I use it to refer to those who voice good-sounding criticisms of liberals from the left but either do not identify as socialist (Matt Taibbi) or believe reform through electoral politics is still a viable route rather than revolution (Thomas Frank, Michael Moore). If I'm feeling particularly annoyed with them at a given moment I'll also use it disparagingly to refer to "humanist" non-Marxist socialists like Nathan J Robinson, Bernie Sanders, or Chris Hedges.
If I’m feeling particularly annoyed with them at a given moment I’ll also use it disparagingly to refer to “humanist” non-Marxist socialists
I'm with you on applying it to people who are still hoping some type of reformed capitalism can work, but when you start calling other socialists "-lib" because you disagree with their philosophical justification for socialism that seems like a bridge too far. If they're willing to seriously criticize even an idealized version of capitalism they're on our side.
Well their philosophical justification for socialism often creates rifts because the real world doesn't map onto idealist preconceptions.
So when it comes to doing things like opposing imperialism, non-marxist socialists get tripped up because states like Syria, Iran or the DPRK don't represent their utopia. They then end up flattening the distinctions and say things like, "well the US is bad but so is Assad" and end up repeating US propaganda that justifies imperialist intervention.
And if your idea of socialism is based in liberal ideas like individual rights and representative democracy, then don't freak out about being called a lib, just defend your position.
So when it comes to doing things like opposing imperialism, non-marxist socialists get tripped up because states like Syria, Iran or the DPRK don’t represent their utopia. They then end up flattening the distinctions and say things like, “well the US is bad but so is Assad” and end up repeating US propaganda that justifies imperialist intervention.
This is an excellent point, but I think it misses something important. "Humanist" socialists will agree with Marxist socialists on 95% of things, including all the domestic policies we can work on right now at local levels. Where they (sometimes) disagree is on foreign policy, which is not something the left will realistically be able to change for quite some time.
Right now we have local organizations and local politicians to the left of the Democratic Party doing good things, and both types of socialists are in lockstep on all of that. Meanwhile, even if we had Bernie as president and 500 AOC clones in Congress it would still be an uphill battle to dismantle the military-industrial complex. We're talking about shutting down the entire foreign intelligence apparatus and starting from scratch, dramatically scaling down the size of the military, closing dozens of military bases around the world, trying to figure out how to exit all the conflicts we're in without fucking things up even worse, etc. The biggest point of contention between Marxist and "humanist" socialists is so far out of reach right now it makes no sense to let it get in the way.
And if your idea of socialism is based in liberal ideas like individual rights and representative democracy, then don’t freak out about being called a lib, just defend your position.
By the same tolken, maybe Marxist socialists shouldn't be antagonizing other types of socialists by calling them libs -- just make your case.
My experience with most radlibs (individual people, not public political figures) has been that they are people who get that capitalism sucks, but their brain is so rotten and stuck in the liberal mindset they can't see anything past liberalism. They constantly have meltdowns and are incapable of seriously thinking of any poltitical action past voting and posting on social media. Their worldview is very contradictory and broken.
These kinds of people often don't remain radlibs for long because it's a very unstable way of being.
Matt has said in a stream that the only way a podcaster can actually be a grifter is if you pay for the podcast and there's no podcast. "Grifter" is way overused to mean "someone I don't like who makes money".
Yes. Delivering a product is typically a good defense, although I do feel like certain right wing projects are grifts in the more expansive sense.
Like, TPUSA delivers a product, but it's not "converting the young", it's just fooling the old. I'd say that's a grift - a product is being delivered, but it's certainly not the one promised?
True. If people are supporting a podcast on patreon while thinking that what they're doing is helping to make it more prominent so that it can convert a different demographic that it's not actually appealing to, that would be a grift.
There has to be some bad intent on the part of the grifter, too. If TPUSA knows it's appealing just to boomers and loser college Republicans, but it sells itself to right-wing money as a pipeline for a broader segment of youth, that's a grift because they know they're not providing what they claim to be providing, but are cashing in off of it anyway.
It's an extreme stretch to apply this logic to a podcast that isn't really selling itself to anyone as anything specific. And we should be treating self-described socialists out there creating openly-socialist media with good faith, anyway.
Idk how many of these people take themselves “seriously”. They may think they’re doing “some good” (which yeah, is fucking debatable) but I don’t think they’re “serious people”.
Also it’s a spectrum not a binary. You can kinda be a true believe but also wanna make some paper at the same time.
Does "radlib" even mean anything?
