this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2024
428 points (74.5% liked)
US Authoritarianism
830 readers
6 users here now
Hello, I am researching American crimes against humanity. . This space so far has been most strongly for memes, and that's fine.
There's other groups and you are welcome to add to them. USAuthoritarianism Linktree
See Also, my website. USAuthoritarianism.com be advised at time of writing it is basically just a donate link
Cool People: [email protected]
founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Pretty sure liberals are past 15 an hour and have been for awhile. Centrist Dems are still on board for 15, at least in the party platform. And regardless it's a damn sight better than those calling for the elimination of the minimum wage altogether.
Meanwhile Congress has never missed a pay raise and that receives minimal attention.
Its always baffled my how many government positions have perioidic pay increases, sometimes annually, a good pension usually as well, but they will never pass legislation to make other employers do the same.
Companies pay damn good money to ensure their payroll stays as low as possible. It's cheaper to ~~buy~~ donate to politicians than raise base pay.
Which is why the government should take responsibilty and deny the ~~bribery~~ lobbying and enforce better wage and labour laws
Absolutely. It's unfortunate that the ones we need to make those changes are the ones who benefit from the current system. The cycle has to be broken, and that's an enormous task.
one universal health care idea was to allow all citizens to buy into the same healthcare plan as congress at the same rate they pay.
For government positions it's about retention as they are competing with the private sector for employees.
They're referring to liberalism, not social democracy or progressive or whatever weird definition American media started using in the last 25 years or so.
Here's a book on what it's meant for the last 300 years, and what it still means in the rest of the world.
If 344 pages is too long for you, here's a song from the 60s about liberals that's no less true today.
American media, by which we mean conservative media, refers to liberals as that to trick people into thinking the far left doesn't exist. If centrists can be labeled as left as left can be then it's safe to ignore the actual left. Of course the Liberals aren't exactly upset about this either.
Oh.
And here's how the rest of the world uses the word "Liberal": https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=liberal+
Here is the Wikipedia article on liberalism: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
Here is the dictionary definition of the word: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/liberal
But, hey, your racist asshole made a shitty song about how much he liked Malcom X being shot so liberal is bad and something vote trump, right??
Imagine having this lackluster reading comprehension, and then linking others to a dictionary.
I read enough to see that I disagree. His attacks on what he calls "Liberalism " make a little sense in the context of him being a communist. But this post is about American politics.
Let me ask you a simple question. Do you think that Harris should win the election in November? Do you think that Trump should win in November? Or are you suggesting some fantasy?
Nope, no, still failing comprehension.
This your guy? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domenico_Losurdo
No, not taking the bait. If you're unwilling and/or incapable of processing something as simple as "Love me I'm a liberal", then I have neither the time nor the crayons to talk to you about anything else.
Dude, that song sucks
See previous comment.
You completely missed the point of the song.
Phil Ochs was satirizing liberals of his time pretending to support civil rights, but opposing any actual means to get there and supporting every action against "radicals".
Here's MLK expressing the same sentiment.
Sorry it was so deep and meaningful I just missed it completely. It sounds like what you are saying is that a small group of bad actors self identified as liberal when they probably should not have.
I have point you at the book I linked, it's not a small group of bad actors, the "freedom" of liberalism has always meant the freedom to exploit others when it comes into conflict with any other freedom.
There's a reason Cuba is not considered liberal, despite having racial equality and LGBT+ rights enshrined in their constitution. When East Germany liberalized, it meant privatization, austerity, and a regression in LGBT+ rights.
The small group that keeps getting misidentified as liberals when they shouldn't be are socialists and anarchists.
You realize the person you’re responding to literally cited a book length academic source by an actual historian, right? Why do you think a Wikipedia article, a google search and, a basic dictionary definition is an adequate response to that?
Judging by your comment history you really need to do some reading on the history of liberalism as a political ideology. This is a long but accessible starting place from a left-wing perspective. Feel free to form your own opinion, man. But at least understand some of the basics of the history of an ideology before you start an argument about what it is and isn’t.
