I also think this is wrong. Fascism is baked into the borders of liberalism. Liberalism isnt abandoned, it’s just the face of liberalism which always faces outside now needing to turn inward. There’s never been a single instance of liberalism that didn’t either 1. Have the outward facing fascism like the US to indigenous peoples or now towards the periphery or 2. Was the outside but with a government which accepted the periphery status and invited the expropriation as long as the class in power got to too.
Fascism doesn’t have an intellectual tradition, or higher principle outside of serving capital and upholding liberal property relations amd hierarchies. So i suppose that’s why i lump them in with the rest of the libs.
Am I i completely off base with this? Is it a gray area, or a clear break?
It’s been defined that way since long before Americans adopted their lexicon of liberal = Democrat-adjascent. And it’s used internationally the way we use it here.
There are no democrats arguing for socialism. Socialism means a society having collective ownership of the means of production. The dems are a bunch of libs like you
Literally how in the fucking world could you arrive at this conclusion
Not one bit of this question makes sense.
Democrats have never advocated for socialism. I don’t even think Bernie Sanders has actually advocated for socialism.
Liberal in America doesn’t mean socialist or even socialist adjacent. If you zoom out to include a “international general definition”, even less so. Liberalism is in direct opposition to Socialism. Both ideologies organize society in mutually exclusive ways. This is like telling somebody you believe in Cat-Mouseism. It makes no fucking sense
Why do you get to define socialism to exclude liberalism?
Socialism seeks to abolish property relations, and thus the bourgeoisie with it. Liberalism upholds them.
They are ideologies that are in complete and total contradiction to one another. You either want private property in which some people can enslave others to exploit their labour or you want to get rid of that.
Oh I thought libs were liberals, often leaning socialist. And the Republicans were the capitalists.
Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism. Liberals and republicans, conservatives, liberatarians, fascists you’re all libs.
Marxists, Socialists do not support capitalism. There is no such thing as liberal socialist
Fascists aren’t libs, though. Fascism is capitalism that has abandoned liberalism in order to fight communism.
I also think this is wrong. Fascism is baked into the borders of liberalism. Liberalism isnt abandoned, it’s just the face of liberalism which always faces outside now needing to turn inward. There’s never been a single instance of liberalism that didn’t either 1. Have the outward facing fascism like the US to indigenous peoples or now towards the periphery or 2. Was the outside but with a government which accepted the periphery status and invited the expropriation as long as the class in power got to too.
good post
I suppose that’s fair.
Fascism doesn’t have an intellectual tradition, or higher principle outside of serving capital and upholding liberal property relations amd hierarchies. So i suppose that’s why i lump them in with the rest of the libs.
Am I i completely off base with this? Is it a gray area, or a clear break?
You’d better tell them that then. I’m sure they’ll be happy to know that it’s impossible to be socialist and only want to curtail businesses.
Libs and being completely politically illiterate, an iconic duo
Why do you get to define socialism to exclude liberalism?
It’s been defined that way since long before Americans adopted their lexicon of liberal = Democrat-adjascent. And it’s used internationally the way we use it here.
Okay cool. So Democrats arguing for limited or unlimited socialism aren’t liberal by the international general definition?
Welfare is not socialism. Social safety nets are not socialism. You’ve been duped by a misuse of the word.
These are policies that socialists like because they improve people’s lives. They are not socialism itself.
There are no democrats arguing for socialism. Socialism means a society having collective ownership of the means of production. The dems are a bunch of libs like you
There’s no democrats arguing for socialism you dumbass. At best you’ll find some milquetoast succdem
Literally how in the fucking world could you arrive at this conclusion
Not one bit of this question makes sense.
Democrats have never advocated for socialism. I don’t even think Bernie Sanders has actually advocated for socialism.
Liberal in America doesn’t mean socialist or even socialist adjacent. If you zoom out to include a “international general definition”, even less so. Liberalism is in direct opposition to Socialism. Both ideologies organize society in mutually exclusive ways. This is like telling somebody you believe in Cat-Mouseism. It makes no fucking sense
Socialism seeks to abolish property relations, and thus the bourgeoisie with it. Liberalism upholds them.
They are ideologies that are in complete and total contradiction to one another. You either want private property in which some people can enslave others to exploit their labour or you want to get rid of that.