Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, the right to private property and equality before the law.
Private property is foundational to capitalism, an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. As a legal concept, private property is defined and enforced by a country’s political system.
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership.
What you call “liberal” and what you call “conservative” are both liberal.
Liberalism is to the left of conservatism. The problem is that you don’t have many conservatives in the USA. Conservatism is a philosophy that emerged as a reaction to liberalism in Renaissance Europe. Specifically, conservativism is a philosophy supporting monarchy and hereditary aristocracy linked to monarchy. There are very very few people in the USA who are conservatives. Instead, what the USA calls conservatives are regressive liberals and what the USA calls liberals are neoliberals and progressive liberals.
Liberalism is a conservative ideology, yes. It’s the ideology of capitalism and western imperialism.
Leftism is the political realm of anti-capitalists. In a political dichotomy, liberalism stands on the right with other capitalist ideologies. Leftists stand opposed to them both. Liberalism is the ideology of billionaires, of strike breaking, of economic prosperity for the wealthy being the measuring stick of how successful a society is.
Liberalism is not a conservative ideology. You are confused. Read the Wikipedia article on conservativism at the very least. Conservatism is a pro-royalist, monarchich and aristocratic philosophy that emerged explicitly as a reaction to liberalism.
Conservatism and liberalism are both in favor of billionaires, they disagree on where power lies and who can be billionaires. Conservatives believe royals and hereditary aristocrats with royal backing can be billionaires. Liberals believe merchants can be billionaires.
you meant “figuratively” here, surely. Nothing that I wrote could reasonably be understood to mean “liberalism isn’t liberalism”. I’m not sure where you got that from, I’m afraid, and it’s not my duty to help you achieve comprehension. Maybe you could reach out to your educational institution.
Considering your original comment is gone, meaning I can’t even refer to what you said nor to my own response in its context, and that you basically instantly went to ad hominem attacks calling me uneducated, merely for what was either misinterpreting your original comment or disagreeing with it, I can only assume you’re not having this discussion out of good faith, so let’s end this here.
I didn’t edit my comment- talk to your moderation staff. I am discussing in good faith and meant everything I said. But I’m content to be done if you are. Have a day. 🫱
That’s not how things work. It doesn’t matter whether there is something worse out there or not. Each ideology has to be judged on its own terms. What you’re suggesting is a logical fallacy.
It doesn’t matter whether there is something worse out there or not.
What gibberish is this? You’ve introduced wildly subjective metrics “better” and “worse” into a discussion about saving ourselves from exploitation, and then dared to suggest that ideology should be judged on its own terms ? Is this parody?
Removed by mod
First sentence from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism :
Second paragraph from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property :
This is in stark contrast to the first sentence from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism :
What you call “liberal” and what you call “conservative” are both liberal.
You’re arguing that liberalism isn’t to the left of conservatism. It’s been fun. Thanks for the laughs. :)
Liberalism is to the left of conservatism. The problem is that you don’t have many conservatives in the USA. Conservatism is a philosophy that emerged as a reaction to liberalism in Renaissance Europe. Specifically, conservativism is a philosophy supporting monarchy and hereditary aristocracy linked to monarchy. There are very very few people in the USA who are conservatives. Instead, what the USA calls conservatives are regressive liberals and what the USA calls liberals are neoliberals and progressive liberals.
Liberalism is a conservative ideology, yes. It’s the ideology of capitalism and western imperialism.
Leftism is the political realm of anti-capitalists. In a political dichotomy, liberalism stands on the right with other capitalist ideologies. Leftists stand opposed to them both. Liberalism is the ideology of billionaires, of strike breaking, of economic prosperity for the wealthy being the measuring stick of how successful a society is.
Liberalism is not a conservative ideology. You are confused. Read the Wikipedia article on conservativism at the very least. Conservatism is a pro-royalist, monarchich and aristocratic philosophy that emerged explicitly as a reaction to liberalism.
Conservatism and liberalism are both in favor of billionaires, they disagree on where power lies and who can be billionaires. Conservatives believe royals and hereditary aristocrats with royal backing can be billionaires. Liberals believe merchants can be billionaires.
Here are the definitions I’m using:
Dunn, John (1993), Western Political Theory in the Face of the Future, Cambridge University Press:
Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan (2009), Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics:
Where are you getting your definitions from? I feel like you’re just making them up.
What absurdly hollow and self serving definitions. You might as well say “liberalism is defined as being good”
I mean, Love Me, I’m a Liberal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cdqQ2BdgOA
Removed by mod
You’re quite literally arguing that liberalism isn’t liberalism because conservatism/neoliberalism exists.
you meant “figuratively” here, surely. Nothing that I wrote could reasonably be understood to mean “liberalism isn’t liberalism”. I’m not sure where you got that from, I’m afraid, and it’s not my duty to help you achieve comprehension. Maybe you could reach out to your educational institution.
Considering your original comment is gone, meaning I can’t even refer to what you said nor to my own response in its context, and that you basically instantly went to ad hominem attacks calling me uneducated, merely for what was either misinterpreting your original comment or disagreeing with it, I can only assume you’re not having this discussion out of good faith, so let’s end this here.
I didn’t edit my comment- talk to your moderation staff. I am discussing in good faith and meant everything I said. But I’m content to be done if you are. Have a day. 🫱
That’s not how things work. It doesn’t matter whether there is something worse out there or not. Each ideology has to be judged on its own terms. What you’re suggesting is a logical fallacy.
What gibberish is this? You’ve introduced wildly subjective metrics “better” and “worse” into a discussion about saving ourselves from exploitation, and then dared to suggest that ideology should be judged on its own terms ? Is this parody?
🤡
Removed by mod
You seem to be lost. We obviously aren’t going to leave the socialist space we have created for ourselves.
You managed to make a self referential comment in your confusion I see.
So is red lemmy just a porn instance like redtube or why pick red when you’re not even slightly left wing?
There’s no porn on my instance, did you look at it? Seems typical that you would form a superior opinion without doing any research.
No, if your account has been allowed to stay on your instance, it holds no value to me regardless of whatever content is on it.
Then why on God’s green earth did you ask if it had porn on it? Where did that even come from? rofl 😂
You missed a joke
Redtube and other porn sites starting with red.