Okedoke, well I just learned that I have no concrete grasp of political labels and need to do a LOT of research.
Extreme simplification:
Liberalism: supports capitalism. Current system + tweaks
Leftism: supports anticapitalism of some form, the two biggest umbrellas being Marxism/Communism and Anarchism
Marxism/Communism: supports collectivization, public ownership, and central planning (I have an introductory reading list if you want to learn more, or just read Principles of Communism)
Anarchism: supports full horizontalism and networks of communes
I gave up on this conversation years ago.
Fine, for the sake of argument, I’m a liberal, because I don’t want to give you 45 extra minutes of my time in this comment section to try and explain the difference when I know you’ll ignore most of what I say anyhow, and derail us from the point I was actually trying to make. If I’m a liberal in your mind, so be it. My point stands.
We're the People's Front of Judea, not the FUCKING Judean People's Front!
Unpopular opinion:
Alienating liberals doesn't create more leftists, it only causes people to be dismissive of the term and dig in their heels.
Insulting them rather than educating them does nothing but divide anyone left of center and after the last election I think it's abundantly clear that we need to be unified rather than divided.
No one is going to argue that left leaning candidates aren't far from perfect, but they're a hell of a lot better than the far-right fascists were about to have in power in less than 2 weeks.
Yes, I agree modern liberals are too centrist and ineffective but at the end of the day they're light-years ahead of the far right, and I'd rather be agitated about having another centrist administration than alarmed and outraged at the onset of fascism.I don't think they really are "light years ahead of the right". Most of the difference as far as I can tell is in how they talk-- not what they do. Liberals fundamentally just believe in the status quo. MLK Jr saw it the same way when he described " the white moderate" as the greatest obstacle to change.
I'm definitely willing to engage liberals (and even conservatives) in honest conversation when I feel the context warrants the effort. Lemmy rarely seems to qualify.
last election I think it’s abundantly clear that we need to be unified rather than divided.
Who's "we"? Liberals are not on the left and are ideological enemies of the left: you can't be unified with people who fundamentally oppose you.
Also, which election? Oh right, you're one of the those American liberals who think foreigners are fictional characters. That explains why you think leftists would want to ally with the people committing genocide against these "fictional characters"
thats not an unpopular opinion though? maybe on the west? revolutions happen by convincing your fellow brothers, not by force or manipulation.
this is the hard part imo, we all have to go against the media machine.
Apparently to some that's the goal. I had a chat with a leftist a while back while the US election was in full swing and she was absolutely against the concept of voting for a lesser evil, since the worse things get, the more people will turn to leftist extremism, which is a win in her book. Suffice it to say, that talk made me anything but sympathetic of her view...
And that is an accelerationist. Anyone champing at the bit for a violent revolution is deeply naive or deranged. We need to put the brakes on at all levels and speeding up extremism will only get innocents killed. The status quo sucks but anyone who has lived in a war torn nation can tell you a chained rabid dog is better than a loose one.
Gestures at the current state of affairs
I don't think patience is working guys.
But stabbing your neighbor isn't exactly something most people are willing to do.
And any sort of attempt at organization leads to Alphabet Squad raids and whatever bullshit charges they feel like throwing at you after deciding you're guilty of being a dirty commie/socialist/librul/not them.
And any sort of attempt at organization leads to Alphabet Squad raids and whatever bullshit charges they feel like throwing at you after deciding you’re guilty of being a dirty commie/socialist/librul/not them.
This is simply false, at least in the western countries I'm familiar with. Most organizations will get monitoring at worst unless they're an imminent threat, plotting clearly illegal acts or in an unusually strict region.
Now, one could argue that effective organization will inevitably imply illegal acts or become an imminent threat, and that's reasonable but that's very different to claiming "any sort of attempt at organization leads to Alphabet Squad raids", an unnecessarily and baselessly dissuasive claim.
If you want some violence, i'm sure you wouldn't shy calling yourself commie and rallying under that red flag.
I also would recommend preparing digital violence, less bloodshed but very effective. Although hacking is not for everyone either.
Less stabby, more education
If you’re patient enough, it always works out 💪
What is the difference? I'm not sure what I am any more.
I’m not sure what I am any more.
Political labels are pretty junk, especially after centuries of mass media and propaganda in the mix. I find it helps to learn to convey your values specifically if you want to avoid that whole mess.
- The 'left-right spectrum' is subjective and relative which makes it pretty useless without having a ton of context. "Leftist", by itself, is mostly a meaningless term. To socialists, a progressive liberal is usually considered center or even right wing. Some socialists even call other socialists right-wing. It's just pointless.
- What the US mass media calls 'liberals' is a progressive liberal in political science. What the US mass media calls a conservative is usually a conservative liberal aka right-liberal, that's why they constantly prize liberty and freedom. The US libertarian is simply a classical liberal. They're all liberals!
Useful video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nPVkpWMH9k - "Why the political compass is wrong", explaining how vague and ultimately ineffective the left-right auth-lib models of politics are.
If you're looking for a label, I recommend not. Soon after you pick one, the definition for that label will change and no longer fit your ideology. This change might be due to your own understanding improving, or due to societal shifts, or both.
Write out your ideology in long form. People tend to support good ideas when not attached to politically charged labels.
Liberalism is the ideological aspect of Capitalism, Leftists support some form of Socialism.
It also makes sens, if you're not knowledgeable on politics, your reasoning might rather resemble a philosophical one.
And philosophically speaking the basis of liberalism could means both left or right wing values depending on the philosopher.
For exemple Kant's philosophy was based on rational individuals to wich giving positive rights would permit to govern themselves. It also means laws would be universal wich would create equality. You can see how this could be compatible with some anarchist ideas or more generally with democracy.
In communism you would also have those positive rights. But you would also justify interventions to protect those rights, against lack of resources for instance (although that's outside of Kant's scope).
In the contrary, Lock's ideas is negative rights to protect people from the government and each other. Guaranteeing things like property. And ultimately wanting freedom. Thus giving the right wing liberalism it mainly refers to today.
Furthermore it's the basis of capitalism. Which, if i'm being honest, is mostly what's implied by liberalism when it comes to the economy, although i would argue against. With how defective capitalism is you could argue protectionism should be wanted by liberals to prevent all thoses monopolies we see everywhere. In this instance we could see a part of liberalism that tend more towards a leftist idea.
