Talk:Liberal Socialism

>Assigning Vaush positions that he stands against, has criticized in the past and never defended is just wrong, i get that a lot of people assume things of him but it would be fairer and more accurate considering the data of him online to atleast keep the indigenism, american patriotism and interventionism as alleged, and of course change him from social democracy to libertarian socialism as that is the positions he defends
 * Dude, you clearly seem to have a huge conflict of interest in this article. And quite honestly I am not really happy having my profile made into a giant battle ground because some people were upset I removed something I thought was extremely biased towards one viewpoint and which more often than not either misrepresented a movement/ideology/person for the interests of the writer. I may HAVE my own biases too but I think it is pretty clear considering Vaush's videos and his critics he is VERY consistent in his support and love to America and their liberal worldview over other nations ideas, just that he doesn't like it's current economic system in its place. Also, Vaush has a lot of views VERY comparable to Soclib, more than he wants to admit. Basically a lot of his views often are justifications to his held views why trying to deny the baggage that comes with his leanings (pro-American anti black-liberation "black-nazi", pro-nato, pro-leftwing reformism, pro-electoralism, pro-deplatforming (harassment) opponents or critics, pro "controlling the narrative" like in the fortress arc etc.)
 * Then we should at least agree on the compromise then, both you and yugoslavpartisan have shown to have your own biases against Vaush, and although i'm not biased as you say i am, i do like the guy, so we should atleast solve this by settling on the middle ground i proposed
 * >I am not biased like you say I am, I just want to remove all the references to his points which I find bad for optics.

