Gestures at the current state of affairs
I don’t think patience is working guys.
If you’re patient enough, it always works out 💪
Patience was a virtue.
Unpopular opinion:
Alienating liberals doesn’t create more leftists, it only causes people to be dismissive of the term and dig in their heels.
Insulting them rather than educating them does nothing but divide anyone left of center and after the last election I think it’s abundantly clear that we need to be unified rather than divided.
No one is going to argue that left leaning candidates aren’t far from perfect, but they’re a hell of a lot better than the far-right fascists were about to have in power in less than 2 weeks.
Yes, I agree modern liberals are too centrist and ineffective but at the end of the day they’re light-years ahead of the far right, and I’d rather be agitated about having another centrist administration than alarmed and outraged at the onset of fascism.I don’t think they really are “light years ahead of the right”. Most of the difference as far as I can tell is in how they talk-- not what they do. Liberals fundamentally just believe in the status quo. MLK Jr saw it the same way when he described " the white moderate" as the greatest obstacle to change.
I’m definitely willing to engage liberals (and even conservatives) in honest conversation when I feel the context warrants the effort. Lemmy rarely seems to qualify.
Welcome to the world, this is not the US
Also, nah, socialists don’t want to befriend fascists like Biden or Harris
The liberals have to do their mea culpa, not the left. Right now it will soon be a matter of choosing a side : humanism or fascism. Until now the liberals always chose fascism and called the leftists dangerous extremists.
Choose a side liberals. You made the world what it is today. And you’re now blaming the leftists and asking them to support your insanity. That’s not how it works. Leftists know which side they are fighting for, and they will suffer the consequences. What about you liberals?
last election I think it’s abundantly clear that we need to be unified rather than divided.
Who’s “we”? Liberals are not on the left and are ideological enemies of the left: you can’t be unified with people who fundamentally oppose you.
Also, which election? Oh right, you’re one of the those American liberals who think foreigners are fictional characters. That explains why you think leftists would want to ally with the people committing genocide against these “fictional characters”
I definitely feel like we can be unified against things like: islamic extremism, climate change denial, fascist government policies, etc no?
what is the benefit of writing a response with such a hostile tone?
What’s the benefit of mollycoddleing genocide apologists like Chainweasel??
this is a false dichotomy. in this context, i don’t think there’s much benefit to mollycoddling, and i don’t think there’s much benefit to open hostility. i was simply trying to ask why you chose to reply in such a hostile tone.
it’s also not clear to me how chainweasel is a genocide apologist. could you explain how you reached that conclusion?
Well you see, I reached that conclusion by reading their comments and not being deliberately disingenuous.
Because he thinks it makes him look cool and edgy, especially in an environment like this, where the way to gain popularity is to be the most extreme far left voice in the crowd.
People like that are the vegans of politics: even if you may agree with them in many ways, their repulsive attitude and conduct more than overrules any common views you might share.
thats not an unpopular opinion though? maybe on the west? revolutions happen by convincing your fellow brothers, not by force or manipulation.
this is the hard part imo, we all have to go against the media machine.
One time I was called right extremist and left extremist by the same person on the same day I guess that I am the entirety of politics now
Certified grill master
We’re the People’s Front of Judea, not the FUCKING Judean People’s Front!
Wankers!
and if somebody wants to know where that character is from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moomins
!moomin@sopuli.xyz if you are interested in the comic!
I’m not sure I’m politically knowledgeable to know what a liberal is
(This is a joke, and I don’t need anyone to explain it to me. The thing I struggle with is discerning whether the people I’m talking to at any given point know what a liberal is)
Sometimes it’s not worth the fight.
I feel like most self described liberals would be leftists if they actually looked into it anyway
That’s my experience, generally. The ones I can get to read a bit of theory tend to be more sympathetic towards Socialism.
Not sure. I know a lot of people who believe in capitalism and maintaining it through socialistic injections, but they aren’t wanting to give the means of production over to the government/people, which is l what leftist is to me.
It has troubles to get that to work, and often times higher expenses, but that’s what they seem comfortable with
I think “socialistic injections” is a misnomer. Capitalism and Socialism are descriptors for entire economies, not parts of them. Generally, reading theory tends to help people support moving towards Socialism.
I get what you mean, but how would you describe Canada’s healthcare system or veteran affairs in the U.S.?
