I had some pretty brutal discussions with my dad who is a hardcore liberal of the “the answer lies somewhere between the middle of left and right” type. He agrees with a lot of socialist stances and class war but refuses to acknowledge that a revolution is needed to achieve socialism, that killing people wouldn’t make us better than the owning class and that violence is bad and that we should try to change the system by voting that voting will bring lasting change and not a revolution…all this kind of crap. He thinks that i got too “radicalized” and that im stuck in a bubble of propaganda and now he wants to have more control of the media i consume and that when he sees me watching or reading an article that i show him the sources of these articles. He really wants me to “keep an open-mind” which to him literally just means returning to being a liberal. The more of these discussions i have with my father the more i feel a distance between us and i would love if we just ignored our political opinions and kept living our lives how we always did but he insists that i am being groomed by some megalomaniac organization or a goofy ah evil person to join some kind of leftist jihad: “Yes you are entitled to have your opinion but you should also keep an open mind but the problem is that your opinion is not correct” that all i hear from him.
first, you should stop consuming media, your digestive system wasn’t meant for that
second, you might want to just stop talking politics with your dad and let it go. some battles are not worth it.
but what if the media tastes really good
glass might also taste good but i wouldn’t recommend consuming it
“You’re in a propaganda bubble! I need to restrict your access to media outside my bubble so that you aren’t in such a bubble!”
Riiiiiight…
Sounds like you live at home still, I wouldn’t rock the boat too much until you have autonomy. You don’t want to have a terrible relationship with someone who still controls a good portion of your decisions. Other than than that, we’ve all felt this. In my 30’s and my conversations with family are kinda going the same way. It’s ironic when someone says you’re falling for propaganda, while they still believe the lies spread by corporate media that have been clearly debunked.
Good luck comrade!
Hey homie, that does sound pretty frustrating.
If you’re young, there may be some some legit parental concern wrapped up in there that’s worth assuaging - he’s seeing his kid rapidly change in ways he doesn’t really understand, and he’s heard vague stories about people getting “radicalized” online.
The bit about controlling your media consumption would really frustrate me, though.
It might be worthwhile to step back a bit from trying to directly argue points (because it’s probably not going to change his mind anyway), and show that his concerns about you are unfounded through what you do.
You’re not radicalized in some propaganda bubble - mainstream media shows the evils of capitalism & the ineffectuality of electoralism on a daily basis. You don’t need a grayzone article to see that the Dems don’t do what they say.
I don’t know if that’s helpful. I avoid arguing politics with my parents anymore (I’ll just say something like “as a communist you know how I feel about that” and push past it). I don’t have to depend on my parents now, though, so maybe that’s different.
“refuses to acknowledge that a revolution is needed to achieve socialism, that killing people wouldn’t make us better than the owning class” well, this is not about killing people first of all…“we should try to change the system by voting that voting will bring lasting change and not a revolution” well, your father is pretty idealistic…“He really wants me to “keep an open-mind” which to him literally just means returning to being a liberal” well, sounds like he’s worried that you’re out there talking about “killing people”, maybe that was your mistake…“your opinion is not correct” maybe everything depends that what you were saying to him
If your dad agrees with everything from socialism to class war and the only difference between you is about the necessity of physical violence, then he’s hardly a “hardcore liberal”, he just sounds like a leftist with different ideas thab yours imo
A “leftist” who believes there’s an electoral solution to class war is functionally a liberal.
A “leftist” that thinks the violent overthrow of the majority is the solution to class war is functionally a fascist.
A “leftist” that thinks the violent overthrow of the majority is the solution to class war is functionally a fascist.
That doesn’t track with my understanding. What’s your definition of fascism?
Edit: to be clear, a socialist revolution is the triumph of the worker majority over the oppressive owner class. Not “overthrow of the majority”.
You don’t think that violently installing yourselves as minority leaders of a majority in order to suppress opposition and subordinate individual interests is fascism? Well then, fuck. What is your definition?
