Good cop, bad cop.
Bad cop, worse cop.
I’m just going to note conservatives are liberals, and we need to re-normalize the term to mean as such. American exceptionalism redefining the meanings of terms to confuse their populations is a dirty trick and constantly causes confusion. This coupled with the most lack of most rudimentary education, despite whatever level people have passed on paper, is the bane of communications, not just with educated people in the global south and Asia, but also even in Europe.
The same with social democracy and democratic socialism being conflated with actual socialism.
In australia our republican equivalent is called the liberal party. We know libs are shitty conservatives here as a result
Liberalism is the mask for fascism.
I’m just going to note conservatives are liberals, and we need to re-normalize the term to mean as such.
I would disagree with this under the definition of liberalism I have come to understand as being popular here, where liberals essentially want to make ethical progress but also want to uphold capitalism, resulting in far more of the latter than the former.
Conservatives love their hierarchies too much for that. I would argue that the only genuine tenet of conservatism is that society should be hierarchical. It’s a capitalist funded attempt to enshrine an aristocracy, and since that’s fundamentally unpalatable, they sell it as a whole hierarchy where you come in the middle, above those filthy Others, and the rich just so happen to have a slot above you.
American exceptionalism redefining the meanings of terms to confuse their populations is a dirty trick and constantly causes confusion.
I would argue that this is a conservative trait, not an American one; America just so happens to be deeper into conservatism than many other places. It’s an inherently dishonest philosophy because they know their only real goal is loathed by the public. (I know, liberalism isn’t innocent here, either, but bear with me) They propagandize and, relevant here, bastardize harmful language so it can be reappropriated in less harmful terms. This is why American conservatives call everything to the left of lynching minorities communism or socialism. It’s why they tried to claim that democrats were the REAL racists a couple years ago.
Liberalism is definitely subject to some of that. I would agree that it’s thoroughly corrupted by conservatism. I would argue it’s a little different, though. While conservative voters are ignorant to the intent to form an aristocracy, they’re all on board with enforcing hierarchy, especially to elevate themselves. Liberal voters, under the definition I expressed earlier, are generally pushing for more progressive goals but allow their endorsement of capitalism to hold them back.
i don’t think either group aims to form an aristocracy at all. there is already a class hierarchy, with capitalists on top. both left-liberals (“liberals”) and right-liberals (“conservatives”) seek to preserve this hierarchy. that’s what makes both of those groups liberal. they may disagree slightly on the best way to preserve these class relations, but they both, fundamentally, move in the same direction. the left-liberals may aim to put a more “human” face on the hierarchies they preserve, but they never aim to fundamentally change it. they share one goal. that’s why the left-liberals are always willing to “reach across the aisle” towards the right-liberals but never willing to “reach across the aisle” to the left.
Very well said. Thank you.
both left-liberals (“liberals”) and right-liberals (“conservatives”) seek to preserve this hierarchy.
I don’t think this is entirely true. It’s certainly true of the politicians, but I think not quite for left-liberal, as you put it, voters. I see left-liberal voters as trying to square the circle, to find a way to embrace capitalism but somehow diminish the hierarchy, whereas right-liberals are fine with the hierarchy and think the rich just deserve all their wealth and power. It is true, though, that left-liberals do not seek to entirely abolish the hierarchy, just reduce its capacity for harm, and I do concede that’s insufficient.
You are identifying “liberal” “left” “right” as a sliding scale spectrum instead of separate schools of thought entirely. Chicago-style economics is the school of thought that drives the ideals/“tenets” of neoliberalism. That encompasses liberal thought and conservative thought under neoliberal doctrine that seeks to maintain, tighten or create extractive relations from worker to their production and uphold an hegemonic empire that leads a financial global order extracting from the third world. This is what shapes our modern classes and is the analysis that we care about instead of looking at it from a chart or sliding scale spectrum. Left, right, center is useful when discussing tendencies of a given ideologue and fall short when it comes to ideologues subsumed under neoliberalism.
In short, there’s really no use in identifying left liberal vs right liberal when they both are just neolibs/“shitlibs” that seeks to enforce and cheerlead the status quo.
Agreed. Milton Friedman also advocated for social policy, such as negative revenue tax. So, having social policy focused on the poor, while seeking austerity policies, privatization and financialization of the economy can be considered “left” in many countries, when in fact this is just a neoliberal agenda through and through.
A lot of left voters neither see, nor want to see, nor believe proof, of what the USA does in the global South or Asia, to maintain whatever ever-diminishing treats, either.
to find a way to embrace capitalism but somehow diminish the hierarchy
yeah maybe. but capitalism is the hierarchy. both left-liberal and right-liberal voters actively lie to themselves about what their politics actually achieve. the big difference is how they lie to themselves. take ICE as an example. the right-liberal says ICE is protecting the US from dangerous criminals or whatever. the left-liberal says they used to be legitimate but now they’ve gone “too far” since they killed a couple white people. neither one is particularly interested in abolishing ICE or even reducing its funding. the right-liberal lies to themself that somehow ICE is getting rid of drugs or something. the left-liberal lies to themself that if we make the uniform code more strict then they can, in good conscience, get back to brunch and ICE can get back to getting rid of drugs or something. when president newsom is sworn in, the left-liberal will say that ICE is protecting the US from dangerous criminals but with due process or whatever. the right-liberal will say that ICE now has their hands tied and they can’t do their job. this is despite the fact that, to repeat myself, the most change we will ever get from either side is a minor uniform alteration.
