• UltraGiGaGigantic
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    5 hours ago

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

  • zante@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Found ⬇️ 87 Liberals who believed they were comrades. 😆

  • culprit
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    10 hours 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.

    • Belly_Beanis [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      9 hours 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
      24
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      8 hours 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.

      • davelA
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        We know that, which is why we’re trying to deprogram Americans from the Orwellian newspeak they’ve been mistaught so they can develop class consciousness.

        • lewdian69@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          8 hours 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
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 hours 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
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 hours 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

          • davelA
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            7 hours 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
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 hours 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
        4
        ·
        5 hours 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

    • davelA
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Yes, it’s hard for them to understand because of a lifetime of anti-socialist & pro-capitalist propaganda, propaganda which most of them aren’t even aware of, because for them it’s just common sense.

      • Quadhammer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 minutes ago

        Just realized were in .ml my guy. These guys have thrown the brick on trapos crazy koolaid jammer and only want to circlejerk about liberals and their infallible god kings stalin and marx

        • folaht
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 minutes ago

          Social liberal is the center. Liberal is centre-right to right-wing.

  • SoJB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Ooh, the fascists aren’t gonna like this one

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours 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
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours 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.

  • orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    13 hours ago

    The right side is just liberalism. This is what happens when the left and liberal are melded together in everyday western society/language and the water is muddied. It’s intended. It confuses people, overwhelms them, and leads them to use the apparatus that the ruling class has placed in front of us to circumvent true working class interests and movements. It’s why liberals scoff at potential allies (leftists), instead of seeing the truth: a unified working class.

    • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      8 hours ago

      .ml people will stand by people resisting the imperialism of one country, and then condemn people resisting the imperialism of another, and still won’t realize they are effectively nationalists.

      • Cowbee [he/they]
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Liberals will invent fanfiction about Marxists before genuinely trying to engage with Lenin’s analysis of Imperialism or attempt to have a genuine conversation about it.

        • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 minutes ago

          Marxists are great people. Leninists have fantastic ideas. And Marxist-Leninists betray everything Marx and Lenin stood for.

          “Socialism in one country” is the invention of a bourgeois dictator who sought to destroy communism because it was a threat to his power.

          Karl Marx died an anarchist.