American "left" and "liberal" can't decide if they're in the same nutshell.
American "left" and "liberal" can't decide if they're in the same nutshell.
You're viewing a single thread.
246 comments
-
Liberals don't know they're conservatives.
-
The party is conservative, their constituents are being lied to. They just need to realize that electoral politics will not save us. Hopefully they do this before it's too late.
-
There's lots of discussion below, but liberalism is the belief that enfranchisement and liberation comes from private property, which at one time was progressive in the face of feudalism. But since WW1, liberalism has not been a progressive movement as it has captured all of the private property in the world. Liberals are capitalists, leftists are not. Leftists (mostly) believe in class struggle, liberals (mostly) do not.
Leftists see the problems with private property and strive for social enfranchisement, even at the expense of private property rights, particularly where such "rights" are a function of one dominant class over the rest. To leftists, the social is material. Liberals mostly struggle to even conceive of this.
There are not clear bright lines, it is a messy spectrum of belief and politics, particularly in the US where we are so individualistic. For example I usually find it easier to work with so called progressive liberals than authoritarian leftists, although this can vary dramatically over a variety of political issues. Sometimes Authoritarian Leftists work best with Progressive liberals, and leave moderate, practical leftists out! So there is no simple formula, except to deal with the actual conditions and act on behalf of the whole working class, rather than a particular group or unique subset of interests, in the struggle against the ruling capitalist class. This looks different in different places to different people, progress and truth is borne out of actual class struggle.
-
there are conservatives and there are maga conservatives.
-
MAGA isn't even conservative. They are just a cult.
-
-
Euros don't know liberal means different things in different places. I've only seen lemmy draw a huge distinction between left & liberal. I think it's the Euro influence.
In North America, they call leftists liberals & don't split hairs like Europe & Latin America.
In Europe and Latin America, liberalism means a moderate form of classical liberalism and includes both conservative liberalism (centre-right liberalism) and social liberalism (centre-left liberalism). In North America, liberalism almost exclusively refers to social liberalism.
People in the US get seriously confused that the Liberal party in other countries (eg, Australia) isn't liberal.
-
Anyone in the US who has taken a poli sci or government class knows the difference between liberals and leftists. Yes, the US is widely uneducated, but those are distinct words and philosophies. Rec book The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order and you'll see why leftists don't want to be lumped with liberals.
-
a poli sci
Maybe. Most don't take it, some would spit on it as not a real science.
or government class
Definitely not taught that way.
knows the difference between liberals and leftists
Nope.
When the right talks about owning the libs, they're not talking about owning themselves, they're talking about leftists including center-leftists.
the US is widely uneducated
That's not why. Mainstream TV news media in the US refers to left & liberal interchangeably. These aren't uneducated people. The meanings just differ by continent.
Until you brainwash & reeducate the bulk of North America, that's the meaning of those words there, and to them your distinction is pretty senseless. Facts. Deal with it.
Moreover, the pedagogic meanings of left & liberal aren't even mutually exclusive. Leftism is politics that pursue social equality & egalitarianism. Liberalism is politics that pursue personal freedom. These clearly can intersect as politics that pursue all 3, eg, social liberalism, a center-leftism that
stress[es] civil and human rights and favour[s] a social market economy.
-
Regardless of if the "science" is real, JARGON is real for each field.
It is taught that way.
Rightwingers are profoundly uneducated. Literally. They also call everything communist and woke and DEI too, when none of those words apply. This isn't even debatable re: education, they want to defund education because of their lack. They also think there's biologically only XX and XY chromosomes that exist. They think climate change isn't real. They regularly are upset their grade school children are more educated than them. How rightwing people use a term is completely irrelevant to the denotative meaning of that word.
It is a lack of education - not knowing vocabulary words = a lack of education.
The distinction isn't useless lol. You just don't want to make the effort to learn.
Eg most people think the jargon word "theory" means "shakey unproven idea," because that is the colloquial use - however, scientific theories are extremely substantiated ideas. That doesn't mean that scientists need to then give up using the word "theory." Obviously. And we don't need to police others' thoughts either, we can just use the words as they are supposed to be used and philosophically defined and others will pick it up or not. Eg you've clearly learned there's a difference from just browsing, now you know you were ignorant and you can change your mind or not.
The line between liberalism and leftism is the support and perpetuation of capitalism, slavery, and authoritarianism - please see the book The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order.
-
So let's go over fallacies here.
