689
Patience is a virtue
(slrpnk.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2025
689 points (100.0% liked)
Memes
51827 readers
950 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Near as I can tell, a leftist would do anything to keep a liberal out of power over believing only 75% of the same things as them, and allow the right to take control, but at least they get to keep the moral high ground of not allowing a liberal to do that 25%. Never mind that the right actively opposed everything to leftist wants completely.
Liberals are "the right" and they sure as hell don't believe 75% of the same things as leftists. Leftists in the west also don't really have the power to keep liberals out of power, hence why liberals have consistently been the only ones in power for decades. Liberals on the other hand, absolutely do have the power to keep leftists out, and they will go as far as allying with fascists to murder leftists in their beds.
Liberalism is literally and historically where the left begins. The right is authoritarianism and the left is liberalism to anarchism. Liberals are not leftists but it is a signof a distinct lack of education in political philosophy to claim liberalism as a right wing ideology.
Liberalism is the ideological basis of Capitalism. When Capitalism was a progressive force, ie during the French Revolution, it was considered left wing. Now that Capitalism has become entrenched and turned to Imperialism, the progressive side is undeniably Socialism, while liberalism entrenches the status quo.
Simply saying that liberalism at one point was progressive does not mean history has not had several centuries of shifts and developments since then.
You're being incredibly euro-centric with your claims here.
How so?
Your notion of where the modern divide lies is 100% European and won’t hold true when you consider all nations.
Liberalism is european in origin, as Capitalism first truly took hold there. It isn't the "modern divide" but the notion of Liberalism as a progressive motion or regressive motion.
Capitalism was first instituted by the first Liberal nation- the USA. Europe was mostly mercantilist
No, the mode of production creates the ideology, not the opposite.
And Europe was mired in mercantilist systems. The government gave business permission to exist in many cases.
America was the first to institute capitalism, Europeans cane up with the philosophy but America put it into practice.
Mercantilism is not distinct from Capitalism, but a form of it.
Liberalism didn't exist for most of history, so trying to invoke "history" to argue that liberalism has some kind of timeless and eternal claim to being on the left is unconvincing. Yes, liberalism was the left in the eighteenth century, but we're in the twenty first century.
The division of political ideologies into left and right derives from the French Parliament which had the monarchists on the right and the liberals on the left.
Every reference to right and left stems from this so yes in fact Liberalism has always been where the left starts even if liberals are nit leftists because the political left is anti-authoritarian.
The binary has not changed and I promise you any claim ypu make to the contrary is going to be mired in euro-centric beliefs.
The names yes, but the basic conflict is much older, Europe itself had the Guelph-Ghibelline conflict.
Perhaps it us my American education in geography, but isn't France still part of Europe?
The Gelph-Ghibelline conflict was about secular monarchism vs religious authority. Im not sure I see the point you're making.
It is, it's the UK that left (the EU, not the continent).
That the conflict between feudal lords (French aristocrats / Ghibellines) and urban merchants (Guelph burghers / French Girondists) is much older than the French Revolution. The pope and emperor were the figureheads, but the lords and merchants were the power blocs.
You know, if leberals wanted the support of the leftists, they try something called compromises. But the only compromises they're ready to do is with the fascists unfortunately, which the leftists will never support.
So no, the leftists didn't refuse to make compromises. The liberals did, with the left, because they actually accepted all the compromises with the fascists. And act now surprised that fascism is taking over.
Liberals are spoiled children incapable of taking accountability for their actions.
When discussing liberalism in the context of liberalism vs Leftism, they are faily opposite. Liberalism desires Capitalism, perhaps with some tweaks or larger safety nets, while leftists seek to end Capitalism and pursue Socialism of some form. This isn't "75%" of the same views at all, liberalism is fundamentally entirely incompatible with Leftism just like fascism is incompatible with leftism.
Additionally, in the West, Leftists have not been the deciding factor in elections, liberals have, be they more conservative or more progressive liberals.
Liberals of all political persuasions tend to believe in monopolies created by the state through private property rights. Owners of private property maintain a monopoly on the use of the property. There are progressive liberal arguments proposing the state can keep monopolies in check.
Elections worldwide have been pushing right. I argue monopolies have consolidated power and are better equipped to misinform and buy elections. Liberals see this system of monopoly as justified (right) or controllable (left).
Leftist propose different economic and representation systems. One such system is anarchism. As an anarchist, I favor horizontal power structures with property not directly worked by a person held in common. Elections should give way to consensus building. Heirarchies, though sometimes necessary, should be answerable to the represented people. The tools of violence should be democratized to prevent the formation of unnecessary heirarchies that would create monopolies on violence.
There are alternatives to anarchism that could be considered leftist. The Marxist-Leninist propose other economic and representation systems. I will not represent them. There is definitely infighting amongst leftist.