Liberals don’t know they’re conservatives.
The party is conservative, their constituents are being lied to. They just need to realize that electoral politics will not save us. Hopefully they do this before it’s too late.
there are conservatives and there are maga conservatives.
MAGA isn’t even conservative. They are just a cult.
Euros don’t know liberal means different things in different places. I’ve only seen lemmy draw a huge distinction between left & liberal. I think it’s the Euro influence.
In North America, they call leftists liberals & don’t split hairs like Europe & Latin America.
In Europe and Latin America, liberalism means a moderate form of classical liberalism and includes both conservative liberalism (centre-right liberalism) and social liberalism (centre-left liberalism). In North America, liberalism almost exclusively refers to social liberalism.
People in the US get seriously confused that the Liberal party in other countries (eg, Australia) isn’t liberal.
Anyone in the US who has taken a poli sci or government class knows the difference between liberals and leftists. Yes, the US is widely uneducated, but those are distinct words and philosophies. Rec book The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order and you’ll see why leftists don’t want to be lumped with liberals.
a poli sci
Maybe. Most don’t take it, some would spit on it as not a real science.
or government class
Definitely not taught that way.
knows the difference between liberals and leftists
Nope.
When the right talks about owning the libs, they’re not talking about owning themselves, they’re talking about leftists including center-leftists.
the US is widely uneducated
That’s not why. Mainstream TV news media in the US refers to left & liberal interchangeably. These aren’t uneducated people. The meanings just differ by continent.
Until you brainwash & reeducate the bulk of North America, that’s the meaning of those words there, and to them your distinction is pretty senseless. Facts. Deal with it.
Moreover, the pedagogic meanings of left & liberal aren’t even mutually exclusive. Leftism is politics that pursue social equality & egalitarianism. Liberalism is politics that pursue personal freedom. These clearly can intersect as politics that pursue all 3, eg, social liberalism, a center-leftism that
stress[es] civil and human rights and favour[s] a social market economy.
Regardless of if the “science” is real, JARGON is real for each field.
It is taught that way.
Rightwingers are profoundly uneducated. Literally. They also call everything communist and woke and DEI too, when none of those words apply. This isn’t even debatable re: education, they want to defund education because of their lack. They also think there’s biologically only XX and XY chromosomes that exist. They think climate change isn’t real. They regularly are upset their grade school children are more educated than them. How rightwing people use a term is completely irrelevant to the denotative meaning of that word.
It is a lack of education - not knowing vocabulary words = a lack of education.
The distinction isn’t useless lol. You just don’t want to make the effort to learn.
Eg most people think the jargon word “theory” means “shakey unproven idea,” because that is the colloquial use - however, scientific theories are extremely substantiated ideas. That doesn’t mean that scientists need to then give up using the word “theory.” Obviously. And we don’t need to police others’ thoughts either, we can just use the words as they are supposed to be used and philosophically defined and others will pick it up or not. Eg you’ve clearly learned there’s a difference from just browsing, now you know you were ignorant and you can change your mind or not.
The line between liberalism and leftism is the support and perpetuation of capitalism, slavery, and authoritarianism - please see the book The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order.
So let’s go over fallacies here.
JARGON is real for each field.
It is taught that way.
The meanings vary by where they are taught. Even those taught the technical meanings you received don’t use them in regular contexts.
There are plenty of other of regional differences in language (eg, UK & US English) not due to education: they’re just different. Claiming differences such as this are due to lack of education is appeal to snobbery. The community decides the language as observed from their unsolicited usage in reports & communications.
Rightwingers are profoundly uneducated
While that may be so, that doesn’t apply to the meanings of words the language community agrees on. Both the left & right in the US use liberals in regular contexts to refer to leftists who also refer to themselves that way. Telling an educated person in the US but liberals aren’t leftists/progressives is liable to elicit an incredulous look like they’re wondering if you’re stoned or just stupid.
we can just use the words as they are supposed to be used and philosophically defined and others will pick it up or not
It’s tendentious & misleading, because the exclusionary distinction isn’t even correct, which leads to the next fallacy: false dilemma.
It’s often claimed here that leftism & liberalism are mutually exclusive: no one can be both. However, by the technical definition they can be both, and by the North American meaning liberals are leftists.
North Americans treat the pursuit of values like equality & egalitarianism (individual freedom from oppressive inequality maintained by unjust policies) as related to the pursuit for individual freedom, so they identify them all with the words liberal & progressive interchangeably. This isn’t an accident: the classic liberalism & enlightenment era political philosophy that founded the government were the progressive values of its time in contrast to traditionalist & royalist values. That association persists as the progressive cause continues to promote freedoms & a society with better access to opportunities & protections.
It’s unsurprising the predominant variety of leftism there will include the pursuit of personal freedoms, ie, liberalism. These aren’t incompatible or a sign of ignorance.
The line between liberalism and leftism is the support and perpetuation of capitalism, slavery, and authoritarianism
That is your bunk assumption based on fallacy. Logically, equality, egalitarianism, & personal freedom can all be pursued, which is both leftist & liberal.
Lol.
The community decides the language
Okay, and you’ve admitted Lemmy as a (global) community has decided this usage of this verbiage. Problem solved, by your own metrics, this is the common usage here. Great, stop complaining then.
Both the left & right in the US use liberals in regular contexts to refer to leftists who also refer to themselves that way. Telling an educated person in the US but liberals aren’t leftists/progressives is liable to elicit an incredulous look like they’re wondering if you’re stoned or just stupid.
I get that you assert this, but that doesn’t make it true. Most people pick up on the distinction, just like being told other distinctions.
It’s often claimed here that leftism & liberalism are mutually exclusive: no one can be both
Am I claiming this? Further, we all know what comparing and contrasting is. Just because there are comparisons, does not negate the contrasts.
And people are a mix of policies, no one is some purely liberal, rightwing, socialist, etc person. Policies can be grouped into various political ideologies, and people generally describe themselves as such given whatever they vibe with the most.
Read The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order - it literally addresses all of this and explains how capitalism has lead to “corporate monarchy”/“corporate fascism.”
Remove the American part. The right has found a nice way to divide the left and they’re using it everywhere. If you find yourself hating everyone, using vitriole toward people on your side, stop and reflect that you’re the problem.
