Liberalism is as dead as Latin. Suppose I could speak Latin fluently and knew a few people who also could - it doesn’t make it any more alive.
Liberalism amounts to vaguely supporting good things while watching democracy and consent-based governance die - and doing absolutely nothing meaningful to change the trajectory. Self-identified liberals blaming/shaming/mocking individuals to the left of them (who are closer ideologically to them than they realize) is what is dividing the left and is an extremely common behavior in online discourse.
is what is dividing the left and is an extremely common behavior in online discourse
This entire thing started with a post about leftists mocking liberals, though. Like, no, how are you agreeing with the vast majority of liberal principals and then claiming the ideology is dead – Are you just talking about the use of the term “liberal” to describe groups adhering to sets of principals, because that’s what I think you’re saying and I’m still very confused as to how you’ve conflated the label of a group with the abstract set of concepts that underpin the values of said groups.
This is like claiming communism is dead because the soviets were a failure. Sure, a case could be made about the only major experiments with it being disasters, but it’d still be ridiculous to assert that because of it there’s no value to be found in superficially similar movements (like, for example, socialism / most leftist movements).
This entire thing started with a post about leftists mocking liberals, though.
No, it started with an image of a social media post where leftists identify the supposed contrast between the two ideologies. With liberals advocating for those that work 40 hours a week to not live in poverty, and leftists advocating for everyone to be given the ingredients to live a dignified life.
Liberals can support the latter and directly create that change with leftists. It isn’t in conflict with liberalism. The fact that modern-day liberals see that as being in conflict with their ideology and then disowning anyone more radical or socialist than them is the cause of the rift and shows that liberalism is not quite what it’s supposed to be in practice.
With liberals advocating for those that work 40 hours a week to not live in poverty, and leftists advocating for everyone to be given the ingredients to live a dignified life.
Why are you trying to reframe this? It presents the liberal argument as being “No one working 40 hours a week should live in poverty” and the leftist ideology as “No one should live in poverty at all”. The two are in no way inherently in conflict, and even the title “leftism is bestism” isn’t in this case particularly wrong since the goal of pretty much every liberal movement is at very least broad social protections (a concept so non-controversial that even the democrats give it legislative support).
But why then is liberalism dead? Why is a leftist striking out against a liberal for not supporting their position somehow acceptable in the face of an entire comment section of liberals advocating incremental progress and the 40-hour-week-no-poverty idea as a step in a progressive change? Why are you behaving like there’s people advocating it to stop at 40-hour-week-no-poverty, when nobody is doing that?
It’s a very loose and unintentional reframing… I apologize for not being on a proper keyboard to type it out exactly. We both can see what the image said.
But why then is liberalism dead?
It’s dead in the same way as libertarianism is. Libertarianism, originally coined to describe communists/socialists and used by anarchists, was co-opted by capitalists and its meaning adjusted (completely flipped) to serve their interests.
Liberalism wasn’t redefined in quite the same way, it just became a useless label that serves capitalist interests. The uncorrupted liberal position would be to work towards equality for all now, not just for those that work 40 hours a week.
Why are you behaving like there’s people advocating it stop at 40-hour-week-no-poverty, when nobody is doing that?
I’m pretty sure most modern-day liberals don’t believe that poverty will be eliminated in their lifetimes despite the means being present to do so already. This is why leftists see liberals as gatekeeping progress. Liberals supporting status quo politicians who compromise with fascists isn’t helping either.
It’s dead in the same way as libertarianism is. Libertarianism, originally coined to describe communists/socialists and used by anarchists, was co-opted by capitalists and its meaning adjusted (completely flipped) to serve their interests.
OKAY, thank you. The issue here is indeed that, while you interpret “Liberal”/“Liberalism” to be specifically speaking towards the major liberal political parties (like the Dems), that’s not the common usage (neither is your interpretation of ‘libertarianism’ being dead - look at the popularity of PCM and the traditional use of ‘libertarianism’ there as an example of how the term has retained it’s original meaning across broad society)
I don’t disagree that the democrats are deeply lacking in progressive… everything… but to come and present your interpretation that “liberals” are all part of a dead ideology because you’ve let conservatives co-opt the term as a negative group pronoun and that this is justification to decry how all ‘liberals’ are gatekeeping progress is ridiculous. You’re as much a liberal as I am, not as part of the “liberals in gubment” but as part of a liberal social movement, and a person that agrees with liberal ideas. Good grief, we’re on the same side. The only reason you think there’s an ideological divide between us is that you keep asserting that there is one.
