism has barely caught up with the servicization of the economy.
>>1099329
European here, fuck no. His position about healthcare might be but he's an utter cuckold by every standard.
>>1099278
Being on the left side of whatever arbitrary political dimension i choose :^)
>>1099361
>he doesnt know about liberal parties
>>1100365
> cuckold
keep your shit memery where it belongs,
>>1100402
You know only a cuckold would get mad about the word cuckold.
>>1099347
The liberals assholes never understood the needs and wants of the blue collar american workers and always name drop them as racist or xenophobic or whatever only because they vote for the people that tell them will going to give them jobs or lower their taxes.
No wonder America is so divided when you have the liberals assholes saying they want the best for everyone but can't possible put themselves in the shoes of a low-middle class blue collar worker that has to work his ass off to maintain his family, no wonder liberals and liberals candidates always lose elections, They lack empathy with the common man.
>>1100066
>said the moronic communist
Communists have filled a pool with koolaid, and swim in the shit every day.
>>1099621
But a fascist is now running for president, anon
>>1100814
>>1100053
Traditionally racism has been enforced by the poor, not the rich. Capitalism is race-blind, but poor white "frontier" culture encourages the oppression of people of color.
>>1100849
>PoC
Here we go with the oppression olympics
>>1100395
that's pretty much the academic definition. Really depends on the state at the time and what they find as "traditional"
Europe's economic conservationism was Feudalism and later nationalism, both cases are essentially the state taking care of it's people, so it fits well with socialism
America's conservativism is laissez-faire capitalism so it's pretty much at odds with it.
Europe has always been authoritarian. Even when they had their rebellious power to the people phase it ultimately left a small elite having tons of power until around the time if the French Republic, which fell trap to the mob mentality and it's horrible bloody revolution. That's vastly oversimplifying it, but at any rate France soon had an Emperor again with Napoopan. A quite benevolent one at that, but his power was quite absolute.
The US was founded by people specifically trying to avoid this kind of thing. It was founded by men who did not want a king, did not want a small elite aristocracy controlling everything. As it turns out we ended up getting them anyways but the liberty roots and traditions have delayed the shift towards a strong state significantly more than in Europe.
>>1099335
nowadays both follow chaos politik.
Look where it got us
What the fuck are you all talking about? Have any of you heard of the Cold War? When the US and Soviet Union emerged as "superpowers" and started competing in world dominance and geopolitics, Communism became a universal boogie-monster to scare the citizens into submission in the US, and Capitalism was the same in the Soviet Union. It is, of course, interesting how 25 years after the Cold War ended, communism, "leftism" and other spooks are still feared in the US.
>>1101942
This. It has little to do with Europe, other than Europe serving as a battleground (albeit a central one) in the Cold War.
Plus the power of the American business/corporate class, determined not to have their authority over the American working classes checked.
The HUAC and continuous Commie witch hunts were the primary means of keeping the labor at bay. And... propaganda, here 'n' there.
>>1099272
Because Americans are the genetic trash of Europe.
leftism is a mental disease. Every person who believes in leftism ideas is terminaly mentaly ill and as such an enemy of mankind.
>>1102023
>leftism is a mental disease
How? Supporting artificial hierarchy is completely unethical
>>1102045
>Leftism
>Not hierarchical
K.
>>1101991
So were Canadians and Australians but they all turned out relatively fine.
>>1102045
>artificial
please prove that
>>1102045
>ethical
ethics is completely a human construct and how can be that hierarchy artificial if it appeared completely naturaly?
>>1099272
Americans are sheep and do whatever their government tells them to do.
>>1102137
>Anyone who doesn't believe in my ideology is sheep
>>1099272
Socialism was needed in war torn Europe. To build industry and use it effectively you needed to save the citizenry, keep them literate educated and well fed.
The united states was already the most powerfully industrialized nation, however it was pretty damn near socialism during Roosevelt's time.
In the 70's lobbying in the United States picked up and a huge campaign of suppression and ideological subversion began with Nixon and peaked with Reagan, Thatcher was part of this crowd but I'm not sure what sparked her in the UK. What ended up happening is that money began controlling politics in an exaggerated way and of course Keynesianism although much more scientifically sound began being overturned with the advent of Milton and his stooges.
Radical leftism dies out with the welfare state, and left tendencies in general are just over swarmed with ideologically slanted media.
>>1104460
cont: cold war and mccarthyism factor in
>>1101942
The cold war actually had the effect in real terms of making the US take care of its citizenry since no matter how much you suppress ideas you can't suppress a persons consciousness about their living experience. So to denounce the alternative and keep people happy full employment and welfare were needed as goals.
