Do any of them know what the word "liberal" actually means?
Do you know what the word 'liberal' actually means
It has 2 common definitions:
Neo-liberal: a political approach that favors free-market capitalism, deregulation, and reduction in government spending
Leftism in general.
You're almost never going to hear the right-wing use #1. Authoritarian communists will use #1 as a catch-all for modern capitalism.
The US is such a right wing country that liberals are the mainstream left. In Europe, liberals are centrists and they aren't further to the right than American libs.
The meme says "American Republicans" so I thought we were considering this from an American pov. Definitions are going to change going to other countries and doubly so when talking about politics.
It isn't just about it meaning something else when 'going to another country'. 'Liberal' has an actual definition with a history.
I'm honestly kind of confused about american liberals digging their heals in on this definition when it has historically been taken to mean something they don't seem to agree with anymore.
I’m honestly kind of confused about american liberals digging their heals in on this definition when it has historically been taken to mean something they don’t seem to agree with anymore.
Because regardless of history or whatever, the definition were giving you is how the 300 million Americans who actually use the term define liberal. Doesn't matter what you or I think, if we want to have effective communication we need to use words as they are used. I really don't feel like dying on that particular hill.
I made my stand with "literally", I'm not wasting effort on holding fast to a Eurocentric definition of liberal.
Doesn’t matter what you or I think, if we want to have effective communication we need to use words as they are used.
I don't actually disagree with you, I just find it frustrating trying to use a more precise meaning to make a point and being met with resistance. I think a part of the problem is that leftists are trying to point at a distinction that exists within the overbroad american-liberal label that separates leftism proper and center-right democratic institutions, and i feel as if some centrists don't enjoy the discomfort of being singled out from the more progressive side of the caucus. I could be wrong, and I don't really care if I am, but I think it's important to acknowledge the tensions and to try not to erase the diversity of ideology that exists within the 'liberal party'.
'Liberal' has an actual definition with a history.
The word "awful" has an actual definition with a history too. That history starts with it meaning "full of awe" https://www.etymonline.com/word/awful
Word usage and definitions change over time. If you know people use a word differently then you need to at least explain the definition you are using or you're just going to confuse or alienate people who understand the word differently.
I'll happily state my case for whatever usage I'm adopting, and ask for clarification when I suspect someone is operating on a different one, but I don't see any case to be made for the vague american label when discussing anything beyond american electoral politics - for the same reason i'm happy to jab at the usage in the same context, because it's the assumption of neutrality it asserts that I take issue with and am calling attention to.
But the definition doesn't really change. Take universal healthcare. A liberal idea that's considered common sense in Europe and left wing in the US. Obamacare would be something you expect from a center right European and a left American. Both are called liberal.
And if the meme was from an exclusively American pov, it wouldn't specify "American Republicans"
You're correct, I specified "American republicans" to refer to the political party because everywhere else "republican" means anti-monarchist
Yeah, this is about as confusing as it gets, I feel like those labels rarely make much sense :(
Liberalism has never meant "leftism in general." It has always been an ideology supporting the individual via private property rights. Neoliberalism is the modern form of it.
Liberalism was considered left when feudalism was right, but liberalism has never meant leftism.
It's extremely frustrating hearing this repeated so often here.
It's fine if this is the colloquial definition you're used to hearing and using, but this is certainly not the way it's used outside of American politics and pretending like it's the only use comes off as both ill-informed and condescending.
When used derisively from the left, rest assured it is not referring to either of your adopted generalizations but a very specific ideology.
Ok. But this meme says American Republican.
The meme also says 'authoritarian communists' but there are plenty of anarchists and socialists who use liberal as a disparagement.
Yeah, this meme was close to something, but I think OP doesn't actually know much about politics.
ok, so among English speaking countries, how is it more often used? we've got multiple people in this thread aggressively telling him he's wrong, but no other definitions.
how is it more often used?
Look up liberalism for liberals.
I wasn't aware Americans made up their own meaning. Now I understand why upvoted comments mentioning "liberal values" receive a flurry of downvotes while I'm asleep, Americans have lost the meaning of another word, probably due to their media.
Though, just checking, the American dictionaries seem entirely correct still. Are you all confused?
Its the way the wealthy wamt the poor and middle class - undereducated and bombarded by agenda driven media.
The US propaganda machine is pretty damn effective domestically.
I think you're right. It's not like anything's changed, so people are obviously buying someone's bullshit from somewhere and it's working exactly as the seller intends.
Going to have start signalling when talking about the two different concepts, like...
Today I'd like to discuss liberalism.
vs
Today I'd like to discuss 🛻🇺🇸LIBeralism™🎸🦅
Since they're almost entirely opposing concepts sharing the same word.
favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
Synonyms: progressive
Antonyms: reactionary
(often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.
Like I said, it's fine assuming your own definition if that's the one most familiar to you, but that doesn't mean you have to stubbornly double down on semantics when confronted with a competing definition. When used derisively from the left it is almost certainly being used in the original sense of the word as per John Locke
This discussion is funny from a German pov, as our main local liberal party (the FDP) is pretty right wing and has been so since the 1940s. "Liberalism" always had a quite neative connotation to me therefore. They are also the party most open to working together with the far right (the AFD).
Eh. Its traditionally in that "economically conservative, socially liberal" pocket, wherein you can do whatever you want so long as you've got enough passive income.
Fascists tend toward a more rigid social caste system (ideologically) wherein being rich isn't enough to save you from state violence. That's a big part of its popular appeal, particularly when liberal institutions decay into kleptocracies.
Traditional Marxism tends toward the social egalitarianism that fascists can't stomach (race mixing, gender equality, and worker internationalism) while advocating full public ownership that liberal rent-seekers can't stomach.
So, in the modern political spectrum, liberals tend to be "centrists" who use their economic influence to rent out social egalitarianism. Fascists tend to be "right wing", advocating for those same private entities to purge themselves of unpopular social groups. And Marxists tend to be "left wing", advocating for an abolition of rents and a full egalitarian economy.
But if you go back a century (or move over to a country that's more left or right leaning) the colonial era monarchies and theocracies end up forming the right-wing pole, while fascists join liberals at the social center, and Marxists join a much more lively native anarchist community that's in its last-gasp efforts to resist colonial occupation.
If you are saying gender equality is Marxist then I am guessing you haven't read much Marx friend. Marx was very about women being relegated to traditional gender roles and was more about whole "seperate spheres of excellence" thing. You are thinking more of the likes of Saint Simone and Robert Owen's Owenites.
Feminist scholarship has tried to adapt Marx by stripping out the veiws about women and applying his rhetoric more unilaterally but that's not his text and quite frankly there are other contemporary philosophers and movement leaders which did it better.
There is this habit to slap the name Marxist on a the most idealized reads of the work and call it his because he's the name people know and the few well known political labels on the far left or because people who have claimed the label of his movement after his death decided to non-canonically add to his work- but I personally wish that people could normalize other schools of leftist philosophy and not treat Marx particularly as the magnet that all of us will inevitably be drawn to or attribute stuff to him that he doesn't particularly deserve. Marxism as a sort of brand name philosophy is misleading and disappointing to those who read his work and find that their ideals aren't actually well represented there.
If you are saying gender equality is Marxist then I am guessing you haven’t read much Marx friend. Marx was very about women being relegated to traditional gender roles
Marxism does not end with Marx any more than Newtonian Physics ends with Newton.
That said, I've seen plenty of liberal writers approach the original works with cynical and dishonest takes. So it helps to cite your reference if you want to be taken seriously.
that’s not his text and quite frankly there are other contemporary philosophers and movement leaders which did it better.
Sure. Lenin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Chavez, etc, etc.
but I personally wish that people could normalize other schools of leftist philosophy and not treat Marx particularly as the magnet that all of us will inevitably be drawn to
It's hard to escape Marx's gravitational pull without abandoning 19th century modes of industrial economics.
So long as colonial powers continue to apply old liberal economic theories of endless expansion and consolidated ownership in the face of diminishing returns, Marx's insights into failing rate of profit fueling economic contradictions will remain relevant.
I believe what you are referring to is Communism. Let us divorce at least the name of a singular man from a body of work that by your own admission is made up of a number of different writers on the subject just as the elaborations on Newtonian Physics is considered also a part but not whole of Classical Mechanics.
The reductions of bodies of political thought to singular authors is often used to exclude others. Very often on this platform I am told that I am not a Socialist because I am not a Marxist simply because he simply coined a term to a body of thought that predated him and extended far beyond him so why should I extend to Marx the authorial intent by the political realm of thought baring his name? If you said you were a Maoist or a Leninist or a Chavezist would I not conclude that you are in agreement with their very specific realms of their personal philosophy?
Let us divorce at least the name of a singular man from a body of work
If we had a collection of competing working applications of communism, that would be easier. But trying to divorce it from Marx is a bit like trying to divorce capitalism from Adam Smith or the more modern Anarcho-Capitalist attitude from Rothbard and Rand. Like talking about Protestantism without mentioning Martin Luther.
Show me a fully realized anarchist state and we might be able to talk about Peter Kropotkin or Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. But anarchists from Republican Spain to the Bodo League of Korea to American Native Tribes were wiped out by fascist militarism.
You could draw sharper lines between Leninism, Maoism, and Chauvism, but you'd still start from their common Marxist heritage.
The reductions of bodies of political thought to singular authors is often used to exclude others.
They're influential for a reason.
I am told that I am not a Socialist because I am not a Marxist
I mean, you can call yourself whatever you want. But I see the term "Socialist" pitched around to describe everything from corporate liberalism to primativist anarchism. If you want to talk about AES states, you're talking about countries that rooted themselves in Marxist philosophy.
If you said you were a Maoist or a Leninist or a Chavezist would I not conclude that you are in agreement with their very specific realms of their personal philosophy?