Really the same with public schools, roads, libraries, medical coverage for the elderly, SNAP benefits… they are all socially shared costs by the people, while existing in a capitalistic country
Those are social programs. Socialism and Capitalism are systems overall, the presence of the post office in the US does not alter that character.
Alright so the term programs is the word you prefer to injections. I wasn’t saying such programs make the country not capitalistic, I was just saying many people who vote democrat want capitalism with more social programs.
You may be right that if they read more theory they would be more apt to ditch capitalism, but many of them are programmed to reject any talk of other systems.
Kay this is just semantics at this point, so ultimately it’s unimportant because delving this deep into it distracts from the overall conversation.
With that said, wouldn’t the existence of a post office and other socialized services make the US (and basically every nation state in existence) by strict definitions, a mixed economy? Like if we had to keep to first year undergrad levels.
To be clear for the back row, being this pedantic about semantics not only distracts from the overall conversation but when made as a serious point is at best a sign of ignorance, and at worst it’s an argument made in bad faith in order to move the goal post. This comment is meant as an aside. Ultimately like everything else an economy is a spectrum, and strict categories are more often than not caused by our desire to make things simple.
What is the difference? I’m not sure what I am any more.
Liberalism is the ideological aspect of Capitalism, Leftists support some form of Socialism.
So you concede that social democrats are leftists?
Social Democrats support Capitalism with enlarged safety nets, they don’t support Socialism. So, no.
You just said leftists support some form of socialism. According to the Wikipedia page, a social democracy is a social, economic, and political philosophy within socialism that supports political and economic democracy and a gradualist, reformist and democratic approach toward achieving limited socialism.
So social democrats have to be leftists then
No, not really. First of all, Wikipedia is not some holy text. Many Social Democrats consider themselves open to working towards a collectivized economy, but the facts remain that
-
Such a path has historically proven to be impossible
-
Such a definition of Socialism used on that Wikipedia page generally equates it to “Socialism is when the government does stuff.”
So what is an acceptable level of socialism required for a government or ideology to be considered leftist in your view?
Also, don’t you think the emphasis on public control over resources or greater economic equality in social democracies reflects some socialist principles, even if it’s not socialism in the Marxist sense?
Finally, even if social democracies don’t meet the Marxist criteria for socialism, wouldn’t you say that they represent a critique of capitalism and an attempt to address its contradictions, even if they don’t go far enough?
Good questions.
-
I don’t think it makes sense to classify Socialism as a quantitative measure, but qualitative. If you recall from Politzer’s work, there’s really no such thing as a “pure” system, ergo when deciding if an ideology is Capitalist or Socialist we need to see what it does and what it works towards.
-
Social Democracy definitely borrows from Socialism and Socialists, certainly in aesthetics and many supporters genuinely believe in Reformism as a tactic (even if I personally think it obviously disproven at this point). However, the basis of Social Democracy is in not only maintaining markets (which are found in Socialist countries as well), but Bourgeois control and the present institutions formed in Bourgeois interests, such as the US 2 party system. Without doing anything to truly assert proletarian control over the economy and leaving the Bourgeoisie uncontested besides the “democratic” institutions they set up and approve of, I don’t consider it truly Socialist.
-
In a way. If we are being serious, all ideologies are critiques of the present system in some way, even libertarian Capitalists believe in significant critiques of modern Capitalism. What matters more is the manner and character of the changes. In Social Democracy, even if adherents think social safety nets need to be expanded, they don’t typically think we should work towards collectivization and public ownership, and wish to “harness Capitalism.” In addition, the Nordic Countries many seek to replicate only exist via Imperialism, they fund their social safety nets largely through massive IMF loans and other high interest rate forms of exploiting the Global South. It’s like if Chase Bank were a country.
-
-
I’m not sure what I am any more.
Political labels are pretty junk, especially after centuries of mass media and propaganda in the mix. I find it helps to learn to convey your values specifically if you want to avoid that whole mess.
- The ‘left-right spectrum’ is subjective and relative which makes it pretty useless without having a ton of context. “Leftist”, by itself, is mostly a meaningless term. To socialists, a progressive liberal is usually considered center or even right wing. Some socialists even call other socialists right-wing. It’s just pointless.
- What the US mass media calls ‘liberals’ is a progressive liberal in political science. What the US mass media calls a conservative is usually a conservative liberal aka right-liberal, that’s why they constantly prize liberty and freedom. The US libertarian is simply a classical liberal. They’re all liberals!
