• tiredturtle@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Who mean those on the right? They don’t even self identify as leftists, why should some of their followers say that?

  • culprit@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    101
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    3 days ago

    leftist : anti-capitalism :: liberal : pro-capitalism

    Why is this so hard for some radlibs to understand? I think it is all the propaganda they passively consume.

      • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Liberalism means PRO CAPITALISM.

        The first sentence from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism:

        Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, the right to private property and equality before the law.

        From the first paragraph of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property†:

        Private property is foundational to capitalism, an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.

        Liberalism: A Counter-History (online copy)


        †Not to be confused with personal property.

        • Quadhammer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          That line says nothing about capitalism. Pro ownership? That is a tenet of some branches of leftism. I dont agree with corporations or the state having a monopoly on land ownership. Though the government cant come and take an individuals shit for no reason. Being an abusive billionaire though has an asterisk in the foot notes.

          Though I’d argue that anyone owning shit comes a large and wide second or 3rd to human rights.

          philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed

          It says it right there.

      • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 days ago

        Of course. Its the “liberty” of capitalists do to whatever they can get away with. Unlimited power for the capitalist class.

      • dubyakay@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        Liberal means pro capitalist liberty. Nothing about personal freedom, equity and social safety nets in that.

        • Quadhammer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          17
          ·
          2 days ago

          based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed

          Okay buddy. You guys just want to twist a good ideology into a wedge issue. The only thing vaguely “capitalist” about a liberal is the belief that the government isnt allowed to seize your shit unlawfully. The right to own property comes way after personal liberty in my book. That means billionaires dont get a pass for abusing the populace.

    • Belly_Beanis [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      3 days ago

      Capitalism is so all-consuming it’s like water to fish. “Capitalism” becomes synonymous with words like economy, markets, trade, laws, and government. It no longer is an ideology, but an immutable force in the universe.

    • lewdian69@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      3 days ago

      I’ll say it again, in the United States the term “liberal” is used to refer to liberal social ideas NOT liberal economic ideas. To the average US citizen left and liberal are synonyms. This doesn’t mean your definition isn’t correct for academics and the entire rest of the world. But this meme, and this left vs liberal argument for this post, are US based.

        • lewdian69@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          20
          ·
          3 days ago

          I’m not sure how colloquial vocabulary usage prevents developing class consciousness. I’d potentially argue refusing to accept the evolution of language and refusing to communicate to people in the terms they use and understand inhibits said deprogramming.
          Again very US centric in this definition but it’s who needs deprogramming.

          • PunnyName@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            19
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            You don’t think words can mean things?

            You just live in some kind of word salad blob?

            • lewdian69@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              What? That’s literally the opposite of what I’m saying… I’m saying words can have multiple meanings depending on context.
              But the point of this was how does “liberal” having a different colloquial definition from how op was using it have anything do with “developing class consciousness” which can be done regardless of this single word?

              Yes

          • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            29
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            Sometimes the evolution of language isn’t so much organic as it is a political project, such as a century of red scares and socialist purges.

            Americans believe Sanders when he calls himself a socialist because they’ve lost a vocabulary for socialism itself. And they think Sanders’ centrism is “the left,” because the Overton window has shifted so far right that there is no left left.

            We can’t simply use their terms, because their terminology is both muddled and lacking.

            • lewdian69@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              3 days ago

              Sometimes the evolution of language isn’t so much organic as it is a political project, such as a century of red scares and socialist purges.

              Ok. But regardless of the cause, organic or political project, it doesn’t change the fact that the language has moved on correct?

              We can’t simply use their terms, because their terminology is both muddled and lacking.

              But there’s the rub. You/we ARE using their terms and the message is muddled and lacking BECAUSE OF the difference in perceived definitions. And as the past couple decades have shown there is zero chance of getting the American people to learn things, or unlearn as the case may be.

              I assume very few people this far down a thread into a political discussion, on Lemmy, don’t know what the Overton windowS are and how fucked the US is because of the current far right position on the left/right scales. I find it lacking and dislike it’s libertarian origins. We are even now discussing the difference of a word being used for social vs economic ideas and these two scales do not necessarily overlap.

      • bloubz@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        Isn’t it progressism?

        But anyway liberalism is the ideology of capitalism. The artificial differences created between conservatives and progressists is just a smoke screen to create a false debate and prevent from challenging capitalism, switching the enemy from the rulling capitalist class to the person next door with different views

      • culprit@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        This is American Exceptionalism, and I won’t stand for it. This is like that “they trained them wrong on purpose … as a joke” meme. The ruling class has subdued many people with a maelstrom of bullshit politics, and the only sound strategy is to shatter these exceptionalist brain worms and actually do real analysis of the political economy.

      • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        This is also wrong. US liberals are just as anticommunist as their further right counterparts, and their “social liberalism” goes only so far as not to infringe on capitalist “freedom” to do whatever they can get away with. Hence their hatred of homeless / the poor, communists, and colonized peoples.

        As the saying goes, US liberals are against every genocide except the current one. Hence their staunch support for Israel’s genocide of Palestinians.

  • deerdelighted@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    22 hours ago

    That’s why I’d rather call myself center left. By US standards I’m still probably “far left”, because I’m for public healthcare, strong regulations and very robust social safety net. But unlike probably most people here on lemmy, if someone runs a business that’s not completely out of control and has unionized employees, I don’t think there’s a problem with that.

      • ynthrepic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Why couldn’t your meme show like solar punk utopian imagery, and people living in beautiful harmony with nature.

        Oh, that’s why.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          The problem with Solarpunk is that it isn’t really grounded in theory, it’s a vibe and an aesthetic, a hope for a better future but without any real binding ideology. It’s easy to transform, like cottagecore being weaponized into upholding traditional gender roles.

          Solar will absolutely be a huge part of the future, but getting there requires taking supremacy over Capital to go against the car and oil industries. This requires Socialism.

  • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    3 days ago

    We should make a special political spectrum just for these people. Let’s call it the imperial political spectrum.

  • gearheart@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    There two sides.

    1% and their zombies

    The rest of us.

    Let’s not split up and weaken. 💪

        • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          Alternative voting methods have proven useless against capitalist power. Countries like Australia and Japan use them, and it does nothing. It might make candidate stacking a little more expensive, and they have to pay more to advertise their candidates, but that’s it.

          • Itsapersonn@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            Alternative voting methods allow for smaller parties, ones who’s values may align more with the general population, an actual fighting chance. You gotta admit at some point that having only two realistic choices is a bit of a problem, right?

            • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              It seems like it should help, but in practice, its been useless. You end up having a greater diversity of candidates and parties, but if capital still stands above the political system and controls it, it just means more capitalist puppets, and more advertising money required to get those preferred puppets elected.

              Multi-party Bourgeois parliamentarism is not really any different from the ancient roman imperial senate. Its government by oligarchy / the wealthy entrenched class.

            • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              In current Polish sejm there is 17 parties and 42 indpendents (on 460 seats). But every single one of them is procapitalist, proimperialist, pro USA, anticommunist. Alternative voting methods do literally nothing by itself.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          Ranked Choice Voting is both too ineffective to make any change, and too difficult to get in the first place. It’s the perfect endless carrot on a string, the eternal “just one more lane and traffic will be gone.”

          • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            2 days ago

            Even if that’s so, you’d still need to vote for the people on the right, because voting third party in first past the post is objectively just terrible for everyone with similar goals.

      • Lila_Uraraka@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        2 days ago

        Last time I checked, that’s not how that works, everyone has a wide range of ideals and views. Not 1 or 2, there can be 1 1/2, 1 1/3, 1 1/10000, whatever

  • millie@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    2 days ago

    This framing isn’t particularly helpful for solidarity.

    The left relies on coalitions. Criticizing the stewards of those coalitions because they fail to address the needs of the people they rely on for votes is helpful and constructive. Just reducing all left-wing voters to a pair of stereotypes and trying to push one of those stereotypes away from the other? Not helpful.

    We need nuanced dialogue and mutual aid. It’s a matter of survival. This isn’t that.

    • 🏴 hamid the villain [he/him] 🏴@vegantheoryclub.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      They are imperial murderers and managers of corporate oligarchy. The solidarity we form is against them. They are not left-wing at all, they are hard right wing reactionaries in a nation where the overton window has been shifted and the population is so brainwashed that they can even entertain that they are left-wing. They are barely left of most right wing politicians in the world. As a prosecutor, Kamala Harris has condemned thousands of innocent people to hard labor in slave camps and is an agent of the carceral state. Anyone in the US government is the enemy of free people in the US and around the world.

      Your last phrase uses the words of the people on the left not the right, but clearly you don’t understand the problem. You are just an apologist for genocide, slavery and empire.

      • millie@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        Do you think it’s realistic to take back any branch of government from like, actual whole ass conservatives by dividing the only coalition we have?

