Lemmy liberals:
Lemmy liberals:
Americans see something American happening Americanly in America: what are we, a bunch of ASIANS??!?!!?
Lemmy right wing. Not liberals.
Liberals are anti trump. Only right wing people support trump.
Not in the U.S they arenât.
Definition
Noun
a supporter of policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare. âshe dissented from the decision, joined by the courtâs liberalsâ 2. a supporter of a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise
If we were to look at basic leftist theory they always regard liberals as non left. The argument is that liberals just protect the liberties of the priviledged class, typically the wealth owning class. They treat the workers like wage slaves, throwing them a bone to keep them quiet, but when historically being forced to choose between having the workers attain same level of liberties, the liberals always chose to surpress that, break unions or even multiple times directly allow fascist overtake.
you are right that in us this is presented as opposition, but any serious leftist will categorically deny that as absurd. One good indicator is for example how the genocide in gaza is bipartizan or even the war in iran. They protect same interests. They do not serve the voter.
This is your opinion. Thatâs not the definition in various online resources.
You donât get to make up definitions whenever you like to push your narrative.
Jesus christ you have a dogâs brain
âHey you are being treated as an animalâ
âUm thatâs not what my master says, stop telling liesâ
What people call themselves and what they actually stand for are not necessary the same.
Labor party in Britain is a good example.
Often party names start from historic ideologies that change over time.
Other times, a misleading word is used to intentionally obfuscate what their party /group / organization is going.
Itâs common in the U.S to give bills and laws that fuck the people over the most names like âcitizens Unitedâ. Or âthe save actâ.
When these both are destructive to the people.
Not in the U.S they arenât.
Wrong.
thatâs one of the dumbest thing Iâve ever heard.
Youâre really not helping your case here. Youâre repulsed by facts, and double down on your own ignorance.
Liberalism is the ideology of liberalized i.e. free markets. This isnât a disputed opinion. Itâs literally the textbook definition. You need to start at the very basics of Economics if youâre not aware of this.
Free markets that allow for free trade are by their very nature required to own property that can be traded, because why the fuck would society trade societyâs property within society?
Liberals are not conservative. They are against misogyny, bigotry,racism.
So right-wing Female supremacists, Trans supremacists and Afro-supremacists.
Thatâs your problem there.
If all of them are complacent with rampant problems in liberal democracies like:
Then THEYâRE NOT LEFT-WING!
And the US hasnât had a left-wing party, not even a social democratic one, since the 1990s,
as social democratic parties only seem to thrive if thereâs a socialist nation to look up to
and the Soviet Union fell apart as it lacked resources (coal) to do anything against the US petrodollar scheme,
Thatâs why Bill Clinton had been called a Repubic-lite during his reign
and Obama never delivered on his âHope & Changeâ.
The only semi-left-wing ideas I see coming from contemporaries US âprogressivesâ,
is that theyâre pro-green, because that at least will help people have the resources to go left in the future.
The right stands for a ruling merchant class and a gatekeeping judicial class.
The judicial class has noble ideas for itself as a ruling class,
but they need campaign money in order to be elected as a ruler,
which the merchant class has in spades, but want their favorable laws for them to be implemented in return.
And thus the merchant class becomes the ruling class and the judicial class their gatekeepers.
Thatâs what the right-wing stands for, unless theyâre even more regressive
and long for a kings and priests to rule over them.
Centrists, social democratic wing like FDR, try to curb the power of the merchant class,
but a true left wing will replace it with a ruling engineering class and gatekeeping scholar class that will
replace liberal democracy with a peopleâs democracy that can focus on creating a classless society,
because only a peopleâs democracy can tackle the issue of campaign fraud,
which is systemic in a liberal democracy.
And this systemic problem becomes larger and larger the more a society automates
as it causes the power of merchants to be more and more concentrated.
The US democratic party is only slowly returning to become a social democratic party
with Zohran Mamdami firmly in the democratic socialist side.
But looking from the outside, the US is like the Star Control II Ur-Quan alien race, where the US democratic party plays the role of the Kzer-za that wants the rest of the world/galaxy enslaved and the US republican party playing the role of the bloodthirsty Kohr-Ah that wants the rest of the world dead. The only thing missing in the US is a civil war between the two.
