Seriously though, the USA is virtually always bad.

  • JohnDClay
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Oh I thought libs were liberals, often leaning socialist. And the Republicans were the capitalists.

    • BurgerPunk [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      49
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

        • BurgerPunk [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

      • JohnDClay
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

          • JohnDClay
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Why do you get to define socialism to exclude liberalism?

            • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              31
              ·
              1 year ago

              On the one hand we have the academically accepted definition. On the other we have yours. Why do YOU get to define it?

            • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              31
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • JohnDClay
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Okay cool. So Democrats arguing for limited or unlimited socialism aren’t liberal by the international general definition?

                • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  27
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  limited or unlimited socialism

                  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.

                • Sephitard9001 [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  25
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Literally how in the fucking world could you arrive at this conclusion

                  Not one bit of this question makes sense.

                  1. Democrats have never advocated for socialism. I don’t even think Bernie Sanders has actually advocated for socialism.

                  2. 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

            • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              31
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

            • BurgerPunk [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              30
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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.

              • JohnDClay
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                But definitions change over time as people use the words differently. Except French where the government gets to decide what words mean.

            • CloutAtlas [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

    • Annakah69 [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.