After the fall of the USSR all bets were off and class war came back in full force and it's only going to get worse since the lower classes have been prepped to vote against their interests.
USA was too ethnically and racially diverse to unite the poorly educated working class behind socialism. Capitalists were able to leverage all the state and private power against the unionists and such as result. USA was also inhabited by the greediest people from Europe so socialism would have seriously fucked their prospects of making it big.
One of the reasons was probably race. European countries didn't have the sort of clear ethnic division withing the working class, which obviously makes political organizing inherently easier.
>>1105664
This is a really important point
>>1104478
>the lower classes have been prepped to vote against their interests.
When will you retards realize that leftist intelligentsia DO NOT have the interests of the lower classes in mind?
>>1102045
>hierarchy
>artificial
A hundred thousand years of human evolution beg to differ.
>>1100401
That's because in America, liberalism = leftism I'm not even joking
>>1101924
This guy gets it. Yuroserfs have been domesticated to be submissive towards central authority for thousands of years. It was only in their nature to get cucked by fascism and socialism.
By the way, the only reason """"socialism"""" """"works"""" in yurop is because the USA protects them through NATO. It's worth mentioning that the nordic model is collapsing right now exactly as the freshwater economists had predicted decades ago. Such a cushy safety net will eventually attract too many unskilled migrants for the system to support.
And the history of leftism continues to be a history of monumental failure.
>>1107015
Explain yourself, /pol/
>>1107122
>capitalist society
Proles die from obesity
>communist society
Proles die from starvation
The intelligentsia want a larger state so they can get fatter paychecks.
The lower classes have never lived in such luxury as they do now.
>>1107122
Also the assumption that leftist parties have the poor's best interests in mind is simply deceitful propaganda. Let me take Bernie as an example. A $15 federal minimum wage would be a disaster. While appropriate for places like New York City and the Bay Area, it would cause massive unemployment in more rural areas where the cost of living is already very cheap. Everyone seems to think that these wages would just come out of the pockets of fat cat CEOs, and that's totally wrong. It's not the corporations that will suffer from this, but the independent small businesses, particularly the immigrant owned ones due to language barriers. Raising the minimum wage certainly won't do anybody any favors in Detroit either.
Reminder that the NAACP had to beg New York democrats to stop building section 8 housing in Yonkers during the late 80s because it was perpetuating poverty.
>>1099357
>SJW
>Center right
>>1107068
>Such a cushy safety net will eventually attract too many unskilled migrants for the system to support.
leftism d.n.e. open border policies. even a cursory reading of leftist literature would alert you to this fact.
rather, the "nordic model"'s failure is its inability to prioritize its own people over strife abroad. it has relatively little to do with "leftism" and more to do with their culture, and its free-movement and welcoming attitude towards outsiders. left-wing politics has long been associated with extreme border control and open borders both. it's a mistake to conflate swedish charity with leftist border politics. it's a narrow-minded and poorly informed position to defend.
>>1107281
>leftism d.n.e. open border policies. even a cursory reading of leftist literature would alert you to this fact.
I'm aware, but immigration will happen whether it's legal or not, ESPECIALLY if you have a successful economy with lots of gibs. And good luck trying to send them back.
>>1107256
>muh small bussiness
If you haven't realized small business is being beaten out by the low costs big business is profiting from.
Small business is a relic at this point, fuck it.
>>1107015
When will you realize real wages have been stagnating since 70's at the same time neoliberalism started its assault on the minimum wage and corporations started lobbying like mad?
The idea that companies will simply stop hiring workers if they have to pay a little more is fucking ridiculous, the only reason people have jobs in the west is because high skill industry needs high skill labour.
Also if anything bad does happen you simply have the government subsidize or what have you, the idea that you should leave things bad because things might get worse if you try to fix the problem is pure cancerous thinking.
>>1107385
>corporations only started lobbying like mad in the 70s
You're wrong, and there's already so much money in politics that many regulations help corporations at the expense of smaller competitors.
Neoliberalism crippled the Soviet Union and made the USA the single world superpower.
Real wages have stagnated primarily because of the federal reserve's printing anyways.
You think things are bad because you're force-fed facebook memes about income inequality, but they are actually quite good. Having billionaires in your country is a good thing.
>>1107385
neoliberalism is a nonce word brought in to replace capitalism/imperialism in the light of the socialist-flavored populism of South America which used the term to try and pretend they were above Cold War dynamics.