Also a "middle-ground" while sometimes useful, we should seek depicting what a person honestly believes and Vaush has shown time and time again his viewpoints that are very consistent to his actions (platforming NATO when it suits him while "deplatforming" those who oppose him).
 * >I am not removing references to his points that could be bad for optics, i'm literally adding to stuff in a way that more accurately represents his beliefs which you would know if you actuall engaged with any of his content, his "anti-indigenism" is entirely alleged as according to him he has agreed with pro indigenous activists and while he did debate professor flowers, Lmao, nice cherrypicking when it suits you but ignoring it when it makes him look bad, racist, or insensitive. He legit had numerous debates beforehand with others about it too and he kept calling them "native nazi's" and the same is true with his attacks against black-nationalists his main point of contention was her view that the colonised people's have the right to just unilateraly kick any white person out of that land, Yes. they do have a right to kick out colonialists, so South Africans or the Irish are the real nazis now according to you? Most natives don't want to unironically kick out ALL white people (even though including the few who do, I think they are FAR more justified in wanting that considering they were and still are victims of one of the most horrible of genocides in human history and which most Americans don't and never did give a sh*t about it despite them living on a land that was never really "theirs" anyways. all the while, the few natives left are still under threat of having their entire people, culture, language, history, and way of life completely destroyed and who continue to live in abject poverty thanks to the colonial government), it's just a white-american fear that if we give natives independence they will somehow want to do the exact same thing they did to them. Which is the American Colonial Mindset in a nutshell... White nationalists use this argument all the time to justify racism against blacks and black-nationalist groups who oppose them and why giving blacks rights would mean whites would become the new oppressed minority somehow. and being against that shouldn't really make him anti-indigenist Yes it does. He wants to keep land his nation unjustly stole through genocide. considereing his other positions Like platforming NATO?, same with the interventionism You mean NATO neo-imperialism?, although he talked with a NATO guy, if you actually watched the interview you will see that most of his agreements where on non-interventionist policies Honestly I could just dissect this whole point but even the fact he interviews an open war-criminal and platforms them while not doing it to his opponents from that very justification is just beyond a meme. It's beyond hypocritical, and although he has been pro-interventionist on the sense of the kurds for example An actually GOOD take for once, he has been against constantly against the american interventionism around the globeLike he legit talks about the Bolivian Coup once and now he is this BASED WHOLESOME WOKE ANTI-COLONIAL ALLY when he unironically tries to deplatform opponents who critique him on his western-centric worldview. And is increasingly trying to force his fans to control the narrative surrounding him and to slide opposing viewpoints under the rug... So much for being a "libertarian", let alone an anarchist., so yes while you should list the pro-interventionism there, listing it as just his position and not alleged, as well as marking it as neoconservatism is kinda that just dishonest,  I mean maybe but when he goes out of his way to interview NATO war-criminals it kinda makes a bit more sense. also refering to his streams he has constantly railed against socdems,Yet for some reason follows the exact same ideology of old socdems in that we should achieve a true socialism/communism through liberal democracy? Thats how old (and even some modern socdems) view themselves. Especially when vaush considers any opponents to his idea of "vote Biden or FALSE LEFTIST/ANARCHIST" as something his supporters should take to heart  because he disagrees with them on whether or not there should be a revolution and whether or not should socialism be implemented Old Socdems wanted a revolution to communism/socialism too, just that it had to go though transition of liberal democracy and electoralism to do it. Yet to you somehow, vaush is closer to an anarchist, a movement which historically and often still wants to abandon such "methods" entirely and supports a full on revolution against the government and state rather than to join it., considering that and all the other takes that can be observerd through his streams Right, like "claiming" to be a "libertarian" yet actively promotes harassment and silencing of dissent to push the narrative in his favour its way fairer to just label him as a liberatarian socialist as he claims he is. Oh, okay so let's just label Juche as a democratic ideology too, it's nation is literally named the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and while we're at it, we should also categorize National Socialism as a genuinely socialist ideology. It's in the name after all... What do you mean someone can identify as something when it suits them without automatically making them actually a genuine member of that group?
 * >Lmao, nice cherrypicking when it suits you but ignoring it when it makes him look bad, racist, or insensitive. He legit had numerous debates beforehand with others about it too and he kept calling them "native nazi's" and the same is true with his attacks against black-nationalistsBoth your points about his opinions on black-nationalists and indigenists are mute considering in both those cases he is not actually refering to them based on their indigenous or black nationalist takes but on other takes that tend to be reactionary in nature, not anything referring to actual decolonialismYes. they do have a right to kick out colonialists, so South Africans or the Irish are the real nazis now according to you? Most natives don't want to unironically kick out ALL white people (even though including the few who do, I think they are FAR more justified in wanting that considering they were and still are victims of one of the most horrible of genocides in human history and which most Americans don't and never did give a sh*t about it despite them living on a land that was never really "theirs" anyways. all the while, the few natives left are still under threat of having their entire people, culture, language, history, and way of life completely destroyed and who continue to live in abject poverty thanks to the colonial government), it's just a white-american fear that if we give natives independence they will somehow want to do the exact same thing they did to them. Which is the American Colonial Mindset in a nutshell.Thats entirely your take on it but it doesn't disprove what i was trying to say which is that Vaush's disagreement with Flowers wasn't her anti-colonialism but that specific line of thinking, which considering that it is far from being central to the movement it shouldn't qualify him as a anti-indigenistYes it does. He wants to keep land his nation unjustly stole through genocide. In the literal sense, yes, but he has advocated for policies that are anti-colonialist in nature Like platforming NATO?Bad faith way of analysing it, he never said anything pro-NATO, neither he nor the NATO guyHonestly I could just dissect this whole point but even the fact he interviews an open war-criminal and platforms them while not doing it to his opponents from that very justification is just beyond a meme. It's beyond hypocriticalAs stated before, he never stated anything pro-NATO during that interviewLike he legit talks about the Bolivian Coup once and now he is this BASED WHOLESOME WOKE ANTI-COLONIAL ALLY when he unironically tries to deplatform opponents who critique him on his western-centric worldview. And is increasingly trying to force his fans to control the narrative surrounding him and to slide opposing viewpoints under the rug... So much for being a "libertarian", let alone an anarchist.This is entirely biased ranting that shows you clearly have no knowledge of Vaush aside from what you hear from second sources, Vaush has advocated for anti-imperialism and critiqued american imperialism numerous times during his streams and doesn't really deplatform or slide opposing viewpoints under the rug, unless you consider getting banned from his stream for disagreeing with him meaning that he is pro-censorship, which it doesn't I mean maybe but when he goes out of his way to interview NATO war-criminals it kinda makes a bit more sense.Again, very bad faith way of seeing it as explained beforeYet for some reason follows the exact same ideology of old socdems in that we should achieve a true socialism/communism through liberal democracy? Thats how old (and even some modern socdems) view themselves. Especially when vaush considers any opponents to his idea of "vote Biden or FALSE LEFTIST/ANARCHIST" as something his supporters should take to heart He believes that in a simply utilitarian sense lefties should push for policies that better the conditions of life of people, but is not pro-reformism in the sense that he believes that reformism is the way to achieve socialism, he is strongly against liberal democracy and believes in a revolutionOld Socdems wanted a revolution to communism/socialism too, just that it had to go though transition of liberal democracy and electoralism to do it. Yet somehow vaush is closer to an anarchist who wants to abandon such "methods" entirelyAgain,he doesn't believe in electoralism as a way to reform into a revolution, only that utilitarianism indicates that participating in liberal democracy can be useful to reduce harmRight, like "claiming" to be a "libertarian" yet actively promotes harassment and silencing of dissent to push the narrative in his favourHe takes left libertarian positions in literally every debate he does, its not just he claiming, he also does not promote harassment, citing multiple times that if his opponents find evidence of someone harassing them they should show him so he can ban them.Oh, okay so let's just label Juche as a democratic ideology too, it's nation is literally named the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and while we're at it, we should also categorize National Socialism as a genuinely socialist ideology. It's in the name after all... What do you mean someone can identify as something when it suits them without automatically making them actually a genuine member of that group?I cited multiple reasons as to why Vaush should be considered a Liberatarian Socialist, it isn't just because he clainms he is and you're being extremely bad faith by interprenting it that way

