Yep, and given my experience talking with other US citizens about universal healthcare, they’ll argue how it’s some how a bad thing. It’s just a reoccurring thing, people seem to be programmed to hate stuff that’d help them.
Do you trust a company that is required to provide profit to their shareholders by providing you the least possible amount of healthcare?
Health insurance in the US is very complicated. It’s a feature, not a bug. They don’t want you to use it.
Oh, but government death panels. Have you ever had to get a pre-authorization for care that would save your life? Or had a claim denied because that one person that was in the operating room while you were under anesthesia was out of network? Yeah, it’s actually corporate death panels.
There are three main types of “liberalism” that generally exist in Western democracies, and each of them is quite distinct.
Classical liberalism - emphasizes individual freedom, limited government intervention in the economy, and the protection of natural rights, such as life, liberty, and property.
Neoliberalism - emphasizes free markets, deregulation, privatization, and reduced government intervention in the economy.
Social Liberalism - combines the values of individual freedom with a belief in the role of government in addressing social and economic inequalities through healthcare, education, and welfare programs.
Typically these days, especially in the US, most people think of #3 when they hear the word “liberal” in a political sense, I’d say.
Americans seem to think that as long as you support LGBT+ issues, it’s leftist to have hospitals, roads, schools, and the rest of society run by corporations for profit.
Trying to read in good faith, maybe the user meant to refer to (right wing) Libertarianism or neoliberalism.
Back before “liberal” became the preferred slur the American right could say in public, they would often seek to brand their ideology as liberalism in order to draw legitimacy from the high standing of classic liberalism. Libertarianism has liberal roots, it just blows a single element (freedom from state intervention) completely out of proportions.
Academically, the father of Libertarianism (Robert Nozick) makes for a fun and interesting read, but he was torn to shreds by John Rawls (and, in my opinion and less famously, Michael Otsuka). If I remember correctly he ended up abandoning his own theory. Still it seems to have a particular appeal to Americans and their obsession about the self made man, property rights, and private wealth accumulation.
You know fascism is not the only alternative to liberalism. Liberalism is a center-right ideology in most of the developed world - even the American politicians fascists use as Boogeymen are mostly Social Democrats not liberals.
The liberal parties generally used to be the left wing back in the day, promoting basic human rights and universal suffrage against the capitalists on the right wing seeking to keep up the pace of exploitation.
When the socialists came along they placed themselves on the left of the liberalists, eventually rendering the old school liberal parties somewhere between the centre and the right. In America the two party system kept this from happening, which is why people complain that there’s no true left in the US.
However, the socialists are also split. Social democrats tend to hold Locke in one hand and Marx in the other, embracing both socialist and liberal values. This is often to the disgust of the ideologically pure Communists, as it’s hard to be a Lockean without accepting a degree of property rights that they find unbearable.
If you give up liberalism you generally slide very fast towards authoritarianism, be it on the left or on the right. It’s possible to imagine a non-liberal non-authoritarian society; it’s just very hard to imagine actually getting there.
Somewhere in the world there is a country with personalistic resource autocracy, where autocrat and his minions are strong pro-corporate, pro-censorship and against pensions, universal healthcare and net neutrality. Far right autocracy not only exists, but even started war.
If you are pro capitalism, you’re on the right, no matter what you call yourself or how much you try and cling to past definitions of words, it’s as simple as that.
Also fuck horseshoe theory and this idea that “extreme left” is authoritarian (when authoritarianism is incompatible with leftist thinking on every level. This means tankies aren’t on the left no matter how hard they protest) - one extreme wants you to be a literal slave to a capitalist dictator, the other wants you to have everything you need and be able to work towards a better society instead of for the benefit of like 10 people.
Try actually learning about liberalism and the harm it causes before you somehow go blaming (actual) socialists (seriously?? The people who have never even been allowed to come close to power???) for the state of politics:
You’re right, liberalism was left-wing a long time, ago. But this liberalism is gone, long time ago. You won’t find it anymore. That has no connection with socialism at all.