The uncorrupted liberal position would be to work towards equality for all now
(Side note, but do you realize you’re lowkey advocating against improving society here? Why even try for a small improvement, that’s corrupted thinking, if you can’t do everything there’s no point in doing anything!)
The issue here is indeed that, while you interpret “Liberal”/“Liberalism” to be specifically speaking towards the major liberal political parties (like the Dems), that’s not the common usage
No, I’m pretty sure I understand the key tenets and principles of undiluted liberalism. I do not see the Democrats as being liberal (not even close) and I feel that most people who presently roleplay as being a liberal do not understand the ideology or philosophy surrounding liberalism.
The situation with the liberal label is akin to most Christians apparently not knowing what Matthew 25 says - or for that matter effectively not really knowing anything that Jesus said, taught, or stood for in the New Testament. It’s due to propaganda that Jesus’ teachings are diluted and manipulated to fuel certain agendas - the same goes for liberalism.
side note, but do you realize you’re advocating against improving society here? Why even try for a small improvement, that’s corrupted thinking, if you can’t do everything there’s no point in doing anything!
False, not my argument. I don’t see anyone truly fighting for anything to meaningfully improve society - who is in power or hopeful to be in power (besides fringe DSA members).
We can advocate for what is within our means - poverty could end tomorrow if we flipped a switch. It isn’t a pipe dream. It could also end for third-world countries in a relatively short amount of time if we supported them in their sovereignty instead of exploiting them in every way possible to sustain first-world society e.g. by providing them reparations for lording over their land and natural resources or reparations for us benefiting from slavery (including child slavery) past and present.
but to come and present your interpretation that “liberals” are all part of a dead ideology because you’ve let conservatives co-opt the term as a negative group pronoun and that this is justification to decry how all ‘liberals’ are gatekeeping progress is ridiculous.
Again, misunderstanding my arguments and positions. In regards to addressing poverty, if the only thing liberals think is currently reasonable or realistic to advocate for is to provide only those that work 40 hours a week with a decent standard of living, that is gatekeeping progress.
We can advocate for more than that right now. Advocating for more is not in conflict with core liberal principles, it’s in conflict with a broken democracy that nobody is interested in saving because it would require facing the massive moneyed influences controlling politics in addition to the big bad Republicans and not compromising on literally everything to the point that absolutely nothing gets done (besides regressive policy that strongly overshadows or reverses progressive policy).
You’re acknowledging there’s a distinction right there, though. You’re openly having to distinguish between the term as a concept and the term as you’re using it, a description for a specific group. That’s my point, that you’re using it to describe a specific group instead of as a label applied to social concepts. You literally are doing this in the sentence explaining how you’re not doing this. Like. I don’t know what I could possibly say that would be a better example than this right here. This is all I have been saying about this point.
If the only thing liberals think is currently reasonable or realistic is to provide only those that work 40 hours a week with a decent standard of living, that is gatekeeping progress.
Sure, but my overall point is that they’re not doing that, you’re claiming that they are. The ‘liberal’ position being expressed in this thread, and the one I’ve seen expressed everywhere else, is that we should get to where nobody should live in poverty. But, because the big “turn off poverty” switch doesn’t actually exist, and because (to extend the metaphor) there’s an entire army of chuds standing under that switch making damn sure we don’t flip it, we should take what we can get now to reduce the suffering in the world by just a little while we continue to fight for the big goals.
It’s the classic “win the battle first, then you can win the war” concept but extended to political movements.
Again, misunderstanding my arguments and positions.
Paraphrasing them to highlight how they could be easily extrapolated, there’s no misunderstanding here.
Again, I do understand the nuances of the term liberal as a personal identity/label/grouping and as a descriptor for the ideology or e.g. socially liberal policies.
You’re right to say that we’re not enemies and that we ideologically and generally want the same things in the end.
we should take what we can get now to reduce the suffering in the world by just a little while we continue to fight for the big goals.
