you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    You're right. I'm one of the ones who got offline from the big social media sites. Honestly, I feel like it's a civic duty and have tried to convince everyone of Fediverse accounts and have failed. I also don't know what's going on in my friend's lives, and I even got off Bluesky due to tracking or some other offense I can't remember. But I can tell you for sure, once the US gov becomes destabilized enough, that data collection from all these years will be abused to the point that all the people in the "I have nothing to hide" club are seriously going to regret being on Facebook and Instagram, etc. This surveillance state is going to be awful when they succeed, and they will.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

    Lol ok mr very online guy. You know that those media organisations you mentioned are all funded by billionaires. People like me aren’t funded because we say stuff that is uncomfortable and I don’t give a shit about appeasing advertisers. The biggest difference you can make is in the real world, being there for your community volunteering tennant unions etc. Posting is the lowest effort and easiest thing you can do. Actual struggle happens in real life.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Um to have an actual real connection to the person you’re talking to and not just talk to some faceless name and avatar on a website? To show people that you actually care about them and that a political project is important enough for you to get your ass off the couch for. To maybe connect with other like minded people so you can organise more?

    Holy shit I’m actually starting to realise what people meant when they said the .world people are crazy. How online are you that I have to explain that talking to people in real life is nicer than just communicating online. I order you to touch grass.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    The right have been a more or less hegemonic force since the 80s. There is a reason why I spend hours online. The reason why the right can do all this is because they get paid to. They get millions of funding thrown at them by oligarchs, that’s why they are so visible not because they’re some creative marketing geniuses. Like so many things in life it comes down to resources and who had access to them. Meanwhile the left has to rely on people like me who are going to sacrifice their free time and creativity for something they believe in.

    The left has all the things you mentioned as well, and is online as well. Currently one of the biggest podcasts on Patreon is hosted by two lefties. I also want to point out that for most of the lefts history being a leftist meant sacrifice of some sort. If you don’t want to do that fine but stop removed at me about how the left refuses to adapt. We are up against capital, if you haven’t figured that out and what it implies then idk what to do for you.

    That’s why going outside and doing things in real life is important fund raising for example is very important. You can also donate to lefty content creators that you like. Currently a bunch of them are getting cancelled or demonetised thanks to their support against genocide. The left has been in decline since the fall of the USSR so idk why you think this is some kind of new phenomena. The fact that they’re slowly making a comeback is actually pretty cool and gives me a small slither of hope sometimes. If you just want an easy ride then join one of the billionaire parties, the pay is better and you’ll have to work less.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [+] 48 points 1 year ago (74 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [+] 34 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [+] 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [+] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [+] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [+] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [+] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [+] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    This is a very typically American point of view, which tends to lump a lot of people together as "liberal" despite this internationally not being the norm at all.

    Here's a definition of liberalism:

    Liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology that emphasizes individual rights, liberties, and limited government. It promotes ideas like free markets, free trade, and social equality, while often advocating for a strong emphasis on individual autonomy and civil liberties.

    Note specifically how it says individual rights. The idea with liberalism is that if everyone is similarly unrestrained by the government, and has the same civil liberties, there is an even playing field in which individuals can personally grow and excel. This neatly links together with the liberal belief in a free market, free trade, etc...

    A strict liberal idealogy will also adopt several progressive policies w.r.t. civil liberties, like gay rights (as this causes social equality -> level playing field for competition). But liberalism is still a strictly capitalist idealogy, with a strong emphasis on the free market and free trade.

    Generally, this individualistic approach to rights is considered socially progressive and economically right-wing. And we see that this is the case in most countries around the world, e.g. Australia's liberal party or the Dutch VVD. The Dutch VVD is a good example to look at here, they are considered very firmly right-wing, but their party platform most closely matches to that of the DNC. In the US, the two major parties are both righg-wing, one is a moderately progressive right-wing party (with some left-wingers in there, but they aren't very influential w.r.t. party policy because it's such a small minority) and the other is a conservative/authoritarian right-wing party.

    Because both parties sit firmly on the right of the spectrum, they've come to distinguish themselves on social policy rather than economic policy. They've remapped the progressive-conservative axis on the left-right axis and called it a day. But in most countries, these axes are very much distinct. Here's the "political compass" for the Netherlands for example:

    Note how there are only two fairly fringe parties to the right of the VVD. Also it's interesting to note here that the PVV (the "far-right" party with the bird symbol near the bottom) isn't even all that far right. Their economic policies aren't actually all that focused on free market dynamics, and they do promote certain social policies. But their hardline immigration stance pushes them very firmly in the conservative camp. And although there's certainly a correlation between left-progressive and right-conservative, there are still major differences between the parties along this diagonal axis.

    Generally, actual left-wing people (be they progressive or conservative) don't like being lumped in with liberals, because they don't focus on as much on individual freedom but rather on collective freedom and on policies that benefit the collective. Hence their insistence on actually looking at the full political spectrum rather than the simplified/reducted version of it.

