so, liberalism is decidedly right of centre. it requires buying into capitalism, but it’s not as far gone as the GOP. The US dems are left of the GOP, but right on a more absolute political meter.
Bernie is leftist, but Biden & co are properly right of centre. Your Overton window has shifted so far to the right that a leftist politician will have a harder path than a snowball in hell.
I say this as someone that has a neolib prime minister (Trudeau).
Suffice to say, liberals and conservatives have the same goals, liberals just prefer a sustainable labour class.
I would say Bernie is democratic socialist. I would call myself a social democrat, so slightly to the right of Bernie, but slightly to the left of a liberal. I would also say liberals are to the left of moderates who are to the left of conservatives/neo-liberals who are to the left of fascists.
The US Overton window is way to far to the right though.
Liberals can claim the word means whatever they want it to to make themselves feel better, but as long as they are pro-capitalism, liberals today are not on the left, since leftism is anti-capitalist by definition.
And not only are they not on the left, they actively enable and bolster the right:
And not only are they not on the left, they actively enable and bolster the right:
I would call the liberals you are referring to neo-liberals or conservatives. The few liberals I met in real life and the many liberals I’ve met online are fiercely anti-fascist.
I think this Vox article gives a more historically accurate take on how defeating the Nazis was a team effort by the Allies. Capitalism was essential to defeat the Axis powers. By the logic in the first article, capitalism is therefore anti-fascist.
Liberals call themselves a variety of things, ranging from “democratic socialists” to “social democrats” to even “socialists”
I had the pleasure to chat with a socialist online briefly. They wanted to tear down US democracy with a socialist revolution. I am certain that socialist was not actually a liberal in disguise. Or a secret fascist for that matter.
I definitely see how liberal is used as a way to describe how everyone who is not a communist is actually a secret fascist.
The third article actually admits the group it’s really talking about is neo-liberals, ie conservatives. The article claims capitalism and free market economies have to go, but doesn’t explain what will replace them. The author claims he wants a true democracy, which we have in the US by the way, so some it sounds like he wants some form of social democracy. I also want social democracy in the US. Communist countries have demonstrated that their economies are too brittle to survive long term. Even China allows a certain amount of free market. Quite a lot according to this guy.
The fourth article really seems to be highlighting the semantic difference in the use of the word liberal vs neo-liberal. As a related example, I really doubt the millions of people who voted against Trump, many of whom I’m sure self identify as liberal, are secretly fascists.
The issues in the US are a difference of progressives ideas versus conservative ideas. The conservative movement in the US is what is being co-opted by fascists. For example the Republican party is now controlled by fascists.
On a related note, the Mises Caucus has already orchestrated a fascist take over of the libertarian party in the US. These libertarians in the US were always conservative libertarians. They already believed might makes right and that their freedoms should supersede other peoples’ freedoms. So it doesn’t really surprise me that this happened to them.
That’s fine, just understand that you’re using a US-centric framework that differs from what socialists mean when they say “libs”. From our perspective, if you’re pro-western-capitalism (and thus pro-neoliberalism) you’re a lib. Democrats, Republicans, doesn’t matter.
I am a social democrat which is a part of the socialist family as far as I’m concerned. As far as I’m aware, the US-centric framework is what everyone, including socialists, use in the US. Just as socialists else where, such as the UK or EU, use their own meaning for the word liberal.
Based on what you are saying, this particular instance of disagreement does not seem to be a regional one. As regional differences on definitions should translate and be something we both navigate around. What you are describing seems to a disagreement based on definition.
Conflating supporting some form of capitalism, in my case regulated capitalism, ie mixed economy, with neo-liberalism is intellectual dishonesty. You calling me a lib for supporting some form of capitalism is no different than me calling you a tanky for simply being anti-capitalist. Just because you seem to be against capitalism does not make you an authoritarian communist.
Democrats are not currently fascists, so that does matter. I’m registered independent though, so I’m not particularly interested in defending Democrats. If Democrats don’t become more progressive, as they are predominately neo-liberals right now, they could easily go the way of the Republican party and become fascist.
Look, I won’t argue with you on semantics. You’re free to disagree with the common definition of liberalism that socialists use. It’s really just a convenient term for people that are pro-capitalist. It’s not intended to be a nuanced term, and I doubt most reasonable socialists would directly equate Republican fascists with Democratic progressives, even if they see both as problematic.
so, liberalism is decidedly right of centre. it requires buying into capitalism, but it’s not as far gone as the GOP. The US dems are left of the GOP, but right on a more absolute political meter.