I disagree. We should identify the problem and propose the solution. Democracy is broken and we need to fix it with democracy. All mainstream news is entertainment/propaganda and is doing our society disservice by polarizing us against each other - so we create and incentivize fair media (that delineates fact from opinion and provides relevant context) that highlights all viewpoints equally. Poverty isn’t desirable for society and we already have the means to raise everybody up from poverty… and so forth.
You’re arguing that you’re actually being strategic to advocate for a lesser policy that doesn’t even approach a solution, but the reality is that it’s weakening your ideal in practice and our position at the negotiating table because Republicans (and the people who use them for their gain) won’t stand for even that lever being pulled.
I want to see Republicans squirm while they advocate for people being homeless, destitute, and without health care. Truly. It would be enlightening for many. People largely do not take joy in seeing others suffer - they are being conditioned to accept or ignore their suffering because they are also suffering and don’t want to lose what they worked hard to achieve.
Liberalism is as dead as Latin. Suppose I could speak Latin fluently and knew a few people who also could - it doesn’t make it any more alive.
Liberalism amounts to vaguely supporting good things while watching democracy and consent-based governance die - and doing absolutely nothing meaningful to change the trajectory. Self-identified liberals blaming/shaming/mocking individuals to the left of them (who are closer ideologically to them than they realize) is what is dividing the left and is an extremely common behavior in online discourse.
This entire thing started with a post about leftists mocking liberals, though. Like, no, how are you agreeing with the vast majority of liberal principals and then claiming the ideology is dead – Are you just talking about the use of the term “liberal” to describe groups adhering to sets of principals, because that’s what I think you’re saying and I’m still very confused as to how you’ve conflated the label of a group with the abstract set of concepts that underpin the values of said groups.
This is like claiming communism is dead because the soviets were a failure. Sure, a case could be made about the only major experiments with it being disasters, but it’d still be ridiculous to assert that because of it there’s no value to be found in superficially similar movements (like, for example, socialism / most leftist movements).
No, it started with an image of a social media post where leftists identify the supposed contrast between the two ideologies. With liberals advocating for those that work 40 hours a week to not live in poverty, and leftists advocating for everyone to be given the ingredients to live a dignified life.
Liberals can support the latter and directly create that change with leftists. It isn’t in conflict with liberalism. The fact that modern-day liberals see that as being in conflict with their ideology and then disowning anyone more radical or socialist than them is the cause of the rift and shows that liberalism is not quite what it’s supposed to be in practice.
Why are you trying to reframe this? It presents the
liberalargument as being “No one working 40 hours a week should live in poverty” and theleftistideology as “No one should live in poverty at all”. The two are in no way inherently in conflict, and even the title “leftism is bestism” isn’t in this case particularly wrong since the goal of pretty much every liberal movement is at very least broad social protections (a concept so non-controversial that even the democrats give it legislative support).But why then is liberalism dead? Why is a leftist striking out against a liberal for not supporting their position somehow acceptable in the face of an entire comment section of liberals advocating incremental progress and the 40-hour-week-no-poverty idea as a step in a progressive change? Why are you behaving like there’s people advocating it to stop at 40-hour-week-no-poverty, when nobody is doing that?
It’s a very loose and unintentional reframing… I apologize for not being on a proper keyboard to type it out exactly. We both can see what the image said.
It’s dead in the same way as libertarianism is. Libertarianism, originally coined to describe communists/socialists and used by anarchists, was co-opted by capitalists and its meaning adjusted (completely flipped) to serve their interests.
Liberalism wasn’t redefined in quite the same way, it just became a useless label that serves capitalist interests. The uncorrupted liberal position would be to work towards equality for all now, not just for those that work 40 hours a week.
I’m pretty sure most modern-day liberals don’t believe that poverty will be eliminated in their lifetimes despite the means being present to do so already. This is why leftists see liberals as gatekeeping progress. Liberals supporting status quo politicians who compromise with fascists isn’t helping either.
OKAY, thank you. The issue here is indeed that, while you interpret “Liberal”/“Liberalism” to be specifically speaking towards the major liberal political parties (like the Dems), that’s not the common usage (neither is your interpretation of ‘libertarianism’ being dead - look at the popularity of PCM and the traditional use of ‘libertarianism’ there as an example of how the term has retained it’s original meaning across broad society)
I don’t disagree that the democrats are deeply lacking in progressive… everything… but to come and present your interpretation that “liberals” are all part of a dead ideology because you’ve let conservatives co-opt the term as a negative group pronoun and that this is justification to decry how all ‘liberals’ are gatekeeping progress is ridiculous. You’re as much a liberal as I am, not as part of the “liberals in gubment” but as part of a liberal social movement, and a person that agrees with liberal ideas. Good grief, we’re on the same side. The only reason you think there’s an ideological divide between us is that you keep asserting that there is one.