Once again requesting the publication and quote about voters vacillating between Democrats and Republicans, please and thanks so much!
This is not what liberalism is. This is a defense of “American Exceptionalism.” Our schools have failed us, by design. If you actually care to learn, rather than deny, delay, defend, please stick around. Read, reflect, ask questions if you don’t understand.
This is a definition I saw on .ml or Hexbear, I forget which. I figured it’d be a decent enough approximation for this crowd, but you obviously disagree, which is fair.
Read, reflect, ask questions if you don’t understand.
This is why I opened by providing the definition I’m aware of, so that I could be corrected if I was building my idea on faulty ground, but you’ve also notably not given a definition beyond encouraging me to stick around where everyone wants to disparage liberals but almost nobody ever gets specific enough to say what they mean by it. I wander into and read the occasional .ml or Hexbear post, but there are certain topics the communities treat as too foundational to be worth actually outright addressing when curious outsiders wander in. I’m open to learning and being convinced, but every time I try to engage, whether by asking questions or expressing disagreement, 90% of what I encounter is more vitriolic than educational.
If you want a thorough understanding of liberalism, and its historical evolution, there’s nothing better than Losurdo’s - Liberalism, a counter history. You can find the audiobook on torrents also. Here are some other sources too on Marxist critiques liberalism (Marxism itself evolved as a criticism of liberalism in the 1800s).
On Liberalism
- Why do communists dislike liberals?, 2
- What about free speech?
- Why do leftists think that FDR co-opted the left to “save” capitalism?
- What’s wrong with democrats ( insert moderate party here ) ?
- Why not vote for the lesser of two evils (Lesser-evilism)?
- Can’t we change the democrats from within?
- What about “moderates” like Jimmy Carter? Can’t we push them to change?
- Can’t we use voting to solve our problems? Is violence really necessary? What about Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi? audiobook
Thank you, I appreciate someone taking the time to round up some good sources for me to go through. I’m a little tied up today, but I’m going to save your comment and try to read through stuff when I get the next chance.
No problem! I re-read over some of those links, and none of them come close to Losurdo’s book unfortunately. It goes into the history of liberalism and its founding 3 countries (Netherlands, GB, and USA), dissects the theories and politics of its founding authors and leaders, etc.
Reddit links were detected in your comment. Here are links to the same locations on alternative frontends that protect your privacy.
Link 1:
Link 2:
Link 3:
Link 4:
Link 5:
Link 6:
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
I want to add, remember liberal liberals signed onto he who shan’t be named’s “centrist” Promise to America, and that Democratic Socialism isn’t Democratic, nor socialism. It’s just lipstick on amoebae, enough welfare to keep enough people settling for subsistence, rather than bettering themselves.
And that’s by USian definition. Also remember media literacy takes time to unlearn the propaganda, especially with the memory hole (forgive me, fellow socialists and aspiring socialists), and re-learning how to recognize propaganda, and distinguishing true from false propaganda.
You’re going in with a defined liberal perspective, with a fundamentally different understanding of terms, and with cemented, very likely propagandized beliefs. It is inevitable that you will disagree.
Knowing those foundational topics is expected here. We are happy to educate, but do not expect any kindness if you repeat propagandized talking points.
Knowing those foundational topics is expected here. We are happy to educate, but do not expect any kindness if you repeat propagandized talking points.
with cemented,
I generally try not to engage on topics I’m unwilling to change my mind on as it’s unlikely to be useful for either of us. The one exception I tend to freely make is blatant disinformation.
very likely propagandized beliefs
Yes, this is a big part of why I bother to engage with these communities, to get a better understanding of which ones are likely heavily influenced.
Knowing those foundational topics is expected here. We are happy to educate, but do not expect any kindness if you repeat propagandized talking points.
Honestly, I disagree. Getting hard information on some topics is like pulling teeth. The vibe I get in these communities is that everyone wants the movement to be better understood, but nobody wants to do the work to help educate inquisitive minds that wander into their space. And I can’t entirely fault that, they don’t owe me anything, but it can get frustrating when I come in asking questions and get met with hostility for not already knowing.
The vibe I get in these communities is that everyone wants the movement to be better understood, but nobody wants to do the work to help educate inquisitive minds that wander into their space.
Yeah, because most people who wander into this space “just asking questions” are bad-faith assholes trying to troll.
It reminds me of vegan communities. There’s an assumption of bad-faith whenever a carnist shows up, because 9 times out of 10 they’re just there to have fun at the community’s expense. Unfortunately, sometimes, this means a well-meaning person gets hit by the same response.
