No matter what, if you can buy and sell ownership as a shareholder, then you have a fundamental misalignment from the direct stakeholders of a firm. This is why I find unions and regulations to be band-aids.

A capitalist system is fundamentally misaligned and it will always work to undo those regulations with capital accumulation and regulatory capture. The only way to fix that is to require direct stakeholder ownership whether that be worker-consumer coöps, syndicates, public ownership, or what have you. The ownership and decision-making must needs be aligned with the people benefitting or who are otherwise impacted by the operations of a firm. That is Socialism and that is not the regulation bandaids that Liberalism trys to paste over Capitalism's flaws and cracks.

Companies still dump untreated waste water right into water ways even with regulation. I just see it an endless chase of the capitalists one step ahead at all times at least, often more because it takes time to draft regulation. Capitalism has only brought "prosperity" to a few from the continued exploitation of others. It still believes growth infinite in a closed system.

Yeah, Liberalism doesn't align companies with their direct stakeholders at all and so any attempt to regulate will be under tension like trying to push two magnets together.

Yes but can include alot of socialism/social components. It is a very broad term in the US. It is more left than center but not far left. Strong social support but more fiscally central.

Neo-Liberals are basically capitalists pretending to be anarchists. They love capitalism, and the freedoms they fight for are meant for corporations; not people.

Liberals enshrine property rights which include land, labor (people) and capital (machinary). Thereby, the owner dominates land, labor and capital.

There are many flavors of Leftist. Proudhon stated it best as, "Property is Theft!". Property rights are inconsistent with freedom. The owners derive their living from the labor of workers on land that was held in common with machines created by other exploited workers. Anarchy is an effort to end such domination.

There's countless differences between leftists.

The unifying differences are anti-capitalism and being against private ownership - which in leftist thinking is differentiated from personal ownership (toothbrushes, personal housing, etc). Generally there's some degree of anti-hierarchical values.

Leftists don't believe in a (free) market, while liberals do.

In other words, leftists generally believe buying and selling, currency, etc. should be eradicated.

Take it easy on him -- he can't imagine anyone being further left than a 'progressive'.

K

Don't forget the most damning and horrific title of "socialist"

Eh. If you’re in the know, then yes, you’re correct, but your average American probably doesn’t even understand that there’s any distinction at all, and so for those people “liberal” is the catch-all term for progressives.

If someone who actually understands politics calls me a liberal, I’m gonna protest. If my dumbfuck uncle calls me a liberal, I’ll let it lie, because that’s as close as he’s reasonably going to get to understanding my political views.

Basically in the Midwest anyone who is not conservative/GOP is called liberal. From center to Marx himself, all libs. It is confusing being on Lemmy where classic liberalism is used.

K

My god, I'm merely explaining the original comment someone else made.

I know the pedantry is expected, but maybe we can take a step back and read intent before smashing faces into our respective keyboards?

Never argued that it was more correct...

I'm merely explaining the original comment someone else made.

I know the pedantry is expected, but maybe we can take a step back and read intent before smashing faces into our respective keyboards?

You see that explanation you gave? I'm going to assume it's correct.

But that doesn't change the fact that those terms get used as synonyms by a lot of people in the USA.

And besides that point... I was only trying to explain what the original comment was pointing to.

Liberals want freedom of some kind: liberalism; liberty. That may be freedom for individuals or for companies. It may be a negative "freedom from interference" or positive "freedom to achieve ones desires". That variety is what gives it its many practical meanings