deleted by creator
PSL exists belive it or not
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 👍
deleted by creator
Me, my comrades, and Neville Singham who I am relatively cool with. Class traitors of that variety are too uncommon
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Only when it steps on the throats of the bourgeois ❤️
Why don’t you go learn and grow on an infinite AI Slop feed. After all, no information can be detrimental, right?
deleted by creator
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.
Only party I support at this point.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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?
Can confirm. Only had the chance to vote for Bernie 5 months after it was “already decided”. Our primary system is so fucked. Most of the country does not get to participate and the same 5-10 states choose the candidate every time.
deleted by creator
Doesn’t matter. The guy made the same mistake for both elections.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
And yet somehow none of this happened under the DNC? You make zero sense.
You don’t have to have a party for an ideology to exist.
deleted by creator
an ideology doesn’t need to get elected to office to exist.
(Especially ideologies who see the state as illegitimate, say anarchism)
It’s a good thing that that’s not what they said, then.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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
That’s a reason to debate them.
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.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
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?
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.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
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
Leftists aren’t numerous enough to have had much an effect on the election.
But I will confirm your second statement.
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.
I’m sure there’s an actual Left in the USA, but it’s not covered by any of the big parties.
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
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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
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’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.
deleted by creator
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.”
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
-
Inside the “Private and Confidential” Conservative Group That Promises to “Crush Liberal Dominance”
-
Exploring Young Women’s Leftward Expansion
A surge in young women who identify as politically liberal in recent years goes beyond the label, extending particularly to their stances on the environment and abortion.
-
U.S. Political Parties Historically Polarized Ideologically
new highs in the percentages of Republicans identifying as conservative and Democrats as liberal
-
Increase in Liberal Views Brings Ideological Parity on Social Issues
Values and Beliefs survey finds that Americans are currently about equally likely to say their views are conservative (32%), moderate (32%) or liberal (33%) on social issues
-
Conservative, liberal Midwest college students talk politics while practicing empathy
Conservative and liberal students at two small Midwest universities have been meeting every month to talk politics, while practicing listening and avoiding making assumptions about the other side.
-
Republican legislatures look to put local issues in liberal areas under state control
Republican state houses aimed at rolling back laws passed by more progressive cities.
Bills targeting education, transgender and LGBTQ rights, housing policy, gun rights and policing
The dictionary
progressive senses of liberal
liberal
adjective
- favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
- Synonyms: progressive
- Antonyms: reactionary
- (often initial capital letter), noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
- free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant.
a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
- Synonyms: unprejudiced, broad-minded
- open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
- Antonyms: intolerant
- characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts.
a liberal donor.
- Synonyms: lavish, unstinting, munificent, openhanded, charitable, beneficent
- 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.
Man, how fucking right wing do you need to be to consider liberalism to be left wing?
American.
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.
Removed by mod
How did you figure out I was a genie?
Fuck outta here, liberals shit on the left as much as conservatives do.
liberalsleftists shit on the leftFTFY
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.
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.
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
It was kinda done intentionally to muddy the terms to prevent people from thinking of alternatives to the status quo.
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.
That’s because the definition of the word means promoter of human rights, meaning anybody using it otherwise are the ones misusing the word.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Agreed. But also, you can just ignore those terms entirely and focus on actual issues…
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.
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.
I dont get it
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.
only tankies on lemmy call people here libs, and they are honestly no better than right wingers, both sides of the same coin.
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.
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.