I don’t think the right did that to the left. We did it to ourselves. In contrast, the right is somehow really good at putting aside differences to work toward a common goal. I want to know how we can copy that.
That sounds convincing but, when establishment Democrats fight the left ten times harder than they fight the right, I don’t think it’s right wing propaganda dividing us.
The right has found a nice way to divide the left and they’re using it everywhere.
Someone mentioned it that the problem is that NIMBYs happened to also be liberals. What do you think of building affordable housing and raising the minimum wage? These two issues are happening across the world, and they happened since mainstream parties have been in charge for thirty years.
I’m in favor of both. I live in one of the most expensive states in the US, and I’m actually doing okay, but I’m very much in favor of affordable housing. People who work need places to live.
And people should make a living wage. But I also think that shit is too expensive, and increasing wages doesn’t help. We’re seeing the middle class absolutely disappear. We need to eat rich people, but that goes without saying.
I think the country is full of ladder pullers. They made their way up and don’t want others to have an escalator. These people worked their way up (or had their generational wealth raise them) so it feels like oppression to have others easily get something they have.
I understand the sentiment. Where I live, they have liquor licenses based on population, so they’re limited, and in turn they become massively expensive. You’ll see people pay six or seven figures for one.
Anytime folks talk about adjusting the laws to allow more establishments to serve, the same argument comes up, that someone paid a fortune, and now you’re just giving them away. Doesn’t make them right, but I get it.
I always imagine that if I win the lottery, I’d buy land in my town and build parks, but who knows what happens when that’s a reality, you know? I like to think I’d be philanthropic af, but money has been corrupting people since literally the dawn of time. Advanced society is when we do away with money.
Fuck outta here, liberals shit on the left as much as conservatives do.
That was a good episode!
At this point, I just want the lesser of the two evils.
You know, like leftist vs a fucking lunatic fascist pedo rapist who is burning our country to the ground as if his addled slimy ass is going to take any of it with him when he finally cacks.
Yes, we need things to get cleaned out of the Barney Horror Picutre Show, but if we give up ground about twice more, it’ll just be full-on Right vs Right. The next person that goes in has to be left of Biden at the very least or no margins will be made. We couldn’t even get we’ll stop funding the atrocities in Gaza out of the “left” candidate last time.
Should it have been K? F yeah in comparison, but give us something to drag people out of the house to vote for.
We can be friends until the fascists are out of the government, then we need a social democracy and a ban on far right parties amongst other things.
Liberals are the fascists in their baby form. Once the conditions of the capitalist state deteriorate they transform into fascists quite fast.
Batshit take
If they’re talking about Liberals in the centre-right sense, just because they don’t openly hate minorities while they still do a bunch of conservative shit and get in the way of real progress, they’re not 100% wrong.
Dumbass comment. Someone doesn’t know history
american believing they have a left, Center left is the extreme end of the left in america, theres no lefter than that. most of them are on center right.
There is no far left political party but there are plenty of people who are far left. Yes, even by the European standards of the left.
We have two viable political parties.
Fascist extremists and their enablers. Vote blue no matter who, so maybe the fascists won’t come for you.
We have leftists with no one to vote for, shut out of politics by liberal NIMBYs who want good things to happen, they just don’t want to see them. More concerned about the value of their house than the value of human life. We have extreme leftists, they’re just not allowed to participate. And as of yet, none of them exist in enough numbers in the same place to start throwing Molotovs
Are you from one of the countries where the far right was just named most popular? If not, I’ll throw a “yet” in, because you talk like someone who lets perfection get in the way of not sees.
Truthfully, do you think voting for the less evil is a better course of action than directly addressing an issue? If the Rs say “deport all non-whites” and the Ds say “deport non-whites with records”, do you really think we should vote for the lesser evil instead of stopping the racist deportations?
If chipping away at shit works one way it works the other. Nobody is shifting the pendulum in massive strokes overnight. And so you accept things that don’t necessarily comport with your goal, or you get what we got.
I’m also from Jersey and your name speaks to me.
I really don’t think we can say the pendulum isn’t being shifted in massive strokes overnight when this administration is literally destroying our way of life in massive strokes every hour. The time for the “lesser evil” was ages ago. The time for direct action is now.
I’m always glad to stumble upon another NJ person on Lemmy! My anarchism flies out of the window when it comes to loving Jersey. It’s my home, despite people arguing I’m not from here due to the color of my skin. In my lifetime, sea level rising will reshape what this great state looks like. Homelessness in Atlantic City is bad now, it’s going to be a thousand times worse when the area is under water. This is why I don’t think we can settle for small changes. We need drastic actions, yesterday.
I’m sure there’s an actual Left in the USA, but it’s not covered by any of the big parties.
Republicans are the Fascist Party, Democrats are the Conservative Party; Dem Soc are the moderate party. We don’t have a left party in the US.
I would just like to state that most Americans have no idea what the difference between a liberal and leftist is. When you say you’re a liberal, they think you’re a leftist. When you say you’re a leftist, they think you’re a leftist. The conflation will always be there, given the history of the US and decades of the usage of the conflation in everyday American language.
Edit Addendum: it doesn’t help that liberals/democratic establishment are somewhat more “”“”“”“”““left””“”“”“”“” of the conservatives/Republicans, which is why liberals are grouped with the “left” in the US. It also doesn’t help that the “left”, who would be more accurately known as that grouping of socialists, communists, anarchists, and every other small or large anti-capitalist and or progressive political identity group, just call themselves “the left” or “leftist”, playing into the idea that one’s politics can be quickly understood by pointing to the linear spectrum of “right” and “left”, as if these broad and false dichotomies fit reality to a tee or some shit.
You don’t have to have a party for an ideology to exist.
It’s a good thing that that’s not what they said, then.
True, but it’s hard to get elected to office without a party
an ideology doesn’t need to get elected to office to exist.
(Especially ideologies who see the state as illegitimate, say anarchism)
PSL exists belive it or not
They have yet to field a successful candidate for public office; imma stick to the dem socialists for now
Our goal is not to change the system from within. Feel free to engage with DSA candidates and politics, I do too sometimes but I also understand that their influence is limited in scope and I should engage with revolutionary politics as well.
