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.
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.