Liberalism is a really broad family of conflicting political and moral philosophies, and it’s really just the capitalist with minimal regulation bit that’s consistently there in all the branches. Most of the time, people are only dealing with different branches of liberalism, and depending on the local politics, there might only be one major political party in a country calling themselves the liberals.
Generally, leftists will talk about liberals and liberalism a lot because they’re living under some branch of liberalism, and they disagree to some extent with every branch of liberalism. Socialism, Communism and Anarchism are not Liberalism (and if you want to upset tankies and say it’s distinct from communism or upset other leftists and say it’s leftist Marxism-Leninism is not liberalism, too). Fascism and Conservatism are also not liberalism, but they’re not leftist, either, and to confuse things, lots of political parties calling themselves conservative around the world only want things that fit a definition of liberalism.
I mentioned anarchism and what anarchists think in the previous post because you replied to a post with a screenshot where an anarchist mentioned libs and seemed to think it was ambiguous what he meant, when it’s deducible from the fact that he’s an anarchist.
Why can’t you provide real world examples if we are supposed to take you at your word. This should be extremely easy.
Note that I said: “attitudes, views, perspective, key historical points relevant to this conversation, no meaningless generalities.”
and it’s really just the capitalist with minimal regulation bit that’s consistently there in all the branches.
I do not find the last piece convincing because of certain real world examples (I’ve lived there for multiple years and speak the local language). Keep in mind that I don’t mean this a straightforward way, based on your reply, there may be things that you’ haven’t considered.
Capitalism (not necessarily American-style oligarchy, or American style capitalism themed polemics and propaganda) is supported by almost everyone outside of tiny niches; it’s definitely not only supported liberals, so the capitalist identification is meaningless.
Not that “capitalist with minimal regulation” is going to be helpful in the first place.
You couldn’t even answer the kindergarten-level question:
a liberal in Moldova, Oman and the US are all the same and “capitalist with minimal regulation” is all that they are?
If anarchists believe this to be true, then they should say it openly. But I think everyone understands how stupid that would sound.
Not to be overly uncharitable, but this is why a lot of English speaking (as a first language) self-identifying leftists come off as online roleplayers.
If anything, if what you are saying is true, it only reinforces the notion that the obsession with “liberals” among internet leftists is mostly US-specific shitposting deeply tainted with American provincialism and lack of curiosity.
Liberalism is a really broad family of conflicting political and moral philosophies, and it’s really just the capitalist with minimal regulation bit that’s consistently there in all the branches. Most of the time, people are only dealing with different branches of liberalism, and depending on the local politics, there might only be one major political party in a country calling themselves the liberals.
Generally, leftists will talk about liberals and liberalism a lot because they’re living under some branch of liberalism, and they disagree to some extent with every branch of liberalism. Socialism, Communism and Anarchism are not Liberalism (and if you want to upset tankies and say it’s distinct from communism or upset other leftists and say it’s leftist Marxism-Leninism is not liberalism, too). Fascism and Conservatism are also not liberalism, but they’re not leftist, either, and to confuse things, lots of political parties calling themselves conservative around the world only want things that fit a definition of liberalism.
I mentioned anarchism and what anarchists think in the previous post because you replied to a post with a screenshot where an anarchist mentioned libs and seemed to think it was ambiguous what he meant, when it’s deducible from the fact that he’s an anarchist.
Why can’t you provide real world examples if we are supposed to take you at your word. This should be extremely easy.
Note that I said: “attitudes, views, perspective, key historical points relevant to this conversation, no meaningless generalities.”
I do not find the last piece convincing because of certain real world examples (I’ve lived there for multiple years and speak the local language). Keep in mind that I don’t mean this a straightforward way, based on your reply, there may be things that you’ haven’t considered.
Capitalism (not necessarily American-style oligarchy, or American style capitalism themed polemics and propaganda) is supported by almost everyone outside of tiny niches; it’s definitely not only supported liberals, so the capitalist identification is meaningless.
Not that “capitalist with minimal regulation” is going to be helpful in the first place.
You couldn’t even answer the kindergarten-level question:
If anarchists believe this to be true, then they should say it openly. But I think everyone understands how stupid that would sound.
Not to be overly uncharitable, but this is why a lot of English speaking (as a first language) self-identifying leftists come off as online roleplayers.
If anything, if what you are saying is true, it only reinforces the notion that the obsession with “liberals” among internet leftists is mostly US-specific shitposting deeply tainted with American provincialism and lack of curiosity.