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.
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.
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
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
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.
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?
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.
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
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
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
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 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.
Just because you’re illiterate doesn’t mean the squiggles I’m making don’t have meaning
But if enough people agree on what the squiggles mean, now they have meaning.
Also that’s not an insult.
Sure thing
Thanks
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.