If you read Marx, which indead you didn’t, you would say different things. The socialists didn’t try to fight liberalists, they just tried to explain to them why their views are wrong in some parts. This split the whole movement, but not because the socialists were wrong. It split, because the liberalists were naive and believed their own bullshit.
Sorry, my english is very bad, but I also think it is very wrong to split communism and liberalism with the word authoritarianism. Communists want more freedom than liberalists can imagine. Their view is not focused on money and the system. And if they are stricter in their actions, than it’s only because they’ve learned that words are not enough. You have to fight people, who are against the true freedom of all people.
I’ll give you one point - Communists indeed don’t tend to aim for authoritarianism. Even Marxist-Leninists claim it’s just a necessary step along the way - the final society will be complete freedom.
I said as much in my comment - I just also pointed out the historical fact that efforts to implement a communist society without liberal ideals tends to slide towards authoritarianism real quick. China and the Soviet Union did not end up characterised by “more freedom than liberals can imagine”.
Brave of you to make assumptions what I’ve read and not.
Even Marxist-Leninists claim is just a necessary step along the way
false
efforts to implement a communist society without liberal ideals tends to slide towards authoritarianism real quick. China and the Soviet Union did not end up characterised by “more freedom than liberals can imagine”.
China is a capitalist hellhole, and the Soviet Union never achieved communism, and using it as an example of what communism is is like using North Kore as an example of what a People’s Republic is.
I second how glaringly obvious it is that you’ve not read much of anything to do with communism at all that’s outside of the realm of mainstream propaganda. You can protest all you like, but your views speak for themselves.
I am sure you didn’t read Marx and if you did, you did not enough.
It’s hard to implement socialism, if it never was tried. You have only one try and if this try fails you have huge problems, cause everything is suddenly gone and than you have slavery, hunger etc. back. And also, if you try to build socialism, suddenly a lot of people are against you. You have to struggle with more problems, than you imagined. And that’s important to understand. You are suddenly enemy with everyone. Look at the russian civil war - they had to fight against several countries, even the USA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War It’s just crazy. And if you have to fight against several countries than people tend to ignore this and instead they’re saying “See, it doesn’t work.”.
So, yeah, you’re right, communists tend to authoritarianism, but not because they want to. They tend to it, because they have to. There is no choice.
So, hypothetically if I had read Marx, what would I be saying differently? I’m curious to hear. :)
Regarding the “it has never been given a fair chance” argument, at least it’s better than trying to defend the state of affairs in countries that claimed to be implementing it. One could go as far as to say we almost agree - I said it’s “very hard to imagine actually getting there”, you said you “have only one try and if this try fails you have huge problems” and that you “have to struggle with more problems, than you imagined”.
I don’t know who Scott Adams is, but googled it. I am no racist.
It’s just funny, you say sth. against the stupid and inhuman liberalism in the USA and suddenly some idiot comes and says sth. stupid. That’s what I meant - it’s a mental illness.
And yes, the other people here are right. There is no left in the USA and it shows. It’s just right-wing or more right-wing.
Yep, and given my experience talking with other US citizens about universal healthcare, they’ll argue how it’s some how a bad thing. It’s just a reoccurring thing, people seem to be programmed to hate stuff that’d help them.
Fox News is a helluva propaganda tool
It’s been making our citizens dumber since 1996
Tbf, universal healthcare sucks when it’s done poorly. Does anybody really trust the US government with our healthcare?
More than I trust Aetna.
Do you trust a company that is required to provide profit to their shareholders by providing you the least possible amount of healthcare?
Health insurance in the US is very complicated. It’s a feature, not a bug. They don’t want you to use it.
Oh, but government death panels. Have you ever had to get a pre-authorization for care that would save your life? Or had a claim denied because that one person that was in the operating room while you were under anesthesia was out of network? Yeah, it’s actually corporate death panels.
Removed by mod
What? Are you Scott Adams?
The right are the ones against things that would help us.
I mean, there is no left in America. It’s far right or center at best.
Removed by mod
We’re all neo-liberal on this blessed day!