>INB4 Proof >https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/04/1115452
 * I don't think this is even worthy of trying to disprove because it is clear you are too much of a supporter of your idol to ever consider changing your mind. Mainly because he radicalized you so you cannot see the true person he is, that being an egotistical self-absorbed social media creator. And whose abuse of power is evident in basically everyone who isn't one of his stans. I was once a vaush fan once but then I started giving my own views and was banned instantly and was repeatedly called a "racist" for talking about movements that were about decolonization apparently making me a "native nazi". So yeah, it seems like at this point I would have a better chance wining a debate with a literal wall than with a person so determined that they are right as you. Oh and btw. "Harm-Reduction" as an anarchist, especially in this time in history, is a complete joke when we have at best half a decade to get our act straight before the f*cking world will most likely end up dying because of the constant dumbf*ckery our leaders have and disregard for the climate which would mean breaking out of the status quo and not getting the sweet ching-ching by those who lobby them such as oil barrons. We don't have time for "voting blue no matter who" because the system based on liberal electoralism is based on a model that values the status quo above all else and putting that as your main idea of good "praxis" for an eventual "revolution" (that will totally come eventually, trust me bro! Just join the system, vote for the democrats, I really don't care who it is by this point, at least its not red team!) is just letting the capitalists kill us. So even on practical grounds his idea of "harm-reduction" by reformism and electoralism (alongside purging dissidents to his clearly "superior" world view) is beyond dumb and shows he is more willing to attack other leftists even when they are right if it means appealing to a more center, normie "reformist" audience rather than to try and implement genuinely radical leftist change.
 * [[File:SQC.png]] Yugo - I used to be a Vaushite too. A couple of months ago I went to Vaush's discord server wanting to have an honest discussion with Vaushites on decolonisation. And guess what? They insulted me about my autism and used it as an insult. Then they insulted me about being half-Irish. I was then banned for being a "troll". Such polite lovely people
 * Dude you clearly are very biased against him, i constantly try to argue simply using the data out there and trying to avoid things that are just my opinion, considering that you seem to think that i'm some kind of super Vaush fan which i've stated multiple times that i'm not you're clearing coming into this just trying to push your biased (and wrong) agenda about Vaush
 * Yeah but at least I admit I have a conflict of interest. And that I actually have sources to back up myself in that he is mostly a fraud in his claims of trying to spread "radical left-wing praxis and solutions" all the while purging the more radical (or basically even moderate left-wing) sects of his former fanbase who didn't want to have to vote for one side of the same two-sided coin. How in the hell are you just going to get 20,000 of your steam viewers (being generous here) to harass and bully people online to vote blue team over red team as the most important political issue when they both clearly are actively going to lead to the death of our country and the world if they continue to stay in power unopposed. 