Bernie is leftist, but Biden & co are properly right of centre. Your Overton window has shifted so far to the right that a leftist politician will have a harder path than a snowball in hell.
I say this as someone that has a neolib prime minister (Trudeau).
Suffice to say, liberals and conservatives have the same goals, liberals just prefer a sustainable labour class.
Based on this, I think this is a regional issue. In the US, liberal means left of center.
Here is an example of regional differences.
Here is a wiki page called Liberalism in The United States that also provides a nice summary in the first section.
I would say Bernie is democratic socialist. I would call myself a social democrat, so slightly to the right of Bernie, but slightly to the left of a liberal. I would also say liberals are to the left of moderates who are to the left of conservatives/neo-liberals who are to the left of fascists.
The US Overton window is way to far to the right though.
Liberals can claim the word means whatever they want it to to make themselves feel better, but as long as they are pro-capitalism, liberals today are not on the left, since leftism is anti-capitalist by definition.
And not only are they not on the left, they actively enable and bolster the right:
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 would call the liberals you are referring to neo-liberals or conservatives. The few liberals I met in real life and the many liberals I’ve met online are fiercely anti-fascist.
I think this Vox article gives a more historically accurate take on how defeating the Nazis was a team effort by the Allies. Capitalism was essential to defeat the Axis powers. By the logic in the first article, capitalism is therefore anti-fascist.
https://www.vox.com/2014/6/16/5814270/the-successful-70-year-campaign-to-convince-people-the-usa-and-not
The second article has this gem.
I had the pleasure to chat with a socialist online briefly. They wanted to tear down US democracy with a socialist revolution. I am certain that socialist was not actually a liberal in disguise. Or a secret fascist for that matter.
I definitely see how liberal is used as a way to describe how everyone who is not a communist is actually a secret fascist.
The third article actually admits the group it’s really talking about is neo-liberals, ie conservatives. The article claims capitalism and free market economies have to go, but doesn’t explain what will replace them. The author claims he wants a true democracy, which we have in the US by the way, so some it sounds like he wants some form of social democracy. I also want social democracy in the US. Communist countries have demonstrated that their economies are too brittle to survive long term. Even China allows a certain amount of free market. Quite a lot according to this guy.
https://hbr.org/2021/05/americans-dont-know-how-capitalist-china-is#:~:text=What is it that Americans don’t understand about China%3F
The fourth article really seems to be highlighting the semantic difference in the use of the word liberal vs neo-liberal. As a related example, I really doubt the millions of people who voted against Trump, many of whom I’m sure self identify as liberal, are secretly fascists.
The issues in the US are a difference of progressives ideas versus conservative ideas. The conservative movement in the US is what is being co-opted by fascists. For example the Republican party is now controlled by fascists.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/15/the-modern-republican-party-fascism-robert-reich
On a related note, the Mises Caucus has already orchestrated a fascist take over of the libertarian party in the US. These libertarians in the US were always conservative libertarians. They already believed might makes right and that their freedoms should supersede other peoples’ freedoms. So it doesn’t really surprise me that this happened to them.
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/libertarian-gop-alt-right/
That’s fine, just understand that you’re using a US-centric framework that differs from what socialists mean when they say “libs”. From our perspective, if you’re pro-western-capitalism (and thus pro-neoliberalism) you’re a lib. Democrats, Republicans, doesn’t matter.
I am a social democrat which is a part of the socialist family as far as I’m concerned. As far as I’m aware, the US-centric framework is what everyone, including socialists, use in the US. Just as socialists else where, such as the UK or EU, use their own meaning for the word liberal.
Based on what you are saying, this particular instance of disagreement does not seem to be a regional one. As regional differences on definitions should translate and be something we both navigate around. What you are describing seems to a disagreement based on definition.
Conflating supporting some form of capitalism, in my case regulated capitalism, ie mixed economy, with neo-liberalism is intellectual dishonesty. You calling me a lib for supporting some form of capitalism is no different than me calling you a tanky for simply being anti-capitalist. Just because you seem to be against capitalism does not make you an authoritarian communist.
Democrats are not currently fascists, so that does matter. I’m registered independent though, so I’m not particularly interested in defending Democrats. If Democrats don’t become more progressive, as they are predominately neo-liberals right now, they could easily go the way of the Republican party and become fascist.
Look, I won’t argue with you on semantics. You’re free to disagree with the common definition of liberalism that socialists use. It’s really just a convenient term for people that are pro-capitalist. It’s not intended to be a nuanced term, and I doubt most reasonable socialists would directly equate Republican fascists with Democratic progressives, even if they see both as problematic.
We’re talking about US politics, quit muddying the water to make yourself look more pure