I wish😔
Where’s the difference between neo-liberalism and liberalism? For me there is none. It’s the same, only the historical context is different.
There are three main types of “liberalism” that generally exist in Western democracies, and each of them is quite distinct.
Classical liberalism - emphasizes individual freedom, limited government intervention in the economy, and the protection of natural rights, such as life, liberty, and property.
Neoliberalism - emphasizes free markets, deregulation, privatization, and reduced government intervention in the economy.
Social Liberalism - combines the values of individual freedom with a belief in the role of government in addressing social and economic inequalities through healthcare, education, and welfare programs.
Typically these days, especially in the US, most people think of #3 when they hear the word “liberal” in a political sense, I’d say.
#2 is basically corporate dictatorship
I’m ok with this. Thx.
Americans seem to think that as long as you support LGBT+ issues, it’s leftist to have hospitals, roads, schools, and the rest of society run by corporations for profit.
For fucks sake.
This is why; you.
You and the other clones.
Serving the Republic(ians)
No, you (literally)
https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/10/14/liberalism-and-fascism-partners-in-crime/
https://blacklikemao.medium.com/how-liberalism-helps-fascism-d4dbdcb199d9
https://truthout.org/articles/fascism-is-possible-not-in-spite-of-liberal-capitalism-but-because-of-it/
https://nyanarchist.wordpress.com/2019/01/23/scratch-a-liberal-a-fascist-bleeds-how-the-so-called-middle-class-has-enabled-oppression-for-centuries/
Trying to read in good faith, maybe the user meant to refer to (right wing) Libertarianism or neoliberalism.
Back before “liberal” became the preferred slur the American right could say in public, they would often seek to brand their ideology as liberalism in order to draw legitimacy from the high standing of classic liberalism. Libertarianism has liberal roots, it just blows a single element (freedom from state intervention) completely out of proportions.
Academically, the father of Libertarianism (Robert Nozick) makes for a fun and interesting read, but he was torn to shreds by John Rawls (and, in my opinion and less famously, Michael Otsuka). If I remember correctly he ended up abandoning his own theory. Still it seems to have a particular appeal to Americans and their obsession about the self made man, property rights, and private wealth accumulation.
Liberal means just freedom. BS about freedom only from state intervention was invented by capitalism.
Still oddly doing the lifting for the republicans.
They don’t care for nuance.
They’ll use your hatred for your liberals to hate americas left.
Sucks that EU has the tankie problem, but with all due respect, quit your bitching. I wish that was the form of fascism I had to worry myself with.
The America right is murdering the American left.
We are not the same.
Solidarity forever, am I right?
You know fascism is not the only alternative to liberalism. Liberalism is a center-right ideology in most of the developed world - even the American politicians fascists use as Boogeymen are mostly Social Democrats not liberals.
The liberal parties generally used to be the left wing back in the day, promoting basic human rights and universal suffrage against the capitalists on the right wing seeking to keep up the pace of exploitation.
When the socialists came along they placed themselves on the left of the liberalists, eventually rendering the old school liberal parties somewhere between the centre and the right. In America the two party system kept this from happening, which is why people complain that there’s no true left in the US.
However, the socialists are also split. Social democrats tend to hold Locke in one hand and Marx in the other, embracing both socialist and liberal values. This is often to the disgust of the ideologically pure Communists, as it’s hard to be a Lockean without accepting a degree of property rights that they find unbearable.
If you give up liberalism you generally slide very fast towards authoritarianism, be it on the left or on the right. It’s possible to imagine a non-liberal non-authoritarian society; it’s just very hard to imagine actually getting there.
Somewhere in the world there is a country with personalistic resource autocracy, where autocrat and his minions are strong pro-corporate, pro-censorship and against pensions, universal healthcare and net neutrality. Far right autocracy not only exists, but even started war.
If you are pro capitalism, you’re on the right, no matter what you call yourself or how much you try and cling to past definitions of words, it’s as simple as that.