>>1107224
Nah. Unlike y'all, leftists don't operate out of raw self interest.
>>1108064
Everyone works out of raw self interest
A lot of the failure of the socialist left has to do with racial animus that prevented a unified front against capital.
>>1107420
That pic shows that the economy began to take off after Pinochet left.
>>1108064
Everyone does. Convincing themselves otherwise just makes them shitty at it.
>>1099272
Communism never really took a hold because they wasn't real poverty like in Europe. Sure there was poor people in America but they were nearly as poor as many Europeans. Leftism had to come to America based on social issues not economic issues.
>>1108194
weren't*
>>1099278
>What's leftism by the way?
The belief that more government is better
>>1099335
>That is to say none at all.
That's a funny way of saying we want freedom
>>1108226
Which is to say we desire very little government
>>1099278
Any political organization, or member thereof, which either wants to abolish or render unrecognizable the character of a society.
Ideological spectrum fags, pls go and stay go.
Even the most left wing Americans know that America has greater social mobility than most European countries. Therefore, the Marxist brand of leftism was irrelevant. American left wing people tend to follow Thomas Paine more than Marx.
>>1108468
Well, social mobility if you are an immigrant or middle class, if you're poor and native less so
>>1108194
>Sure there was poor people in America but they were nearly as poor as many Europeans
That's not really true, the U.S. had plenty of poor people and still does, but in the U.S. poor people tend to not vote or vote for authoritarian liberals who promise them jobs instead of welfare benefits or improved conditions. Quantity > Quality.
>>1107025
... 90,000 of the last 100,000 years were spent in nearly hierarchyless hunter-gatherer societies
>>1108483
Of course, there exists no way to prove that assertion.
>>1108468
>America has greater social mobility than most European countries
What is "Things that Americans believe that are objectively, measurably false"
>>1108487
Well, you can interact with existing, modern day hunter-gatherers.
You can use archelogical evidence to look for burials with higher than average property, or other signs of social stratification.
Or you could have an IQ above room temperature and make the basic deductive leap that societies with little in the way of permanent property or trade create less opportunity for inequality.
>>1108483
Maybe so, but at the same time the only way we can ever go back to that kind of society is after a massive die-off of human beings.
>>1108495
That thinking is why the modern idea of the "political spectrum" is so clumsy and handfisted, and why all sorts of different variants exist to try and account for differences that aren't represented.
The ideological spectrum is a bunk notion that was propagated by those who would place themselves on the left, to try and obscure the nature of revolution.
Those who opposed the Monarchy sat to the left. Those who supported it sat to the right. This is the origin of the left-right dichotomy.
>>1108498
So, if I find a pack of dead wolves, and no wolf was buried with higher-than-average property for a wolf, we can assume that wolf packs have no hierarchy?
>>1108523
By human standards, hell no.
You've got no god-kings, no hereditary offices, no government officials, no dedicated soldiers or bureaucrats or priests.
Also, most of the modern day hunter-gatherer societies we interact with tend to be pretty egalitarian.
Other than village elders that get brought in for advice, and to mediate disputes, family seems to be the largest unit of social organization.
>>1108483
>hunter gatherers had no hierarchy
Holy fucking shit I spilled my drink.
>>1108532
>You've got no god-kings, no hereditary offices, no government officials, no dedicated soldiers or bureaucrats or priests.
And we know this because they weren't buried with junk. We know that people didn't have social hierarchy because there's no evidence of economic hierarchy. That's what you're saying?
>>1107277
If they support capitalism they can't really be called leftists
Most SJWs want society to generally remain the same, but want people to be more polite when it comes to identity politics or whatever
>>1108521
In general that's still the case. Not all rightists are out-and-out monarchists these days, but all rightists support the maintenance or even creation of hierarchy.
>>1108523
Hierarchy in the context of history and social science doesn't refer to somebody being more charismatic or more well-liked, but the existence of structures which perpetuate inequality across generations.
A basis of modern anthropology is the distinction between "big man" societies and chiefdoms. In a big man society, such as pre-colonial Australia or arguably medieval Iceland, power was not permanent. Instead, individual people with the most personal influence could coerce, but not force others to do their will. This power would disappear immediately upon their death.
A famous documentary called "Ongka's Big Moka" looks at a Papuan "big man", who is basically a popular guy within his largely egalitarian tribe. There is no chief. Because he's well-liked and charismatic, he can run things. However, there's no indication that his son or daughter will take over.
