politics

I mean both. And there is some merit to the criticism that both liberals and left can be seen as smug. Again, it's not all but many from both groups are. Thing is, as many people have been lifted out of poverty, the traditional base of the left that is the working class have become middle class to upper class themselves. Many of those folks may still say they identify as leftist, but they became privileged and do not realise or acknowledge it. They may say that they believe in social and economic justice and mention they feel bad for the poor and homeless; but at the same time block the push for building affordable housing because "it ruins the view from their back garden" or they won't say that it depreciates the value of their property. "Champagne socialists" and "limousine liberals" are real and rightful pejorative terms after all.

You’re still wrong. That’s not the left, those are socially progressive liberals. The left are not limousine liberals who are concerned about their precious property values. It’s extremely frustrating that you continue to repeat this lie, using liberal and left interchangeably. Liberalism is a right wing ideology and mostly incompatible with the left. of course you think social democracy is the greatest thing ever, it’s a right wing idea (liberalism, but with more reform!) that’s dressed up looking left. It doesn’t threaten capitalism, it barely even reforms it. The hierarchy of power - the bourgeois and petit bourgeois- remain in place but the serfs get a couple more crumbs of bread thrown to them. Oh and every single social democracy that Europeans love to be smug about still rely on colonialism and exploitation of the global south and in norways case fossil fuels. Because social democracy doesn’t change anything, it’s just window dressing to give just enough crumbs to the serfs that they don’t demand more.

This whole little bit reminds me of how liberals and dumb people on the left (mostly progressives and social democrats who aren’t really left but get lumped in anyways because there is no left in America) who’ve been utterly brainwashed into thinking obamacare/aca is the best thing since sliced bread. It’s again, a right wing idea, created by the right wing heritage foundation for Republican mitt Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts. Obama stole it from him, initially added a single payer option, democrat joe Lieberman, owned by the insurance industry single-handedly blocked it, and now we’re left with an insurance industry handout that doesn’t provide healthcare (see deny delay despose for an example of what they do) and yet everyone to the left of the tea party thinks it’s practically universal healthcare that needs to be protected at all costs. It’s fucking delusional. The left wing ideology would be to nationalize the healthcare industry, not this fucking bureaucratic bullshit that creates useless “jobs” that exist nowhere else in the world while denying care.

But many immigrants have different experiences and education so they are less class conscious. What many immigrants only have known in their lives is struggle and making ends meet.

This is an assumption that’s completely incorrect. The tech industry is known for importing all their workers from India, and from the higher castes. These people aren’t poor, but they’ll work for less in America, and on top of that they bring caste bias with them and they are ripe for becoming fascists if they aren’t already (see modi’s India). In my field the legal immigrants are rich college kids from South America on summer holiday doing a “cultural exchange”. They don’t realize they’re undercutting local labor and they’re not the problem, american businesses are the problem.

The main cause I believe is the mismanagement of globalisation. The current international order is actually an anarchy but only very few realise this.

I wish I read this part of your comment first and I would of not even bothered with writing the rest since you have no clue what you’re talking about. This is NOT anarchy. That’s not what fucking anarchy means. I hate how liberals completely fucked up the definition of words themselves to absolutely confuse everyone to the liberal elites benefit. Anarchy in its purest definition is the absence of hierarchy. Our globalist world is the complete opposite of that. There’s a hierarchy, and you and I are somewhere near the middle to the bottom. The globalist elite are at the top. Money and power rule the world, money is just an abstraction of power. There’s very clear rules and order, I don’t know how you get “anarchy” LOL out of that.

And you want a global government? LOL GLOBALIST LIBERAL.

And you blame everything currently going on on “anarchy”? LOL.

International laws are only applied on leaders from non western countries. The UN is a fucking joke. When they arrest George w bush for his war crimes I’ll take them seriously.