If I said I was a Maoist, I just didn't agree with anything in Mao's Little Red Book, I would not blame you for calling me a bullshitter.
that's because liberalism in Europe is mainly "liberty" for rich people to do what they want
Isn't it the same in the US though? They still don't have universal healthcare or basic worker protection like protecting women from being fired over giving birth.
see, the difference is, in the US they already won, tho in the American context liberal s still more progressive than the neo-cons/fascists on the other side
I'm on the left, but I'm far from a communist, much less an authoritarian one, and I 100% use lib or liberal as an insult. I think to most people younger than 50, Liberal refers to a certain type of Democratic voter. They'll hang a BLM sign in their window but support NIMBY policies that keep people of color out of their neighborhoods. They'll talk a good game about labor rights and unions, but still go to Starbucks and throw a shit-fit if their order is wrong. They cared very deeply about Iraq and Guantanamo when Bush was President, but stopped bringing it up once Obama was in office.
The Third Way Democrats of the 90s basically turned American Liberals into Neo-Liberals. I will still support them when I have to, since they hold all the levers of power over the only ostensibly progressive party in America, and not siding with them at this point basically ensures the rise of fascism, but I have no love for Liberals.
don't usually agree on that much
Where have you been the last 8 years
Yeah Tankies/AuthComs are just such an odd mixture of accelerationists, "own the libs" and just general stupidity of "a strong man makes strong men" bullshit that they support any fascist if it means maybe someday they might not be on the chopping block.
If Tankies were an actual voting bloc they'd be somewhat impactful for the first time since maybe 1949. That would imply going outside however.
Remember, men who want a strong man want to be dominated, therefore they are themselves weak
You can tell this was made by a salty neo lib
It's really funny how no one really likes liberals but liberals.
Conservatives: "They're too freedom loving for my tastes! Why can't they just stay and home and be good corporate stooges like us?"
Auth-Communists: "They claim to like freedom but still willingly use the capitalist forces to oppress who they like. Liberals are okay with personal freedom until it impacts the white moderates. That's our job!"
Anarchists: "It's literally weird to call yourself a liberal when all they do is oppose any movement against the status quo. If they can't convert them to sell away their soul to the state or capitalism, they're terrorists. They're more like conservatives than any actual progressives, and even progressives admit 100% capitalism isn't great."
Libertarian capitalists: "They claim to be for freedom but constantly require the state to check in on if people are enjoying their freedom like that Nanny's they never had. I just wanna grill for god's sake!"
Like it's just funny to me no matter where you are on the political spectrum, you have a somewhat decent reason to hate liberals (except conservatives are too stupid to tell liberals apart from "commies").
You could build that list for every political party/perspective
Yeah but it's funnier with liberals because they get all persecution complex-y when people left of them give them shit, just like conservatives do when libs give them shit
Literally swap the words in your comment, it works everywhere
That's why the bots use templates like that.
"My party is committing genocide and lost all of its credibility and ethos. Boo hoo."
At least they aren't using the word "progressive" anymore.
Yes, leftists absolutely know what the word "liberal" means. It refers to a pro-Capitalist ideology centered around the idea of individual freedoms via private property rights.
Leftists disagree that allowing private property creates a freer population, and understand that Liberalism is the dominant ideology in developed Capitalist nations.
Software developers are staying silent on this one.
“We’d like for our software to ThingDo. Our team has estimated 4 weeks for this work. What’s your estimate?”
“Wait, you want to write it from scratch? Why not just plug in ThingDoer library?”
“…ah, right. Damn libs.”
Only good library is the standard library, packages are much better 😤
But I like my libs... Often enough produced with a pretty communistic and anti-authoritarian mindset... (And too often, lack of support for the workers... Ups) But I like them.
I thought I was in programmer humor for a sec when I first saw the image, then I died a little bit
I am the only true leftist. The rest of you are posers and/or feds.
Would him putting on the Darth Vader armor be an analogue to many "toxic" leftists using doxxing sites dominated by the far-right to try and ruin the lives of people that aren't 100% into Stalin?
putting on the Darth Vader armor
doxxing sites dominated by the far-right
Yes. Becoming an unkillable cyborg space wizard and outting someone paying for a message board full of Nazi copypasta are the same.
Republicans are also liberals. At least in the true sense of the word. So it's low-key funny when they use the term liberal as an insult.
I myself am not a liberal. Fiscally at least. Socially I'm a progressive.
I'm just excited to see what happens when they find out their PC has been invaded by libs.
And then proceeds to own them by deleting them all
In American political terminology, "liberal" means a different thing than in Europe. It implies being left-wing on social issues. Republicans by definition cannot be liberals (in the American sense of the term).
It would be like saying "it's funny when Americans say they're going to 'wear their boot', how are you going to wear part of your car?"
They are using a different definition of the word, and pretending they aren't is being wilfully ignorant at best. Pretending the other definition doesn't exist just serves to alienate people who might actually agree with you.
Lmao check out all the salty libs seeing themselves get called out in these comments.
sincerely, an anarcho-syndicalist
Pretty much. "Lol why don't you like libs?"
...cause we don't like things the way they are, and the only goal of the libs appears to be prevent any sort of progress. Maybe we are allowed relief from existing problems, but fuck you if you wanna fix em!
They agree on a lot more than you'd think, once you parse out each cult's different groupspeak
FDR, Churchill , Hitler, and Mussolini also had a lot in common when you get down to it. Same as humans and chimpanzees. It's the differences that actually matter.
I mean they each protected capitalism in their own way:
FDR, being old money who'd just seen MacArthur send in the tanks to raze a camp of rebellious soldiers and knew how these things tended to go, invested in guillotine insurance via the New Deal.
Hitler and Mussolini used the other approach, privatizing/selling off state assets and applying colonial methods they'd perfected in Africa back home to buttress capitalism and protect profits.
It's more that OP seems unable to fathom anyone to the left of them being both rational and uncool with liberalism. That's why they specifically said "Authouritarian Communists," the SpOoKiEsT LeFtIsTs.
Almost like AuthComs are authoritarian before they are communist, and thus have more in common with the American Fascist Party than any actual leftists.
I'd say they both agree on the main point of both philosophies "everyone has to follow every ridiculous rule I come up with except me"
Conservatives, fascists, and Auth-Communists just disagree on what color the flag should be, and the name of the party in charge handing out the police to dispatch onto the people.
Right? Some people say it's horseshoe theory, but it's more just a pallette swap.
I mean, there is a reason why redfash is sometimes used as an insult for authcoms
wait until you learn about fiscally liberal vs socially liberal.
I used to think it just was synonymous with the left, but I've recently been seeing a lot of comments on Lemmy saying liberals aren't leftist so now I am not sure if it means anything or if those Lemmings are just dumb.
I've grown up with the term "bleeding heart liberals" being applied to groups like Green Peace and hippies that promote love and unity by people who are just complete pieces of shit, and in that context I was always like "I guess I'm a liberal 🤷🏻♂️"
Liberals are somewhere between center left and center right. In the US, the alternative to republicanism is the “liberal party” and because they often encompass people further left than the party line, they are seen as left wing. Generally, I associate people who are always in favor of slow electoral measures, a strong state, strong individualistic rights that are positively defined (the right to do rather than not having the right to do) and the view that capitalism is the only method that had worked so far and is therefore best with liberalism. But thats far from an academic definition.
When you add in the fact that people usually end up seeing another person’s politics in relative to their own, things get unintelligible for someone trying to pinpoint an ideology.
An anarchist like myself will probably point towards someone like Biden or Obama and say they are a liberal or neoliberal, which is probably accurate enough (if I do say so myself), but I’ll also call conservatives like Romney, Bush, and Raegan, liberals or neoliberal even though those are people most self titled liberals would hate. A staunch authoritarian communist might call AOC or Sanders a liberal because they aren’t revolutionary communists, even though I’d personally consider them somewhat socialist progressives. Heck, I’ve ben called a liberal by hardcore communists even though my views are more similar to their definition of communism than theirs, and I’ve been called a liberal by some alt right people even though their views are closer to liberalism than mine.
Fox news, on the other hand, would call a pink haired person on a college campus a liberal for the pink hair alone. They might label a gay trump supporter who has a pride flag a liberal because of their homophobia combined with the association pride has with liberals to them. They might call someone who is genuinely far left a liberal because they either can’t comprehend their beliefs or because they don’t catch some of the indicators that they are looking at a communist, anarchist, etc.
US Dems and mainstream liberals are definitely right to far right by (mainland) European standards.
The political window in the US is very different from the European ones.
Yeah. The US is a shit show. At least the Overton window now includes antizionism, small victories!
I do think a lot of liberals are further right than they realize. But I don’t think it’s accurate to call them far right unless you solely are considering their economic ideology (which is reductionist), or are lumping in people who would probably be more accurately described with a better label. Or your perspective is skewed from being far enough left.
My thoughts exactly! Every real-life human I've ever spoken to uses it to mean open-minded and everydefinition I look up agrees, yet for some reason half the people posting here think it exclusively means economically-neo-liberal capitalist.
Perhaps they are seeing "free enterprise" and associating that with being something only pertaining to capitalism, even though you can have free enterprise without capitalism.
Yeah these are old school definitions, like how a "liberal education" means you get a broad education in differing perspectives (ironically, this term is now associated with a Eurocentric take on topics). In the same sense, "liberal policies" would mean freedom of religion, sexuality, etc.
All good things that progressives agree with, but it also entails more pernicious property rights, and the protection of the state/establishment against those who threaten those rights.
It doesn't necessarily have to be this way, but this is what I believe it's come to mean in practice. It also has very little to do with how one votes, especially in a democracy like the U.S. where you've just got your "monkey loves you" and "monkey needs a hug" choices.
The context is typically pretty important for how it is being used. The user of the term often provides more than enough context I find.
If 'liberal' is being used in a derogatory sense, which isn't going to be captured by an academic definition, it's often aimed at neoliberalism in a pretty broad sense.
Which is probably what this meme is referring to: the shared rejection of neoliberalism. The motivations are different but that's immaterial to these things. I mean: it is specifically referencing an American political party here: so I wouldn't be looking for a political science definition on 'liberal'.
American liberals are not neolibs. Neolibs are Republicans.
Those statements are both true, but: Neoliberalism dominates both political parties in the United States and has for generations. The Democratic Party is also neoliberal, (often in spite of their voters.)
The Republican Party's neoliberalism has fostered fascist and christian nationalist factions to the point they may take over.
The Democratic Party's stance has been to try and absorb disaffected Republican neoliberal voters from the above.
Which leaves 'non-neoliberal American liberals' with the choice of supporting... well it is and has been a successful right wing strategy to say the least.
The Democratic Party’s stance has been to try and absorb disaffected Republican neoliberal voters from the above.
That's a leftist idea that Leftists just made up and are running with due to their own echo chambers. Dems do like capturing centrists, especially now the GOP has gone off the rails, but the coalition is absolutely led by progressives who push progressive policies as much as they can. The theory is to capture disaffected centrists and win them over with clearly superior Democrat policies and positions. Doesn't always work, but that's the play. When the Democratic party allows oil leases or higher border funding, it doesn't do so skipping with joy. It does so reluctantly as part of a compromise to win other gains.
This is the part where you get out the tin foil hats and claim that despite all evidence to the contrary, Democrats actually secretly want every bad thing ever to happen. Because they're just that evil.
Dems do like capturing centrists,
Doesn't always work, but that's the play.
Sure doesn't. Very strong arguments to my point.
You didn't even read it did you lol
Just like "aha, everything you said actually supports me!" like you think it's some sort of debate uno reverse card
It doesn't seem like you're grasping that I wasn't or haven't really been refuting you.
The Democratic Party's appeal to centrism by passing right wing policies is against their progressive base. The strategy doesn't always work and it hasn't been working.
So why you working yourself up?
Everything you just said supports my point
It's easier than accepting nuance, and it's usually from the same people who demonstrate that same lack of nuance in everything else they post.
1 favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2 noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3 of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.
4 favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5 favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression:
6 of or relating to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7 free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant
8 open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
Only 5,7 and 8 are "open minded" Being favorable to progress does not mean being open minded and what constitutes as progressive is in itself up to debate. Individual rights and liberties can be understood as neo-liberal capitalism of "well the law allows you, your economic situation doesn't concern us, and now back to slaving 60 hours a week." Or it could mean "We need to enable people to enjoy their liberties so we need to ensure their basic human dignity with healthcare, education and social welfare to empower them."
what the fuck is number 1 then?
favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
what is number 2 then?
noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
I think if you go point by point and ignore the rest then you can argue semantics, but I don't see how you can take all 8 together and argue what "progressive" means
Being favorable to reform does not mean being open minded. Open minded means to respect different people and their life choices. People hostile to traditional family or religious values are also "progressive" but often not open minded as they criticize people who choose a traditional way of life.
The same goes for economic aspects. Neoliberalism is highly authoritarian. Specifically it is embraced by neofeudalists who want to reestablish their old feudal privileges but not through formal aristocracy, but by the merit of "free contracts" and them holding on to wealth. These are technically "progressive" yet they want to reintroduce power structures from a time past.
'Liberal' is one of those words that has so many definitions that it can have contradictory meanings. It can mean 'open to / tolerant of'. It can denote a style of education that tries to be broad rather than deep. It can describe various political positions - the 'Liberal Party' is left-wing in Chile, centrist in the UK and Canada, and right-wing in Russia, Japan and Australia. This is also what OP is memeing about. At this point, to avoid confusion, I would just avoid using the word except in the purely academic / technical sense.
I used to think it just was synonymous with the left, but I’ve recently been seeing a lot of comments on Lemmy saying liberals aren’t leftist so now I am not sure if it means anything or if those Lemmings are just dumb.
I've been fucking telling you, insisting on a Eurocentric definition confuses people, and that confusion is exploited by fascists.
American definition of liberal: socially liberal
European definition of liberal: economically liberal
Some authoritarians strongly believe that they're far left. But an authoritarian regime cannot be left. If you're not liberal, you're an authoritarian, not left, and it doesn't matter what type of authoritarian bull shit you're subscribing to.
Tell me you don’t hang out with anarchists without telling me…
There's only one axis on the political spectrum, and everyone left of Biden (a rightwinger) is a tankie, isn't this obvious?
no, everyone right of "I won't vote at all in 2024 because I refuse to vote for Biden" is a conservative
No, they call themselves Libertaire. Libertaire was adopted by french anarchists at the end of the 19th century when anarchist publications were banned from France. Sadly, as Americans do, the word was misused and transformed by Milton Friedman, on the behalf of oil companies, and later that failed actor named Ayn Rand, to described unabashed, unregulated, capitalism and corporatism.
No anarchist worth it's salt would ever use the word libertarian instead of Libertaire.
I 'am' an anarcho-communist and I don't like libtards. Libtards to me are 'progressive capitalists' that have no systemic insight what so ever and think all it takes to bring upon heaven on earth is to try and be nice.
I mean, you should try and be nice obviously but you are not going to soy latte your way outta this my dudes.
I don’t like libtards.
You can just call them liberals. You don't need to meld the term to a slur.
I mean, you should try and be nice obviously
By shaving the first two letters off an r-bomb? Come on, guy. I get what you're saying, but this is an awful way to phrase it.
Friend I'm not a friend of liberals myself but can we please not use ableistic terms that end with "-tard"?
Reserve that shit for the right wing
Ok, even though I know this will make no difference to 'you people' (sorry just cannot help myself xD).
In this case I choose to use this specific word because it's so obviously a dogwhistle for right wing extremists that in the context of this meme I think it's funny, since my actual stance is neither authoritarian or rightwing.
I don't seriously mean to perpetuate negative stereotypes with regards to people with mental handicaps.
Just as a curiosity, are you by any chance from the US? I just cannot imagine anyone from Europe making such a big deal about a joke like this, let alone use the term ableist.
I guess my brain has just rotted as a result of a few decades of being on the internet. Inside i'm still an edgy teen apparently. No actual offense meant :)
I get it, i know how it is.
I'm an Israeli anarchist, you can tell by a previous post and my user name.
I'm making a bit of a fuss over it because i find this trend within myself, having grown up in a nationalist family and a religious school, i tend to say those words as instinct as well and am trying to unlearn this behavior.
I grew up as an edgy teen as well so i guess i can relate, but now I'm intp young adulthood and trying to be better to not repel potential friends.
That sounds like a worthy and potentially wholesome effort indeed. I would just like to say that I think sincerity is more important than seriousness. Best of luck to you my friend.
Much respect for being an anarchist in Israel btw, especially in these interesting times.
I'm unsure what you mean by this. Would you be willing to elaborate?
They probably read 2 words that they don't like.
I like the idealism in communism and I have been thinking about how to implement communism without very authoritarian structures, and the anarchist way seems to be the only way, but I don't see how it would be able to sustain our current lifestyle and amount of people. Exploitation of dependencies without authoritarian structures seems unavoidable to me and avoiding dependencies would probably require that people provide themselves with the resources ; which requires more labor and resources. As of right now, I don't see a flawless system. (that includes capitalism)
So personally I think, saying that the other people have a bad systemic insight in the context of any general ideology is ungranted.
At what point does a structure become authoritarian? There are numerous Anarchist and Marxist propositions for how to structure a Socialist and eventually Communist society, so if there's a definitive cutoff point for you you can find something to research.
What leftist theory have you read? Not as a "read more theory!" Snark, but more so I can give recs based on your answer to the authoritarian question posed in the last paragraph.
Honestly I am not well-read on leftist theory as in formal education. I look into things that I have encountered and think for myself. I would appreciate new ideas and things to look into.
I appreciate the call out on my vagueness in regards of authoritarian structures. Thanks for that.
It isn't as much a concrete point like "having a police", but rather the human nature. I see a lot of protective behavior in people. The idea of communism is a sacrificing one in the sense that you give some of yours to get more for everyone. As a system will teach people within the system that the system is good. It is expected that people will be generally protective of the system. So sacrificing some freedoms for the protection of the system seems like a very normal evolution of those ideals. And you don't need to worry as the system is good which is why you are protecting it. So over time, just like under any hierarchical system, the power will move towards the "core" of the system. Under capitalism the wealthy and under communism the state. Under communism, protecting the system will have a strong hand and will move the power to the "core". The "core" is the state. the system and the state are extremely similar. So the state will behave as if an Attack on them is an Attack on the system. Justifying additional force and moving power into the core. Under somewhat authoritarian capitalism, we can observe that behavior quite clearly. But the state and the core isn't as similar and an "attack" on the "core" isn't an Attack on the state. Creating the shit that we can observe today under capitalism. Where the state are corrupted by the core while pretending to not be and fighting against the elements of the core that haven't paid them. In communism, the power goes to the state and the state happily accepts it, turning it more and more authoritarian over time.
So from my pov, authoritarian Systems are an issue but are also seemingly required to protect the system and it's people. Capitalism sucks as it kinda assume hierarchy and "sneaks" exploitation in. But a authoritarian state acts a little bit as a counter force to the "core". (While a full on authoritarian state will of course take control over the "core") While any liberal state, enables the "core" to move more power to itself quicker. Communism is much better in regards of assuming hierarchy as it doesn't. But an even slightly authoritarian state with communism places the "core" and the state together as a unite without a real counter force and will eventually be very authoritarian. An liberal communistic System would avoid hierarchy and by that protect itself from placing the "core" in the hands of the state, but it would live itself vulnerable by "small" actors trying to build an hierarchy as people generally like to do, and enables "small" local exploitation.
I just don't see a way for any of them to not fail. Currently I believe that the violence of the public is the only way to reset the failing systems. That violence is just usually a little late and not just, fair or merciful. Leading to a lot of unjust pain and suffering.
I don't see how to escape this shit.
Please call me out on my shit take. Thanks.
I think you have done a lot of thinking, but haven't really engaged much with Marxism or Anarchism with regards to philisophy.
For Marxism, check out Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Engels.
For Anarchism, The Conquest of Bread by Kropotkin is good.
The "Human Nature" issue is one that every leftist movement has had to engage with and "solve."
It is true that I haven't really engaged with Marxism and/or anarchism beyond the basics. I can look into it, thanks.
Out of curiosity, do you think I have a point? What would be your critic? I don't want to take your time, so only respond if you feel like it. I understand if you don't have the time.
I think you have a point, yes, though I disagree with it personally. That isn't to take away from your thought process or personal experiences or evaluations. The why of that disagreement takes a good long while to explain adequately, but I'll do my best.
For starters, though I identify myself chiefly as an anti-sectarian Leftist, I do ultimately find myself agreeing more with Marxism than Anarchism. Just my own personal conclusions after learning and reading theory. I try not to only give Marxist recommendations because a comrade is a comrade, and the reason I am anti-sectarian is because I believe we need to build a mass workers' movement of any sort before we can get to debating the finer details, though I still agree more with Marxist organizational methods in the short term.
It isn't as much a concrete point like "having a police", but rather the human nature. I see a lot of protective behavior in people. The idea of communism is a sacrificing one in the sense that you give some of yours to get more for everyone. As a system will teach people within the system that the system is good. It is expected that people will be generally protective of the system. So sacrificing some freedoms for the protection of the system seems like a very normal evolution of those ideals. And you don't need to worry as the system is good which is why you are protecting it.
This is extremely close to Marx's Historical Materialism! That's why I recommended Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, actually. The core concept is that environments shape people, who then reshape their environments, which then reshape the people who again reshape their environments. Very cool to see you get close to it!
So over time, just like under any hierarchical system, the power will move towards the "core" of the system. Under capitalism the wealthy and under communism the state. Under communism, protecting the system will have a strong hand and will move the power to the "core". The "core" is the state. the system and the state are extremely similar. So the state will behave as if an Attack on them is an Attack on the system. Justifying additional force and moving power into the core.
Yes and no. My primary criticism of this section is that it doesn't specifically analyze how this consolidation happens. It can happen, but may still be designed against. More later.
Under somewhat authoritarian capitalism, we can observe that behavior quite clearly. But the state and the core isn't as similar and an "attack" on the "core" isn't an Attack on the state. Creating the shit that we can observe today under capitalism. Where the state are corrupted by the core while pretending to not be and fighting against the elements of the core that haven't paid them.
No real disagreements here. I would say it's pretty accurate and similar to what other leftists have stated, if in different language.
In communism, the power goes to the state and the state happily accepts it, turning it more and more authoritarian over time.
This is what I tend to take issue with. Under Capitalism, the State is a vehicle by which the bourgeoisie suppresses the Proletariat. This State is weilded by the Bourgeoisie, as the Bourgeoisie have all of the power, thus the will of the few oppresses the many.
However, what happens if the majority democratically operate this State? It has power, yes, but properly designed and democratically operated, it does not necessarily stand to reason that it would result in oppression of the majority like Capitalism. That's why I asked for specifics, actually!
So from my pov, authoritarian Systems are an issue but are also seemingly required to protect the system and it's people.
Marxists entirely agree with this, but believe that once Capitalism is thoroughly erradicated, there is nothing to protect against, and thus no need for standing armies or other such dangerous elements. Until then, however, some form of State is necessary to protect the revolution, though it must be controlled by the Workers.
Capitalism sucks as it kinda assume hierarchy and "sneaks" exploitation in.
No real "disagreement," other than I don't actually believe Capitalism sneaks anything, it just convinces Workers the alternatives are worse.
But a authoritarian state acts a little bit as a counter force to the "core". (While a full on authoritarian state will of course take control over the "core") While any liberal state, enables the "core" to move more power to itself quicker. Communism is much better in regards of assuming hierarchy as it doesn't. But an even slightly authoritarian state with communism places the "core" and the state together as a unite without a real counter force and will eventually be very authoritarian. An liberal communistic System would avoid hierarchy and by that protect itself from placing the "core" in the hands of the state, but it would live itself vulnerable by "small" actors trying to build an hierarchy as people generally like to do, and enables "small" local exploitation.
I am not sure a follow. What is an "authoritarian Communist state" and what is a "liberal Communist state?" How are they mechanically different, other than labels?
I just don't see a way for any of them to not fail. Currently I believe that the violence of the public is the only way to reset the failing systems. That violence is just usually a little late and not just, fair or merciful. Leading to a lot of unjust pain and suffering.
Marxists and Anarchists both agree that Revolution is necessary.
I don't see how to escape this shit.
A mass worker movement, comrade!
Please call me out on my shit take. Thanks.
Not stupid at all, in my opinion. There's a lot of thought there, but I believe this thought could be much sharper and more pointed if you engaged with theory. Even if you disagree with much of it, by connecting your thoughts to the collective works of centuries of leftists and their findings, you can come to find agreement with other leftists and organize.
Did that answer your questions?
Libtards
Is a right wing fascist term. I don't think you're an anarcho-communist. I think you're a right wing pretending to be leftist to try to suppress the Democratic vote. You guys have tells.
Lib bashing in left spaces is the mating cry of the tanky
It might be cathartic every so often, but too much makes the wrong people feel safe.
Liberals do not belong in left spaces, left is literally defined by anticapitalism.
Having a fight over who is or isn't allowed in left spaces instead of having the discussion about leftist policy is what got the left where it is in today's political discussion.
Defining a movement by who's not allowed in it leaves you without any ability to get anywhere legitimately.
There's no fight.
A space for people opposed to capitalism isn't gonna have people who are pro-capitalism.
Liberals aren't left though. They are a centrist position by their very definition.
I see this term used so often from the lofty reaches of some national news rag or echoing out of a Senate star chamber. The CEO is stamping it into an EULA, as an irrevocable term of service. The corporate union-buster is putting it up in 120 point font in a company wide mandatory power point presentation. The evangelical minister is denouncing it from the pulpit as part of a catechism call-and-response. The nosey neighbor is whispering it into the phone, hoping a SWAT team will remove someone from the block. The police holding you face down in a bucket of water are screaming it in your ears.
Beware the authoritarian communist. Beware the tankies. Beware the Chinese / Russian / Venezuelan social terrorists, fifth columnists, and outside agitators. Beware the college kid in the Che Guevera t-shirt. Beware the Anti-American. Whatever you think we might be doing to you now, they'll be ten times worse.
It's just a more politically correct way to say tankie.
I've never heard a cop called a Tankie.
But they're always the ones in the large militant unions demanding more public money while driving around in actual tanks.
To be fair, Chinese cops would probably be tankies.
Few carry guns. I don't think I've ever seen the Chinese police equivalent to the NYPD Police Tank that was used to raid the Columbia campus.
Meaningless distinction. Whether it's military or whatever. Whichever state supported group is shooting and beating and arresting protestors in China, they're tankies.
Whichever state supported group is shooting and beating and arresting protestors in China
I'm more concerned with the police lashing out at protesters closer to home
"Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism, free markets, representative democracy, legal rights and state monopoly on violence. It includes a large portion of the present day political spectrum, from the centre-left social democrats to the far-right conservatives and American libertarians."
That is.... a lot of people
Yes. Liberalism is the dominant ideology in the World today.
North American, upper middle class authoritarian communists. That shit is just cosplay for them lol
Op, are you in the US?
In the US, the choices for voting are Republican and Democrat.
Which of these parties is "liberal?"
The argument being made when non conservatives dislike liberals is when the liberals in question align with the Ds, because the Ds have every interest in pushing vaguely progressive policies during elections and never actually follow through in office.
Remember student loans? Still out there
Remember universal healthcare? Still gotta pay for insurance
Remember tax reform? Still paying higher rates than people who can't conceivably spend all of their money.
The primary goal of the Dems when in power is to maintain power. Fuck those guys. Not quite as hard as Republicans, but it stands.
Signed,
Not a fucking tankie
The democrats are the liberal party. They support abortion, religious freedom, police reform, civil rights (sometimes), drug decriminalization, etc.
That being said, they are trying to encapsulate and entire half of the political spectrum. There's going to be gaps, disagreements between individual party members, and places where one policy or value has to override another.
They support
Abortion (in campaign ads and fundraising emails)
Religious freedom (by wagging a finger when Republicans don't and then doing fuck all about it)
Police reform (by throwing cash at cops for "better training" while refusing to actually change the inherently abusive system)
Civil rights (sometimes) (when it won't effect the bottom line of their owner donors like AIPAC and the fossil fuel industries
Drug decriminalization (in theory, but never in practice)
they are trying to encapsulate and entire half of the political spectrum
No. They are trying to be IN CHARGE OF over half of the political spectrum. The only ideologies other than their own (which is center right to right wing) that they ever try to appeal to is the couple dozen "undecided that are almost but not quite Republicans" left in the country.
There's going to be gaps, disagreements between individual party members, and places where one policy or value has to override another.
Nope, there's going to be nothing but neglect and abuse towards anyone to the left of the leadership, which is now to the right of Reagan.
In spite of the name, the Democratic Party is not democratic or even a party. It's a private for-profit corporation controlled by a small group of people who are in turn controlled to varying degrees by rich people, other corporations, and industry lobbying groups.
Nah, your first statement is close, but you miss by a bit:
"The democrats are the liberal party. They [pretend to] support abortion (when trying to get elected), religious freedom (when trying to get elected), police reform (when trying to get elected), civil rights (when trying to get elected), drug decriminalization (when trying to get elected), etc."
When not trying to get elected they don't actually DO anything.
Drug decriminalization was a big deal in the 70's and we are maybe just now kinda getting around to it.
I didn't even call out the shit behavior on civil rights, you did that.
They seem a-ok with police fucking with college kids right now.
They've had 50 years since roe v wade to guarantee the right to abortion, and they didn't.
What DID they do?
Helped give money to people who are already rich through tax breaks.
Helped give money to people who are already rich through deregulation they allowed through.
Helped give money to people who are already rich through defense contracts.
Helped give money to people who are already rich by overthrowing foreign governments with control over resources out oil barrons want.
I am not, and I've observed that every American seems to have their own definition of what "liberal" means, which is not really very helpful when trying to use the word in a discussion
I'm reasonably sure making discussion difficult is the goal. When the right refers to libs, they mean "anything left of me" without ever acknowledging that a significant number of people being referred to are neither progressive lib or left. The American D party is a center right organization, so how do I, as a leftist express "fuck the platform of the 'liberal party' is pushing, they're clearly bought and paid for too, and are serving the bourgeoisie and don't give a fuck about me, but I still have to put the guy in charge back in charge cause the alternative is dictatorship."
I tend to see the derogatory 'Liberal' and moreso 'Lib' used for Neo-liberals and those supporting the neoliberal policies that have dominated the last few generations.
I otherwise see it used in the context of the phrase "scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds" which is pithy but tracks with history and typically the more antagonistic usage. It is almost entirely used to provoke a reaction from the 'libs' it is directed at, accuracy notwithstanding.
With context it is almost always pretty self explanatory which is being used.
When the horseshoe becomes a circle…
Who doesn't hate those dang rightwingers, The Liberals?
to be fair, the word "liberal" has lost its meaning in the US, because there no differentiation between economic liberalism and social liberalism. the guy in the meme would be a classic socialist in europe. we do have liberals here too, but they are the economic liberalism-type and more in line with the US-Republicans in economic questions, like tax cuts for the rich and businesses.
Do you know what the word 'liberal' actually means
It has 2 common definitions:
You're almost never going to hear the right-wing use #1. Authoritarian communists will use #1 as a catch-all for modern capitalism.
The US is such a right wing country that liberals are the mainstream left. In Europe, liberals are centrists and they aren't further to the right than American libs.
The meme says "American Republicans" so I thought we were considering this from an American pov. Definitions are going to change going to other countries and doubly so when talking about politics.
It isn't just about it meaning something else when 'going to another country'. 'Liberal' has an actual definition with a history.
I'm honestly kind of confused about american liberals digging their heals in on this definition when it has historically been taken to mean something they don't seem to agree with anymore.
Because regardless of history or whatever, the definition were giving you is how the 300 million Americans who actually use the term define liberal. Doesn't matter what you or I think, if we want to have effective communication we need to use words as they are used. I really don't feel like dying on that particular hill.
I made my stand with "literally", I'm not wasting effort on holding fast to a Eurocentric definition of liberal.
I don't actually disagree with you, I just find it frustrating trying to use a more precise meaning to make a point and being met with resistance. I think a part of the problem is that leftists are trying to point at a distinction that exists within the overbroad american-liberal label that separates leftism proper and center-right democratic institutions, and i feel as if some centrists don't enjoy the discomfort of being singled out from the more progressive side of the caucus. I could be wrong, and I don't really care if I am, but I think it's important to acknowledge the tensions and to try not to erase the diversity of ideology that exists within the 'liberal party'.
The word "awful" has an actual definition with a history too. That history starts with it meaning "full of awe"
https://www.etymonline.com/word/awful
Word usage and definitions change over time. If you know people use a word differently then you need to at least explain the definition you are using or you're just going to confuse or alienate people who understand the word differently.
I'll happily state my case for whatever usage I'm adopting, and ask for clarification when I suspect someone is operating on a different one, but I don't see any case to be made for the vague american label when discussing anything beyond american electoral politics - for the same reason i'm happy to jab at the usage in the same context, because it's the assumption of neutrality it asserts that I take issue with and am calling attention to.
But the definition doesn't really change. Take universal healthcare. A liberal idea that's considered common sense in Europe and left wing in the US. Obamacare would be something you expect from a center right European and a left American. Both are called liberal.
And if the meme was from an exclusively American pov, it wouldn't specify "American Republicans"
You're correct, I specified "American republicans" to refer to the political party because everywhere else "republican" means anti-monarchist
Yeah, this is about as confusing as it gets, I feel like those labels rarely make much sense :(
Liberalism has never meant "leftism in general." It has always been an ideology supporting the individual via private property rights. Neoliberalism is the modern form of it.
Liberalism was considered left when feudalism was right, but liberalism has never meant leftism.
It's extremely frustrating hearing this repeated so often here.
It's fine if this is the colloquial definition you're used to hearing and using, but this is certainly not the way it's used outside of American politics and pretending like it's the only use comes off as both ill-informed and condescending.
When used derisively from the left, rest assured it is not referring to either of your adopted generalizations but a very specific ideology.
Ok. But this meme says American Republican.
The meme also says 'authoritarian communists' but there are plenty of anarchists and socialists who use liberal as a disparagement.
Yeah, this meme was close to something, but I think OP doesn't actually know much about politics.
ok, so among English speaking countries, how is it more often used? we've got multiple people in this thread aggressively telling him he's wrong, but no other definitions.
Look up liberalism for liberals.
I wasn't aware Americans made up their own meaning. Now I understand why upvoted comments mentioning "liberal values" receive a flurry of downvotes while I'm asleep, Americans have lost the meaning of another word, probably due to their media.
Though, just checking, the American dictionaries seem entirely correct still. Are you all confused?
Its the way the wealthy wamt the poor and middle class - undereducated and bombarded by agenda driven media.
The US propaganda machine is pretty damn effective domestically.
I think you're right. It's not like anything's changed, so people are obviously buying someone's bullshit from somewhere and it's working exactly as the seller intends.
Going to have start signalling when talking about the two different concepts, like...
Today I'd like to discuss liberalism.
vs
Today I'd like to discuss 🛻🇺🇸LIBeralism™🎸🦅
Since they're almost entirely opposing concepts sharing the same word.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/liberal
liberal 1
[ lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl ]
Phonetic (Standard) IPA adjective
Antonyms: reactionary
Like I said, it's fine assuming your own definition if that's the one most familiar to you, but that doesn't mean you have to stubbornly double down on semantics when confronted with a competing definition. When used derisively from the left it is almost certainly being used in the original sense of the word as per John Locke
That works both ways. Pretending the European usage of the word is the only use comes off just as ill-informed and condescending.
I'm sorry but this is just flat out wrong in the way that only an American can be wrong
Thanks for your input. I learned a lot.
This discussion is funny from a German pov, as our main local liberal party (the FDP) is pretty right wing and has been so since the 1940s. "Liberalism" always had a quite neative connotation to me therefore. They are also the party most open to working together with the far right (the AFD).
Liberalism can be right wing or left wing. It makes more sense to structure the political specrum like this. But even that is far from prefect.
Eh. Its traditionally in that "economically conservative, socially liberal" pocket, wherein you can do whatever you want so long as you've got enough passive income.
Fascists tend toward a more rigid social caste system (ideologically) wherein being rich isn't enough to save you from state violence. That's a big part of its popular appeal, particularly when liberal institutions decay into kleptocracies.
Traditional Marxism tends toward the social egalitarianism that fascists can't stomach (race mixing, gender equality, and worker internationalism) while advocating full public ownership that liberal rent-seekers can't stomach.
So, in the modern political spectrum, liberals tend to be "centrists" who use their economic influence to rent out social egalitarianism. Fascists tend to be "right wing", advocating for those same private entities to purge themselves of unpopular social groups. And Marxists tend to be "left wing", advocating for an abolition of rents and a full egalitarian economy.
But if you go back a century (or move over to a country that's more left or right leaning) the colonial era monarchies and theocracies end up forming the right-wing pole, while fascists join liberals at the social center, and Marxists join a much more lively native anarchist community that's in its last-gasp efforts to resist colonial occupation.
If you are saying gender equality is Marxist then I am guessing you haven't read much Marx friend. Marx was very about women being relegated to traditional gender roles and was more about whole "seperate spheres of excellence" thing. You are thinking more of the likes of Saint Simone and Robert Owen's Owenites.
Feminist scholarship has tried to adapt Marx by stripping out the veiws about women and applying his rhetoric more unilaterally but that's not his text and quite frankly there are other contemporary philosophers and movement leaders which did it better.
There is this habit to slap the name Marxist on a the most idealized reads of the work and call it his because he's the name people know and the few well known political labels on the far left or because people who have claimed the label of his movement after his death decided to non-canonically add to his work- but I personally wish that people could normalize other schools of leftist philosophy and not treat Marx particularly as the magnet that all of us will inevitably be drawn to or attribute stuff to him that he doesn't particularly deserve. Marxism as a sort of brand name philosophy is misleading and disappointing to those who read his work and find that their ideals aren't actually well represented there.
Marxism does not end with Marx any more than Newtonian Physics ends with Newton.
That said, I've seen plenty of liberal writers approach the original works with cynical and dishonest takes. So it helps to cite your reference if you want to be taken seriously.
Sure. Lenin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Chavez, etc, etc.
It's hard to escape Marx's gravitational pull without abandoning 19th century modes of industrial economics.
So long as colonial powers continue to apply old liberal economic theories of endless expansion and consolidated ownership in the face of diminishing returns, Marx's insights into failing rate of profit fueling economic contradictions will remain relevant.
I believe what you are referring to is Communism. Let us divorce at least the name of a singular man from a body of work that by your own admission is made up of a number of different writers on the subject just as the elaborations on Newtonian Physics is considered also a part but not whole of Classical Mechanics.
The reductions of bodies of political thought to singular authors is often used to exclude others. Very often on this platform I am told that I am not a Socialist because I am not a Marxist simply because he simply coined a term to a body of thought that predated him and extended far beyond him so why should I extend to Marx the authorial intent by the political realm of thought baring his name? If you said you were a Maoist or a Leninist or a Chavezist would I not conclude that you are in agreement with their very specific realms of their personal philosophy?
If we had a collection of competing working applications of communism, that would be easier. But trying to divorce it from Marx is a bit like trying to divorce capitalism from Adam Smith or the more modern Anarcho-Capitalist attitude from Rothbard and Rand. Like talking about Protestantism without mentioning Martin Luther.
Show me a fully realized anarchist state and we might be able to talk about Peter Kropotkin or Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. But anarchists from Republican Spain to the Bodo League of Korea to American Native Tribes were wiped out by fascist militarism.
