Somehow "left unity" always means everyone else adjusting to MLs and not the other way

I mentioned the US specifically. As a subsection of the west. Not lumping the west with it. That wasn't the intention.

You mean social democracy? Liberalism/capitalisms natural tendencies all trend towards consolidation and oligarchy. And has only been held at bay via social democracy. It's why they (the US specifically) have overthrown other democracies that wouldn't side with them. And eventually turned to cannibalizing and erasing their own democracy. As it gets in their way.

But yes, the US defaultism as you put it was getting at. It causes a lot of misunderstanding and needless drama.

I've only seen this confusion around liberalism come up in lemmy. I think it's due to tankie rhetoric poisoning the idea.

When people outside the US mention liberalism, they typically mean social liberalism, which the US severely lacks.

It's the other way around as explained extensively.

General definitions & the historical development of liberalism are academic & largely accepted worldwide.

liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty.

Some of the earliest liberal practices are found in the US Declaration of Independence, which predates the French revolution spreading the practice of liberal ideals throughout Europe. The US declaration pretty much rehashes core tenets of liberal philosophy

• inherent equality of individuals
• universal individual rights & liberties
• consent of the governed (governments exist for the people who have a right to change & replace them, & authority is legitimate only when it protects those liberties).

Note how capitalism isn't mentioned anywhere: it's nonessential. Capitalism predates & isn't liberalism. Liberalism is moral & political philosophy, not an economic one.

The philosophy is a natural progression of humanist philosophies from the Renaissance through the Protestant Reformation & the Enlightenment that stress the importance of individuality, secular reasoning, & tolerance over dogma & subservience to unaccountable authority. To address unaccountable authority based on dogma & traditions, English & French philosophers defined legitimate authority based on humanist morality pretty much as expressed in the US declaration. They argued that political systems thrive better with limits & duties on authority & an adversarial system of institutional competition whether in separation of powers, adversarial law system with habeas corpus & right to jury trial, competitive elections, dialogue, or economic competition.

In time, goals shifted from addressing obstacles to individual freedom due to government to addressing obstacles due to the rest of society. Thus emerged the distinction between classical & modern liberalism:

• Classical liberalism: minimal government to eliminate traditional obstacles to individual freedom
• Modern liberalism: positive government intervention to address social & economic inequalities in the cause of individual freedom

As explained before, in the US, modern liberalism (which includes social liberalism & progressivism) is simply called liberalism whereas classical liberalism more closely corresponds to libertarianism.

I think US liberals & the rest of the world agree that modern liberalism ought to be standard.

The one where the bourgeoisie doesn't rule anymore

It's in the same vein as "Israel has a right to defend itself". It looks okay on the surface but ignores decades of context and the fact that Israel fostered Hamas and let the attack happen. It basically implies Palestine was asking for it.

The choice of vocab is telling as well just like how Israel isn't "defending itself" but simply killing civilians. If you rephrase is more truthfully, as in "Would Israel be committing Genocide if the 7th of October attack hadn't happened?", the answer is it doesn't matter. No reason ever justifies exterminating people.

Anarchist.nexus is more or less the PieFed equivalent of db0 to my understanding. The flotilla concept was one of 'shared governance' and anarchist solidarity or something. Quokk.au was in discussions to join but wanted to maintain it's own de-fed list; IIRC Hexbear was the point of contention. An agreement was reached that admitted Quokk with certain caveats that just sounded like a hierarchy with extra steps.

I've had hexbear (and ml, and grad I think) blocked since early days and upon discovering db0 was not only federated with them but willing to gatekeep to remain so I jumped ship. I'm no anarchist nor particularly well-versed in their theory but I thought the whole point was to dismantle hierarchies? The "new membership tier" or whatever just reeked of incongruence and disingenuousness. Frankly its late and I find myself violently disinterested such that I'm unwilling to refresh my memory.

Tl;Dr c ya nerds

fuck both israel palestine and the hidden palestine (jordan)

see that's much clearer!

This is*

No, you didn't. Death to X is always ambiguous and can refer to anything, that's why extremists use it. If you don't want people to interpret Death to X as violent extremism, then you need to specify

Like how you already specified.