 * - A wall of text is something that is frowned upon in most, actually virtually all Internet societies, including forums, chat boards, and Uncyclopedia. You should not make walls of text because it can get you banned anywhere unless it is a place that encourages walls of text. I highly doubt any place does support something so irritating and annoying, but anything can exist, but not really because unless you are in heaven then that can happen. But no one actually knows that was just a hypothesis, a lame one that is. Actually not really lame. You can create a wall of text supporting site, but you would be hated if you do that, so do not. But you can if you like, but I discourage that. Now on to the actual information of walls of texts. The wall of text was invented when the Internet was invented, but actually it was slow at that time. So whenever it became fast. But there would need to be some free or not free community for people, and that community would be able to have walls of text. But that community probably wouldn't have actually invented the wall of text. So basically, no one except God and Al Gore knows when or where or how the wall of text existed/was invented. Noobs probably invented, but probably not. Who knows. Walls of texts are usually filled with a lot of useless information and junk. Information and junk can be the same, but only if the information is junk or the junk is information. But who cares. The information/junk inside a wall of text are usually related to wherever the wall of text is located, but the best walls of text, which are actually the most irritating, most eye-bleeding ones, are completely random. Walls of text usually make the reader asplode or have their eyes bleed and fall out of their sockets. A number of people can stand it, but not read them. Actually some people can stand and read them. Those people do not have short attention spans. These are boring and patient people who have no life or have all the time in their hands, which are the same, but not really. The punishment of what making walls of text varies of the strictness of the community. But it doesn't really matter. Nobody cares. Walls of texts should be free of links, different font colors, strange characters, which are those other symbols used in society, and capital letters because it ruins the whole purpose of the infamy of walls of texts. It makes them look fucking dumb and weird. Walls of texts are obviously free of huge spaces and outstanding things like capital letters. Of course, paragraphs should never be in a wall of text. Walls of text are known to create nausea, confusion, head explosion, and others. The others being something I can not think of either because I am lazy or if I do not feel like it or I can not actually think of anything. Like what the fuck? That was a rhetorical question right there. What the fuck? You are actually not requesting a satisfactory answer, you just say that because you try to be funny or you feel like it or if you are pissed off. You must get a proper bitch-slapping to stop making walls of text, but if you are weird then that doesn't apply to you. Walls of text are defeated by deleting them or splitting them into paragraphs. But who cares. The information/junk inside a wall of text are usually related to wherever the wall of text is located, but the best walls of text, which are actually the most irritating, most eye-bleeding ones, are completely random. Walls of text usually make the reader asplode or have their eyes bleed and fall out of their sockets. A number of people can stand it, but not read them. Actually some people can stand and read them. Those people do not have short attention spans. These are boring and patient people who have no life or have all the time in their hands, which are the same, but not really. The punishment of what making walls of text varies of the strictness of the community. But it doesn't really matter. Nobody cares. Walls of texts should be free of links, different font colors, strange characters, which are those other symbols used in society, and capital letters because it ruins the whole purpose of the infamy of walls of texts. It makes them look fucking dumb and weird. Walls of texts are obviously free of huge spaces and outstanding things like capital letters. Of course, paragraphs should never be in a wall of text. Walls of text are known to create nausea, confusion, head explosion, and others. The others being something I can not think of either because I am lazy or if I do not feel like it or I can not actually think of anything. Like what the fuck? That was a rhetorical question right there. What the fuck? You are actually not requesting a satisfactory answer, you just say that because you try to be funny or you feel like it or if you are pissed off. You must get a proper bitch-slapping to stop making walls of text, but if you are weird then that doesn't apply to you. Walls of text are defeated by deleting them or splitting them into paragraphs. Or some other things that would work but will take hours to think of. People are considered a nuisance if they create walls of text. This might be the end. If you hope this is the end, I am not sure. But if I was not sure then I wouldn't be talking. I should know. Or should I? The best way to make a better and good wall of text is to copy and paste what you previously typed or write. Hey, that reminds me. Wall of text aren't always on the internet! They could be anywhere that is able to produce symbols. D'oh. A wall of text is something that is frowned upon in most, actually virtually all Internet societies, including forums, chat boards, and Uncyclopedia. You should not make walls of text because it can get you banned anywhere unless it is a place that encourages walls of text. I highly doubt any place does support something so irritating and annoying, but anything can exist, but not really because unless you are in heaven then that can happen. Or some other things that would work but will take hours to think of. People are considered a nuisance if they create walls of text. This might be the end. If you hope this is the end, I am not sure. But if I was not sure then I wouldn't be talking. I should know. Or should I? The best way to make a better and good wall of text is to copy and paste what you previously typed or write. Hey, that reminds me. Walls of text aren't always on the internet! They could be anywhere that is able to produce symbols. D'oh. A wall of text is something that is frowned upon in most, actually virtually all Internet societies, including forums, chat boards, and Uncyclopedia. You should not make walls of text because it can get you banned anywhere unless it is a place that encourages walls of text. I highly doubt any place does support something so irritating and annoying, but anything can exist, but not really because unless you are in heaven then that can happen. But no one actually knows that was just a hypothesis, a lame one that is. Actually not really lame. You can created a wall of text supporting site, but you would be hated if you do that, so do not. But you can if you like, but I discourage that. Now on to the actual information of walls of texts. The wall of text was invented when the Internet was invented, but actually it was slow at that time. So whenever it became fast. But there would need to be some free or not free community for people, and that community would be able to have walls of text. But that community probably wouldn't have actually invented the wall of text. So basically, no one except God and Al Gore knows when or where or how the wall of text existed/was invented. Noobs probably invented, but probably not. Who knows. Walls of texts are usually filled with a lot of useless information and junk. Information and junk can be the same, but only if the information is junk or the junk is information. But who cares. The information/junk inside a wall of text are usually related to wherever the wall of text is located, but the best walls of text, which are actually the most irritating, most eye-bleeding ones, are completely random. Walls of text usually make the reader asplode or have their eyes bleed and fall out of their sockets. A number of people can stand it, but not read them. Actually some people can stand and read them. Those people do not have short attention spans. These are boring and patient people who have no life or have all the time in their hands, which are the same, but not really. The punishment of what making walls of text varies of the strictness of the community. But it doesn't really matter. Nobody cares. Walls of texts should be free of links, different font colors, strange characters, which are those other symbols used in society, and capital letters because it ruins the whole purpose of the infamy of walls of texts. It makes them look fucking dumb and weird and dumb. Walls of texts are obviously free of huge spaces and outstanding things like capital letters. Of course, paragraphs should never be in a wall of text. Walls of text are known to create nausea, confusion, head explosion, and others. The others being something I can not think of either because I am lazy or if I do not feel like it or I can not actually think of anything. Like what the fuck? That was a rhetorical question right there. What the fuck? You are actually not requesting a satisfactory answer, you just say that because you try to be funny or you feel like it or if you are pissed off. Now I just copied and pasted part of this huge wall of text, which is actually not. Wait what? Nice right? Ba boom a rhetorical question right there. Is this the end for the sanity of your eyes? What the fuck did you actually read up to here? Or did you skip to near the end and read this? Either way, you fail in life. Just kidding. Or was I? Oh well.



