Yeah there’s a term for this: liberalism.
Many liberals want the similar things as leftists, they just know waving red flags and repeating the same inane slogans doesn’t accomplish anything.
Leftists are so obnoxious that the working class prefers fascism over leftism. Leftists, being obnoxious, just goes on thinking the working class is stupid for not appreciating their greatness. Completely incapable of considering they’re abject failures at communicating with the working class they claim to care about.
So what liberals have given the working class the demands the leftists want?
TRUE, AND BASED.
Thank you.
Liberalism is literally the solution to the problem, but leftists have so much political brainrot they would only be happy if marx came back from the dead to personally govern the country. And righties would only be happy after the complete dissolution of everything they ever know and love, because they’re stupid.
Ew, there’s a bunch of libshit everywhere. God, they got it on the ceiling too! It’s like they exploded in a rancid series of projections!
Yeah who can forget all the liberals who agree with leftists and give their demands like:
- [This page has been left blank]
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
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’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.
My friend in her 30s avoids dating apps because on those apps, either the guy calls himself a centralist and then wants a trad wife and a woman to know her place, or he calls himself not politically active and only listens to Joe Rogan for the discussions nobody else talks about.
Where my single male friends who are good dudes are afraid every woman is just a OF influencer.
I feel sorry for the dating scene.
That’s what I’m doing for a long time now, but I just learned about the Overton Window haha.
Top tier username btw
The right does this and it seems to work for them.
“I’m not a Republican, I’m a centralist.” (Proceeds to list pro-republican things, bash Democrats, then talk about how weed is okay.)
Thinking gay people have human rights cancels out thinking black people don’t!
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.
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.
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?
It is gonna be very hard unbrainwash everyone. I was even taught that shit in school, so one dimensional
Oh goody. Someone who finally gets it.
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.
That didn’t stop the Christians
Sure, but people are a lot more fervent in their support of capitalism than christianity.
Nooooo, you’re supposed to quote something about “the invisible hand of the market” without context!
“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.
I’m a libertarian. Universal basic income would eliminate the need for less efficient welfare programs, cut overhead spending, and feed money back into the economy.
“I don’t care what everyone else says, there’s no need to execute the wealthy en masse. Workers just need to seize the means of production.”
I’m not into that hippie dippie bullshit, I’ve heard great arguments from both sides. But I suppose if forced to pick a flavor of Fully Automated Gay Space Communism, I’d probably pick the “Luxury” variety, like anyone.
Except, the wealthy will likely resist the recovery of what they stole from workers. SO executing at least the very worst of them should stay an option if necessary.
Landlords don’t need to be drawn and quartered, that’s just going too far.
Drawn and thirded.
Drawn and halved.
Or maybe just dismembered without the drawing… They’ve been through enough…
This is kind of how I try to describe cooperatives to some people. It works if you think of freedom and autonomy as conservative ideas which cooperatives bring without central planning socialism, while still being socialist. Also been pleading my leftist circles for years to try to appeal to a wider audience in a similar way. If only we recognize that we’ve all been lied to and propagandized to believe in capitalism, speaking in a way the “right” can get on board with would only help them start listening to reasonable solutions.
I’ve been taking this angle for years and it works like magic. Same with credit unions - most people hate big banks too and literally just need help getting started. “Vote with your wallet!”
The best part about direct action is that it helps the person employing it. Voting benefits the individual voter so little that they don’t think very concretely about what will actually happen, and instead side with whichever tribe gives them more useful local allies.
I mean that is literally how it shifted so hard to the right lol
I’ve been doing that for years. I’ve been claiming to be a conservative and supporting things like universal healthcare. I even give it capitalist flair by saying that ensuring everyone has more money means I can then take that money by selling them shit they don’t need. How the hell am I supposed to sell my useless crap if everyone’s spending their money on rent?!
Ditto with stuff like housing the unhoused. I don’t want filthy drug addicts strewn about the streets taking up my park benches and constantly asking me for ‘bus money’! Get them houses so I don’t have to see them anymore! Also god I hate kids, especially when they’re just hanging around on the street being annoying and intimidating. Build some youth centres so they have somewhere to go and get them away from me!
Altruism through selfishness etc etc etc.
All that lowers crime, too. And a better educated population is a more proficient workforce, who can build more impressive stuff, do better science, and better cure and treat the diseases you or your family might eventually suffer from.
Universal healthcare is good, naturally, because it would reduce payroll expenses for businesses, letting them create more jobs, and be more competitive in the global market with lower prices. Universal healthcare is how we bring manufacturing back to the United States.
You are on to something there, my friend.
Yup, some people can only think in selfish terms so making your argument from that perspective will make it more attractive
Conservatives should be the biggest supporters of the LGBTQIA+ community due to their record low use of abortion services.
It was never about being “pro life” with them, it was always about control over women’s bodies. The pro life thing is just an excuse. If you need proof then look at how they treat people after they’re no longer in utero.
If only they had coherent thoughts.