Chinese funded militants? Hard fucking pass, China’s everything wrong with the USA and then some.
.ml user detected, opinion disregarded
Blinding yourself to the opinions of those who disagree with you is a great way to learn and grow 👍
Why don’t you go learn and grow on an infinite AI Slop feed. After all, no information can be detrimental, right?
Your favorite flavor of boot is red, no thanks.
Only when it steps on the throats of the bourgeois ❤️
Do you know where the funding for PSL cones from?
Me, my comrades, and Neville Singham who I am relatively cool with. Class traitors of that variety are too uncommon
Ok cool, as long as you’re aware. I’m definitely in favor of revolution; but Mr Singham is a bit too pro-Beijing for me. I’d rather not swap one kind of authoritarian for another
deleted by creator
Left is Progressive. DNC create progress everytime we put them in, even without having more than 50 senate seats in over a decade. DNC are your dudes.
No, they’re REALLY not. Haven’t been since they fucked Bernie in 2016
The DNC is complicit in the fascist takeover of the US
Bernie lost because millions more people voted for the other candidates in 2016. The fact that he was even allowed to run on the DNC ticket despite his third party status is truly the opposite of fucking.
We already discussed this in another thread. The 2020 race was decided by Obama/DNC forcing multiple candidates to drop out. After Super Tuesday the chances were slim for Bernie to have any chance at winning and there was no point in voters coming out for the remaining primaries.
Stop spreading bullshit.
I remember that thread, you owned yourself by linking to an article which disagreed with you.
Only it didn’t. Have you worked on your reading skills?
What about the complicity in the Fascist takeover of our Government? The billionaires that back the DNC would LOVE to try out fascism
If that were true they could be reaping the benefits of supporting the Trump Admin directly, like Walczak and Tim Cook have.
The fact of the matter is that the billionaires aren’t a united front, either, because some of them are smart enough to realize their fortunes mean jack fucking shit in the face of a dictator who can take whatever he wants.
If we had enough DNC to impeach then he would be impeached, if we had enough to remove then he would be removed. We’re in this situation to begin with because the GOP have all three chambers and the SCOTUS. None of this shit would be happening otherwise.
GOP got there because the DNC has failed to embrace progressive policies. If the mainstream dems fought for single payer healthcare we’d have a blue majority for 60 years. The fucking bought and paid for corporate shills did this to America. THATS what I mean by complicit!! They’ve shit all over every idea that would actually make life better for working people in favor of the table scraps of billionaires and the GOP filled the void with their mindless nationalism!
And yet somehow none of this happened under the DNC? You make zero sense.
You don’t have to be authoritarian to be a leftist.
Of course not. In fact if there is anything I associate with leftist ideologies it’s anti-authoritarianism.
Tell that to ml lol
Unpaid interns working for Russia don’t count as being “leftist” lol
They are slaves. Bots are slaves.
No point, I’d just get banned.
This is all bullshit.
Who fucking cares about these definitions? All y’all have the same damn enemy. Worry about the enemy first. Iron out disagreements over terminology once the fascists are gone.
It’s so weird that people spend so much time debating this pointless garbage.
Leftists feel powerless and most are too insecure to go out and actually debate in right-wing spaces, so all they have is bickering internally about other leftists and complaining about liberals to satisfy their need for intellectual debate and drama.
You simply can’t have an argument with a conservative, so I get how frustrating it is. But guys, there are other ways you can make progress, but I’m sorry to say it still involves leaving behind your discord polycule.
Debating in right wing spaces is futile. Those morons don’t know the first thing about sourcing material or the truth
Oh, the problem is much deeper than definitions. One group is socially progressive but economically right. Then, the other group is both progressive on social and economic issues. The economic policies is where the rift is.
Edit: wording
And the economic right have had all the power for the last god knows how many election cycles… They’ve been chasing the unicorn moderate that would somehow vote Democrat, which doesn’t exist, but in doing so they lose the “left” vote.
Those “centrists” and “moderates” are conservatives that are disgusted by the GOP, but would never vote for Democrats because they don’t agree with their policies. They have no party but the economic right liberals keep trying to attract them… Hopefully now with the change in DNC leadership they’ll stop this losing game and actually be what their voters want them to be.
The “unicorn moderate” used to exist, and they grew from post-war up to the early 2000s. They were called the middle class. Back then when the middle class was much more prominent and bigger, they could still afford both private healthcare and keep up with the cost of living. One of the key litmus test of being “moderate” is the survey on affordable healthcare. In early 00s, socialised healthcare was deeply unpopular. However, it was from during and after the Great Recession of 2008 that the middle class shrunk and recognised that people need more public assistance. Affordable healthcare became increasingly more popular as time went on.
Rent have also become almost unaffordable since the recession. Ever since then, many proposals and plans to create affordable housing were made but have been blocked not just by corporations, but also by individual homeowners who don’t want their house prices to go down. And one of the hard to swallow pills is that many of them are liberals. One could easily search online of affordable housing being voted down in California and New York, states that are liberal strongholds.
There is a reason why Zohran Mamdani’s New York mayoral campaign is more widely successful than other Democratic candidates. He is addressing the growing cost of living by wanting to cap rent prices and providing government run grocery stores, which made him popular among the poor. Because the middle class shrunk and people had been shoved into fringes of poverty. The “moderate” voters that the Democrats are chasing is no longer there. At this day and age, “moderate” for centrists and neoliberals means the wealthy, while pretending that the word means the middle class voters from 2000s.
Right? Do you want to get way more in terms of life quality? Then you are opposed to the hyper capitalist government. Do you want to get more money or do you want to give it to the oligarchs. It’s not polarized anywhere
It gets trickier when you look at other countries where liberal means “(mostly) unfettered capitalism”.
That’s not what Liberal means, though. That might be what the Liberal Parties usually stand for, but that’s not what the word means at all.
*sigh*
Modern usage and definitions
In Europe and Latin America, liberalism means a moderate form of classical liberalism and includes both conservative liberalism (centre-right liberalism) and social liberalism (centre-left liberalism).
In North America, liberalism almost exclusively refers to social liberalism.
In my country, the formerly centre-right, now just right “the market will take care of it” party calls itself liberal ever since the 50s.