(Side note, but do you realize you’re lowkey advocating against improving society here? Why even try for a small improvement, that’s corrupted thinking, if you can’t do everything there’s no point in doing anything!)
No, I’m pretty sure I understand the key tenets and principles of undiluted liberalism. I do not see the Democrats as being liberal (not even close) and I feel that most people who presently roleplay as being a liberal do not understand the ideology or philosophy surrounding liberalism.
The situation with the liberal label is akin to most Christians apparently not knowing what Matthew 25 says - or for that matter effectively not really knowing anything that Jesus said, taught, or stood for in the New Testament. It’s due to propaganda that Jesus’ teachings are diluted and manipulated to fuel certain agendas - the same goes for liberalism.
False, not my argument. I don’t see anyone truly fighting for anything to meaningfully improve society - who is in power or hopeful to be in power (besides fringe DSA members).
We can advocate for what is within our means - poverty could end tomorrow if we flipped a switch. It isn’t a pipe dream. It could also end for third-world countries in a relatively short amount of time if we supported them in their sovereignty instead of exploiting them in every way possible to sustain first-world society e.g. by providing them reparations for lording over their land and natural resources or reparations for us benefiting from slavery (including child slavery) past and present.
Again, misunderstanding my arguments and positions. In regards to addressing poverty, if the only thing liberals think is currently reasonable or realistic to advocate for is to provide only those that work 40 hours a week with a decent standard of living, that is gatekeeping progress.
We can advocate for more than that right now. Advocating for more is not in conflict with core liberal principles, it’s in conflict with a broken democracy that nobody is interested in saving because it would require facing the massive moneyed influences controlling politics in addition to the big bad Republicans and not compromising on literally everything to the point that absolutely nothing gets done (besides regressive policy that strongly overshadows or reverses progressive policy).
You’re acknowledging there’s a distinction right there, though. You’re openly having to distinguish between the term as a concept and the term as you’re using it, a description for a specific group. That’s my point, that you’re using it to describe a specific group instead of as a label applied to social concepts. You literally are doing this in the sentence explaining how you’re not doing this. Like. I don’t know what I could possibly say that would be a better example than this right here. This is all I have been saying about this point.
Sure, but my overall point is that they’re not doing that, you’re claiming that they are. The ‘liberal’ position being expressed in this thread, and the one I’ve seen expressed everywhere else, is that we should get to where nobody should live in poverty. But, because the big “turn off poverty” switch doesn’t actually exist, and because (to extend the metaphor) there’s an entire army of chuds standing under that switch making damn sure we don’t flip it, we should take what we can get now to reduce the suffering in the world by just a little while we continue to fight for the big goals.
It’s the classic “win the battle first, then you can win the war” concept but extended to political movements.
Paraphrasing them to highlight how they could be easily extrapolated, there’s no misunderstanding here.
Again, I do understand the nuances of the term liberal as a personal identity/label/grouping and as a descriptor for the ideology or e.g. socially liberal policies.
You’re right to say that we’re not enemies and that we ideologically and generally want the same things in the end.
I disagree. We should identify the problem and propose the solution. Democracy is broken and we need to fix it with democracy. All mainstream news is entertainment/propaganda and is doing our society disservice by polarizing us against each other - so we create and incentivize fair media (that delineates fact from opinion and provides relevant context) that highlights all viewpoints equally. Poverty isn’t desirable for society and we already have the means to raise everybody up from poverty… and so forth.
You’re arguing that you’re actually being strategic to advocate for a lesser policy that doesn’t even approach a solution, but the reality is that it’s weakening your ideal in practice and our position at the negotiating table because Republicans (and the people who use them for their gain) won’t stand for even that lever being pulled.
I want to see Republicans squirm while they advocate for people being homeless, destitute, and without health care. Truly. It would be enlightening for many. People largely do not take joy in seeing others suffer - they are being conditioned to accept or ignore their suffering because they are also suffering and don’t want to lose what they worked hard to achieve.
Removed by mod