Useful video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nPVkpWMH9k - “Why the political compass is wrong”, explaining how vague and ultimately ineffective the left-right auth-lib models of politics are.
I don’t like progressive used that way because historically progressivism was just about an ideology that was results driven and often independent of other labels. There were progressive conservatives like Teddy Roosevelt and the Nelson Rockefeller Republicans in America (though the progressive conservatives in Canada are anything but). They were fundamentally centrist liberals though, essentially a watered down evolution of the historical French radical liberalism/radical whigs. Merkel, for example, called herself a progressive and she was a Christian Democrat.
If you’re looking for a label, I recommend not. Soon after you pick one, the definition for that label will change and no longer fit your ideology. This change might be due to your own understanding improving, or due to societal shifts, or both.
Write out your ideology in long form. People tend to support good ideas when not attached to politically charged labels.
O yea I’m not worried about it, just saying I don’t know what I am considered anymore. Still vote democratic for pres because my god since I’ve been 18 Republicans have put up straight garbage, but I’ve never been happy about it.
Well are you pro or anti capitalist? If the former, you’d be a liberal (though a heavily left leaning one), if the latter, you’re a leftist.
If you’re not conservative, you’re liberal.
Kids are trying to pretend the term is more complicated than that.
No, leftists are not liberal. And, in fact, conservatives are.
This is what I’m talking about 😅
I gave up on this conversation years ago.
Fine, for the sake of argument, I’m a liberal, because I don’t want to give you 45 extra minutes of my time in this comment section to try and explain the difference when I know you’ll ignore most of what I say anyhow, and derail us from the point I was actually trying to make. If I’m a liberal in your mind, so be it. My point stands.
Me too. Here is the dictionary definition of “Liberal” Liberal Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster https://search.app/891may6LqaasDRj36
deleted by creator
When someone calls me a fascist but isn’t politically knowledgeable enough to know I’m a centrist 🧘
To be clear, fascism and anticommunism are intimately linked, and you are an anticommunist (unless you’ve changed stance). I maintain that Blackshirts and Reds should be necessary reading.
Are you calling me a fascist?
No. I am saying I can understand why someone would call you one if you were being anticommunist, however, given their historical link.
It also makes sens, if you’re not knowledgeable on politics, your reasoning might rather resemble a philosophical one.
And philosophically speaking the basis of liberalism could means both left or right wing values depending on the philosopher.
For exemple Kant’s philosophy was based on rational individuals to wich giving positive rights would permit to govern themselves. It also means laws would be universal wich would create equality. You can see how this could be compatible with some anarchist ideas or more generally with democracy.
In communism you would also have those positive rights. But you would also justify interventions to protect those rights, against lack of resources for instance (although that’s outside of Kant’s scope).
In the contrary, Lock’s ideas is negative rights to protect people from the government and each other. Guaranteeing things like property. And ultimately wanting freedom. Thus giving the right wing liberalism it mainly refers to today.
Furthermore it’s the basis of capitalism. Which, if i’m being honest, is mostly what’s implied by liberalism when it comes to the economy, although i would argue against. With how defective capitalism is you could argue protectionism should be wanted by liberals to prevent all thoses monopolies we see everywhere. In this instance we could see a part of liberalism that tend more towards a leftist idea.
Near as I can tell, a leftist would do anything to keep a liberal out of power over believing only 75% of the same things as them, and allow the right to take control, but at least they get to keep the moral high ground of not allowing a liberal to do that 25%. Never mind that the right actively opposed everything to leftist wants completely.
Liberals are “the right” and they sure as hell don’t believe 75% of the same things as leftists. Leftists in the west also don’t really have the power to keep liberals out of power, hence why liberals have consistently been the only ones in power for decades. Liberals on the other hand, absolutely do have the power to keep leftists out, and they will go as far as allying with fascists to murder leftists in their beds.
Liberalism is literally and historically where the left begins. The right is authoritarianism and the left is liberalism to anarchism. Liberals are not leftists but it is a signof a distinct lack of education in political philosophy to claim liberalism as a right wing ideology.
Liberalism is the ideological basis of Capitalism. When Capitalism was a progressive force, ie during the French Revolution, it was considered left wing. Now that Capitalism has become entrenched and turned to Imperialism, the progressive side is undeniably Socialism, while liberalism entrenches the status quo.
