The liberal establishment’s war on the New York City mayoral candidate reflects panic over a growing left challenge to Zionist orthodoxy and the mainstreaming of Palestine solidarity
The liberal establishment’s war on the New York City mayoral candidate reflects panic over a growing left challenge to Zionist orthodoxy and the mainstreaming of Palestine solidarity
Actually it’s capital. But it’s true that Liberalism is the wiggly fun-house slide to capitalism and fascism no doubt.
Liberalism is capitalism. They are intrinsically and indivisiblely linked. The liberal revolutions were capitalist revolutions.
He said capital, not capitalism. Aka, those with money.
Liberalism is defined by advocates of guaranteed human rights and freedoms so long as those freedoms don’t infringe upon others’.
So, no, actually. None of the stuff you said.
And then liberals turn around and sell weapons they know will be used for genocide.
Not to mention the whole, you know, slavery thing.
The only rights liberalism cares about are private property rights.
Oh, you must be the new owner of Webster and Oxford dictionaries.
Check it out, guys! Its the dude who decides the meaning of words. Round of applause.
Sucks for them that they’re PhDs and they still confuse words like Liberalism and Laissez Faire.
The dictionary definition has not changed, this is like calling China communist or the USSR socialist republic, or calling the US Republican Party… well, Republicans.
It’s just propoganda made to appear in a slightly better light when in truth opposing liberalism is just opposing human rights.
So either multiple people with PhDs that have written extensively on the subject are correct and you didn’t comprehend their point, or you, who failed to comprehend even the wiki page on Liberalism, know more.
It’s pretty obvious which is the case when you read through the article, even more so when you read when laissez faire is mentioned multiple times.
I have you tagged as a Zionist from previous conversations, you got no say on the concept of human rights when you’ve repeatedly defended that type of fascism in the past.
“The dictionary definition has not changed, this is like calling China communist or the USSR socialist republic, or calling the US Republican Party… well, Republicans.”
Yeah, I mean you’re here stomping your feet over semantics by leaning on a dictionary definition rather than acknowledging that all your criticisms of other political systems absolutely applies to your defense of Liberalism. In so far as we’re existing only in theory, the things you said about Liberalism are true (according to the source that you didn’t cite), but in the actual world and as applied through history, Liberalism simply isn’t what that definition claims anymore, or Liberals aren’t Liberals despite their claims. Both can be true.
P.S. you’re bad at this defense thing.
This is really more neo-liberalism. Classical liberalism is pretty much just “capitalism > kings”.
I mean, I definitely wouldn’t ally myself with Kings, which is unfortunately a nonironic stance of modern conservative parties like the CCP and GOP.