And the North Korean Dictatorship calls itself the Democratic Peoples Republic, whats your point?
The problem is we don’t have the same enemies, there are people who claim to be left but oppose Liberals, such as Tankies. Tankies aren’t the enemy of the GOP, they want the GOP to win over progressives like the DNC. They use words like “capitalism” to describe everything wrong with the USA because that way they can exclude the eastern dictatorships like Russia and China from the same criticisms.
Shit posts like the one above are the result of psyop campaigns.
Shit posts like the one above are the result of psyop campaigns.
It is a jab at Americans who can’t tell the difference between left and liberal and often conflate the two.
And sure look, if liberal Democrats really want to win again, they have to deal with “kitchen table issues” as Mamdani puts it. And as I mentioned to one of the commenters, who are the ones who keep voting down affordable rent and housing, even in liberal states, because it will bring their house prices down? Mamdani forwarded a solution to that by capping rent prices and he won over people for that. That alone says why American left and liberals are actually different though mainly on economic issues.
CaPitAlIST LIbrUhLS CoNFLaTe HuMAn riGHTs wiTh ProGRESS HUURRGGH DURRRR Yeah I know your whole spiel
Affordable housing, freedom from want and jobs are human rights.
Then why are you opposing them?
You should be asking yourself if you can read at all.
Is this what shitlibs tell themselves?
Any leftist will use words like capitalism to describe the issues because it’s fucking all pervasive. And China and Russia are also both capitalist despite whatever tankiefuck will tell you.
We don’t have the same enemies, because you ally with the ownership class and not your own.
Liberal means advocate of human rights, bare definition. If there is at all an ownership class then liberalism is not being administrated. And I assure you, the word “Capitalism” on Lemmy is used the vast majority of the time as a dogwhistle for “Western Nation”.
In what way does exchanging money for goods cause outlawing gay marriage or banning books? In what way does it cause not taxing the rich? Makes no goddamn sense. Authoritarianism and Conservatives cause those things.
Liberal means advocate of human rights
Not unless you’re creating your own personal definition. At best, liberalism means advocating for individual rights, and where you or I might disagree with the application of that idea is where individual rights are in tension with communal or collective rights more broadly
In what way does exchanging money for goods cause outlawing gay marriage or banning books?
Markets are not the same as capitalism. It’s a description of a system that enshrines abstract ownership over systems of production. If you dont take issue with the coercive mechanisms within capital relations, then im not really sure where to put you ‘on the left’.
Mandated, unconditional individual rights ARE collective rights and also human rights.
You also appear to no know the definition of Capitalism because if Capitalism is not a regulated Market System then the USA is also not a capitalism. Not surprising since you people use it as a dog whistle to mean “western nation” that you lack understanding of what it actually means.
Mandated, unconditional individual rights ARE collective rights and also human rights
Not when those rights are in conflict with another individual’s. The classic example is the individual right to private property, but there are many others. American liberals do recognize these limits and contradictions, but accept as granted the right to private property. It’s the center tenet of leftist critique, so it makes a lot of sense why there’s a lot of cynicism about liberals claiming to occupy the same space. Sure, they have some overlap, but the main contention is left unaddressed by American liberals and so leave themselves open to derision.
if Capitalism is not a regulated Market System then the USA is also not a capitalism
It’s a type of regulated market system, but it’s defined by its mode of production being capitalist in nature. Socialist and communist systems still employ regulated markets, but collectivize ownership over productive capital instead. Abolishing capitalism isn’t a way of saying we should abolish markets, but to remove capital as the mode of production
If rights to one person contradict the rights of another, resulting in loss and harm then guess what? Individual rights aren’t being mandated and upheld and that’s not Liberalism.
Socialist and communist systems still employ regulated markets, but collectivize ownership over productive capital instead.
No, they don’t, because that has never existed and will never if you keep bending over backwards to dictators.
Hey guys,
Remember when we found out Russia and China were manipulating us into fighting between left and right, and now they’re dividing the left into 2 camps that are supposed to hate each other?
Yeah.
Yeah.
What’re you talking about, the whole system is working fine. The far right isn’t riding to popularity throughout Europe, and clearly hasn’t taken hold in the US.
Listen, if you can’t do everything I like, then you’re a fascist. And I mean everything. I’d pluck an example out of the air, but there’s no point, because someone else will. And yeah, it’s probably a good example, but I’m willing to bet the farm on it.
KGB handbook: play up the loudest voices on both sides of every social issue, make every tiny issue seem so overblown and saturated with lies and nonsense that average people stay out of it and stop trusting anyone involved.
This leaves people with no activism or outside opinion they can trust so they go along with whatever state media reports because what else is there.
This has worked wonders in other countries, it is working wonders in America. It is going to work in your country next, reader. What are you going to do about it?
The left has always been infighting. The two great memes of the left are walls of text and hating other leftists.
But liberals are not leftists. And we’ve disliked you for decades and globally.
.ml leading the charge on this.
I see a lot of other really suspicious shit around Lemmy. I have a suspicion it’s trying to be used like r/the_donald was.
Yup. There’s stuff that pings my radar as well.
However, the technical barrier to actually getting on Lemmy forces a minimum level of intelligence. I. E. the pool of useful idiots is way smaller than reddit. Most tankie wank gets called out.
Doesn’t mean that we’re not being used for training data. I’m also still percolating on what can be done by just posting slanted articles and stifling disent.
Lemmy is better but still totally susceptible to manipulation.
If anything is being used to stir shit and divide and conquer it’s all the noxious anti-communist liberals running around crying about tankies
Good point, tankies isn’t a very well know term.
Telling new users they shouldn’t listen to the FooBars when they say “don’t vote for Genocide Joe, I’m your friendly neighborhood communist btw” doesn’t directly convey why the FooBars can’t be trusted. I think most people on Lemmy agree that communism isn’t the enemy.
Maybe instead of tankie, we should use a more known and direct descriptor: don’t trust the dictators.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. We live in a dictatorship of capital, I’m opposed to that.
Yep. Just like that. Perfect example of the drivel they spread in an attempt to divide us.
You see the problem is if we don’t agree with everything liberals say then we are dividing the left somehow. When will you learn that we simply strongly disagree with your ideology? The left isn’t allied with liberals and never has been.