Any supremacist is not, by itâs very definition of being discriminating, liberal.
Liberal is against bigotry of any kind. Thatâs a core foundation. It supports equality.
Why are you under the impression that only white racist are alt right and all other kinds are liberals?
Thatâs not how that works.
You can hate whites. Mexicans. Jews. Men, etc. Any support of group discrimination is right wing by its definition because liberals specifically is against bigotry.
Liberalism can claim to stand for whatever, itâs still a fact that liberal governments participated in wars, invasions, regime change operations, economic warfare, genocide.
Liberalism obscures the systemic nature of problems by focusing on and promoting Individualist ideals. The reason liberalism is in crisis is that it doesnât work, not that itâs not implemented correctly.
Democratic people are liberal. Thatâs actually the definition I have provided you.
The one that is universal.
You can make up your own definition.
I can say dogs have wings. Doesnât make it true.
Thatâs a moot point.
I agree capitalism will stop progress.
But if these individuals support social progress, even if they incorrectly believe it can be achieved within capitalism, this does not make them Republicans.
The distinction between left and right in the U.S is democratic and Republic ideologies.
Social progressives vs traditionalists.
Support for capitalism is not the dividing line. It never has been.
You can all pretend liberals are the cause of all your problems.
The right wing is the actual cause of our slip into fascism. They worked to get their own people into every seat. Plenty of blue maga. These are not actual liberals. They only ran as Dems to get elected.
The right wing conservatives are the ones stripping women of rights. Of trans peoples rights.
Itâs sure as fuck not the liberals.
Iâve given multiple definitions of liberals from multiple sources and you all just pretend thatâs not the definition.
That your personal definition is the ârealâ one and call anyone who disagrees as uninformed.
I can use Google. Apparently you cannot.
You donât get to just make up your own definition and push it and pretend that everyone else , all other sources are wrong.
And besides.
Instead of blaming liberal progressives who push for civil rights , environmental controls, and taxes on the rich, you should consider what it is that you have contributed to this country by pretending to be better than the people actually advocating for these progressive changes.
What have you done to make this country better?
You remind me of those Christian fundamentalist who think they are better than everyone else because they stick to rules they made up.
Honestly it all feels like you all must either be grifters or infiltrators.
No one believes this b.s that liberals are the problem right now.
We all know itâs the conservatives. The Republicans. The right wing and especially the alt right.
Youâre confusing effect with cause, and as a consequence are mis-analyzing the key issues here. Fascism is rising because imperialism is decaying, and austerity is being brought home. It isnât rising abstractly, but due to concrete material conditions. Perpetuating capitalism perpetuates the rise in fascism, so liberals, like it or not, are ineffectively fighting fascism by supporting the very system that gives rise to it.
As for what I do personally, I organize with a communist party, one that focuses on unionization, striking, protesting, and educating the working classes. I donât sit on my hands for years at a time waiting for the next genocidal democrat to vote for, but instead make political activism a part of my life. Trying to claim that leftists are all infiltrators or grifters for having principles and coherent political analysis is absurd.
I never disagreed with the capitalism problem. Itâs at the root and until itâs addressed, it will inevitably lead to ruin. You wonât get any argument from me there on that one.
But many still think socialism can exist in a regulated capitalist society.
Neither of us thinks so, but I can understand why some do think thatâs possible. And Iâm not going to criticize them for all the problems that are caused by this when there are other groups at a much greater fault.
Socialism in capitalism has semi worked (let me explain what I mean by âworkedâ,) at a surface level. And especially looks promising when being viewed remotely.
For instance an American may look at Sweden and say "look how well socialism is working there ".
And it looks like it is working. Free healthcare. Equality. Better educated.
But you and I know itâs unsustainable and will always be in decline because thatâs how capitalism works. It demands sacrifice after sacrifice. Profits must continue to increase. Finite resources must be used faster than they can regenerate. And this of course is not sustainable long term.
But many people donât see this aspect of things. They just see that things in Sweden look much better than they are here. And they see socialism working. Dare I say âperfectedâ from the perspective.
