• Default_Defect@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

    • within_epsilon@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      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.

    • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

      • MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          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.

        • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          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.

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

            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.

            • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 hours ago

              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.

              The names yes, but the basic conflict is much older, Europe itself had the Guelph-Ghibelline conflict.

              • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 day ago

                I don’t think it’s a dumb rebuttal to point out that the vast majority of countries today are no longer Monarchist. Liberalism was left wing when the Bourgeoisie were a progressive force alongside the Proletariat and Peasantry against the Monarchy, now that the Bourgeoisie is in power and the Proletariat is by far the most numerous class, it isn’t accurate to label liberalism as left.

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

                  Well it also matters to specify what type of liberalism we’re referring to right? If we’re talking about classical liberalism (a k.a American libertarianism) which was the pervasive thought at the time, then that is obviously right wing. Progressivism (a.k.a American Liberalism) is more centre-left and developed more recently. Neo-liberalism is probably more right leaning than classical liberalism.

                  Although it probably won’t matter to you because they all operate under capitalism.

                  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    Bingo to the latter. There are nuances and differences, but at a base level they seek to conserve the present system and tweak it, not fundamentally alter it to its entirety.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

    • bouh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.