    You're not wrong that people in the US tend to call liberals "left-wing", but it's a very reductive, American perspective not shared by political scientists or the rest of the world.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago (31 children)

    Someone hearing for the first time that Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher are staunch liberals.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

    Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism. They emerged together and the former was formed to justify the latter. Over the years it has branched out and there are many forms such as classical liberalism, neoliberalism, social liberalism, etc. but they all defend capitalist property rights and the market. Socialism emerged as the working class response to/critique of liberalism. In the US the term only refers to social liberals, who are in reality centrists. Americans call them leftists only because centrists are slightly to the left of right-wing politics.

    We're against liberalism as a whole because it's the ideology that justifies capitalism. We're against social liberals because they're seen as fence-sitting cowards and dangerous compromisers.


    This is a very introductory overview to liberalism:

    The most in-depth delving into it is Losurdo's Liberalism - A counter history, but you'd have to read many more foundational texts before that one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    How many books on this topic have you read? Are you aware of the conflicts between liberals and workers, prisoners, women, and colonized people for over 200 years? Do you know the history of the working class movement and its history of conflicts with liberals since the mid 1800s?

    Any one of us can answer these questions. You clearly can't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    the right to private property

    Wow that sounds sooo leftist. I think you're about 150 years late in defining liberalism as "the left"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Liberals -> want the means of production to remain privatized aka capitalism Leftists -> want the means of production to be publicly owned aka socialism

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    We just have a more nuanced understanding of politics than you do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    we just had a coalition of liberals, "social"democrats and greens here in Germany. Believe me no one thinks that liberals are left of center.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    The "other group labelling themselves socialist" is literally the SPD but go off. You have no clue about socialism or its history, so I'm curious according to whose definition social liberalism or democratic liberalism is left of center.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (6 replies)
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    It's a failure of terms used in US politics. When we say "left" and "right" we pretty much exclusively are talking about their position in respect to one another as opposed to the actual policies the parties hold.

    Republicans are much more "conservative" (right wing) than Democrats (liberals) are, so the Republicans are the right and the Democrats become the "left" as they aren't as conservative and therefore they are "to the left" of Republicans.

    If you were to look at global definitions as to what it means to be a left wing party, Democrats really don't fit there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Liberals are rightwing.

    There was a brief moment the US democratic party went social democratic, from Roosevelt to Carter and these days there's a small resurgance with Mamdani.

    But Clinton, Obama, Biden, Harris and Cuomo are all at the very least centre-right wing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism. They emerged together and the former was formed to justify the latter. Over the years it has branched out and there are many forms such as classical liberalism, neoliberalism, social liberalism, etc. but they all defend capitalist property rights and the market. Socialism emerged as the working class response to/critique of liberalism. In the US the term only refers to social liberals, who are in reality centrists. Americans call them leftists only because centrists are slightly to the left of right-wing politics.

    We're against liberalism as a whole because it's the ideology that justifies capitalism. We're against social liberals because they're seen as fence-sitting cowards and dangerous compromisers.


    Canada's two main parties are both right-wing. They support capitalism, and the rule of capitalists over the economy and government. The canadian conservative party agrees with them in that.

    Or look at Australia. Their two main parties are Labour vs the liberal party (both are pretty right wing, but in that country the liberals openly position themselves to the right of the other party).

    Or take Japan. Their far right party is called the liberal democrats.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago

    The internet is kinda crazy. Confidently wrong children who can do nothing more than copy and paste from wikipedia are trying to down talk to people with a lifetime of study of political theory.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [+] 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    No they’re not, I hate to break it to you but most conservatives are liberals. What you’re referring to is liberals picking up on social policies championed by the left.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Please define liberalism for me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Ok so based on that you should realise that every political party follows liberal economics. Hell even most conservative parties in the west pretend to stand up for liberal rights.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yes almost every political party believes in the right of private property and market economics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    Economics is at the base of the political super structure.

    Edit: I suggest you read this: https://archive.org/details/ComManifesto/page/n3/mode/1up

    The whole split between liberals and socialists was based entirely on economics. There is a reason why Karl Marx wrote a whole book on economics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Lol no I’m describing the difference between socialists and liberals. Socialists of all stripes were anti capitalist and rooted in working class movements and anti capitlism. Marx had the most robust and scientific understanding of the liberal political order.

    Some edits for clarity and another edit: All socialists understood that they had to burn the liberal order to the ground if they wanted to try gain the type of freedom that they were looking for. Also most anarchists and socialists I have met have never had any problem with what I said about economics being the base of the political super structure what they usually disagree on is strategy and how to organise a society once the liberal order has been abolished.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Workingmen%27s_Association

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [+] 10 points 1 year ago (15 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [+] 8 points 1 year ago* (14 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • load more comments (9 replies)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The Iranian government has a very heavy hand in that economy and economic freedoms don’t exist like they do in capitalust economies.

    Many of us are socialists, and we don’t take issue with a state constraining the capitalist class’ economic freedom. If you live in a neoliberal hellscape like most of us, you ought to want it more constrained, too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (3 replies)