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      48
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Bernie is basically a modern day version of Bernstein. Though a century apart, both peddle reformism as a political pacifier, diverting energy from the radical systemic change required to dismantle capitalism. Their approaches, while superficially progressive, function as ideological traps, diverting energy from serious movements necessary to upend capitalism.

      Bernstein was a leading figure in Germany’s SPD, and he famously rejected Marxist revolutionary praxis in favor of evolutionary socialism. He argued capitalism could be gradually reformed into socialism through parliamentary means, dismissing the inevitability of class conflict. He neutralized the SPD’s revolutionary potential, channeling working-class demands into compromises like wage increases or limited welfare programs that left capitalist hierarchies intact. As Rosa Luxemburg warned in Reform or Revolution, Bernstein’s strategy reduced socialism to a “mild appendage” of liberalism, sapping the working class of its transformative agency.

      Likewise, the political project that Bernie pursued mirrors Bernstein’s trajectory. While Sanders critiques inequality and corporate power, his platform centers on social democratic reforms, such as Medicare for All, tuition-free college, a $15 minimum wage, that treat symptoms instead of root causes. By framing electoral victory as the primary objective, Sanders diverted a what could have been a millions strong grassroots movement into the Democratic Party, an institution structurally committed to maintaining capitalism. His campaigns absorbed activist energy into phone banking and voter outreach, rather than building durable, extra-parliamentary power such as workplace organizations, tenant unions, and so on.

      When Sanders conceded to Hillary Clinton and later Joe Biden, his base dissolved into disillusionment or shifted focus to lesser-evilism. Without autonomous structures to sustain pressure, the movement’s momentum evaporated similarly to how the SPD was integrated into Weimar Germany’s capitalist state. However, even if his agenda were enacted, it would exist within a neoliberal framework. Much like FDR’s New Deal coexisted with Jim Crow, imperial plunder, and union busting. Reforms within the system are always contingent on their utility to capital, and their purpose is demobilize the workers.

      A meaningful challenge to capitalism requires a long-term strategy that combines direct action, mass education, and dual power structures. Imagine if Sanders had urged supporters to unionize workplaces, organize rent strikes, and create community mutual aid networks alongside electoral engagement. Movements like MAS in Bolivia, show how grassroots power can pressure institutions while cultivating revolutionary consciousness. Instead, his campaign became a referendum on his candidacy, leaving his followers adrift after his defeat.

      Bernstein and Sanders, despite their intentions, exemplify the dead end of reformism. Their projects mistake tactical concessions for strategic victory, ignoring capitalism’s relentless drive to commodify and co-opt. In the end, the reformist approach ends up midwifing full blown fascism. By channeling energy into parliamentary politics, the SPD deprioritized mass mobilization. Unions and workers were encouraged to seek concessions rather than challenge capitalist power structures. This eroded class consciousness and left the working class unprepared to confront the nazi threat.

      When the nazis gained momentum, the SPD clung to legalistic strategies, refusing to support strikes or armed resistance against Hitler. Their faith in bourgeois democracy blinded them to the existential threat of fascism, which exploited economic despair and nationalist resentment. In the end, SPD famously allied with the nazis against the communists.

      The “progressive” wing of the Democratic Party is following in the footsteps of the SPD’s reformist trajectory. While advocating for policies like Medicare for All or climate action, it operates within capitalist constraints, undermining radical change and inadvertently fueling right-wing extremism. The Democrats absorb grassroots energy into electoral campaigns while their reliance on corporate donors ensures watered-down policies that fuel disillusionment.

      The SPD’s reformism actively enabled fascism by disorganizing the working class and legitimizing capitalist violence. Similarly, the Democratic Party’s commitment to pragmatic incrementalism sustains a system that breeds reactionary backlash. Trump is a direct product of these policies. We’re just watching history on repeat here.

    • MeowZedong@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Maybe for those who wish to support bombing foreigners while funnelling the military industry into their state.

      Motherfucker parades around like he’s antiwar because he voted “nay” on a single ballot initiative that was already a shoo-in and inconsequential for him to vote against. Literally a couple months later, he voted to further the funding for those military actions.

      Bernie has had blood on his hands for 30-40 years now and continues to try to wash it off with more blood.

      Someone who pretends to support the poor at home while simultaneously supporting bombing and invading the poor elsewhere sure is a role model, just not a good one.

  • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    2 days ago

    If someone said they were leftist then I would very much hope they were pro EU and pro Ukraine

    It’s the far right that is against those

        • Pilferjinx@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 day ago

          Hey, I’m actually interested in your personal opinion. Are you pro Russian and if so why? Is there a long game being played out that fits your views with Russian expansion? Or rather the west’s decline.

          • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            I don’t think Russia currently has an interest in expansion. I already linked above to the reasons for Russia’s invasion, and they weren’t revanchism or Lebensraum, as Western governments & media claim.

            It’s also often said that Russia is imperialist. I think that if Russia could be imperialist it would be, but since it presently can’t, it presently isn’t. Putin tried to join NATO once, to join the imperialism club, but the US rejected Russia, because the US wanted (and still wants) Russia Balkanized and re-plundered instead. Russia has figured out that it’s better off allying with Global South countries than attempting imperialist adventures upon them. And this war has accelerated that allyship.

            Are you pro Russian and if so why?

            I’ve answered this before: https://lemmy.ml/comment/9498456

            • Pilferjinx@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              Thanks. The nuance is appreciated. If Russia “reclaims” Ukraine through total victory do you think they would allow the Ukraine identity to subsist? Are there more countries Russia would like to revanche? I think Moldova would be an easy grab.

              • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                1 day ago

                I think Russia knows full well that it can’t “reclaim” western Ukraine: few people there want to be part of Russia, and the Banderite fascists especially don’t. It would be a absolute nightmare to hold. There would be endless insurgencies and bloodshed, and it would be a huge drain on state resources. Russia wants what is says it has wanted since the 1990s: a neutral buffer state.

                Keep in mind that when the invasion started, Eastern Ukraine had been in a civil war with Western Ukraine for almost a decade, and some in Eastern Ukraine had for years pleaded Russia to intervene. Eastern Ukraine is a very different situation from Western Ukraine. Russia had almost no issues when it “invaded” Crimea in 2014, because most of the people were glad to no longer be ruled by the Banderite coup government. They were right, too, because they didn’t suffer nine years of fascist paramilitary terrorism like their northern neighbors in Eastern Ukraine did.

                Are there more countries Russia would like to revanche? I think Moldova would be an easy grab.

                As I said, revanchism isn’t what this was ever about, despite what Western states publicly claim and Western media repeat. Russia would piss off its allies and its enemies if it invaded another country, and its enemies would probably ramp up their war machines against it significantly.

        • Pilferjinx@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 day ago

          If Ukraine wants to breakup with Russia. The correct response is to not rape and murder them.

      • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        Probably not left then

        Just want to pretend they are because they aren’t as far right as someone they can point to

          • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            24 hours ago

            But in doing so you’re making your message less clear, because it’s saying that tankies are leftists. (Uh oh you made me say it!)

      • AppleTea@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        The stated goal of the US State Department is to drag out the conflict for as long as possible. Years ago, Boris Johnson threatened to cut Ukraine out of financial markets if Zelenskyy held peace talks with Russia.

        There’s a group that wants as much suffering as possible out of this war. But it’s not the people who recognize that being the proxy in a struggle between the US and Russia is only going to hurt the people of Ukraine.

        • Pilferjinx@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          There’s definitely some BS the west is imposing on Ukraine to drag this conflict out. It feels like it’s to financially ruin Russia. I just don’t understand why Russia doesn’t cut it’s losses and just take what they already have. Ukraine is never going to be a part of NATO so I don’t understand the NATO expansion argument either.

        • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 day ago

          Russia could foil all those plans by simply ceasing the invasion and going home.

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            23 hours ago

            Why would they? That’s like saying the Capitalists in the US could willingly implement Socialism. This isn’t an actual solution, as long as it is in Russia’s interests to continue, they will. Russia gains nothing by packing up and going home, and they have the means and will to continue.

            • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              17 hours ago

              What do they gain by continuing the war?

              It’s hardly in Russia’s interest for their sons to die, their equipment to explode, and their economy to crumble. It’s self destructive, which it has in common with capitalism, but worse than that it’s a genocide of the Ukrainian people.

              • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                edit-2
                17 hours ago

                Russia’s economy isn’t crumbling, and its industrial capacity is fairly high. What Russia wants, ultimately, is either an assurance of Ukranian neutrality with respect to NATO or full demillitarization of it. Russia went to war to combat NATO encirclement of its borders. If a peace deal isn’t met, Russia can just continue to slowly advance while the US carves out Ukraine for profit.

      • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        21 hours ago

        It’s about a super power trying to exploit a small country

        Palestine isn’t leftist either but you will find people campaigning for the protection of their people