JARGON is real for each field.
It is taught that way.
The meanings vary by where they are taught. Even those taught the technical meanings you received don't use them in regular contexts.
There are plenty of other of regional differences in language (eg, UK & US English) not due to education: they're just different. Claiming differences such as this are due to lack of education is appeal to snobbery. The community decides the language as observed from their unsolicited usage in reports & communications.
Rightwingers are profoundly uneducated
While that may be so, that doesn't apply to the meanings of words the language community agrees on. Both the left & right in the US use liberals in regular contexts to refer to leftists who also refer to themselves that way. Telling an educated person in the US but liberals aren't leftists/progressives is liable to elicit an incredulous look like they're wondering if you're stoned or just stupid.
we can just use the words as they are supposed to be used and philosophically defined and others will pick it up or not
It's tendentious & misleading, because the exclusionary distinction isn't even correct, which leads to the next fallacy: false dilemma.
It's often claimed here that leftism & liberalism are mutually exclusive: no one can be both. However, by the technical definition they can be both, and by the North American meaning liberals are leftists.
North Americans treat the pursuit of values like equality & egalitarianism (individual freedom from oppressive inequality maintained by unjust policies) as related to the pursuit for individual freedom, so they identify them all with the words liberal & progressive interchangeably. This isn't an accident: the classic liberalism & enlightenment era political philosophy that founded the government were the progressive values of its time in contrast to traditionalist & royalist values. That association persists as the progressive cause continues to promote freedoms & a society with better access to opportunities & protections.
It's unsurprising the predominant variety of leftism there will include the pursuit of personal freedoms, ie, liberalism. These aren't incompatible or a sign of ignorance.
The line between liberalism and leftism is the support and perpetuation of capitalism, slavery, and authoritarianism
That is your bunk assumption based on fallacy. Logically, equality, egalitarianism, & personal freedom can all be pursued, which is both leftist & liberal.
-
Lol.
The community decides the language
Okay, and you've admitted Lemmy as a (global) community has decided this usage of this verbiage. Problem solved, by your own metrics, this is the common usage here. Great, stop complaining then.
Both the left & right in the US use liberals in regular contexts to refer to leftists who also refer to themselves that way. Telling an educated person in the US but liberals aren’t leftists/progressives is liable to elicit an incredulous look like they’re wondering if you’re stoned or just stupid.
I get that you assert this, but that doesn't make it true. Most people pick up on the distinction, just like being told other distinctions.
It’s often claimed here that leftism & liberalism are mutually exclusive: no one can be both
Am I claiming this? Further, we all know what comparing and contrasting is. Just because there are comparisons, does not negate the contrasts.
And people are a mix of policies, no one is some purely liberal, rightwing, socialist, etc person. Policies can be grouped into various political ideologies, and people generally describe themselves as such given whatever they vibe with the most.
Read The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order - it literally addresses all of this and explains how capitalism has lead to "corporate monarchy"/"corporate fascism."
-
Okay, and you’ve admitted Lemmy as a (global) community has decided this usage of this verbiage.
Unless there's a variant of English called Lemmy English, Lemmy isn't a language community like a continent or nation with an active culture, organized society, etc. No one ceases to be a member of their language community by participating in Lemmy. It's a global site of discussion.
Most people pick up on the distinction
Only seen that here, which makes you the odd ones out.
doesn’t make it true
The language community makes it true: the sources I linked & their sources support it. Plain observation of political news & discussions on US television, radio, & press corroborates. Are you denying the meaning of the phrase owning the libs in North America? Are you denying progressives there accept the label? Are you denying their pervasive language of liberals in opposition to the right? ::: spoiler articles using liberal as left
- How One Oregon Activist Is Using a Decades-Old Liberal Policy to Stall Green Energy Projects in Rural Areas
- The “weirdos” shaping Trump’s second term: A liberal writer explains her journey through intellectual MAGAland
- Inside the “Private and Confidential” Conservative Group That Promises to “Crush Liberal Dominance”
- Exploring Young Women's Leftward Expansion
A surge in young women who identify as politically liberal in recent years goes beyond the label, extending particularly to their stances on the environment and abortion.