There is no good solution. We can’t just be open and nice to everyone, too many people want to hurt us.
I get that, so I try not to hold it against them, but damn, they can be asses sometimes. It does, however, make it feel disingenuous when someone tries to tell me that the community is happy to educate. It just does not mesh with my experience at all.
I see a wounded ego, not vitriol. Even if there is vitriol, have you ever paused to consider why?
Look, you can go look up the fedopedia or Britannica definition for a closer approximation, but even those are riddled with lies that the most conservative liberal could spot, if they’re honest.
https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Liberalism
Finally, I’m answering between necessary chores. You can do a little work for yourself.
I see a wounded ego, not vitriol.
Yeah, I’m not shocked the .ml account felt the need to take a dig. Doesn’t change the fact that I’ve been accused of supporting heinous things merely for disagreeing on how to stop them. Doesn’t change that if you question certain stances, you will be called names. I faced SO many insults and accusations, for example, just trying to get quality sources on the “Ukrainian Nazis” accusation because anyone who needs more evidence that they influence the government than 3-4 pics, each with about 10 dudes in it total, not even around anyone or anything significant, is very clearly a Nazi themselves. God forbid you have a difference of opinion in elections, Gaza, or the intersection thereof, there will be no kindness.
And I could understand if I came in belligerently, but I try to be polite, I certainly avoid calling names or making accusations WAY more than .ml/Hexbear users, and even just asking direct, honest questions can be met with hostility very easily.
Even if there is vitriol, have you ever paused to consider why?
Yeah, and I came to the conclusion that the vast majority of it is undeserved. I can understand an element of people not wanting to take the time to explain to everyone who comes through, and I can understand if I was opposing them more directly than I am, but frankly, there’s no good justification for some of the hostility I’ve encountered. I’ve been called names repeatedly for just saying I’d like to know more about things.
https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Liberalism
Neat, didn’t know about this site. If it’s generally considered reputable by .ml/Hexbear users, I’ll check it out. Seems my definition was a bit… Reductive and liberal-centric, but it wasn’t wildly off base, and I don’t think this derails the point I was making, just shores up some weak word choices.
Finally, I’m answering between necessary chores. You can do a little work
Sure, but it’s a hell of a lot easier with a few good suggestions for starting points, which is half the reason I bother to engage with the harder leftist communities.
I like Malcom X’s way of describing conservatives as the snarling wolf and the liberals as the smiling fox.
Both are racist but the fox is deceptive to bring your guard down.
Conservatives want to openly kill minorities. Liberals want any minorities they can’t use to be murdered by conservatives.
Similarly MLK Jr’s thesis was that he is far more worried about the white moderate than the white conservative; at least a person of colour knows where they stand with the vulgarly racist conservative.
After reading about how past revolutionaries and those taking on the anti-imperialist struggle describe American Democrats/liberals, I’ve come to the conclusion that the Democrat Party is the primary antagonist that the revolutionary working class force must contend with. We already know Republicans love laying out their fascistic, racist, imperialist tendencies to bear for the chauvinists to revel in. But the Democrats, not only do they gorge themselves on the blood and labor of the international working class as much as their Republican counterparts, but they perform the critical task of ensuring that any dissent, discontent, and revolutionary potential against this vicious imperialist regime is smothered. They have carried out their counter-revolutionary role with so much success with all of their moralistic, populist rhetoric, but the substance of their actions has always aligned with and upheld bourgeois interests and ambitions.
Both are racist, but conservatives are open about it (targeting specifically dark-skinned minorities under the guise of fighting illegal immigration or DEI), while liberals are dishonest about it (propagating racist myths about China, for example).
As others have said or implied, the former is outright hostile, while the latter is paternalistic.
Some libs objectify their target as an extension of their self-gratification process. Despite the alleged secularism, liberals have very religious thinking, as all idealists do. They buy their way out of their complicity in imperialism/white supremacy/hegemonical capitalism (purgatory - the Christian equivalent) via consumption of social justice causes (indulgences), or the transformation of a non-black minority identity into social capital (Suffering = Beatification & Divine reward). Though Black American liberals do have a different relationship with what was mentioned above, due to their position in the base of the hierarchy, despite this - Black Excellence and Hustle Culture are still rooted in Calvinistic thought.
Lib racism can take two forms in my experience. Either they are paternalistic or they fetishize you. Conservatives also fetishize you but they also want you dead or deported.
Libs sugarcoat their racism.
Rhetoric.
There isn’t a serious material difference.
Paternalist and patronizing vs Rabid extermination or subjugation.
Two sides of the same coin, and two flavors of the same supremacist belief system.
Only saving grace is that those who aren’t to far gone on the lib side, and sometimes the conservative side, can see the error of their ways and pivot into being a minority ally through education.
Condescension and infantilization vs Hostility and exclusion, really that’s the main difference, either way you will never be treated with respect.
