I’ve commented somewhere else that the most key quality of a lib is that they strive to dismantle the things that hinder liberties. Nowadays it’s clear that the biggest authority is capitalism, thus logically any right winger can’t be a lib. Fascists have appropriated the term tho and try to disguise as neoliberalism (creating lots of convenient confusion), which seems to be the main agenda in the US.
Also, speaking as mod I’m starting to feel that you’ve come here to defend liberalism, which violates community guidelines. Let’s let this be the end of this.
Sure, I have no personal stake or opinions in this. Just to clarify, I’m not defending anything, and as your other comment mentioned you being somewhere in the anarchist area, so am I, if that helps out.
I appreciate that clarification, and I don’t think you are trying to start a debate. Just be aware that we have users here who have experienced trauma via liberalism as I’m defining it – for example, my own family members being dehumanized, labeled “illegals,” and subsequently incarcerated and deported under self-proclaimed liberal leadership, while being told that it’s ok since 70% of people believe there is a “border crisis.”
I suspect you and I agree on a lot of things, but I hope those links help see what I’m talking about. Liberalism as I’ve seen it defined always seeks to regulate or fix the system from within, often through incremental change.
I’m not in America so I don’t know how bad the terms are stolen there, so it’s been usually clear that libs are pretty much anti-capitalism and can be usually agreed with (just too moderate methods). Then “classic liberals”, “neoliberals” and “libertarians” are the fascist fucks whose liberties only apply to their in-group and they’ve taken that name as a cover.
Fair enough. I’ve literally never met a liberal who didn’t somehow want to protect capitalist infrastructure, so this is also a new concept for me. If you have any texts about this, I’d love to read up on it. My perspective is bound to be US-centric because that’s where I live, unfortunately.
This could be totally anecdotal (I need to check if there’s literature); in Europe right-wingers vehemently hate libs and use the term as a slur at the mildest (from the moderates) for even suggesting capitalism has failed. And of course the radical reactionaries put libs on the same extermination list as minorities, communists, anarchists etc.
Oh conservatives do the same thing here, which creates the illusion for many people that the Democrats are leftist. They do the same thing in Canada. Ironically, our Democrats are always compromising with Republicans, so there’s ultimately little difference between the two parties.
I’ve commented somewhere else that the most key quality of a lib is that they strive to dismantle the things that hinder liberties. Nowadays it’s clear that the biggest authority is capitalism, thus logically any right winger can’t be a lib. Fascists have appropriated the term tho and try to disguise as neoliberalism (creating lots of convenient confusion), which seems to be the main agenda in the US.
I’m using the definitions here and here.
Also, speaking as mod I’m starting to feel that you’ve come here to defend liberalism, which violates community guidelines. Let’s let this be the end of this.
Sure, I have no personal stake or opinions in this. Just to clarify, I’m not defending anything, and as your other comment mentioned you being somewhere in the anarchist area, so am I, if that helps out.
I appreciate that clarification, and I don’t think you are trying to start a debate. Just be aware that we have users here who have experienced trauma via liberalism as I’m defining it – for example, my own family members being dehumanized, labeled “illegals,” and subsequently incarcerated and deported under self-proclaimed liberal leadership, while being told that it’s ok since 70% of people believe there is a “border crisis.”
I suspect you and I agree on a lot of things, but I hope those links help see what I’m talking about. Liberalism as I’ve seen it defined always seeks to regulate or fix the system from within, often through incremental change.
Cool, I see.
I’m not in America so I don’t know how bad the terms are stolen there, so it’s been usually clear that libs are pretty much anti-capitalism and can be usually agreed with (just too moderate methods). Then “classic liberals”, “neoliberals” and “libertarians” are the fascist fucks whose liberties only apply to their in-group and they’ve taken that name as a cover.
Fair enough. I’ve literally never met a liberal who didn’t somehow want to protect capitalist infrastructure, so this is also a new concept for me. If you have any texts about this, I’d love to read up on it. My perspective is bound to be US-centric because that’s where I live, unfortunately.
This could be totally anecdotal (I need to check if there’s literature); in Europe right-wingers vehemently hate libs and use the term as a slur at the mildest (from the moderates) for even suggesting capitalism has failed. And of course the radical reactionaries put libs on the same extermination list as minorities, communists, anarchists etc.
Oh conservatives do the same thing here, which creates the illusion for many people that the Democrats are leftist. They do the same thing in Canada. Ironically, our Democrats are always compromising with Republicans, so there’s ultimately little difference between the two parties.