What have you agreed with them on?
Idk, stuff like racism is bad probably. They don’t actually need to follow through for me to agree
I disagree that there is a strong divide ideologically speaking. I think regarding the liberals in Congress this holds fairly true for their more conservative approach to progress, but I wouldn’t say it’s the same for what leftist-liberal voters want.
For instance, I’m in favor of Universal Basic Income, Universal Basic Services, union support/collective bargaining, Universal Healthcare, universal daycare, free college/trade school education, and support for nuclear power & renewable energy solutions.
I believe the capitalist system needs to be reigned in entirely where there should not be any billionaires. Tax loopholes need to be closed on corporations that allow for the billionaires to take loans on their stock. There should be no monopolies or big conglomerates as they prevent competition.
Furthermore, we should change the reward structure of our economy by highly subsidizing jobs like teaching, researching, and the arts as I believe these sectors are what help a society to flourish yet are underfunded/underpaid.
We differ in that I recognize this to be impossible under capitalism. Monopolies and imperialism are a feature not a bug
I disagree that they are impossible; hard to do yes, but not impossible. They require the political power to implement those things is the key thing, but that goes with everything. In the US for instance, if it was just the blue states voting for those things to be implemented in blue states and if the blue states funded it then I think would be possible to implement some of those things even in our current political climate.
There’s a few things you need to make it possible though:
-
Ending Citizens United, as it is much harder to implement these changes when politicians can be bought by corporate interests.
-
Alternative Voting systems in place at local, state, and federal levels. As progressive politicians sometimes have a higher barrier of getting off the ground verses incumbents due to vote splitting.
-
Reimplementing and expanding the Fairness Doctrine to include all traditional media, social media, and apply to online influencers. As misinformation is currently allowed to be spread without audiences being presented a more well rounded picture.
I will add that the monopolies are inevitable if the system is unregulated. Same thing with cartels. Capitalism only works with regulations to keep the system working. As the entire benefit of capitalism, innovation, all but stops when competition is not allowed to happen with big companies. That is why we need regulators that are not able to be influenced or bought out by corporate lobbyists.
Imperialism is less a feature these days, more globalist multinational conglomeration. It’s cut from the same cloth though, with unscrupulous companies seeking to exploit locals in international markets. The answer to dealing with these entities is that we need a multinational trade deal with our allies.
Namely, we need to punish companies and countries that try to exploit locals in other counties for cheap/exploitative labor practices. Any country or company that doesn’t do business by the agreement should be met with steep tariffs, ideally with some of those funds set aside to go back to the workers who were robbed of the fruits of their labor. I believe the agreement should require that resources be collected in a way that is sustainable, implementing green practices, and non-exploitative.
-
liberals will never stop insisting that they’re part of ‘the left’
Lol. Yeah im sure that it’s China and Russians who are causing leftist to not trust liberals. The last 300 years of human history in which liberals gleefully murdered leftists has nothing to do with it.
I’m not saying that this isn’t happening, but at the same time it also seems to get heavily implied in threads like these that the solution is for leftists to just get onboard with two-party neoliberalist capitalism just for this next one election, just this once, we promise.
Calling on the Democratic Party to adopt left-wing policies keeps getting branded “divisive”, but calling on Leftists to adopt the center-right is treated like an attempt at unification.
The people calling for party unity don’t want any of the political aspects of a united Left, they just want to carry on the same policies they had before but with more people being scared into holding their noses and voting for them.
It’s just that lefties don’t seem to want to or know how to build power. It feels very performative. If they actually cared about any of the issues they are so vocal about, I don’t know, maybe they would do the groundwork to build a political framework. That’s why I applaud people like Zohran or AOC. They are there, doing the work day in and out. But online lefties are just pouting and crying about liberals non stop
Zohran
Thanks for picking an example that so beautifully supports my case. Literally the one time a guy comes up with some mildly left-of-center policies that might actually stand some chance of getting implemented, Establishment Democrats turned on him so strongly that the guy they actually wanted felt emboldened enough to run against him as an independent.
Yes. I didn’t think establishment democrats would just roll over without a fight. But they are boomers on their last ticket out. If we don’t at least try, then what’s the point? Is the sum total of all our efforts then intended to be online memes? That’s why I look up to Mamdani because he’s not punching the entire democratic apparatus. He’s punching the hardline centrist boomers that are holding the party back. After all, Zohran is running from within the democratic primary, and not as an independent. I have a lot of respect for him and will always support him. He’s doing the work to change the party and move it in the right direction. So is AOC. On the other hand, online lefties sum total action amounts to…memes? I don’t know. You tell me. What exactly are y’all doing?
You get it; I think there is an issue of conflating what the lazy, safe seat Democrats in office that are borderline Republicans want and what the Democratic voters want. Mamdani is closer to what liberal/left Democratic voters want for our party. A big issue is the politicians in power of our party are mostly corporate types that are not necessarily trying to rock the boat too much.
It’s a nuanced and multifaceted issue which mainly comes from Citizens United. Plus, it’s an issue of the First Past the Post voting system in much of the country making it harder for more progressive candidates to come out ahead.
I think there’s also a bit of a misconception that we can’t incorporate things like Universal Healthcare, Universal Basic Income, Universal Basic Services, or other progressive/leftist policies under our current economic system.
That’s not to say that we can’t change things down the line, but we can regulate capitalism and create income floors so no one is going without food, medicine, shelter, or support.
Yeah I’m done arguing with Russian trolls tonight. Good luck in your future endeavors.
The hilarious thing about this is that I’m not even the only person in this thread that you’ve accused of being a Russian troll.
It doesn’t even make sense on its own terms, like why would the Russians be trying to promote the case that the Democratic Party should make more concessions to the Left? Is “Russian troll” just what you call anyone who disagrees with your theories on political strategising?
The big irony is that I don’t think you even realize just how perfectly you proved my original point. “Leftists should toe the Liberal Line” = Not Troll, “Liberals should accommodate Left-wing policies” = Troll, apparently
The post is a jab about American folks who conflate the terms. I wasn’t expecting people to take this as seriously as others have!
Although now that you mentioned it, I kinda sense that there could be something going on sometimes, especially on comments looking down on the working class supporting the Republicans, while refusing to acknowledge that they used to vote Democrats. Plenty of people worth their salt would tell anyone that it is because the working class felt abandoned after the outsourcing of jobs without offering alternatives. Unfortunately, a lot on the left, but more so on liberals, don’t see this and keep calling the working class as dumb hicks. There are definitely folks who are too far gone and support fascists, but to caricaturise everyone in the demographic while a more plausible explanation is available seems tone deaf. It made me think that there could be an intentional wedge to create in-fighting for such deliberate nosing down.
Where are you from that somehow this isn’t affecting you. I just saw top posts on Lemmy about how Germany and France joined the UK in having far right parties reach the top of the polls. Please don’t let me demean whatever country you’re from if it’s not those, but a world where Germany, France, the UK, join the already gone US in far right ideology is no bueno (to use a language that might suffer in the future). But go ahead and take your jabs, because time is running out.
Why do you think housing crisis and wealth inequality is happening across the world? Why did the working class is turning to the right when they used to vote liberal? These issues doesn’t just stop in the US as you pointed out. It is almost as if valuing private property and individualism is not the Achilles heel of liberals. And precisely private property and individualism is what liberalism was founded on.
I am going to be blunt. The difference between non-US liberals and US liberals is that the former know exactly who they are and what they want-- they are NIMBYs who don’t want their property value to go down, and homeless families and children and tenants paying half their monthly salary in rent be damned. Meanwhile, US liberals shy away from admitting they are NIMBYs, but instead caricaturise the working class as racist hicks, rather than recognising they are mostly decent folks who just want roof over their heads and not living paycheck to paycheck. There are plenty of news of neighbourhoods in liberal California and New York blocking affordable housing.
A lot of people commenting here and seemingly annoyed that liberal and left are different because of said issues, is precisely what this post is about. Knowing they are different is a start.
The left and liberals are one and the same in America.
Now I’m sure you’re going to go on some stupid fucking diatribe about how “aCkShuAllY they AREN’T”.
That’s just Russian fucking propaganda. You’re trying to bisect the left to create infighting in order to prop up fascist interests.
Begone, troll.
The left and liberals are one and the same in America.
Just ask the opinion on economic issues and there is stark difference.
That’s just Russian fucking propaganda.
Is it really Russian propaganda? Or American oligarch propaganda to conflate the two terms?
I read comments from a lot of Europeans (and maybe those in Oceania, I’ll be honest, I don’t think much about that region because I’m from America) who seem to think they’re immune from what happened in the US over the last decade plus, but it’s clearly spreading, and yet it’s this onslaught of shit talking, Americans are dumb, there is only one liberalism, if you’re not with us you’re against us.
Well, they divided the left, people lost interest, and now what was unarguably the strongest nation in the world has gone awry, but let’s go ahead and wax poetic about this unrealistic perfect world that people want. The right, as much as I disagree with them, is pretty grounded in reality, and they use that to their advantage, and the left lives in Idealand, and that’s a vague concept. And it’s a great place, but it’s not possible when you shit on people who don’t match your exact idea.
I’m farting into the wind here, I’ve got a less than zero confidence many of these accounts exist solely to create strife, the same way they did on Reddit. This isn’t a leftist Utopia, it’s a fucking blender.
However you define liberal, there is the big question mark. Why did the working class used to vote liberal and Democrats but now turned to the right?
Divide and conquer. If the left can’t see that then they doom us all. Liberals want freedom and justice and that is NOT being represented by most democrats
If the left can’t see that then they doom us all.
Why is it the Left’s responsibility to toe the Liberal line in the name of unity, but never vice versa?
Mf I’m here right now talking about unity
That’s a very one-sided take. Yes, leftists can easily fall for the divide and conquer purity tests. To pretend that liberals don’t fall for it as they have historically and are currently sabotaging popular & successful leftist candidates is ridiculous.
Show me a liberal sabotaging a leftist and I’ll show you a liar
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak
Maybe not the most solid rock to build an argument on, but for American values of leftist and liberal, you’ll find this to be a prime example.
Blackshirts and Reds - Michael Parenti - Ch 1
In Germany, a similar pattern of complicity between fascists and capitalists emerged. German workers and farm laborers had won the right to unionize, the eight-hour day, and unemployment insurance. But to revive profit levels, heavy industry and big finance wanted wage cuts for their workers and massive state subsidies and tax cuts for themselves.
During the 1920s, the Nazi Sturmabteilung or SA, the brown-shirted storm troopers, subsidized by business, were used mostly as an antilabor paramilitary force whose function was to terrorize workers and farm laborers. By 1930, most of the tycoons had concluded that the Weimar Republic no longer served their needs and was too accommodating to the working class. They greatly increased their subsidies to Hitler, propelling the Nazi party onto the national stage. Business tycoons supplied the Nazis with generous funds for fleets of motor cars and loudspeakers to saturate the cities and villages of Germany, along with funds for Nazi party organizations, youth groups, and paramilitary forces. In the July 1932 campaign, Hitler had sufficient funds to fly to fifty cities in the last two weeks alone.
In that same campaign the Nazis received 37.3 percent of the vote, the highest they ever won in a democratic national election. They never had a majority of the people on their side. To the extent that they had any kind of reliable base, it generally was among the more affluent members of society. In addition, elements of the petty bourgeoisie and many lumpenproletariats served as strong-arm party thugs, organized into the SA storm troopers. But the great majority of the organized working class supported the Communists or Social Democrats to the very end.
In the December 1932 election, three candidates ran for president: the conservative incumbent Field Marshal von Hindenburg, the Nazi candidate Adolph Hitler, and the Communist party candidate Ernst Thaelmann. In his campaign, Thaelmann argued that a vote for Hindenburg amounted to a vote for Hitler and that Hitler would lead Germany into war. The bourgeois press, including the Social Democrats, denounced this view as “Moscow inspired.” Hindenburg was re-elected while the Nazis dropped approximately two million votes in the Reichstag election as compared to their peak of over 13.7 million.
True to form, the Social Democrat leaders refused the Communist party’s proposal to form an eleventh-hour coalition against Nazism. As in many other countries past and present, so in Germany, the Social Democrats would sooner ally themselves with the reactionary Right than make common cause with the Reds.3 Meanwhile a number of right-wing parties coalesced behind the Nazis and in January 1933, just weeks after the election, Hindenburg invited Hitler to become chancellor.
Upon assuming state power, Hitler and his Nazis pursued a politico-economic agenda not unlike Mussolini’s. They crushed organized labor and eradicated all elections, opposition parties, and independent publications. Hundreds of thousands of opponents were imprisoned, tortured, or murdered. In Germany as in Italy, the communists endured the severest political repression of all groups.
Here were two peoples, the Italians and Germans, with different histories, cultures, and languages, and supposedly different temperaments, who ended up with the same repressive solutions because of the compelling similarities of economic power and class conflict that prevailed in their respective countries. In such diverse countries as Lithuania, Croatia, Rumania, Hungary, and Spain, a similar fascist pattern emerged to do its utmost to save big capital from the impositions of democracy.4
The Liberalism to Fascism Pipeline (Neoliberalism Explained)
True to form, the Social Democrat leaders refused the Communist party’s proposal to form an eleventh-hour coalition against Nazism. As in many other countries past and present, so in Germany, the Social Democrats would sooner ally themselves with the reactionary Right than make common cause with the Reds.
Well, the German SPD’s famous symbol was the three arrows, representing the opposition to conservatism, fascism and communism. Of course, SPD refused to form a coalition with the communists. And during the Great Depression, the SPD already lost their majority in the parliament and had to form a grand coalition with various parties. They were finally made insignificant when they lost more seats and influence in 1932 elections, being relegated in to minority and opposition. In spite of that, they are the only major party-- all 92 SPD MPs-- who voted down the Enabling Act, which gave absolute power to Hitler, while the rest of parliament either approved it or being communist MP they were prevented by SA to enter the parliament.
Any “left” that doesn’t promote human rights can fuck right off back to the dictatorship it came from.
I don’t call tankies “left”.
just sparkling authoritarianism
They’re calling themselves that, and probably calling you a Liberal (that is now a derogatory term apparently)
But they are?
Not all rightists are authoritarians, but all authoritarians are rightists. Being leftist literally means being anti-authoritarian. Tankies are classic right wing authoritarians cosplaying as leftist. Whether someone thinks their brand of authoritarianism is more benevolent is not the metric that determines their position on the political spectrum, it is whether power is evenly distributed (leftist) or consolidated (rightist).
Not all rightists are authoritarians, but all authoritarians are rightists
That’s not what being politically right or left entails. Economic rightism involves private ownership of the means of production, not whether “power” (whatever you mean by that word) is concentrated or spread out. Economic leftism involves even distribution of the means of production at least to the point it can no longer be used for personal gain but for societal development. You’re redefining right-wing to mean authoritarian, which isn’t how the term is used in political science. By your definition, you’ve made “left-wing authoritarianism” impossible, which makes your claim unfalsifiable but also meaningless in the usual political context.
Tankies are classic right wing authoritarians cosplaying as leftist.
What does this even mean?
That’s not what being politically right or left entails.
I am using the classic definition of the political spectrum, which was defined by the French Revolution. The Egalitarian revolutionaries sat on the left side of the hall and the institutional nobility on the right. I reject the Cold War era Capitalist propaganda doublespeak re-definition in which it means “whatever rightists want it to mean to more easily demonize the enemies of Capitalism.” I also reject the notion that Marx, who was born decades after the Revolution, was the only leftist philosopher or that he, ironically, would hold a monopoly on leftism.
You seem to have accepted the Capitalist fallacy that social and economic policy can be separated, or that power and wealth are not one and the same. An economy controlled by a few is not leftist, it is feudal and rightist. While the political spectrum is not a binary, leftism always aims for egalitarian ends. Egality involves equitable sharing in authority and economic power. One who shares in an economy but holds no power does not share in the economy. One who shares in power and is destitute does not share in power. These things are at odds. They are fundamental opposites.
What does this even mean?
Tankies support consolidation of power (both “violent” and “economic” authority) into the hands of a few. This is rightist no matter the justification. Benevolent authoritarianism is still authoritarianism and authoritarianism is always rightist (consolidation of power/authority/wealth). They use leftist terminology to justify their authoritarianism, but it does not change the fact that the means and ends are authoritarian in the extreme. If only a minority have authority (control of violence/force) then those few also have complete ownership of the economy, which is the opposite of leftist. If only a minority have wealth (control of the economy) then those few also have the power to buy authority. There is no difference between social power and economic power. Leftism requires egality in both domains or else it dies.
You’re using a moral definition of “left” whereas in political science, “left” and “right” are only descriptive terms about economic organization (collective vs. private ownership respectively), and authoritarian/libertarian describes political power distribution. Your definition makes “left-wing auth” impossible by definition, but that’s a linguistic choice, not an empirical fact.
The problem with collapsing the axes is that it stops us from describing history accurately. Under your framework, a regime like the USSR which abolished private ownership and implemented central planning can’t be left because it wasn’t egalitarian in political power. But in mainstream classification, it’s economically far left and politically authoritarian a very different thing than right-wing authoritarianism.
Yes, wealth and power influence each other, but they are not identical; otherwise we wouldn’t need different terms. A billionaire under a strong democracy can have wealth without full political authority, and a military dictator in a collapsed economy can have political authority without wealth. Conflating them makes analysis less precise, not more.
How did you figure out I was a genie?
No,
I think we’ve decided this. The left (rightfully) hates the Democrats.
Yes, but I hate Trump more.
An inch of gained ground is better than a mile of lost ground.What gained ground?
No ground was gained Trump won. Decades of progress erased in 7 months. The genocide in Israel has accelerated. And our economy is crashing.
If Dems won and kept things as they were 7 months ago everything would be demonstrably better than they are now.
Would there still be issues? Of course there are always issues, but it would have been much better.
While this is all true, i can’t imagine that the left would have been celebrating a democratic win today if she won in the fall. If they truly wanted a democratic win (or to gain an inch) they would have pinched their noses and voted for Kamala
That’s true I guess. Way too superficial for my liking, but that’s outside the scope of this conversation. The person I replied to said there would be (small) gains from electing Harris, not just less losses, so I was asking for them yo elaborate.
