Sorry to bring the news but…the rest of the world have been calling US Democrats right-wing and Republicans far-right for decades.
My dad used to joke that the US is the country of freedom, where you can choose between the right and the right.
I tell people that Bernie is a centrist and his policies are the bare minimum of acceptable compromises that should accept, but what we really should do is abolish billionaires and turn every company into a worker's co-op
least socialist post on lemmy
The right does this and it seems to work for them.
I've noticed women on bumble do this. Put moderate as their political affiliation, and list black lives matter and LGBTQ+ and such as their causes. Before this post I would think "elected moderates aren't doing anything for your causes at best," but my perspective as I swipe left on them anyway is a little different now
that's a left leaning moderate position. A far left position would be some shit like straight communism/socialism
The moderate left is more liberal in essence.
That's what I'm doing for a long time now, but I just learned about the Overton Window haha.
Top tier username btw
Or abandon the political labeling system entirely and make it socially outdated by learning to confront someone labeling themselves by responding to them with something along the lines of: "Why would you allow someone else to tell you what it is you believe in? You don't get to decide what being a conservative/liberal means. Someone else decides that. You aren't part of it. So why would you let whoever that is tell you what you should think?"
Change the meaning of what it means to even use the labels and the weapon of using the labels to divide us no longer functions.
It has been dismantled, and they will have to come up with something else.
And just because they will eventually invent a new weapon, does not make it pointless. This is just the never ending metaphorical arms race we are all living in, but it gets easier once you see it for what it is.
“Why would you allow someone else to tell you what it is you believe in? You don’t get to decide what being a conservative/liberal means. Someone else decides that. You aren’t part of it. So why would you let whoever that is tell you what you should think?”
the short answer is because the agree with it.
The better question is asking them whether they want to agree with something someone else said once, or whether or not they want to have their own belief foundation, their own principle system, and their own way to derive an answer to a problem.
The problem with modern day politics is that nobody, almost nobody is willing to engage critically with the problems at hand, to determine a real, functional solution to the problem, or at least, the best possible solution they can come up with. Everybody is perfectly fine and content with saying whatever the funny man on the screen tells them, and that's the end of the story.
Because the labels are used for a shortcut to understanding. I really don’t want to spend ten minutes laying the ground work to have a discussion only to find out i am talking to a neocon.
Seems like a waste of time.
You are not that person. You are you and this would be a decision you make, not some other person. The question is, do you feel like a simple label, controlled by someone else, able to shift from under your feet without your input, is capable of succinctly summing you up to another person? Is your life, your thoughts, your experiences, so capable of being put into such a box, to your satisfaction?
Or are you more dynamic, storied, multi-faceted, vibrant, and in charge of your own thoughts, than a single word defined by a perfect stranger, could possibly describe? And I don't mean your external self (visual appearance), I mean the person you are inside your own head.
I don't know you, but I'd prefer to think you're probably the latter...
But that's for you to decide.
The label may be formulated by someone else with what ever agenda. But it’s up to you to accept the label as is. If you want to use the label, but explain exceptions, then you are expected to provide that context. I don’t see why that should be a problem
If someone else attaches a label to you, then you’re going to have to explain why you differ.
The use of the label is too short cut to understanding, so if after you lay out your beliefs if someone calls you a nazi, and you counter that you don’t argue for the supremacy of germany, understanding using the label is still acheived, and may still be warranted
In essence, all language is labels on understanding. You start with the simple and dig into the minutia only when needed.
Why big word when small word do?
Sorry but this is dumb. I am the one who decides if a label applies to me or not. I won't call myself an anarchist because my beliefs are not described by this word. I will call myself a communist because it describes what I think is true, even if I need to specify ("I'm a communist but...").
There's no one telling me what I believe in, and if a label changes meaning over time or my views change and it no longer applies to my thinking I will just stop using it.
It's the same when you use any other word to describe yourself. "I'm a musician" until I stop playing. "I'm not a painter" until I pick up a brush. "I'm long haired" until I cut my hair.
It is gonna be very hard unbrainwash everyone. I was even taught that shit in school, so one dimensional
I'm not just a centrist, I'm a conservative! I agree with Adam Smith, the father of Capitalism.
For instance, I agree with him that monopolies must be regulated or they will corrupt the government:
It is to sell the one as dear, and to buy the other as cheap as possible, and consequently to exclude, as much as possible, all rivals from the particular market where they keep their shop. The genius of the administration, therefore, so far as concerns the trade of the company, is the same as that of the direc- tion. It tends to make government subservient to the interest of monopoly, and consequently to stunt the natural growth of some parts, at least, of the surplus produce of the country, to what is barely sufficient for answering the demand of the company
...
They will employ the whole authority of government, and pervert the administration of Justice, in order to harass and ruin those who interfere with them in any branch of commerce, which by means of agents, either concealed, or at least not pub- licly avowed, they may choose to carry on.
--
I also agree with him that landlords are parasites and need to be heavily taxed:
As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed and demand a rent even for its natural produce.
A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent, who acts always as a monopolist, and exacts the greatest rent which can be got for the use of his ground.
If you call yourself a captalist but don't even believe in what Adam Smith said, are you really even a capitalist?
If you call yourself a captalist but don’t even believe in what Adam Smith said, are you really even a capitalist?
i'm a capitalist, but only to the extent that capitalism is the most effective mechanism of meeting the needs of a market. I think it's fundamentally impossible to run an economic system in any way that is more optimized to the needs of it's consumers than you can under capitalism, and that's what i like about it.
It's also true that there are some self regulating effects on the market. But that's more complicated.
Though, just because i believe the market handles itself in most cases, doesn't mean i believe it requires no regulation. That would be preposterous. I don't want pure unregulated capitalism, but i don't want socialism/communism either, i want both. Both is good.
Nooooo, you're supposed to quote something about "the invisible hand of the market" without context!
That didn't stop the Christians
Sure, but people are a lot more fervent in their support of capitalism than christianity.
"There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation"
When Pierre Trudeau said that in the 1960s, it was a thing that many conservatives believed. Who'd think it was possible that in 2025 we'd be wanting the conservatives to be like the conservatives from the 1960s.
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
Related communities:
