• clonedhuman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    This is all bullshit.

    Who fucking cares about these definitions? All y’all have the same damn enemy. Worry about the enemy first. Iron out disagreements over terminology once the fascists are gone.

    It’s so weird that people spend so much time debating this pointless garbage.

    • ameancow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Leftists feel powerless and most are too insecure to go out and actually debate in right-wing spaces, so all they have is bickering internally about other leftists and complaining about liberals to satisfy their need for intellectual debate and drama.

      You simply can’t have an argument with a conservative, so I get how frustrating it is. But guys, there are other ways you can make progress, but I’m sorry to say it still involves leaving behind your discord polycule.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      The problem is we don’t have the same enemies, there are people who claim to be left but oppose Liberals, such as Tankies. Tankies aren’t the enemy of the GOP, they want the GOP to win over progressives like the DNC. They use words like “capitalism” to describe everything wrong with the USA because that way they can exclude the eastern dictatorships like Russia and China from the same criticisms.

      Shit posts like the one above are the result of psyop campaigns.

      • Deceptichum@quokk.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Is this what shitlibs tell themselves?

        Any leftist will use words like capitalism to describe the issues because it’s fucking all pervasive. And China and Russia are also both capitalist despite whatever tankiefuck will tell you.

        We don’t have the same enemies, because you ally with the ownership class and not your own.

        • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Liberal means advocate of human rights, bare definition. If there is at all an ownership class then liberalism is not being administrated. And I assure you, the word “Capitalism” on Lemmy is used the vast majority of the time as a dogwhistle for “Western Nation”.

          In what way does exchanging money for goods cause outlawing gay marriage or banning books? In what way does it cause not taxing the rich? Makes no goddamn sense. Authoritarianism and Conservatives cause those things.

          • anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Liberal means advocate of human rights

            Not unless you’re creating your own personal definition. At best, liberalism means advocating for individual rights, and where you or I might disagree with the application of that idea is where individual rights are in tension with communal or collective rights more broadly

            In what way does exchanging money for goods cause outlawing gay marriage or banning books?

            Markets are not the same as capitalism. It’s a description of a system that enshrines abstract ownership over systems of production. If you dont take issue with the coercive mechanisms within capital relations, then im not really sure where to put you ‘on the left’.

            • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              Mandated, unconditional individual rights ARE collective rights and also human rights.

              You also appear to no know the definition of Capitalism because if Capitalism is not a regulated Market System then the USA is also not a capitalism. Not surprising since you people use it as a dog whistle to mean “western nation” that you lack understanding of what it actually means.

              • anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                Mandated, unconditional individual rights ARE collective rights and also human rights

                Not when those rights are in conflict with another individual’s. The classic example is the individual right to private property, but there are many others. American liberals do recognize these limits and contradictions, but accept as granted the right to private property. It’s the center tenet of leftist critique, so it makes a lot of sense why there’s a lot of cynicism about liberals claiming to occupy the same space. Sure, they have some overlap, but the main contention is left unaddressed by American liberals and so leave themselves open to derision.

                if Capitalism is not a regulated Market System then the USA is also not a capitalism

                It’s a type of regulated market system, but it’s defined by its mode of production being capitalist in nature. Socialist and communist systems still employ regulated markets, but collectivize ownership over productive capital instead. Abolishing capitalism isn’t a way of saying we should abolish markets, but to remove capital as the mode of production

                • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  If rights to one person contradict the rights of another, resulting in loss and harm then guess what? Individual rights aren’t being mandated and upheld and that’s not Liberalism.

                  Socialist and communist systems still employ regulated markets, but collectivize ownership over productive capital instead.

                  No, they don’t, because that has never existed and will never if you keep bending over backwards to dictators.

        • arrow74@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          No ground was gained Trump won. Decades of progress erased in 7 months. The genocide in Israel has accelerated. And our economy is crashing.

          If Dems won and kept things as they were 7 months ago everything would be demonstrably better than they are now.

          Would there still be issues? Of course there are always issues, but it would have been much better.

          • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            That’s true I guess. Way too superficial for my liking, but that’s outside the scope of this conversation. The person I replied to said there would be (small) gains from electing Harris, not just less losses, so I was asking for them yo elaborate.