Not everyone is capable of following cause and effect long term. Or tracing back problems to their sources.
So. This is getting long but. I study psychology. My area is perception and cognition but Iâve also studied social.
To make a short as point as possible. For a society to exist cohesively, most members need to be âsheepâ. Itâs the only way they will cooperate and collectively follow rules.
But a society needs people who challenge things. Or progress never happens.
If you have too many of those types, they all think they know best. And they all just fight constantly.
The masses will follow whichever one appeals to their existing ideals the most.
Existing ideals that are a product of the environment they grew up in.
I do think there is a level of personal responsibility here that is real. But at the same time I acknowledge that most people are incapable of starting very far from the cultural ideas they were raised with. Liberals want a better world. They just canât let go of capitalism because they were raised in capitalism and they canât imagine it any other way.
This doesnât mean they deserve to be lumped in with the anti-social fascist on the right.
They arenât the same.
First of all, Sweden doesnât have socialism to begin with. Youâre right that capitalism decaying means their safety nets have a time limit, but they subsidize them via imperialism. Socialism refers to an economy where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, and the working classes are in charge of the state.
As for your point on âsheepâ and âpeople who challenge things,â a lot of this is again trying to look at the effects of class society and presuming it to be the cause. The superstructure is shaped by the base, which is reinforced by the superstructure. The superstructure does not create the base.
Liberals are right-wing, because, regardless of intentions, they contribute to the perpetuation of capitalism and the rise in fascism. It has nothing to do with what they want the outcome to be, and everything to do with what they actually do.
Sweden has socialized medicine and education.
You contribute to capitalism as much as any other citizen.
Do you buy things?
Do you work for money?
Your mental gymnastics to blame other citizens is ridiculous.
There are actual people responsible. And they arenât your fellow powerless neighbors.
They are as guilty as you are.
The distinction between left and right in the U.S is democratic and Republic ideologies.
Both Republicans and Democrats subscribe to the same ideology: Liberalism. That is: the supremacy of private property and absolute freedom (for those who posses said private property). Thatâs what liberalism is, not whether you believe deep in your heart in the neccesity of âsocial progressivismâ.
They just play the good cop/bad cop routine; and just like with those cops, their goal is the same, they just trick you into trusting one of them because heâs stopping the âbad copâ from hurting you.
Must be psyop to try to convince everyone liberals are right wing.
Easier to imagine conspiracies everywhere than to accept the political consequences of supporting enslavement and genocide
No liberal supports that.
Literally none.
Give me a source that says they do.
Dawg you guys OPENLY VOTED for genocide not even 2 years ago, is your memory that poor? Biden/Harris oversaw the incineration of countless thousands, supporting it the whole way, armong it, repeating disgusting blood libel about 40 beheaded babies, and sending riot cops to beat us down when we protested.
Some leftists were reading out the names of murdered Palestinian kids at the DNC and these liberal freaks fucking plugged their ears and/or laughed because they know theyâre fucking nazis.
I never voted for genocide.
I only voted for Kamala to keep trump from getting elected.
How are you blaming me for genocide.
As if I had any power over that.
Are you responsible for everything your government does?
One post ago you were saying, and I quote âNo liberal supports [Genocide]. Literally none.â
Now youâre trying to pivot to âwell I donât personally support genocide (though I did vote for itâ
I never voted for genocide.
I only voted for Kamala
You are a parody of dipshit nazi liberals
So if I didnât vote. That would absolve me ?
This is like arguing with a brick wall.
Iâll just call up trump right now and tell him to stop this awful war cause I definitely have that kind of power.
None of the individual fascist footsoldiers on the eastern front had political power either. Together they perpetrated a world-historical slaughter in the name of nation and race. Iâm sure many of them would say the same thing. Perhaps some didnât even support nazism, and were simply trying individually to get by. Collectively, they were nazismâs instruments regardless of their individual reasoning.
You individual calculus for supporting what you did does not matter here. It is less than a grain of sand on the tides of history. What matters is the political bloc you bound yourself to by your support, and the genocide that many such individual bindings served to legitimize. For one reason or another, you chose to become a single snowflake in an avalanche of death and inhumanity. The why does not matter, only the what.