To address small gains I could have seen at the very least Roe v. Wade being codified by a Harris White House.
Then why didn’t they do that in Biden’s term?
Republican controlled house and senate following midterms. Roe was overturned after mid-terms
Gay marriage rights, the railroad unions got their sick leave, the rich were being audited created serious revenue gains and if the DNC were in charge then the TCJA wouldn’t have been renewed meaning even more taxing of the rich.
The railroad unions thing is patently false (they wanted a lot more sick leave and a lot more than sick leave), but also: I’m asking what would’ve improved, not what would’ve not deteriorated or what improved in the past.
Okay I’m sorry that decades of evidence of improvements aren’t enough to convince you that things would have improved again, but then my statement about the TCJA expiring in 2026 and not becoming permanent still qualifies as an answer. We would be taxing the fucking rich. How can you even pretend that’s not what we should be doing?
Leftists hate democrats so much they helped vote in Trump instead of a very decent woman twice.
The only thing leftists hate more then democrats are other leftists.
Two things:
Leftists did vote for Clinton. (You’ll recall she got more votes.) That is despite the fact that she was a piece-of-shit candidate that we didn’t want, and didn’t win the primary.
Harris was just plain stupidity. You can’t look poor people in the eye for three months and tell them you won’t change anything and still claim to be decent, much less a legitimate presidential candidate.
Respectfully, you’re being very unreasonable. You don’t get to punch the voters in the face and then whine that you broke your hand.
Kamala wasn’t a great candidate. But there were 2 options, and the other is deploying the military against civilians, ignoring due process.and court orders, and ordering states to imprison the homeless while ensuring an economic collapse that will create more homeless people.
Ignoring the problems with Bidens’ and then Harris’ campaign, which were disastrous and failed to earn the votes of many working class Americans, is precisely how the Democrats will continue to lose even in the face of unpopular fascist opposition.
Zohran Mamdani has been a microcosm of this paradigm shift. Progressive policies are incredibly popular because they address the material harms people face. Anti-israel policies are incredibly popular and only getting more so as Israel and the US continue to facilitate this genocide.
The corporate neoliberalism of the Democratic Party establishment is a critical part of the problem that got us to fascism. We need progressive candidates at all levels to dramatically reform the party and represent the working class constituency it’s supposed to represent.
Progressive policies that a majority of Americans support
Here Are 34 Polls That Show A Ceasefire & Weapons Embargo Help Kamala Win
Kamala Would Have Won With A Weapons Embargo
Democrats’ Working-Class Failures, Analysis Finds, Are ‘Why Trump Beat Harris’
2024 Post-Election Report: A retrospective and longitudinal data analysis on why Trump beat Harris
How Trump and Harris Voters See America’s Role in the World
Majority of Americans support progressive policies such as higher minimum wage, free college
Democrats should run on the popular progressive ideas, but not the unpopular ones
Here Are 7 ‘Left Wing’ Ideas (Almost) All Americans Can Get Behind
Finding common ground: 109 national policy proposals with bipartisan support
Progressive Policies Are Popular Policies
Tim Walz’s Progressive Policies Popular With Republicans in Swing States
I think you have definitely nailed the issues of most of the Democratic Party politicians in power. The Democratic Party Politicians don’t necessarily represent the interests of their leftist-liberal voters. They probably will continue to not do so if they are in safe seats and funded by corporations.
What needs to change at the local level, state level, and federal level is implementing an Alternative Voting system. As this is the key way we will be able to get progressive politicians, that support progressive policies, into power.
NYC had Ranked Choice Voting and it likely contributed in part to people feeling safe to vote their conscience and list Mamdani at the top of the ticket.
Yeah, true progressives are great.
But that doesn’t mean you should hand power to treasonous, fascist rapists when your favorite candidate doesn’t get the nomination.
The Democratic Party did hand over power to treasonous fascist rapists, and they did so by running such a bad campaign, despite the consistent polling and public sentiment that showed exactly what needed to change. That’s precisely the issue I’m getting at. The Democratic Party establishment clearly prefers losing to fascists over representing everyday americans
it has been shown that many counties voting places were rigged for trump, so she wouldve won anyways, if she hadnt actually conceded too quickly. Also dems dont fight election rigging by the gop at all.
Your profile is interesting. It’s almost like you believe a minority can do everything because you’re “right.” Are you in the burn it all down camp?
Artist, musical performer, and former derby skater from the Midwest.
I’m single, childless, and married to freedom and adventure.
ACAB, Anti-War, and I hate Democrats, Republicans, and billionaires.
Right…here we go with the purity tests again. If you don’t believe exactly what I believe, you dont deserve my vote. Its this attitude that got us a second Trump presidency, and how’s that working out for us?
Purity test = genocide good or bad.
If you fail this test, you deserve everything that happens to you.
If there is anything worthwhile for being a purity test, it’s being pro or anti genocide.
How can people expect any party who doesn’t care about genocide, to care about democracy?
harris was not voted for, purely out of sexisms, sorry but even people on the left can be a little sexist.
Biden still got the most votes of any presidential candidates.
I’m rubbing the non-voter’s noses in the mess they made and hope they’ll do better in the midterms.
Without COVID Biden would have lost too.
Though, it was important to see Democrats demonstrate, publicly, that brain damage and genocide are not disqualifiers for the presidency in their view.
Biden’s ass cancer would have been a better president than the one we ended up with.
How’s the genocide working out, I think Trump is about to give away Ukraine and Israel is about to take over Gaza City, no?
Leftists aren’t numerous enough to have had much an effect on the election.
But I will confirm your second statement.
Americans sometimes use the two words to mean the same thing. So in that context it’s not as confusing but when they’re speaking with non-Americans it can cause issues and clearer terminology would be nice
Most European countries have an (actually) liberal party; the one in Germany used to have its place between social democrats and conservatives, but has moved way to the right in recent years.
It was kinda done intentionally to muddy the terms to prevent people from thinking of alternatives to the status quo.
That’s because the definition of the word means promoter of human rights, meaning anybody using it otherwise are the ones misusing the word.
Man, how fucking right wing do you need to be to consider liberalism to be left wing?
American.
