Fascism doesn’t have an intellectual tradition, or higher principle outside of serving capital and upholding liberal property relations amd hierarchies. So i suppose that’s why i lump them in with the rest of the libs.
Am I i completely off base with this? Is it a gray area, or a clear break?
I also think this is wrong. Fascism is baked into the borders of liberalism. Liberalism isnt abandoned, it’s just the face of liberalism which always faces outside now needing to turn inward. There’s never been a single instance of liberalism that didn’t either 1. Have the outward facing fascism like the US to indigenous peoples or now towards the periphery or 2. Was the outside but with a government which accepted the periphery status and invited the expropriation as long as the class in power got to too.
It’s been defined that way since long before Americans adopted their lexicon of liberal = Democrat-adjascent. And it’s used internationally the way we use it here.
There are no democrats arguing for socialism. Socialism means a society having collective ownership of the means of production. The dems are a bunch of libs like you
Literally how in the fucking world could you arrive at this conclusion
Not one bit of this question makes sense.
Democrats have never advocated for socialism. I don’t even think Bernie Sanders has actually advocated for socialism.
Liberal in America doesn’t mean socialist or even socialist adjacent. If you zoom out to include a “international general definition”, even less so. Liberalism is in direct opposition to Socialism. Both ideologies organize society in mutually exclusive ways. This is like telling somebody you believe in Cat-Mouseism. It makes no fucking sense
For context, social democrats are NOT socialist just because social is in the name. Egon’s comment shouldn’t need that disclaimer, but I doubt you knew this.
Why do you get to define socialism to exclude liberalism?
Socialism seeks to abolish property relations, and thus the bourgeoisie with it. Liberalism upholds them.
They are ideologies that are in complete and total contradiction to one another. You either want private property in which some people can enslave others to exploit their labour or you want to get rid of that.
Oh I thought libs were liberals, often leaning socialist. And the Republicans were the capitalists.
Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism. Liberals and republicans, conservatives, liberatarians, fascists you’re all libs.
Marxists, Socialists do not support capitalism. There is no such thing as liberal socialist
Fascists aren’t libs, though. Fascism is capitalism that has abandoned liberalism in order to fight communism.
I suppose that’s fair.
Fascism doesn’t have an intellectual tradition, or higher principle outside of serving capital and upholding liberal property relations amd hierarchies. So i suppose that’s why i lump them in with the rest of the libs.
Am I i completely off base with this? Is it a gray area, or a clear break?
I also think this is wrong. Fascism is baked into the borders of liberalism. Liberalism isnt abandoned, it’s just the face of liberalism which always faces outside now needing to turn inward. There’s never been a single instance of liberalism that didn’t either 1. Have the outward facing fascism like the US to indigenous peoples or now towards the periphery or 2. Was the outside but with a government which accepted the periphery status and invited the expropriation as long as the class in power got to too.
You’d better tell them that then. I’m sure they’ll be happy to know that it’s impossible to be socialist and only want to curtail businesses.
Libs and being completely politically illiterate, an iconic duo
Why do you get to define socialism to exclude liberalism?
LIBERALSOCIALIST IS BACK 🎊
OH MAH GOD MAH BOI IS POSTING
Think he’ll come back to movie nights?
On the one hand we have the academically accepted definition. On the other we have yours. Why do YOU get to define it?
It’s been defined that way since long before Americans adopted their lexicon of liberal = Democrat-adjascent. And it’s used internationally the way we use it here.
Okay cool. So Democrats arguing for limited or unlimited socialism aren’t liberal by the international general definition?
Welfare is not socialism. Social safety nets are not socialism. You’ve been duped by a misuse of the word.
These are policies that socialists like because they improve people’s lives. They are not socialism itself.
There’s no democrats arguing for socialism you dumbass. At best you’ll find some milquetoast succdem
There are no democrats arguing for socialism. Socialism means a society having collective ownership of the means of production. The dems are a bunch of libs like you
Literally how in the fucking world could you arrive at this conclusion
Not one bit of this question makes sense.
Democrats have never advocated for socialism. I don’t even think Bernie Sanders has actually advocated for socialism.
Liberal in America doesn’t mean socialist or even socialist adjacent. If you zoom out to include a “international general definition”, even less so. Liberalism is in direct opposition to Socialism. Both ideologies organize society in mutually exclusive ways. This is like telling somebody you believe in Cat-Mouseism. It makes no fucking sense
Socialism isn’t having shit like social security.
For context, social democrats are NOT socialist just because social is in the name. Egon’s comment shouldn’t need that disclaimer, but I doubt you knew this.
Socialism seeks to abolish property relations, and thus the bourgeoisie with it. Liberalism upholds them.
They are ideologies that are in complete and total contradiction to one another. You either want private property in which some people can enslave others to exploit their labour or you want to get rid of that.
Socialism was developed as an intellectual tradition in opposition to liberalism. I didn’t define it
The people who invented liberalism defined it. Take that up with Rousseau and Locke, et al.
But definitions change over time as people use the words differently. Except French where the government gets to decide what words mean.
Words have meaning. Your political illiteracy is not my fault
Words meaning is what we all decide they are. Not always the original.
Also that’s not an insult.
You literally know nothing, and are such a smug bastard about it. Read a fucking book.
It’s literally the definition of liberalism outside of the US, lol.
The right wing party in Australia is called the Liberal Party. The center left is Labor, the left wing is the Socialist party.
In many European countries, Liberals (or Liberal Democrats) are right wing.
Liberals are only equated to the left in the US, which is yet another reason that USA BAD.
One of the many goals of us propaganda is to deny you a an understanding of political theory.
Liberals are not socialists. It is impossible.