Permanently Deleted

  • Maoo [none/use name]
    ·
    1 year ago

    It's been defined that way since long before Americans adopted their lexicon of liberal = Democrat-adjascent. And it's used internationally the way we use it here.

    • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
      ·
      1 year ago

      Okay cool. So Democrats arguing for limited or unlimited socialism aren't liberal by the international general definition?

      • HornyOnMain
        ·
        1 year ago

        Democrats arguing for limited or unlimited socialism

        citations-needed citation needed

      • Awoo [she/her]
        ·
        1 year ago

        limited or unlimited socialism

        Welfare is not socialism. Social safety nets are not socialism. You've been duped by a misuse of the word.

        These are policies that socialists like because they improve people's lives. They are not socialism itself.

      • Egon
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        deleted by creator

      • BurgerPunk [he/him, comrade/them]
        ·
        1 year ago

        There are no democrats arguing for socialism. Socialism means a society having collective ownership of the means of production. The dems are a bunch of libs like you

      • Sephitard9001 [he/him]
        ·
        1 year ago

        Literally how in the fucking world could you arrive at this conclusion

        Not one bit of this question makes sense.

        1. Democrats have never advocated for socialism. I don't even think Bernie Sanders has actually advocated for socialism.

        2. Liberal in America doesn't mean socialist or even socialist adjacent. If you zoom out to include a "international general definition", even less so. Liberalism is in direct opposition to Socialism. Both ideologies organize society in mutually exclusive ways. This is like telling somebody you believe in Cat-Mouseism. It makes no fucking sense