this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2023
258 points (91.9% liked)

memes

22660 readers
2 users here now

dank memes

Rules:

  1. All posts must be memes and follow a general meme setup.

  2. No unedited webcomics.

  3. Someone saying something funny or cringe on twitter/tumblr/reddit/etc. is not a meme. Post that stuff in [email protected], it's a great comm.

  4. Va*sh posting is haram and will be removed.

  5. Follow the code of conduct.

  6. Tag OC at the end of your title and we'll probably pin it for a while if we see it.

  7. Recent reposts might be removed.

  8. Tagging OC with the hexbear watermark is praxis.

  9. No anti-natalism memes. See: Eco-fascism Primer

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Seriously though, the USA is virtually always bad.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 48 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

jesse-wtf

Libs and being completely politically illiterate, an iconic duo

[–] JohnDClay 2 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Why do you get to define socialism to exclude liberalism?

[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 year ago (2 children)

LIBERALSOCIALIST IS BACK 🎊

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago

OH MAH GOD MAH BOI IS POSTING

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

Think he'll come back to movie nights?

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 year ago

On the one hand we have the academically accepted definition. On the other we have yours. Why do YOU get to define it?

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 year ago

Why do you get to define socialism to exclude liberalism?

Socialism seeks to abolish property relations, and thus the bourgeoisie with it. Liberalism upholds them.

They are ideologies that are in complete and total contradiction to one another. You either want private property in which some people can enslave others to exploit their labour or you want to get rid of that.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's been defined that way since long before Americans adopted their lexicon of liberal = Democrat-adjascent. And it's used internationally the way we use it here.

[–] JohnDClay 1 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Okay cool. So Democrats arguing for limited or unlimited socialism aren't liberal by the international general definition?

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago

Democrats arguing for limited or unlimited socialism

citations-needed citation needed

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago

limited or unlimited socialism

Welfare is not socialism. Social safety nets are not socialism. You've been duped by a misuse of the word.

These are policies that socialists like because they improve people's lives. They are not socialism itself.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago

There's no democrats arguing for socialism you dumbass. At best you'll find some milquetoast succdem

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago

There are no democrats arguing for socialism. Socialism means a society having collective ownership of the means of production. The dems are a bunch of libs like you

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago

Literally how in the fucking world could you arrive at this conclusion

Not one bit of this question makes sense.

  1. Democrats have never advocated for socialism. I don't even think Bernie Sanders has actually advocated for socialism.

  2. Liberal in America doesn't mean socialist or even socialist adjacent. If you zoom out to include a "international general definition", even less so. Liberalism is in direct opposition to Socialism. Both ideologies organize society in mutually exclusive ways. This is like telling somebody you believe in Cat-Mouseism. It makes no fucking sense

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago

Socialism isn't having shit like social security.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago

For context, social democrats are NOT socialist just because social is in the name. Egon’s comment shouldn’t need that disclaimer, but I doubt you knew this.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Socialism was developed as an intellectual tradition in opposition to liberalism. I didn't define it

The people who invented liberalism defined it. Take that up with Rousseau and Locke, et al.

[–] JohnDClay 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But definitions change over time as people use the words differently. Except French where the government gets to decide what words mean.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 year ago (2 children)

LIB

Words have meaning. Your political illiteracy is not my fault

[–] JohnDClay 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Words meaning is what we all decide they are. Not always the original.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just because you're illiterate doesn't mean the squiggles I'm making don't have meaning

[–] JohnDClay 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But if enough people agree on what the squiggles mean, now they have meaning.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

People already agree on what the squiggles mean. They aren't squiggles to us because we can read - you are saying that they mean something different because you're illerate. Your opinion means nothing because you don't know what you're talking about

[–] JohnDClay 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] JohnDClay 1 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago

You literally know nothing, and are such a smug bastard about it. Read a fucking book.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

It's literally the definition of liberalism outside of the US, lol.

The right wing party in Australia is called the Liberal Party. The center left is Labor, the left wing is the Socialist party.

In many European countries, Liberals (or Liberal Democrats) are right wing.

Liberals are only equated to the left in the US, which is yet another reason that USA BAD.