• Gigasser@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      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.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

        • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          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.

          • yonderbarn@lazysoci.al
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            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.

            • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              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.

  • clonedhuman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

    • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      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

      • Asafum@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

        • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          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.

    • ameancow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      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.

      • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

      • Deceptichum@quokk.auBanned from community
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

        • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          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.

          • anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            4 months ago

            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’.

            • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              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.

              • anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                4 months ago

                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

                • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  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.

    • KeenFlame@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 months ago

      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

    • A_norny_mousse@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      It gets trickier when you look at other countries where liberal means “(mostly) unfettered capitalism”.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

        • A_norny_mousse@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          4 months ago

          *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.

  • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

    • SippyCup@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      4 months ago

      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

    • Soulg@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

    • Dozzi92@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • PorkRoll@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        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?

        • Dozzi92@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          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.

          • PorkRoll@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            4 months ago

            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.

    • Packet@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      4 months ago

      Liberals are the fascists in their baby form. Once the conditions of the capitalist state deteriorate they transform into fascists quite fast.

        • Soup@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          4 months ago

          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.

    • PorkRoll@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

    • Juice@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      There’s lots of discussion below, but liberalism is the belief that enfranchisement and liberation comes from private property, which at one time was progressive in the face of feudalism. But since WW1, liberalism has not been a progressive movement as it has captured all of the private property in the world. Liberals are capitalists, leftists are not. Leftists (mostly) believe in class struggle, liberals (mostly) do not.

      Leftists see the problems with private property and strive for social enfranchisement, even at the expense of private property rights, particularly where such “rights” are a function of one dominant class over the rest. To leftists, the social is material. Liberals mostly struggle to even conceive of this.

      There are not clear bright lines, it is a messy spectrum of belief and politics, particularly in the US where we are so individualistic. For example I usually find it easier to work with so called progressive liberals than authoritarian leftists, although this can vary dramatically over a variety of political issues. Sometimes Authoritarian Leftists work best with Progressive liberals, and leave moderate, practical leftists out! So there is no simple formula, except to deal with the actual conditions and act on behalf of the whole working class, rather than a particular group or unique subset of interests, in the struggle against the ruling capitalist class. This looks different in different places to different people, progress and truth is borne out of actual class struggle.

    • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • Cryptagionismisogynist@lemmy.worldBannedBanned from community
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        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.

        https://lemmy.world/post/34460101/18831918

        • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          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.

          • Cryptagionismisogynist@lemmy.worldBannedBanned from community
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            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.

            https://lemmy.world/post/34460101/18831918

            • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              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.

              • Cryptagionismisogynist@lemmy.worldBannedBanned from community
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                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.”

                https://lemmy.world/post/34460101/18831918

                • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  Okay, and you’ve admitted Lemmy as a (global) community has decided this usage of this verbiage.

                  Unless there’s a variant of English called Lemmy English, Lemmy isn’t a language community like a continent or nation with an active culture, organized society, etc. No one ceases to be a member of their language community by participating in Lemmy. It’s a global site of discussion.

                  Most people pick up on the distinction

                  Only seen that here, which makes you the odd ones out.

                  doesn’t make it true

                  The language community makes it true: the sources I linked & their sources support it. Plain observation of political news & discussions on US television, radio, & press corroborates. Are you denying the meaning of the phrase owning the libs in North America? Are you denying progressives there accept the label? Are you denying their pervasive language of liberals in opposition to the right?

                  articles using liberal as left

                  The dictionary

                  progressive senses of liberal

                  liberal

                  adjective

                  1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
                    • Synonyms: progressive
                    • Antonyms: reactionary
                  2. (often initial capital letter), noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
                  3. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant.

                    a liberal attitude toward foreigners.

                    • Synonyms: unprejudiced, broad-minded
                  4. open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
                    • Antonyms: intolerant
                  5. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts.

                    a liberal donor.

                    • Synonyms: lavish, unstinting, munificent, openhanded, charitable, beneficent
                  6. given freely or abundantly; generous.

                    a liberal donation.

                  Planet lemmy is blind to reality & plain observation.

                  Am I claiming this?

                  The line between liberalism and leftism

                  Yes, right there. There’s no “line”: they’re logically independent & can overlap. As stated several times before

                  equality, egalitarianism, & personal freedom can all be pursued

                  Many would put personal freedom top among those pursuits & consider politics that treats it diminutively outright trash.

                  The denial that liberal is left is common in these discussions on lemmy: this post & its comments such as

                  Liberals don’t know they’re conservatives.

  • drewaustin@piefed.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    4 months ago

    Man, how fucking right wing do you need to be to consider liberalism to be left wing?

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    4 months ago

    Any “left” that doesn’t promote human rights can fuck right off back to the dictatorship it came from.

      • 5redie8@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        4 months ago

        They’re calling themselves that, and probably calling you a Liberal (that is now a derogatory term apparently)

        • BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          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).

          • GrammarPolice@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            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?

            • BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              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.

              • GrammarPolice@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                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.

    • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      liberals leftists shit on the left

      FTFY

      They’re not that unified & don’t set aside their differences to work toward a common goal.

      Case in point: trying to divide left liberals from the left.

  • Diva (she/her)@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    4 months ago

    I hate liberals more than conservatives because at least with conservatives they don’t go around pretending to be on my side while doing heinous shit. Conservatives just do the heinous shit without the pretense.

  • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    4 months ago

    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

    • A_norny_mousse@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      That’s because the definition of the word means promoter of human rights, meaning anybody using it otherwise are the ones misusing the word.

  • Dozzi92@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

    • jsomae@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

    • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      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.

      • Dozzi92@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        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.

        • FilthyHookerSpit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 months ago

          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.

          • Dozzi92@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            4 months ago

            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.

    • Tinidril@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      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.

  • Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    This reminds me of that meme (article?) someone posted a couple days ago about some dude who loves metal gives up trying to explain to his family that he’s not goth, cuz it’s easier to just lets his family ogle at his ‘goth phase’.

    So… same energy - whether or not “left” and “democrat” are synonymous depends entirely on the person I’m talking to… they either already know, or I don’t have the energy to try to teach them.

      • clonedhuman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        100%

        This is pointless identitarian bullshit that does nothing to stop the fascists currently in charge of the United States.

        It all makes me a bit suspicious.

    • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      That’s sort of the point of my post. It’s trying to poke fun on people not knowing the difference and depending on how the person define the terms. Instead, they called this post a “psyops” and I guess I also inadvertently caused another leftist/liberal (in-)fighting depending how you look at it.

  • saltesc@lemmy.worldBanned
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    4 months ago

    I get confused because the right and left both call each other the libs and as far as I can tell, US liberals don’t really align to either liberalism or libertarianism, rather an acute section of them here and there for personal benefit.

    The free market, for example, which both ideologies oppose as soon as it encroaches on other freedoms, becoming anti-liberal. But US libs will strip the liberties off anyone for a buck and an entirely unregulated free market will let them do that. Adam Smith covered so much of this stuff and I’m pretty sure US libs would say he’s a commie.

    • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      only tankies on lemmy call people here libs, and they are honestly no better than right wingers, both sides of the same coin.

      • saltesc@lemmy.worldBanned
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Literally haven’t heard the term “tankie” since I blocked .ml like a year ago.

        You’ve got a concept there I’ve thought about myself at times,—your coin faces—but no one’s going to take it seriously if the delivery sucks.

        • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          lemmy is the only place i heard it used extensively, on reddit its rarely mentioned, but mostly referring to cities/locations taken over by sketchy mods.