Simply saying that liberalism at one point was progressive does not mean history has not had several centuries of shifts and developments since then.
You’re being incredibly euro-centric with your claims here.
How so?
Your notion of where the modern divide lies is 100% European and won’t hold true when you consider all nations.
Liberalism is european in origin, as Capitalism first truly took hold there. It isn’t the “modern divide” but the notion of Liberalism as a progressive motion or regressive motion.
Liberalism didn’t exist for most of history, so trying to invoke “history” to argue that liberalism has some kind of timeless and eternal claim to being on the left is unconvincing. Yes, liberalism was the left in the eighteenth century, but we’re in the twenty first century.
The division of political ideologies into left and right derives from the French Parliament which had the monarchists on the right and the liberals on the left.
Every reference to right and left stems from this so yes in fact Liberalism has always been where the left starts even if liberals are nit leftists because the political left is anti-authoritarian.
The binary has not changed and I promise you any claim ypu make to the contrary is going to be mired in euro-centric beliefs.
The division of political ideologies into left and right derives from the French Parliament which had the monarchists on the right and the liberals on the left.
The names yes, but the basic conflict is much older, Europe itself had the Guelph-Ghibelline conflict.
Perhaps it us my American education in geography, but isn’t France still part of Europe?
The Gelph-Ghibelline conflict was about secular monarchism vs religious authority. Im not sure I see the point you’re making.
isn’t France still part of Europe?
It is, it’s the UK that left (the EU, not the continent).
The Gelph-Ghibelline conflict was about secular monarchism vs religious authority. Im not sure I see the point you’re making.
That the conflict between feudal lords (French aristocrats / Ghibellines) and urban merchants (Guelph burghers / French Girondists) is much older than the French Revolution. The pope and emperor were the figureheads, but the lords and merchants were the power blocs.
I always try to tell the Marxists this, but they always come up with some dumb rebuttal.
I don’t think it’s a dumb rebuttal to point out that the vast majority of countries today are no longer Monarchist. Liberalism was left wing when the Bourgeoisie were a progressive force alongside the Proletariat and Peasantry against the Monarchy, now that the Bourgeoisie is in power and the Proletariat is by far the most numerous class, it isn’t accurate to label liberalism as left.
Well it also matters to specify what type of liberalism we’re referring to right? If we’re talking about classical liberalism (a k.a American libertarianism) which was the pervasive thought at the time, then that is obviously right wing. Progressivism (a.k.a American Liberalism) is more centre-left and developed more recently. Neo-liberalism is probably more right leaning than classical liberalism.
Although it probably won’t matter to you because they all operate under capitalism.
When discussing liberalism in the context of liberalism vs Leftism, they are faily opposite. Liberalism desires Capitalism, perhaps with some tweaks or larger safety nets, while leftists seek to end Capitalism and pursue Socialism of some form. This isn’t “75%” of the same views at all, liberalism is fundamentally entirely incompatible with Leftism just like fascism is incompatible with leftism.
Additionally, in the West, Leftists have not been the deciding factor in elections, liberals have, be they more conservative or more progressive liberals.
You know, if leberals wanted the support of the leftists, they try something called compromises. But the only compromises they’re ready to do is with the fascists unfortunately, which the leftists will never support.
So no, the leftists didn’t refuse to make compromises. The liberals did, with the left, because they actually accepted all the compromises with the fascists. And act now surprised that fascism is taking over.
Liberals are spoiled children incapable of taking accountability for their actions.
Liberals of all political persuasions tend to believe in monopolies created by the state through private property rights. Owners of private property maintain a monopoly on the use of the property. There are progressive liberal arguments proposing the state can keep monopolies in check.
Elections worldwide have been pushing right. I argue monopolies have consolidated power and are better equipped to misinform and buy elections. Liberals see this system of monopoly as justified (right) or controllable (left).
Leftist propose different economic and representation systems. One such system is anarchism. As an anarchist, I favor horizontal power structures with property not directly worked by a person held in common. Elections should give way to consensus building. Heirarchies, though sometimes necessary, should be answerable to the represented people. The tools of violence should be democratized to prevent the formation of unnecessary heirarchies that would create monopolies on violence.
There are alternatives to anarchism that could be considered leftist. The Marxist-Leninist propose other economic and representation systems. I will not represent them. There is definitely infighting amongst leftist.
Removed by mod
Nope.
Yep.