You could draw sharper lines between Leninism, Maoism, and Chauvism, but you'd still start from their common Marxist heritage.
They're influential for a reason.
I mean, you can call yourself whatever you want. But I see the term "Socialist" pitched around to describe everything from corporate liberalism to primativist anarchism. If you want to talk about AES states, you're talking about countries that rooted themselves in Marxist philosophy.
If I said I was a Maoist, I just didn't agree with anything in Mao's Little Red Book, I would not blame you for calling me a bullshitter.
that's because liberalism in Europe is mainly "liberty" for rich people to do what they want
Isn't it the same in the US though? They still don't have universal healthcare or basic worker protection like protecting women from being fired over giving birth.
see, the difference is, in the US they already won, tho in the American context liberal s still more progressive than the neo-cons/fascists on the other side
Are they? I would say the CDU under Merz is more likely to work with the AfD
I'm on the left, but I'm far from a communist, much less an authoritarian one, and I 100% use lib or liberal as an insult. I think to most people younger than 50, Liberal refers to a certain type of Democratic voter. They'll hang a BLM sign in their window but support NIMBY policies that keep people of color out of their neighborhoods. They'll talk a good game about labor rights and unions, but still go to Starbucks and throw a shit-fit if their order is wrong. They cared very deeply about Iraq and Guantanamo when Bush was President, but stopped bringing it up once Obama was in office.
The Third Way Democrats of the 90s basically turned American Liberals into Neo-Liberals. I will still support them when I have to, since they hold all the levers of power over the only ostensibly progressive party in America, and not siding with them at this point basically ensures the rise of fascism, but I have no love for Liberals.
Where have you been the last 8 years
Yeah Tankies/AuthComs are just such an odd mixture of accelerationists, "own the libs" and just general stupidity of "a strong man makes strong men" bullshit that they support any fascist if it means maybe someday they might not be on the chopping block.
If Tankies were an actual voting bloc they'd be somewhat impactful for the first time since maybe 1949. That would imply going outside however.
Remember, men who want a strong man want to be dominated, therefore they are themselves weak
You can tell this was made by a salty neo lib
It's really funny how no one really likes liberals but liberals.
Conservatives: "They're too freedom loving for my tastes! Why can't they just stay and home and be good corporate stooges like us?"
Auth-Communists: "They claim to like freedom but still willingly use the capitalist forces to oppress who they like. Liberals are okay with personal freedom until it impacts the white moderates.
That's our job!"Anarchists: "It's literally weird to call yourself a liberal when all they do is oppose any movement against the status quo. If they can't convert them to sell away their soul to the state or capitalism, they're terrorists. They're more like conservatives than any actual progressives, and even progressives admit 100% capitalism isn't great."
Libertarian capitalists: "They claim to be for freedom but constantly require the state to check in on if people are enjoying their freedom like that Nanny's they never had. I just wanna grill for god's sake!"
Like it's just funny to me no matter where you are on the political spectrum, you have a somewhat decent reason to hate liberals (except conservatives are too stupid to tell liberals apart from "commies").
You could build that list for every political party/perspective
Yeah but it's funnier with liberals because they get all persecution complex-y when people left of them give them shit, just like conservatives do when libs give them shit
Literally swap the words in your comment, it works everywhere
That's why the bots use templates like that.
"My party is committing genocide and lost all of its credibility and ethos. Boo hoo."
At least they aren't using the word "progressive" anymore.
Yes, leftists absolutely know what the word "liberal" means. It refers to a pro-Capitalist ideology centered around the idea of individual freedoms via private property rights.
Leftists disagree that allowing private property creates a freer population, and understand that Liberalism is the dominant ideology in developed Capitalist nations.
Software developers are staying silent on this one.
“We’d like for our software to ThingDo. Our team has estimated 4 weeks for this work. What’s your estimate?”
“Wait, you want to write it from scratch? Why not just plug in ThingDoer library?”
“…ah, right. Damn libs.”
Only good library is the standard library, packages are much better 😤
But I like my libs... Often enough produced with a pretty communistic and anti-authoritarian mindset... (And too often, lack of support for the workers... Ups) But I like them.
I thought I was in programmer humor for a sec when I first saw the image, then I died a little bit
I am the only true leftist. The rest of you are posers and/or feds.
Hey, I'm neither of those. I'm an op!
The Other Kind of Leftists
Please tell me this tweet isn’t real
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1008013111058526209?lang=en
Godammit
Would him putting on the Darth Vader armor be an analogue to many "toxic" leftists using doxxing sites dominated by the far-right to try and ruin the lives of people that aren't 100% into Stalin?
Yes. Becoming an unkillable cyborg space wizard and outting someone paying for a message board full of Nazi copypasta are the same.
Republicans are also liberals. At least in the true sense of the word. So it's low-key funny when they use the term liberal as an insult.
I myself am not a liberal. Fiscally at least. Socially I'm a progressive.
I'm just excited to see what happens when they find out their PC has been invaded by libs.
And then proceeds to own them by deleting them all
In American political terminology, "liberal" means a different thing than in Europe. It implies being left-wing on social issues. Republicans by definition cannot be liberals (in the American sense of the term).
It would be like saying "it's funny when Americans say they're going to 'wear their boot', how are you going to wear part of your car?"
They are using a different definition of the word, and pretending they aren't is being wilfully ignorant at best. Pretending the other definition doesn't exist just serves to alienate people who might actually agree with you.
Lmao check out all the salty libs seeing themselves get called out in these comments.
Pretty much. "Lol why don't you like libs?"
...cause we don't like things the way they are, and the only goal of the libs appears to be prevent any sort of progress. Maybe we are allowed relief from existing problems, but fuck you if you wanna fix em!
They agree on a lot more than you'd think, once you parse out each cult's different groupspeak
FDR, Churchill , Hitler, and Mussolini also had a lot in common when you get down to it. Same as humans and chimpanzees. It's the differences that actually matter.
I mean they each protected capitalism in their own way:
FDR, being old money who'd just seen MacArthur send in the tanks to raze a camp of rebellious soldiers and knew how these things tended to go, invested in guillotine insurance via the New Deal.
Hitler and Mussolini used the other approach, privatizing/selling off state assets and applying colonial methods they'd perfected in Africa back home to buttress capitalism and protect profits.
I'm not gonna get started on Churchill.
I will not stand for this anarchist erasure
It's more that OP seems unable to fathom anyone to the left of them being both rational and uncool with liberalism. That's why they specifically said "Authouritarian Communists," the SpOoKiEsT LeFtIsTs.
Almost like AuthComs are authoritarian before they are communist, and thus have more in common with the American Fascist Party than any actual leftists.
I'd say they both agree on the main point of both philosophies "everyone has to follow every ridiculous rule I come up with except me"
Conservatives, fascists, and Auth-Communists just disagree on what color the flag should be, and the name of the party in charge handing out the police to dispatch onto the people.
Right? Some people say it's horseshoe theory, but it's more just a pallette swap.
I mean, there is a reason why redfash is sometimes used as an insult for authcoms
wait until you learn about fiscally liberal vs socially liberal.
I used to think it just was synonymous with the left, but I've recently been seeing a lot of comments on Lemmy saying liberals aren't leftist so now I am not sure if it means anything or if those Lemmings are just dumb.
I've grown up with the term "bleeding heart liberals" being applied to groups like Green Peace and hippies that promote love and unity by people who are just complete pieces of shit, and in that context I was always like "I guess I'm a liberal 🤷🏻♂️"
Liberals are somewhere between center left and center right. In the US, the alternative to republicanism is the “liberal party” and because they often encompass people further left than the party line, they are seen as left wing. Generally, I associate people who are always in favor of slow electoral measures, a strong state, strong individualistic rights that are positively defined (the right to do rather than not having the right to do) and the view that capitalism is the only method that had worked so far and is therefore best with liberalism. But thats far from an academic definition.
When you add in the fact that people usually end up seeing another person’s politics in relative to their own, things get unintelligible for someone trying to pinpoint an ideology.
An anarchist like myself will probably point towards someone like Biden or Obama and say they are a liberal or neoliberal, which is probably accurate enough (if I do say so myself), but I’ll also call conservatives like Romney, Bush, and Raegan, liberals or neoliberal even though those are people most self titled liberals would hate. A staunch authoritarian communist might call AOC or Sanders a liberal because they aren’t revolutionary communists, even though I’d personally consider them somewhat socialist progressives. Heck, I’ve ben called a liberal by hardcore communists even though my views are more similar to their definition of communism than theirs, and I’ve been called a liberal by some alt right people even though their views are closer to liberalism than mine.
Fox news, on the other hand, would call a pink haired person on a college campus a liberal for the pink hair alone. They might label a gay trump supporter who has a pride flag a liberal because of their homophobia combined with the association pride has with liberals to them. They might call someone who is genuinely far left a liberal because they either can’t comprehend their beliefs or because they don’t catch some of the indicators that they are looking at a communist, anarchist, etc.
US Dems and mainstream liberals are definitely right to far right by (mainland) European standards.
The political window in the US is very different from the European ones.
Yeah. The US is a shit show. At least the Overton window now includes antizionism, small victories!
I do think a lot of liberals are further right than they realize. But I don’t think it’s accurate to call them far right unless you solely are considering their economic ideology (which is reductionist), or are lumping in people who would probably be more accurately described with a better label. Or your perspective is skewed from being far enough left.
My thoughts exactly! Every real-life human I've ever spoken to uses it to mean open-minded and every definition I look up agrees, yet for some reason half the people posting here think it exclusively means economically-neo-liberal capitalist.
Perhaps they are seeing "free enterprise" and associating that with being something only pertaining to capitalism, even though you can have free enterprise without capitalism.
Yeah these are old school definitions, like how a "liberal education" means you get a broad education in differing perspectives (ironically, this term is now associated with a Eurocentric take on topics). In the same sense, "liberal policies" would mean freedom of religion, sexuality, etc.
All good things that progressives agree with, but it also entails more pernicious property rights, and the protection of the state/establishment against those who threaten those rights.
