Seriously though, the USA is virtually always bad.

  • 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.

    • 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.