Also fuck horseshoe theory and this idea that “extreme left” is authoritarian (when authoritarianism is incompatible with leftist thinking on every level. This means tankies aren’t on the left no matter how hard they protest) - one extreme wants you to be a literal slave to a capitalist dictator, the other wants you to have everything you need and be able to work towards a better society instead of for the benefit of like 10 people.
Try actually learning about liberalism and the harm it causes before you somehow go blaming (actual) socialists (seriously?? The people who have never even been allowed to come close to power???) for the state of politics:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/10/14/liberalism-and-fascism-partners-in-crime/
https://blacklikemao.medium.com/how-liberalism-helps-fascism-d4dbdcb199d9
https://truthout.org/articles/fascism-is-possible-not-in-spite-of-liberal-capitalism-but-because-of-it/
https://nyanarchist.wordpress.com/2019/01/23/scratch-a-liberal-a-fascist-bleeds-how-the-so-called-middle-class-has-enabled-oppression-for-centuries/
I never said I’m pro capitalism. :)
You’re right, liberalism was left-wing a long time, ago. But this liberalism is gone, long time ago. You won’t find it anymore. That has no connection with socialism at all.
If you read Marx, which indead you didn’t, you would say different things. The socialists didn’t try to fight liberalists, they just tried to explain to them why their views are wrong in some parts. This split the whole movement, but not because the socialists were wrong. It split, because the liberalists were naive and believed their own bullshit.
Sorry, my english is very bad, but I also think it is very wrong to split communism and liberalism with the word authoritarianism. Communists want more freedom than liberalists can imagine. Their view is not focused on money and the system. And if they are stricter in their actions, than it’s only because they’ve learned that words are not enough. You have to fight people, who are against the true freedom of all people.
I’ll give you one point - Communists indeed don’t tend to aim for authoritarianism. Even Marxist-Leninists claim it’s just a necessary step along the way - the final society will be complete freedom.
I said as much in my comment - I just also pointed out the historical fact that efforts to implement a communist society without liberal ideals tends to slide towards authoritarianism real quick. China and the Soviet Union did not end up characterised by “more freedom than liberals can imagine”.
Brave of you to make assumptions what I’ve read and not.
false
China is a capitalist hellhole, and the Soviet Union never achieved communism, and using it as an example of what communism is is like using North Kore as an example of what a People’s Republic is.
I second how glaringly obvious it is that you’ve not read much of anything to do with communism at all that’s outside of the realm of mainstream propaganda. You can protest all you like, but your views speak for themselves.
China is pretty much “capitalism with beast grin”
There’s South Korea and Taiwan.
I am sure you didn’t read Marx and if you did, you did not enough.
It’s hard to implement socialism, if it never was tried. You have only one try and if this try fails you have huge problems, cause everything is suddenly gone and than you have slavery, hunger etc. back. And also, if you try to build socialism, suddenly a lot of people are against you. You have to struggle with more problems, than you imagined. And that’s important to understand. You are suddenly enemy with everyone. Look at the russian civil war - they had to fight against several countries, even the USA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War It’s just crazy. And if you have to fight against several countries than people tend to ignore this and instead they’re saying “See, it doesn’t work.”.
So, yeah, you’re right, communists tend to authoritarianism, but not because they want to. They tend to it, because they have to. There is no choice.
So, hypothetically if I had read Marx, what would I be saying differently? I’m curious to hear. :)
Regarding the “it has never been given a fair chance” argument, at least it’s better than trying to defend the state of affairs in countries that claimed to be implementing it. One could go as far as to say we almost agree - I said it’s “very hard to imagine actually getting there”, you said you “have only one try and if this try fails you have huge problems” and that you “have to struggle with more problems, than you imagined”.
I don’t know who Scott Adams is, but googled it. I am no racist.
It’s just funny, you say sth. against the stupid and inhuman liberalism in the USA and suddenly some idiot comes and says sth. stupid. That’s what I meant - it’s a mental illness.
And yes, the other people here are right. There is no left in the USA and it shows. It’s just right-wing or more right-wing.
Fuck liberals, but maybe you can get the point across without the ableism?
People choose to be liberal, those of us who are mentally ill didn’t.