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?

              • 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.

              • 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

              • 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?

              • 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.

      • 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.

          • ElChapoDeChapo [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            48
            ·
            1 year ago

            His name is Adrian Zenz, a middle aged German man who doesn’t speak the Uighur language or Mandarin or any Chinese language and has never been to China

            He’s a devout conservative evangelical Christian who has gone on record saying he believes he is on a mission from god to destroy the PRC

            If you did enough research on your links to find the original sources for each of your sources you would find almost all trails lead back to him

            I find it especially funny a German his age would be throwing around accusations of genocide, I wonder what his father did during the 1930’s and 40’s

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

                  What do you mean? I was referring to the satellite imagery of the reeducation camps as corroborating evidence he couldn’t have fabricated. Unless you’re saying he did?

                  • You don’t understand what is happening here plain and simple. Of course there were education/training centers which the imagery showed focused on a vulnerable group of people who have had ties in the last 60 years or so to global terror networks. Instead of locking up people indefinitely, China’s approach has been to cast a fairly broad net (many Uyghur people who’ve been influenced by the progenitors of a form of Islam which has a complicated history from Saudi Arabia to many groups of extremists like Al-Qaida and ISIS and shit.) But that net is to educate and train for good paying jobs (almost entirely for free for those people) in an area with some of the highest standard of living raising in the world. It has been very effective too, because an area that suffered many terrorist attacks from this network has since had almost none and standards of living have increased at almost unseen rates.

                    The speculation that these education centers were actually prison “camps” or whatever is entirely fake. There are for sure prisons, and people who collaborate directly with those planning and executing attacks are put in there just as any other country does. The satellite imagery mostly showed the education places from what I understand, but you can’t see the classrooms or training from space. Nobody thinks that satellite images are fake, just that they showed either random buildings or training centers and claimed that millions were sitting in it with the only source being Zenz.

                  • PeoplesRepublicOfNewEngland [he/him]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    29
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Please direct me to where “GENOCIDE FACTORY” is written (in English of course) on the roof of the random building the Washington Post told you is bad and evil

                    See how fucking dog brained you are?

                  • Sephitard9001 [he/him]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    9
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    The satellite images are only corroborating evidence if every other evidence in the report is sound and reliable. But since Zenz just straight up invented statistics from thin air (or is unforgivably bad at math for an adult), the images are just compounding lies.

                    If I invented a story about Obama owning an adrenochrome harvesting baby farm in the Virgin Islands and showed you a satellite image of the roof of a warehouse, would you consider that corroborating evidence? Like what the fuck man

              • Tachanka [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                31
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                let’s say these claims are true. let’s “steel man” your argument and just ignore all our reservations and concerns. Let’s begin by ignoring all evidence pointing towards exaggeration/malfeasance by western “news” sources citing state department propaganda about a clear US enemy during a time of increasing tension, and let’s just say yes, ok, you’re right, China is genociding Uyghur Muslims. What are you advocating be done in response to that? An invasion by NATO of a nuclear armed power that nearly all NATO countries rely on economically in order to stop the genocide? That would mean WW3, at the very least.

                How about America, before it can claim any moral high ground over China, before shedding crocodile tears about what its geopolitical rivals are supposedly doing, to justify some kind of intervention supposedly on behalf of Uyghurs, close down its fucking ICE camps and guantanamo bay and the CIA black sites and get its CIA agents out of the middle east and stop buying the products of this alleged genocidal slave labor from China which is used to manufacture cheap goods for US consumers? All of this is so clearly in order to manufacture consent for some kind of military action, whether true or not. Also let’s be real, none of this concern trolling about Uyghur Muslims strikes me as genuine, at all. The US just got done bombing and occupying 8 different muslim majority countries from 20 years with its “war on terror.” And before/during that so-called “war on terror” the US was arming/training far right religious extremists (Mujahideen, precursors of the Taliban) as a proxy force against the USSR in Afghanistan, and far right religious extremists and separatists (ETIM) as a proxy against PRC. The US government has never cared about Muslims. They’re just pretending to as a way to pivot from fucking with the middle east towards fucking with BRICS.

          • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            36
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s a running joke how all the citations about the genocide all point back to this guy who is a rabid white supremacist and the sole source of all of the worst allegations.

          • EmotionalSupportLancet [undecided]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            36
            ·
            1 year ago

            How the fuck do you not know who Zenz is? Have you done zero actual attempts at research? Did you think citations were just an extended bit in the forum signature line? Try clicking on those once in a while.

            • Sephitard9001 [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              22
              ·
              1 year ago

              We know who Zenz is because we read sources Liberals send us. Liberals do not know who Zenz is because they do not read the sources they send us che-smile