What's the actual difference between this and Socdem anyways? - Neoconfemboy From what I interpret from the majority of people listed on this page, it's basically pragmatic demsoc.

- GORBACHEV WAS NEVER BAD ONLY HAS AVOIDED A YUGOSLAVIA IN THE URSS|GORBACHOV NUNCA FUE MALO SOLO EVITO UNA YUGOSLAVIA EN LA URSS

Fuck Tankies, Gorby was based, fuck Y*ltsin
Ideology is kinda good, but too reformist but Gorby was genuinely a person who wanted a freer socialism and communist which got completely fucked over by capitalist traitors, the US, and tankies. That aside ideology is blursed leaning towards blessed.

STALIN is the true savior of the left! GORBACHOV traitor! Oh, and Vaushism is one huge joke. To say it's socialism is just a really funny meme. Vaush is a god damn tumor on the left and whose appeal is to pink radlibs who prefer twitter radlib idpol bullshit over genuine anarchism, anti-statism, or even genuine socialism even in reformist means. Oh and he's an imperialistic racist and uncritical NATO platformer.
 * how is supporting workplace Democracy not Socialism?

-HAIL GORBACHEV! O7 for he is the true Liberator of the Soviet People!


 * I may not agree with everything you say but you often have some fairly based views and this is one of those times!

Was the undoing of the "vandalism" on Vaushism really vandalism?
Considering Vaush's history of being seen as increasingly anti-revolutionary and reformist to the point where he interviews members of NATO and platforms them and their ideas, alongside attacking many other leftists that don't agree with him and his fandom as apparently "nazis" needing to be "deplatformed" including many former lib-left followers he used to have for social media liberal idpol and liberal-left movements alongside being seen as essentially a fraud and fake by most other leftists online I really think the alleged "vandalism" while a bit biased wasn't necessarily wrong albeit comedically exaggerated. TLDR: It's not vandalism if its true.

Not bad
Probably one of the more tolerable form of liberalism, I admire some of the thinkers like Mandela but despise others like Gorbachev, and I also dislike the BreadTube community. = IvarsBalodis

BASED
Very based expect vaushities -

^Yes^ - I have made some reformism to twitter if you dont mind af I have noticed most twitter uses support socialism but also with some liberal positions if u disagree (that would make sense I am a useless knobhead who has never been in sunlight), please let me know also I am aware most libersocs hate the twitter variant as it were but this was the best thing I found for it as I found it fitted better than lib -anglo germanic socialist It seems I was wrong I won't go into a edit war