That's a you tube series. I'm talking about real life. Get off the internet and talk to real people. See if anyone uses the word "Liberal " like you do. One guy wote a book. Even if you can sight several scolars, it that's more than that to change the definition of a word or how 99.9998% of the population uses the word. To mean freedom. Likes it does.
Most of his argument comes from direct quotes of actual political philosophers like John Locke, John Stuart Mill and, Adam Smith. These aren’t just random scholars, these are people who are fundamental to the development of liberalism as a political ideology. Some guy on the internet who clearly has never engaged with that history of work isn’t going to change the actual meaning of the word either.
Look, I’m not citing a YouTube video because it’s the end all be all of sources. You should absolutely consider other perspectives. I’m citing it because it’s easy to understand and it’s clear you’re having a hard time understanding what people are talking about. I say again, you can still make up your own opinion but please inform yourself before you get into an argument of what liberalism is.
It doesn’t just mean “freedom”. I assure you if you have any conservative friends in “real life” they would disagree with the notion that liberalism just means freedom. There are probably even some Lincoln Project conservatives who would disagree with that.
I personally think that there are some aspects to liberalism that can lead society closer to being more free but there are other aspects to liberalism that work against that end. But almost everyone who has a basic understanding beyond a dictionary definition would agree that there’s more to it than just being a synonym for freedom.
Read the damn book, it goes through its use by the major liberal thinkers since the 1700s. If you read any leftist or semi-serious literature on the subject, they'll be using that same definition.
If that's too much, just peruse https://www.google.com/search?q=site:marxists.org%20liberalism
Every work there is political and either historical or of some level of academic rigor.
"Liberalism is a word that means different things to different people."
That is literally first damn sentence that come up for your under your link!
We've supplied you with works showing the definition that OP and every even semi-serious political philosopher, both liberal and communist means when they say it.
Why are you dying on this hill? Just educate yourself.
Dude, I literally showed you the dictionary. You think that Wikipedia, the OED, and everyone else is wrong but one dead Italian communist was right. Yes, pinko maranara had half a point in that some bad things have been done in the past in the name of liberalism, but that can be said for every major political philosophy.
I find it very telling that not one of you russian trolls can tell me who you would support in the upcoming US election.
There's 30 pages of citations, he goes through every major liberal philosopher and most of the leaders, if you want to say everyone from Locke to Smith to De Tocqueville and Washington to Jefferson to Teddy Roosevelt didn't understand their own philosophy, that's a hell of a take.
Do you genuinely believe that anyone you're talking to is a Russian troll? You can look at people's post histories.
Answer the question. If you can or if you could, who would you vote for ?
Here is the fun part of this hill. I'm not dying on it. No matter what direction thus little internet debate goes, at the end of the day, liberal still means liberal. You all insisting that up means down and liberal is bad because reasons doesn't change anything except amuse me. It's like watching monkeys flung poo. I'm not dieing on this hill, I got my feet up earing popcorn. Let me know when y'all get the dictionary updated.
I am voting PSL.
A vote for trump. A vote that looks at the only two possible outcomes of this election and see no difference between the two. Thank you, go fuck yourself.
I live in South Carolina, it's never going blue, but it could potentially result in federal funds for PSL.
Wiki has citations too. Why do you think that they are all wrong? I don't recall Smith ever agruing "Luberals bad therefore vote for fascism"
Read the damn book. The point of the book isn't "liberals bad". I am trying to give you a more nuanced view of what the freedom of liberalism means so you can understand what OP was talking about and you can meaningfully participate in these conversations instead of insisting that the every philosopher on all sides of the issue didn't understand what they are talking about.
What do you mean? Congressional salaries have been the same since 2009, they voted against their inflation pay adjustment every year since then, because it's great PR. They make the real money from insider trading anyway...
How can they be both at the same time?
Because in the US they're two separate groups.
No they aren't.