It doesn't necessarily have to be this way, but this is what I believe it's come to mean in practice. It also has very little to do with how one votes, especially in a democracy like the U.S. where you've just got your "monkey loves you" and "monkey needs a hug" choices.
The context is typically pretty important for how it is being used. The user of the term often provides more than enough context I find.
If 'liberal' is being used in a derogatory sense, which isn't going to be captured by an academic definition, it's often aimed at neoliberalism in a pretty broad sense.
Which is probably what this meme is referring to: the shared rejection of neoliberalism. The motivations are different but that's immaterial to these things. I mean: it is specifically referencing an American political party here: so I wouldn't be looking for a political science definition on 'liberal'.
American liberals are not neolibs. Neolibs are Republicans.
Those statements are both true, but: Neoliberalism dominates both political parties in the United States and has for generations. The Democratic Party is also neoliberal, (often in spite of their voters.)
The Republican Party's neoliberalism has fostered fascist and christian nationalist factions to the point they may take over.
The Democratic Party's stance has been to try and absorb disaffected Republican neoliberal voters from the above.
Which leaves 'non-neoliberal American liberals' with the choice of supporting... well it is and has been a successful right wing strategy to say the least.
That's a leftist idea that Leftists just made up and are running with due to their own echo chambers. Dems do like capturing centrists, especially now the GOP has gone off the rails, but the coalition is absolutely led by progressives who push progressive policies as much as they can. The theory is to capture disaffected centrists and win them over with clearly superior Democrat policies and positions. Doesn't always work, but that's the play. When the Democratic party allows oil leases or higher border funding, it doesn't do so skipping with joy. It does so reluctantly as part of a compromise to win other gains.
This is the part where you get out the tin foil hats and claim that despite all evidence to the contrary, Democrats actually secretly want every bad thing ever to happen. Because they're just that evil.
Sure doesn't. Very strong arguments to my point.
You didn't even read it did you lol
Just like "aha, everything you said actually supports me!" like you think it's some sort of debate uno reverse card
It doesn't seem like you're grasping that I wasn't or haven't really been refuting you.
The Democratic Party's appeal to centrism by passing right wing policies is against their progressive base. The strategy doesn't always work and it hasn't been working.
So why you working yourself up?
Everything you just said supports my point
It's easier than accepting nuance, and it's usually from the same people who demonstrate that same lack of nuance in everything else they post.
Only 5,7 and 8 are "open minded" Being favorable to progress does not mean being open minded and what constitutes as progressive is in itself up to debate. Individual rights and liberties can be understood as neo-liberal capitalism of "well the law allows you, your economic situation doesn't concern us, and now back to slaving 60 hours a week." Or it could mean "We need to enable people to enjoy their liberties so we need to ensure their basic human dignity with healthcare, education and social welfare to empower them."
what the fuck is number 1 then?
what is number 2 then?
I think if you go point by point and ignore the rest then you can argue semantics, but I don't see how you can take all 8 together and argue what "progressive" means
Being favorable to reform does not mean being open minded. Open minded means to respect different people and their life choices. People hostile to traditional family or religious values are also "progressive" but often not open minded as they criticize people who choose a traditional way of life.
The same goes for economic aspects. Neoliberalism is highly authoritarian. Specifically it is embraced by neofeudalists who want to reestablish their old feudal privileges but not through formal aristocracy, but by the merit of "free contracts" and them holding on to wealth. These are technically "progressive" yet they want to reintroduce power structures from a time past.
'Liberal' is one of those words that has so many definitions that it can have contradictory meanings. It can mean 'open to / tolerant of'. It can denote a style of education that tries to be broad rather than deep. It can describe various political positions - the 'Liberal Party' is left-wing in Chile, centrist in the UK and Canada, and right-wing in Russia, Japan and Australia. This is also what OP is memeing about. At this point, to avoid confusion, I would just avoid using the word except in the purely academic / technical sense.
@Cowbee@lemmy.ml
I've been fucking telling you, insisting on a Eurocentric definition confuses people, and that confusion is exploited by fascists.
American definition of liberal: socially liberal
European definition of liberal: economically liberal
Some authoritarians strongly believe that they're far left. But an authoritarian regime cannot be left. If you're not liberal, you're an authoritarian, not left, and it doesn't matter what type of authoritarian bull shit you're subscribing to.
Tell me you don’t hang out with anarchists without telling me…
There's only one axis on the political spectrum, and everyone left of Biden (a rightwinger) is a tankie, isn't this obvious?
no, everyone right of "I won't vote at all in 2024 because I refuse to vote for Biden" is a conservative
didn't you get the memo
Or marxists even lol
don't anarchists call themselves libertarians?
What? Are you high?
Libertarian did use to be a synonym of anarchist.
Murray Rothbard ruined that.
It's not just Rothbard, it's also oil barons! https://www.alternet.org/2013/09/true-history-libertarianism-america-phony-ideology-promote-corporate-agenda/
No, they call themselves Libertaire. Libertaire was adopted by french anarchists at the end of the 19th century when anarchist publications were banned from France. Sadly, as Americans do, the word was misused and transformed by Milton Friedman, on the behalf of oil companies, and later that failed actor named Ayn Rand, to described unabashed, unregulated, capitalism and corporatism.
No anarchist worth it's salt would ever use the word libertarian instead of Libertaire.
I use lib for shared objects.
I 'am' an anarcho-communist and I don't like libtards. Libtards to me are 'progressive capitalists' that have no systemic insight what so ever and think all it takes to bring upon heaven on earth is to try and be nice.
I mean, you should try and be nice obviously but you are not going to soy latte your way outta this my dudes.
You can just call them liberals. You don't need to meld the term to a slur.
By shaving the first two letters off an r-bomb? Come on, guy. I get what you're saying, but this is an awful way to phrase it.
Friend I'm not a friend of liberals myself but can we please not use ableistic terms that end with "-tard"?
Reserve that shit for the right wing
Ok, even though I know this will make no difference to 'you people' (sorry just cannot help myself xD).
In this case I choose to use this specific word because it's so obviously a dogwhistle for right wing extremists that in the context of this meme I think it's funny, since my actual stance is neither authoritarian or rightwing.
I don't seriously mean to perpetuate negative stereotypes with regards to people with mental handicaps.
Just as a curiosity, are you by any chance from the US? I just cannot imagine anyone from Europe making such a big deal about a joke like this, let alone use the term ableist.
I guess my brain has just rotted as a result of a few decades of being on the internet. Inside i'm still an edgy teen apparently. No actual offense meant :)
I get it, i know how it is. I'm an Israeli anarchist, you can tell by a previous post and my user name.
I'm making a bit of a fuss over it because i find this trend within myself, having grown up in a nationalist family and a religious school, i tend to say those words as instinct as well and am trying to unlearn this behavior.
I grew up as an edgy teen as well so i guess i can relate, but now I'm intp young adulthood and trying to be better to not repel potential friends.
That sounds like a worthy and potentially wholesome effort indeed. I would just like to say that I think sincerity is more important than seriousness. Best of luck to you my friend.
Much respect for being an anarchist in Israel btw, especially in these interesting times.
Solidarity from The Netherlands.
> is anarcho-communist
> accuses others of lacking systemic insight
I'm unsure what you mean by this. Would you be willing to elaborate?
They probably read 2 words that they don't like.
I like the idealism in communism and I have been thinking about how to implement communism without very authoritarian structures, and the anarchist way seems to be the only way, but I don't see how it would be able to sustain our current lifestyle and amount of people. Exploitation of dependencies without authoritarian structures seems unavoidable to me and avoiding dependencies would probably require that people provide themselves with the resources ; which requires more labor and resources. As of right now, I don't see a flawless system. (that includes capitalism)
So personally I think, saying that the other people have a bad systemic insight in the context of any general ideology is ungranted.
At what point does a structure become authoritarian? There are numerous Anarchist and Marxist propositions for how to structure a Socialist and eventually Communist society, so if there's a definitive cutoff point for you you can find something to research.
What leftist theory have you read? Not as a "read more theory!" Snark, but more so I can give recs based on your answer to the authoritarian question posed in the last paragraph.
Honestly I am not well-read on leftist theory as in formal education. I look into things that I have encountered and think for myself. I would appreciate new ideas and things to look into.
I appreciate the call out on my vagueness in regards of authoritarian structures. Thanks for that.
It isn't as much a concrete point like "having a police", but rather the human nature. I see a lot of protective behavior in people. The idea of communism is a sacrificing one in the sense that you give some of yours to get more for everyone. As a system will teach people within the system that the system is good. It is expected that people will be generally protective of the system. So sacrificing some freedoms for the protection of the system seems like a very normal evolution of those ideals. And you don't need to worry as the system is good which is why you are protecting it. So over time, just like under any hierarchical system, the power will move towards the "core" of the system. Under capitalism the wealthy and under communism the state. Under communism, protecting the system will have a strong hand and will move the power to the "core". The "core" is the state. the system and the state are extremely similar. So the state will behave as if an Attack on them is an Attack on the system. Justifying additional force and moving power into the core. Under somewhat authoritarian capitalism, we can observe that behavior quite clearly. But the state and the core isn't as similar and an "attack" on the "core" isn't an Attack on the state. Creating the shit that we can observe today under capitalism. Where the state are corrupted by the core while pretending to not be and fighting against the elements of the core that haven't paid them. In communism, the power goes to the state and the state happily accepts it, turning it more and more authoritarian over time.
So from my pov, authoritarian Systems are an issue but are also seemingly required to protect the system and it's people. Capitalism sucks as it kinda assume hierarchy and "sneaks" exploitation in. But a authoritarian state acts a little bit as a counter force to the "core". (While a full on authoritarian state will of course take control over the "core") While any liberal state, enables the "core" to move more power to itself quicker. Communism is much better in regards of assuming hierarchy as it doesn't. But an even slightly authoritarian state with communism places the "core" and the state together as a unite without a real counter force and will eventually be very authoritarian. An liberal communistic System would avoid hierarchy and by that protect itself from placing the "core" in the hands of the state, but it would live itself vulnerable by "small" actors trying to build an hierarchy as people generally like to do, and enables "small" local exploitation.