A chiefdom is different because it's non-egalitarian. A chief is not necessarily the most charismatic person in the village, but instead is the leader due to tradition. Because his father was the chief, he is the chief, and his son will be the chief.
No animals exhibit this kind of permanent hierarchy. While some individual animals are deferent to another animal, it's in a "big man" context. There is no reason to believe than an alpha dog's oldest pup will become leader of the pack after he dies.
>>1108551
Grave goods are incredibly common in pre-agricultural societies. Some hunter-gatherer societies DO show evidence of hierarchy.
But the vast majority of these societies, in prehistory and even today, show no evidence of permanent hierarchy.
>>1108468
America having greater social mobility than Europe was probably true 50-100 years ago but not any more.
>>1108761
>If they support capitalism they can't really be called leftists
>marxists unironically believe that the left begins and ends with their fringe shit
>>1107420
There is data on the explosion in lobbying and it's connected to the emergence of the Powell Memorandum. Do you think it's really a coincidence? The fact that big money lobby's to hurt competitors is just par for the course, if the worker can get high wages from big corporations he doesn't care about small business so stop bringing it up. The petite-bourgeois is not better for him than the fat cat.
>Real wages have stagnated primarily because of the federal reserve's printing anyways
Nonsense. The money supply is endogenous, banks create money depending on how credit worthy the debtor appears, the reason wages haven't increased is class conflict pure and simple.
>Neoliberalism crippled the Soviet Union and made the USA the single world superpower.
Only truth.
>force-fed memes
Here you are posting a misleading chart on Chile? GDP is not the same thing as GDP per capita, also Growth is not the same thing as Development.
Read something substantial you mongoloid: https://www.citizen.org/documents/chilealternatives.pdf
>>1107256
>every policy I dislike will be implemented stand alone
>policy change doesn't come with comprehensive adjustment plans
m8
Because Americans all think they're future millionaires who don't want to pay tax on their future millions, not to mention Americans have a "Wild West" mentality that promotes dogged individualism. In Europe people actually live in communities that are more homogenous, and therefore feel like they're part of a collectivity more strongly, thus wanting to help each other out more.
This latter point is what the rightists at the head of the EU want to destroy. Destroy the communities that make up Europe in order to better turn people into consumer-sheep.
>>1109405
Where do you think credit comes from? I'm denying what you see as the relationship between the federal reserve increase the reserves of banks and the actual money supply.
Are you simply saying that this is nonsense or what? Just explain where you think money comes from and then we will proceed.
Foregone conclusion? If you look at the plethora of possible considerations almost none of them are satisfactory. Pure and simple if productivity increase then wages should increase proportionally, the fact that this relationship has changed can not be economic so it must be political. What is your explanation? Apart from the explanation I contest what even could be any others?
>>1109405
Also I can't believe I didn't notice this but you're going to have to explain why you're talking about inflation when the data for wages and productivity that shows stagnation is inflation adjusted.
Or are you one of those the Fed is a conspiracy types?
>>1108764
Nothing could function without hierarchy
>>1109465
Does hierarchy arise due to cranes or skyhooks?
>>1109466
Try building them or operating them without it.
>>1109428
The creation of credit is not the creation of money. The creation of money is entirely dependent upon the policy of the Fed, through its requirements and market operations. Lending banks are price takers, and do not decide the degree in which apparent money is created. Unless you're suggesting financial markets have been cartelized, which is a different issue entirely.
>If you look at the plethora of possible considerations almost none of them are satisfactory.
And do you wave your hand and mutter "class conflict".
>Pure and simple if productivity increase then wages should increase proportionally
Why?
>the fact that this relationship has changed can not be economic so it must be political.
So there's absolutely no economic reason? And you can cleanly delineate between "economic" and "political", in a world where aggregate markets free of political influence are nonexistent?
Have you considered the overvaluation of the dollar from the perspective of traders, productivity outstripping propensity to consume, to name a few? Of course, I don't have to present an explanation to challenge yours.
>>1109473
As a fucking sky pilot yourself, the fact that you don't know what a skyhook is is fucking laughable.
>>1109465
spooky af
>>1109500
>The creation of credit is not the creation of money.
First of all since credit so much outweighs actual currency, yes it is. Second of all you know the exchange equation and so a change in the money supply only has meaning when in circulation, since you referred to apparent money I can only assume you followed this. Then you mean that the actions of the central bank affect the money supply in another way? So not printing money as said before, or was this in reference to QE? When it acts to increase the reserves of banks it doesn't necessarily affect the money supply because the causal link is the other way around and what really determines the money in circulation is whether banks feel they can have a loan repaid - the only thing and it's been admitted by the BOE so have a read on their report(money creation in the modern economy).
