Permanently Deleted

Permanently Deleted

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

581 comments

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?
  
  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.
  
  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?
  
  Democrats arguing for limited or unlimited socialism
  citation needed
  
  limited or unlimited socialism
  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.
  
  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
  
  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
  
  Socialism isn't having shit like social security.
  
  Socialism was developed as an intellectual tradition in opposition to liberalism. I didn't define it
  The people who invented liberalism defined it. Take that up with Rousseau and Locke, et al.
  
  But definitions change over time as people use the words differently. Except French where the government gets to decide what words mean.
  
  Words have meaning. Your political illiteracy is not my fault
  
  Also that's not an insult.
  
  Sure thing
  
  Thanks
  
  Words meaning is what we all decide they are. Not always the original.
  
  Just because you're illiterate doesn't mean the squiggles I'm making don't have meaning
  
  But if enough people agree on what the squiggles mean, now they have meaning.
  
  People already agree on what the squiggles mean. They aren't squiggles to us because we can read - you are saying that they mean something different because you're illerate. Your opinion means nothing because you don't know what you're talking about
  
  You literally know nothing, and are such a smug bastard about it. Read a fucking book.
  
  It's literally the definition of liberalism outside of the US, lol.
  The right wing party in Australia is called the Liberal Party. The center left is Labor, the left wing is the Socialist party.
  In many European countries, Liberals (or Liberal Democrats) are right wing.
  Liberals are only equated to the left in the US, which is yet another reason that USA BAD.

581 comments