I just don't see a way for any of them to not fail. Currently I believe that the violence of the public is the only way to reset the failing systems. That violence is just usually a little late and not just, fair or merciful. Leading to a lot of unjust pain and suffering.
I don't see how to escape this shit.
Please call me out on my shit take. Thanks.
I think you have done a lot of thinking, but haven't really engaged much with Marxism or Anarchism with regards to philisophy.
For Marxism, check out Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Engels.
For Anarchism, The Conquest of Bread by Kropotkin is good.
The "Human Nature" issue is one that every leftist movement has had to engage with and "solve."
It is true that I haven't really engaged with Marxism and/or anarchism beyond the basics. I can look into it, thanks.
Out of curiosity, do you think I have a point? What would be your critic? I don't want to take your time, so only respond if you feel like it. I understand if you don't have the time.
I think you have a point, yes, though I disagree with it personally. That isn't to take away from your thought process or personal experiences or evaluations. The why of that disagreement takes a good long while to explain adequately, but I'll do my best.
For starters, though I identify myself chiefly as an anti-sectarian Leftist, I do ultimately find myself agreeing more with Marxism than Anarchism. Just my own personal conclusions after learning and reading theory. I try not to only give Marxist recommendations because a comrade is a comrade, and the reason I am anti-sectarian is because I believe we need to build a mass workers' movement of any sort before we can get to debating the finer details, though I still agree more with Marxist organizational methods in the short term.
This is extremely close to Marx's Historical Materialism! That's why I recommended Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, actually. The core concept is that environments shape people, who then reshape their environments, which then reshape the people who again reshape their environments. Very cool to see you get close to it!
Yes and no. My primary criticism of this section is that it doesn't specifically analyze how this consolidation happens. It can happen, but may still be designed against. More later.
No real disagreements here. I would say it's pretty accurate and similar to what other leftists have stated, if in different language.
This is what I tend to take issue with. Under Capitalism, the State is a vehicle by which the bourgeoisie suppresses the Proletariat. This State is weilded by the Bourgeoisie, as the Bourgeoisie have all of the power, thus the will of the few oppresses the many.
However, what happens if the majority democratically operate this State? It has power, yes, but properly designed and democratically operated, it does not necessarily stand to reason that it would result in oppression of the majority like Capitalism. That's why I asked for specifics, actually!
Marxists entirely agree with this, but believe that once Capitalism is thoroughly erradicated, there is nothing to protect against, and thus no need for standing armies or other such dangerous elements. Until then, however, some form of State is necessary to protect the revolution, though it must be controlled by the Workers.
No real "disagreement," other than I don't actually believe Capitalism sneaks anything, it just convinces Workers the alternatives are worse.
I am not sure a follow. What is an "authoritarian Communist state" and what is a "liberal Communist state?" How are they mechanically different, other than labels?
Marxists and Anarchists both agree that Revolution is necessary.
A mass worker movement, comrade!
Not stupid at all, in my opinion. There's a lot of thought there, but I believe this thought could be much sharper and more pointed if you engaged with theory. Even if you disagree with much of it, by connecting your thoughts to the collective works of centuries of leftists and their findings, you can come to find agreement with other leftists and organize.
Did that answer your questions?
Is a right wing fascist term. I don't think you're an anarcho-communist. I think you're a right wing pretending to be leftist to try to suppress the Democratic vote. You guys have tells.
Lib bashing in left spaces is the mating cry of the tanky
It might be cathartic every so often, but too much makes the wrong people feel safe.
Liberals do not belong in left spaces, left is literally defined by anticapitalism.
Having a fight over who is or isn't allowed in left spaces instead of having the discussion about leftist policy is what got the left where it is in today's political discussion.
Defining a movement by who's not allowed in it leaves you without any ability to get anywhere legitimately.
There's no fight.
A space for people opposed to capitalism isn't gonna have people who are pro-capitalism.
Liberals aren't left though. They are a centrist position by their very definition.
This is an environment of welcoming. And you should just get the hell out of here.
Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleed...
I see this term used so often from the lofty reaches of some national news rag or echoing out of a Senate star chamber. The CEO is stamping it into an EULA, as an irrevocable term of service. The corporate union-buster is putting it up in 120 point font in a company wide mandatory power point presentation. The evangelical minister is denouncing it from the pulpit as part of a catechism call-and-response. The nosey neighbor is whispering it into the phone, hoping a SWAT team will remove someone from the block. The police holding you face down in a bucket of water are screaming it in your ears.
Beware the authoritarian communist. Beware the tankies. Beware the Chinese / Russian / Venezuelan social terrorists, fifth columnists, and outside agitators. Beware the college kid in the Che Guevera t-shirt. Beware the Anti-American. Whatever you think we might be doing to you now, they'll be ten times worse.
It's just a more politically correct way to say tankie.
I've never heard a cop called a Tankie.
But they're always the ones in the large militant unions demanding more public money while driving around in actual tanks.
To be fair, Chinese cops would probably be tankies.
Few carry guns. I don't think I've ever seen the Chinese police equivalent to the NYPD Police Tank that was used to raid the Columbia campus.
Meaningless distinction. Whether it's military or whatever. Whichever state supported group is shooting and beating and arresting protestors in China, they're tankies.
I'm more concerned with the police lashing out at protesters closer to home
Cool but that's not what I was talking about.
Right. It was a fixation on "China Bad"
Yes.
https://scratch.mit.edu ?
"Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism, free markets, representative democracy, legal rights and state monopoly on violence. It includes a large portion of the present day political spectrum, from the centre-left social democrats to the far-right conservatives and American libertarians."
That is.... a lot of people
Yes. Liberalism is the dominant ideology in the World today.
North American, upper middle class authoritarian communists. That shit is just cosplay for them lol
Op, are you in the US?
In the US, the choices for voting are Republican and Democrat.
Which of these parties is "liberal?"
The argument being made when non conservatives dislike liberals is when the liberals in question align with the Ds, because the Ds have every interest in pushing vaguely progressive policies during elections and never actually follow through in office.
Remember student loans? Still out there Remember universal healthcare? Still gotta pay for insurance Remember tax reform? Still paying higher rates than people who can't conceivably spend all of their money.
The primary goal of the Dems when in power is to maintain power. Fuck those guys. Not quite as hard as Republicans, but it stands.
Signed, Not a fucking tankie
The democrats are the liberal party. They support abortion, religious freedom, police reform, civil rights (sometimes), drug decriminalization, etc.
That being said, they are trying to encapsulate and entire half of the political spectrum. There's going to be gaps, disagreements between individual party members, and places where one policy or value has to override another.
They support
No. They are trying to be IN CHARGE OF over half of the political spectrum. The only ideologies other than their own (which is center right to right wing) that they ever try to appeal to is the couple dozen "undecided that are almost but not quite Republicans" left in the country.
Nope, there's going to be nothing but neglect and abuse towards anyone to the left of the leadership, which is now to the right of Reagan.
In spite of the name, the Democratic Party is not democratic or even a party. It's a private for-profit corporation controlled by a small group of people who are in turn controlled to varying degrees by rich people, other corporations, and industry lobbying groups.
Nah, your first statement is close, but you miss by a bit:
"The democrats are the liberal party. They [pretend to] support abortion (when trying to get elected), religious freedom (when trying to get elected), police reform (when trying to get elected), civil rights (when trying to get elected), drug decriminalization (when trying to get elected), etc."
When not trying to get elected they don't actually DO anything.
Drug decriminalization was a big deal in the 70's and we are maybe just now kinda getting around to it.
I didn't even call out the shit behavior on civil rights, you did that.
They seem a-ok with police fucking with college kids right now.
They've had 50 years since roe v wade to guarantee the right to abortion, and they didn't.
What DID they do?
Helped give money to people who are already rich through tax breaks. Helped give money to people who are already rich through deregulation they allowed through. Helped give money to people who are already rich through defense contracts. Helped give money to people who are already rich by overthrowing foreign governments with control over resources out oil barrons want.
Id call those "gaps", yeah.
I am not, and I've observed that every American seems to have their own definition of what "liberal" means, which is not really very helpful when trying to use the word in a discussion
I'm reasonably sure making discussion difficult is the goal. When the right refers to libs, they mean "anything left of me" without ever acknowledging that a significant number of people being referred to are neither progressive lib or left. The American D party is a center right organization, so how do I, as a leftist express "fuck the platform of the 'liberal party' is pushing, they're clearly bought and paid for too, and are serving the bourgeoisie and don't give a fuck about me, but I still have to put the guy in charge back in charge cause the alternative is dictatorship."
Yep, sounds about right.
Secret lovers.
I tend to see the derogatory 'Liberal' and moreso 'Lib' used for Neo-liberals and those supporting the neoliberal policies that have dominated the last few generations.
I otherwise see it used in the context of the phrase "scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds" which is pithy but tracks with history and typically the more antagonistic usage. It is almost entirely used to provoke a reaction from the 'libs' it is directed at, accuracy notwithstanding.
With context it is almost always pretty self explanatory which is being used.
When the horseshoe becomes a circle…
Who doesn't hate those dang rightwingers, The Liberals?
to be fair, the word "liberal" has lost its meaning in the US, because there no differentiation between economic liberalism and social liberalism. the guy in the meme would be a classic socialist in europe. we do have liberals here too, but they are the economic liberalism-type and more in line with the US-Republicans in economic questions, like tax cuts for the rich and businesses.
You're confusing liberalism with social progressivism, and leftism with social programs.
At the end of the day, Capitalism is right wing, Socialism is left.
Just throw workers owning the means of production on there and we've got a
stewreal progressive.yes but you don't participate in riots and vote for joe biden instead of third party, therefore you are no better than transphobes
/s if it wasn't obvious
Not what your voting record demonstrates if you've been voting for liberal establishment figures.
Remember a politician's talk < actions and campaign finance.
Nice