Because growth has been largely debt fueled the need to pay debts can easily be seen as the reason businesses are trying to keep wages low.
On the price taker thing this is just muh efficient market bullshit and I'm not going to respond to that.
>productivity outstripping propensity to consume
What happened to muh efficient markets, and besides you know when AD falls under AE we have recession and it's a short term phenomena not a long term trend - at worst if it's so inefficient we have crisis or we force other nations to open their markets to our goods.
>overvaluation of dollar from perspective of traders
Not really sure what this is supposed to mean.
I guess one thing that I mean is that before it is economical it is political because it is precisely a political relation. My position was badly phrased but this is why I stress you give an explanation why it is economic. Also the fact that it has an economic reason doesn't mean it's not political so I'm not sure what the point of this is at this point.
But again you don't have to, of course.
>>1099462
This
Why do dumb fucks use liberal to mean leftist as well?
>>1101924
US was founded by rich fucks who didn't want to pay taxes but didn't give a shit about anyone else having to pay taxes
>>1109465
The destruction of feudal hierarchy was an improvement
>>1107068
>Nordic model
>Socialism
Kill yourself
>>1110405
Debatable.
Because democracy in the US is basically USSR tier. All you can do is approve the party appointed candidates.
Except there are 2 super-capitalist parties instead of 1.
>>1110439
Do you like earning a fucking salary or are you so much of a cuckold that you wish you had a lord to fellate?
>>1099272
Because the US isn't full of pussies
>>1108401
>Any political organization, or member thereof, which either wants to abolish or render unrecognizable the character of a society.
Laissez-faire capitalism?
>>1108541
He is nearly right. Hierarchies in such societies are usually built along the lines of gender and age - specifics may vary. Chiefs function as mediators, effectively public servants - not leaders as we understand the concept. Warchiefs, when there are such, only stay in power for as long as a sizable force of young males are interested in pillaging - that is until after accruing enough women and glory. There is no such thing as a despot. Also, mystics are weirdos that do faith-healing part-time, and that's basically it.
It's pretty organic way of organizing and more democratic than most civilized societies throughout history.
>>1099462
Yeah america's right is super liberal, especially when banning civil liberties based on the Bible. or when advocating "carpet bombing" of middle eastern countries.
>>1108401
...what
>>1110552
>Do you like earning a fucking salary or are you so much of a cuckold that you wish you had a lord to fellate?
Argueably, depending on your income status, you'd be better off under a feudal hierarchy considering that you would operate under a well defined contract instead of a vague corporate buerocracy.
>>1112368
You don't know what liberal implies do you?
>>1100411
Cuck and its variations are cancer terms used by a growing counterculture that is giving SJWs a run for their money in the departments of cringe and insanity.
>>1108064
no, they operate out of self-destruction, just like the majority of euro countries now, becuase their men and leaders are females, entirely emotion-driven, weak, frail.
>>1108483
>natural selection
>moving tribes
>not a hiearchy
>>1099272
Depends on which era you talk about.
Prior to the 60's, Leftism and Marxism seen as a foreign menace. Most Leftists were Italian, Jewish, or Polish immigrants. Even the Progressives distrusted them for that reason. Red-baiting was tied to xenophobia.
After the 1960's, the Left basically took over the country. But the more mainstream ones retained power because they knew how to work with the system. The radicals were given important positions were they could influence the wider culture, but have no say in the affairs of governance.
Also, class was always of less importance to Americans then race. In Europe, it was the opposite.
>>1110552
I literally never had a salary.
>>1114136
>After the 1960's, the Left basically took over the country. But the more mainstream ones retained power because they knew how to work with the system. The radicals were given important positions were they could influence the wider culture, but have no say in the affairs of governance.
?
>>1114136
Lots of German immigrants were socialists, look at Wisconsin and Minnesota
>>1114996
That was different though. That was primarily based on traditional 19th Century German cultural norms. It was also out in the sparcely populated hinterlands, where nobody cared. Most of the main agitators of the Marxist variety were in the cities, and viewed as a foreign menace.
>>1114260
Talking about the New Left and the McGovernites. They basically staged a hostile takeover of the media, academia, and the entertainment industry. But Noam Chomksy, or anyone who things like him, is never going to be elected to high office. Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Bernie Sanders are more successful because they know to advance the Left within the confines of the system. This was a major disagreement between Hillary and her mentor, Saul Alinksy.