(not disagreeing with the post. that word just irritates me because it's often used without any meaning)
Woke social liberals who think Capitalism in its current state can be reformed
i can fix her
deleted by creator
In theory it's a liberal who sees all the issues with the current setup of Neoliberal capitalism and think it can be reformed.
In practice it's just used as a new term of people who really like capitalism or something.
It means elecectoral socdems suck.
I use it to refer to those who voice good-sounding criticisms of liberals from the left but either do not identify as socialist (Matt Taibbi) or believe reform through electoral politics is still a viable route rather than revolution (Thomas Frank, Michael Moore). If I'm feeling particularly annoyed with them at a given moment I'll also use it disparagingly to refer to "humanist" non-Marxist socialists like Nathan J Robinson, Bernie Sanders, or Chris Hedges.
I'm with you on applying it to people who are still hoping some type of reformed capitalism can work, but when you start calling other socialists "-lib" because you disagree with their philosophical justification for socialism that seems like a bridge too far. If they're willing to seriously criticize even an idealized version of capitalism they're on our side.
Well their philosophical justification for socialism often creates rifts because the real world doesn't map onto idealist preconceptions.
So when it comes to doing things like opposing imperialism, non-marxist socialists get tripped up because states like Syria, Iran or the DPRK don't represent their utopia. They then end up flattening the distinctions and say things like, "well the US is bad but so is Assad" and end up repeating US propaganda that justifies imperialist intervention.
And if your idea of socialism is based in liberal ideas like individual rights and representative democracy, then don't freak out about being called a lib, just defend your position.
This is an excellent point, but I think it misses something important. "Humanist" socialists will agree with Marxist socialists on 95% of things, including all the domestic policies we can work on right now at local levels. Where they (sometimes) disagree is on foreign policy, which is not something the left will realistically be able to change for quite some time.
Right now we have local organizations and local politicians to the left of the Democratic Party doing good things, and both types of socialists are in lockstep on all of that. Meanwhile, even if we had Bernie as president and 500 AOC clones in Congress it would still be an uphill battle to dismantle the military-industrial complex. We're talking about shutting down the entire foreign intelligence apparatus and starting from scratch, dramatically scaling down the size of the military, closing dozens of military bases around the world, trying to figure out how to exit all the conflicts we're in without fucking things up even worse, etc. The biggest point of contention between Marxist and "humanist" socialists is so far out of reach right now it makes no sense to let it get in the way.
By the same tolken, maybe Marxist socialists shouldn't be antagonizing other types of socialists by calling them libs -- just make your case.
My experience with most radlibs (individual people, not public political figures) has been that they are people who get that capitalism sucks, but their brain is so rotten and stuck in the liberal mindset they can't see anything past liberalism. They constantly have meltdowns and are incapable of seriously thinking of any poltitical action past voting and posting on social media. Their worldview is very contradictory and broken.
These kinds of people often don't remain radlibs for long because it's a very unstable way of being.
Same thing with "grifter."
Nah I'm fine with grifter. A grifter is someone who pretends to be a serious person but is really just trying to make a quick buck.
Sure, but it's another term that's often misused. People will call anyone (for example, Bernie) a grifter now.
Matt has said in a stream that the only way a podcaster can actually be a grifter is if you pay for the podcast and there's no podcast. "Grifter" is way overused to mean "someone I don't like who makes money".
Yes. Delivering a product is typically a good defense, although I do feel like certain right wing projects are grifts in the more expansive sense.
Like, TPUSA delivers a product, but it's not "converting the young", it's just fooling the old. I'd say that's a grift - a product is being delivered, but it's certainly not the one promised?
True. If people are supporting a podcast on patreon while thinking that what they're doing is helping to make it more prominent so that it can convert a different demographic that it's not actually appealing to, that would be a grift.
There has to be some bad intent on the part of the grifter, too. If TPUSA knows it's appealing just to boomers and loser college Republicans, but it sells itself to right-wing money as a pipeline for a broader segment of youth, that's a grift because they know they're not providing what they claim to be providing, but are cashing in off of it anyway.
It's an extreme stretch to apply this logic to a podcast that isn't really selling itself to anyone as anything specific. And we should be treating self-described socialists out there creating openly-socialist media with good faith, anyway.
Idk how many of these people take themselves “seriously”. They may think they’re doing “some good” (which yeah, is fucking debatable) but I don’t think they’re “serious people”.
Also it’s a spectrum not a binary. You can kinda be a true believe but also wanna make some paper at the same time.