Edit: To be clear, OP, a child, disagrees with their dads view that -
revolution is needed to achieve socialism, that killing people wouldn’t make us better than the owning class and that violence is bad.
The top commenter agreed that this is a reasonable position for a leftist with different ideas. You suggested that this is not a reasonable position. It’s fair to conclude then that you are pro-violence. As a pro-violence adherent of a globally unpopular economic and political movement you and OP proposing to install your movement “as minority leaders of a majority in order to suppress opposition and subordinate individual interests” meets the literal textbook definition of fascism that I linked you to.
Play whatever weasel word games you like, but the political spectrum is a teardrop and your call for violence puts you right back at fascism. If you don’t like this, maybe be a little less fasc-y?
^ lemmygrads, this is why I hate the term fascism. It lets white supremacist liberals like the one above off the hook for the atrocities committed by their own countries. The only difference between the US and Nazi germany, is that the US was successful at carrying out its planned program of genocide and native eviction; the nazis failed at their attempt at copying the US model.
The only difference between the two capitalist-imperialist forms of government, is that bourgeois democracy is far better at genocide than any other form.
You’ve edited in a significant amount, to avoid the fact that you’re ducking the question.
As a pro-violence adherent of a globally unpopular economic and political movement you and OP proposing to install your movement “as minority leaders of a majority in order to suppress opposition and subordinate individual interests” meets the literal textbook definition of fascism that I linked you to.
I’ve already addressed that your characterization of a socialist revolution being some minority enacting violence on a majority is inaccurate.
"as minority leaders of a majority in order to suppress opposition and subordinate individual interests”.
Not a quote from the wiki article, or from what I’ve said.
Again, in your own words, can you share what you consider fascism to be?
Or are you unable to come up with a definition that matches your argument?
You don’t think that violently installing yourselves as minority leaders of a majority in order to suppress opposition and subordinate individual interests is fascism? Well then, fuck. What is your definition?
That’s not what I said. What’s your definition of fascism?
I’ve had some pretty heated discussions with my grandfather when I first became a communist. Eventually I just realized to him politics are a game. Sadly to a lot of people in the first world this is the case. Privilege clouds people’s judgement. When they are too privileged, no amount of evidence will change their minds. After all, their privilege can only be maintained by the continuation of reactionary backwards policies.
Something that has made me much less frustrated about people becoming absolutely deranged about Russia, is the fact that Europe no longer has any cards to play on the world stage. From now on, this continent is headed for irrelevance, stagnation and decay. So Europeans can believe in the dumbest things possible, because they won’t stop the progressive movements happening in the rest of the world. No matter how angry, racist and blood thirsty they get, they can’t collapse Russia, they can’t stop the rise of China, it seems they can’t even stop Africa from regaining it’s freedom.
The “game” is so infuriating.
There are so many white people in my life that love to talk about minority issues in front of minorities, yet disregard any minority opinion that makes them uncomfortable. It’s a leisurely activity to them that they have no actual stake in.
The topic of using violence is definitely a hard line for many people that they will not budge on.
The truth is is that almost anybody will commit or at least condone violence if the situation is dire enough, but for many of us Westerners and our parents it simply isn’t, and they will refuse to think they would budge on this because to them, the situation will never be that dire (even though in reality electoralism has done nothing to stop us killing millions in wars, coups, and causing climate change).
I’m not sure what the best route would be, continuing to try and frankly talk about it or continuing to casually drop it. I myself tried for years to talk politics with my mom but I finally had to let go and realize that she would never condone any tradition that has a history of pragmatic violence, and that it was that simple, and nowadays we get along great, and I just don’t talk politics with her.
The topic of using violence is definitely a hard line for many people that they will not budge on.
They’re fine with institutional and/or proxy violence as long as it’s done by people with uniforms, or at least people with contracts.
As someone who has a libertarian father, I have a general idea about how feel
