Gonna be honest... I'm confused about the difference. I'm one of those people who never saw a difference between someone who calls themselves a leftist, or someone who says they're liberal. I tried to do some research and I'm curious if this is how other people on here view these political ideologies. https://www.lawrentian.com/archives/1022577 "While it’s clear that these policies are not right-leaning ideas, can they really be called “left”? For far too many Americans, “left” and “liberal” are one and the same, but it is becoming increasingly important to draw a distinction between these two concepts, as they are much more different than one might think. According to the average Tucker Carlson tangent, the more disagreeable an idea is, the more leftist it is. Ask any true communist (like myself) and they will happily jump on the opportunity to tell you why “leftist” and “liberal” are not interchangeable terms. So let’s discuss. The simplest distinction between liberals and leftists is that liberals support capitalism and want to make changes within it, while leftists vouch for an alternative economic system entirely. For example: where a liberal would theoretically support the inclusion of gay people into the U.S. military, a leftist might oppose the military in general, believing the U.S. military to be a harbinger of death and therefore deplorable no matter which marginalized groups are represented in its ranks. Where a liberal would support laws heavily limiting civilian gun ownership, a leftist might support the arming of the masses, and particularly of the marginalized groups of society, because the disarming of those groups has historically allowed for violent government suppression." " What’s In A Liberal? In the U.S., liberals are standardly seen as social liberals rather than as some other form of liberal, such as classical liberals. One confusing aspect is rival ideological groups situate liberals in quite different positions on the political spectrum: liberals are seen as center-left or centrist by leftists, but seen as just generally-on-the-left by people on the right. So those to the left of social liberals see them as center-left, centrist, or even on the right, whereas those to their right see them as just being on the left." What’s In A Leftist? Leftists, a group mainly comprised of socialists, communists, and anarchists, are usually anti-capitalist. Liberals sometimes see themselves as leftists, or view themselves as being “on the left,” since liberals are likely to place themselves as left-of-center on the political spectrum — but leftists typically reserve “left” and “left-of-center” for people whose political orientation is to the left of liberalism. Those who lean right tend to use “the left” and “leftist” as a way of picking out anyone to their left, which includes the vast swathe of liberals.
There is this issue with the right grouping in everyone on the left with antifa or anarchists. Liberals are being marked as radicals simply because they stand for change and progress. Change and progress are radical in a way, because in its nature it requires us to look at who we are, and to give up outdated ideals. It asks us to diversify. That can be scary, but it is not the bad thing its made out to be. Change and progress are inevitable. They are necessary. Many on the right want to instead go backwards or stay in a place that can no longer exist.
It's just labeling, they mean whatever the speaker/writer wants them to mean. It doesn't actually tell you anything useful. Like if you see 'cleaning product' on sale for $30. Is that a good price? Well, depends on whether it's a pressure washer or a bottle of bleach. barfo
barfo and chris are right. At this point, it's like "Woke", ask a conservative what it means and they'll be dumbfounded and just repeat some talking point they heard. Same with "socialist" and "socialism". Peoples critical thinking skills are toast, and their ability to be empathetic are just about gone too (also gone with this is their ability to realize there are more than one kind of way to be something, you don't have to blindly agree about everything and everyone to be empathetic).
The funny thing is woke really means to be able to think for one's own self. It's been made into some terrible thing by the right. Education has become bad In their eyes because that's liberal. They call it indoctrination, when what the right is doing is the real indoctrination. Trump and the right love the uneducated because they can easily control them with fear and nonsense. This country has become a Barnum and Bailey sideshow. Barnum one of the best ever showmen said, there is a suckered born every minute. He wasn't wrong. As for the socialist/socialism label, to the right that equates to communism. Equal rights are being made into some terrible thing in the minds of the right. The rights of women and the LGBTQ community are being stripped, voting rights for African Americans are being stripped. It's all happening right before out eyes and many are blind too it, because they have been made to think its good. I thought it would harder for them to take women's rights because women out number men, but even women themselves are being duped into standing against their own rights. I don't want this country to become like the movie Idiocracy, but the above, that's how it happens.
Come from a huge family of democrats/liberals. Most of the men and a number of the women hunt with rifles and have carry permits. Pro choice, Pro SSM, Pro LGBT, Pro Union, Pro Social Security & Medicare. Pro Immigration.
Yeah, most people are generally on-side, just wish so many didn't like capitalism and the police... or at least, I wish more of them felt like they could do something about either of them through mutual aid and police abolition attempts, but those are involved and when you're comfortable you don't want to rock the boat. This is how the power stays in power, by aligning the middle class with the ownership class and against the poor and the destitute. Framing homelessness not as a failure of society to protect people, but as an aesthetic safety issue is a good example. Not a lot of people are willing to have a conversation that respects the homeless as full human beings with full human rights.
I don't think most care about capitalism or the police. I think they'd be totally fine with police who were actual peace officers and a generous social safety net, as long as they weren't personally negatively impacted. I think the concept of capitalism is fine as long as there is a generous social safety net (No homeless, universal healthcare, universal education, etc) and the capital is responsible for any harm it causes to the environment and society. Ie, a business must account for the harm it causes. It seems to work well this way in many social democracies (all but the last part, I'm not sure any place actually holds businesses accountable for all of the harm caused, but some do better than others).
Your first point is the police would be great if they weren't what the police have always been. You are not describing the police. You are describing the alternative to police that police abolitionists want. Your second point is that capitalism would be great if it were socialism. You are not describing capitalism, you are describing socialism. You see police and go "ooh we definitely need that" and you see capitalism and go "ooh we definitely need that" but then you go and describe a socialist society with police abolition as your favorite version of capitalism and police. But when a leftist says "we should abolish police and trade out capitalism for socialism" liberals balk at both, and won't work with the leftists to get what they both want. And this works both ways, because leftists don't want the word police or the word capitalism anywhere near their solutions. It's just frustrating is all.
Police aren't like that everywhere. My point was, there is nothing preventing us from having police like that (peace officers) except a loud minority of the population. I disagree. As would most of the countries who do this. They are capitalist based economies with generous social safety nets. They are Social Democracies. And they are the happiest places in the world. I understand what you're saying. But I don't see leftists, liberals, or abolitionists. I just see policy that makes sense and think we should strive for it.
It's no longer a free enterprise driven economy but rather a mixed enterprise of government and capitalism. Seems we need more social safety nets for sure. Also, fixed the freaking roads....lol
Exactly. Socialism would be everybody sharing equally. Having a capitalism based economy means people can get paid more for making themselves more valuable. And prices for things are more closely related to the resources and energy required to supply them. I'm not saying this is better, just that is a big difference... Of course, government can muck that up too, like we do with oil, junk food, etc.