- U.S. Political Parties Historically Polarized Ideologically
new highs in the percentages of Republicans identifying as conservative and Democrats as liberal
- Increase in Liberal Views Brings Ideological Parity on Social Issues
Values and Beliefs survey finds that Americans are currently about equally likely to say their views are conservative (32%), moderate (32%) or liberal (33%) on social issues
- Conservative, liberal Midwest college students talk politics while practicing empathy
Conservative and liberal students at two small Midwest universities have been meeting every month to talk politics, while practicing listening and avoiding making assumptions about the other side.
- Republican legislatures look to put local issues in liberal areas under state control
Republican state houses aimed at rolling back laws passed by more progressive cities.
Bills targeting education, transgender and LGBTQ rights, housing policy, gun rights and policing
::: The dictionary ::: spoiler progressive senses of liberal
liberal
adjective
- 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.
- free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant. > a liberal attitude toward foreigners. - Synonyms: unprejudiced, broad-minded
- open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc. - Antonyms: intolerant
- characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts. > a liberal donor. - Synonyms: lavish, unstinting, munificent, openhanded, charitable, beneficent
- given freely or abundantly; generous. > a liberal donation.
::: Planet lemmy is blind to reality & plain observation.
Am I claiming this?
The line between liberalism and leftism
Yes, right there. There's no "line": they're logically independent & can overlap. As stated several times before
equality, egalitarianism, & personal freedom can all be pursued
Many would put personal freedom top among those pursuits & consider politics that treats it diminutively outright trash.
The denial that liberal is left is common in these discussions on lemmy: this post & its comments such as
Liberals don’t know they’re conservatives.
-
Lol
You are the odd one out.
You are the very problem you describe and project.
Other online communities, especially European ones, understand this delineation.
Colloquial use vs jargon has been discussed.
Cultural is affected by the people in the culture. Communities by the people in the community.
Am I claiming this?
The line between liberalism and leftism
Gee look, I was NOT claiming that. You said people have to be either/or - never said that. Learn to read.
Again, just because you can compare similarities, does not erase the contrasts/differences. We all learned to compare and contrast in middle school. Just because apples and oranges are both round and fruits, does not mean we should make apples and oranges mean the same thing or be the same word.
Please read The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order before responding again. It literally explains why liberals should be considered rightwing. That you don't understand is a you thing. Again, by your own claims, everyone else on Lemmy gets this but you. You are the thing you are complaining about via projection.
-
“The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order: America and the World in the Free Market Era”
The neoliberal order was no exception. Despite being a project incubated in Republican circles and launched under Ronald Reagan, its full-scale consolidation occurred under the Democratic presidency of Bill Clinton in the 1990s.
Imo the neoliberal order was a response to the Civil Rights Era, a WORLDWIDE movement that gave ordinary citizens more rights and power than any other time in history. To disempower them, capitalism was weaponized to create neoliberal policies to make poor people stay poor, without capital, and thus powerless.
But it was not until Reagan that neoliberalism actively shaped the policy agenda of the federal government. Deregulation became the mantra of the decade, its most visible manifestation being the assault on collective bargaining and the further weakening of already struggling unions. Progressive taxation was contested ideologically and dismantled politically: When Reagan was elected, the income tax system was structured in 15 different brackets, with the highest reaching 70 percent; after his presidency, the country was left with just two brackets, 15 and 28 percent.
"Neoliberals,” Gerstle writes, “had long argued for the need to ringfence free markets, limiting participation to those who could handle its rigors.” Now they also embraced a religiously imbued neo-Victorian moral code, setting themselves in opposition to the permissiveness and moral relativism of the 1960s and 1970s. The race-biased mass incarceration of an “underclass” — regarded as unfit to handle those rigors — seemed to offer the ultimate solution. Liberation and repression, freedom and order, were not incompatible; in the neoliberal equation they were strictly interdependent.
A political order must have the ability to shape the core ideas of political life. It must be able to do so not just for one political party’s most ardent supporters but for people located across the political spectrum. The New Deal order sold a large majority of Americans on the proposition that a strong central state could manage a dynamic but dangerous capitalist economy in the public interest. The neoliberal order persuaded a large majority of Americans that free markets would unleash capitalism from unnecessary state controls and spread prosperity and personal freedom throughout the ranks of Americans and then throughout the world. Neither of these propositions today commands the support or authority that they once possessed. Political disorder and dysfunction reign. What comes next is the most important question in the United States, and the world, now face.
Capitalism has already killed us all. https://www.ecowatch.com/planetary-boundaries-ocean-acidification-climate-science.html
Murdering the entire planet's megafauna for capital is, well, not leftist.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
246 comments