Permanently Deleted

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

    You'd better tell them that then. I'm sure they'll be happy to know that it's impossible to be socialist and only want to curtail businesses.

        • robinn2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          deleted by creator

        • Awoo [she/her]
          ·
          1 year ago

          Why do you get to define socialism to exclude liberalism?

          Socialism seeks to abolish property relations, and thus the bourgeoisie with it. Liberalism upholds them.

          They are ideologies that are in complete and total contradiction to one another. You either want private property in which some people can enslave others to exploit their labour or you want to get rid of that.

        • 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

            • 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

            • 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

        • Egon
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          deleted by creator

        • BurgerPunk [he/him, comrade/them]
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Socialism was developed as an intellectual tradition in opposition to liberalism. I didn't define it

          The people who invented liberalism defined it. Take that up with Rousseau and Locke, et al.

        • somename [she/her]
          ·
          1 year ago

          You literally know nothing, and are such a smug bastard about it. Read a fucking book.

        • CloutAtlas [he/him]
          ·
          1 year ago

          It's literally the definition of liberalism outside of the US, lol.

          The right wing party in Australia is called the Liberal Party. The center left is Labor, the left wing is the Socialist party.

          In many European countries, Liberals (or Liberal Democrats) are right wing.

          Liberals are only equated to the left in the US, which is yet another reason that USA BAD.