#liberalis

Kerdesek azoknak akik szeretnenek erzekenyiteni:

- melyik orszagban milyen tanulmanyok alapjan gondoljuk hogy ezek az erzekenyitesek jo dolgok?

- hol van a negativ tanulmany hogy ha nem toljuk ezt a kontentot a gyerekeknek akkor “erzeketlen” felnottek lesznek?

- miert gondoljuk hogy Bagdy Emoke velemenye nem szamit annak ellenere hogy az a no soha nem csinalt semmi rosszat csak letett az asztalra egy olyan eletpalyat amit nemecsekernoorszagban kevesen?

- miert gondoljuk hogy 1 milliard legy nem tevedhet? 

- mibol gondoljuk hogy aki nem akar erzekenyiteni az kirekeszteni akar?

- miert kell a temat abszolutokban kezelni? a mostani nezet miszerint erzekenyiteni kell ovodasokat / kisiskolasaokat egy abszolut allapot? 

- az elet es irodalom iroja vajon naci amikor ezeket irja: 

"csak néhány van szerkezetileg, nyelvileg rendben, amelyikben nincsenek logikai hibák, rossz mondatok, idétlen nevek vagy giccsbe hajó kinyilatkoztatások."

- azokban az orszagokban ahol az erzekenyites mar 666odik fokozatban zajlik (pl. USA - California) itt tartunk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_is_Amazing Ez oke, vallahato, ez kell itthon is? Elfogadhatonak talalod ha a te gyereked fog kinezni igy? 

- miert kell egyatalan a gyerekekre ilyen propgandat (mivel en nem rendelkezem az elso kerdesre olyan valasszal ami azt igazolna hogy a gyerekek majd erzeketlen felnottek lesznek ilyen kontent alapjan ezert ez propaganda kategoriaba esik) tolni? Ha a felnotteket nem tudjuk meggyozni akkor probaljuk meg a gyerekeket? Csak par pelda a tortenelembol ahol ugyanezt csinaltak:

Remelem kelloen szellemi oriasnak hiszitek magatokat ezek utan ha nincs semmi a kezetekben hogy meg tudjatok valaszolni ezeket a kerdeseket. [1]

It is reasonable to wonder whether the divide between liberalism and leftism actually matters very much. Why does there actually need to be so much animosity between the Clinton and Sanders factions of the Democratic Party? (Or the Blair and Corbyn factions in the UK’s Labour Party.) Why on earth did the race for DNC chair between Keith Ellison and Tom Perez grow so vicious, given their substantially similar progressive credentials? With Donald Trump poised to ravage the planet, either through boiling it slowly over time or blowing it up instantaneously with his vast nuclear arsenal, it would seem time for liberals and leftists to emphasize their similarities rather than their differences. Squabbling over minutiae is a fine way to ensure political irrelevance, and if everyone agrees that right-wing policies are poisonous and immoral, then surely the differences among progressive and leftish people can be worked out later.

It’s also true that, according to one view, the differences between liberals and leftists are not even differences of substance, but differences of political strategy. The claim of people like Clinton and Blair is that, while they share the core progressive principles of compassion and equality, they are simply more hard-nosed and pragmatic. They are more cynical about the limits of political possibility, and believe that change happens slowly. From this perspective, the core difference between Clinton and Sanders is nottheir ultimate end goals (they both want a world of progressive values), but how to get there.

If that’s the case, and the core of the divide is over “compromise” versus “purity,” or “a view that major progress happens slowly” versus “a demand that it happens immediately,” then the disagreements here should be friendly ones. Unity should be pretty easy, because we’re literally trying to help one another pursue the same objective. I want the same things you do, but I simply think that I have a more effective way of getting them.

But while this is often the kind of language with which moderate liberals distinguish themselves from more “radical” progressive factions, I don’t actually think it does accurately describe the nature of the liberal/left divide. And while conservatives would lump all these varying political tendencies together as a generic political tendency called “the left,” there are some internal conflicts that are both fundamental and irresolvable. It is not simply a disagreement over tactics among people who share ideals. The two sets of ideals are different, and come from two entirely different worldviews.

The core divergence in these worldviews is in their beliefs about the nature of contemporary political and economic institutions. The difference here is not “how quickly these institutions should change,” but whether changes to them should be fundamental structural changes or not. The leftist sees capitalism as a horror, and believes that so long as money and profit rule the earth, human beings will be made miserable and will destroy themselves. The liberal does not actually believe this. Rather, the liberal believes that while there are problems with capitalism, it can be salvaged if given a few tweaks here and there. As Nancy Pelosi said of the present Democratic party: “We’re capitalist.” When Bernie Sanders is asked if he is a capitalist, he answers flatly: “No.” Sanders is a socialist, and socialism is not capitalism, and there is no possibility of healing the ideological rift between the two. Liberals believe that the economic and political system is a machine that has broken down and needs fixing. Leftists believe that the machine is not “broken.” Rather, it is working perfectly well; the problem is that it is a death machine designed to chew up human lives. You don’t fix the death machine, you smash it to bits.