Arguably, it’s at least in large part the efforts of socialists, communists, and radical feminists that made some of these possible. But decades of vilification in the USA have made them virtually invisible to the general population.
Nothing like propaganda to make people to go against their best interests. I keep having to remember even decades is well after I was born, I can’t imagine having the ideals of conservatives. As long as it’s functional but there’s no cost to not suppressing others, well there may be at some point when we’re all on a scorching planet and have to make real sacrifices. Of course the old billionaires will be dead for the rest to deal with the fallout… hopefully figuratively and not actually like the game.
Vilification that is alive and well here on Lemmy!
Hands up, who hates liberals?!
. . . see? Everyone.
You seem confused. They said socialists, communists and radical feminists. Not liberals.
I am confused as to why they’d misrepresent liberals like that yeah
Are you for real?
Da, comrade. Any likeness to other AI bots, both real and imagined, is purely coincidental.
its called calling out the spread of misinformation
also disinformation too, which is more harmful and intentional.
Removed by mod
MAGA women do not want all women to express to those rights.
MAGA women want to control who represses those rights.
Liberalism is not the reason for almost any of these but radicals working against not within the system.
Liberals taking credit for others’ praxis is their praxis.
Or for the system. If the end result is that an election can be won by buying ads then all the work was for the benefit of the rich.
You’re just being pedantic. In mainstream US terminology “Liberal” means left and “Conservative” means right. If you start using terminology beyond that the target audience isn’t going to know what you’re talking about, and you’ll lose them before you even have a chance to make your point.
… You don’t buy a credit card.
A better historical note would be to say … to have a bank account
I think up until the 50s women couldn’t have a bank account in their name, without their husband signing for them or something. Up until then, women couldn’t have any money in their name in a recognized bank.
For common women that is … if you were the ultra wealthy, you could afford to skirt around banking rules … but as a common woman with a bit of money, you couldn’t have a regular bank account of your own.
You’re right except for the year. That wasn’t until 1974 that women could open back accounts in their own name.
That’s when legislation was passed ensuring banks couldn’t block a woman getting an account on her own. Before that it was dependant on the bank.
Some do have an annual fee…
Between annual fees or interest, most people do directly pay for using a credit cards.
And even if there’s no AF, and you don’t carry a balance so there’s no interest, we all indirectly pay by way of processing fees.
Paying isn’t buying though.
Buying is paying for ownership of a thing.You don’t “own” a credit card. Credit cards own you. (Unless you’re careful)
You’re being unnecessarily pedantic.
Hey great idea! /s
Not legally anyway
Isn’t that because of progressivism? Liberalism is free markets and small government and all that shit. Stop letting the lib shits claim these wins.
Liberal is progressive in America. Lemmy mostly doesn’t want to know that.
No it doesn’t. Just because they might end up voting for the same party (because there are only two fucking choices) does not make them the same at all.
I mean in the semantic sense. The AM radio waves aren’t filled with vitriol for people that support a capital-based economy.
you have just given me a great idea for an AM radio program. Bigfoot Sightings, by Mark Foot.
Shit, I’d listen to that. Well. On podcast cause, no commercials. But yeah that’s brilliant.
You are describing Republicans, or at least what they used to be about.
Their explanation is a bit reductive, but they are attempting to correctly point out that liberalism is the hegemonic ideology of the US state. Republicans and Democrats have historically always subscribed to liberalism, as in a social and political philosophy centered on individualism and capitalism as its primary organising principles. The current success of fascist rhetoric in the US is another example of how liberalism and fascism do not have fundamentally conflicting interests as both depend on the formal exploitation of devalued groups to the benefit of the hierarchy.
Liberals did not give anyone rights, they were forced to find new ways to exploit groups when legal discrimination became untenable in the face of movements that managed to challenge their system. Think prison industrial complex in response to the Civil Rights era and Black Liberation militant groups.
Think prison industrial complex in response to the Civil Rights era and Black Liberation militant groups.
Yes, and NAFTA / off-shoring in response to worker power, stagnant wages in response to women in the workplace, forcing social media to submit to spying in response to organization efforts, etc.
Neoliberalism – the dominance of free-trade rhetoric, dependency on consumer credit and corporate welfare for growth, and diminished remuneration of labourers – is more difficult to attribute as a response to any one factor in social or political change in the late twentieth century, though the persistence of union power and women’s financial independence are certainly factors. Decentralization and deindustrialization in strong union industries had already been official state policy as early as the late 1940s, as well as state influence over media production and communications technology.
The Prison Industrial Complex is much more of a direct response as we see it emerge during the popular Civil Rights Era of the twentieth century with explicit use of the War on Drugs to target black populations. Racist Politicization of drugs was already deployed in the past, but this systemization into forced labour and targeted community oppression was a new way to specifically handle effective Black Liberation movements in the US.
no I’m describing what liberalism actually means.
Republicans were only about that before the Dixiecrats left the Democratic party over civil rights.
Unless you are saying the U.S. had a socialist majority in government when each of these rights/principles became allowed… It was the liberals you speak of that voted them in. Are we going to say Woodrow Wilson had a socialist administration that voted for Women’s Suffrage?
The meme says “liberalism is the reason”, it doesn’t say “liberals voted these in”. You can be a liberal and lean towards progressivism, but that stil doesn’t make these things part of liberalism, it’s still progressivism.
Liberal doesn’t mean the same thing here as it does elsewhere, it’s a dumb thing to argue over. Liberal has no ties to who owns the means of production in the U.S.
I see no one complaining about how the paints were sourced in liberal arts. Words have different meanings in different contexts.
In this context it’s people trying to claim people sound uneducated while really coming across uneducated. If you say different then never say that culture means anything nor exists when someone tramples someone else’s.
Same word, different meaning in different regions
There’s something outside of the US?
/S
A man gave women the right to fight rather than folks fighting for social progress is the liberal narrative we all grew up with. I mean you can hear the same thing on NPR when they talk about the history of Labor Day.
Progressive movements caused social change. Through political pressure. It wasn’t given to us by liberals.
Clearly you aren’t splitting hairs enough. Take your good and add an “ism”… then multiply it by a couple “ists”… and finally divide it by purity…
And the result is basically the same fucking thing, but with a remainder that gives excuses for simple minded folks to disagree…
Yeah, sometimes it is just bargaining chips. Otherwise they have to classify the Richard Nixon administration as being progressive for voting to give women the right to open credit accounts without a male co-signer.
Yeah but their pastor said liberals eat babies. So deal’s off.
They are trained from a very young age to obey and never question authority. It’s pretty much part of the religion.
Vote
New Zealand, Finland and the USSR were the first to make that a reality. Spearheaded by trade union movements and communists.
Work
The Soviet Union was the first country to establish legal equality in pay and employment for women, and then followed by the PRC and the wide amount of time of socdem movement in the nordic countries.
File for divorce
France was the first, with the french revolution. Then came the Soviet Union and after it the PRC.
Buy a credit card
To be honest this is absurd, but indeed the US was the first as far as I can remember. Having the right to drown in debt is good i guess.
Buy a home or a car
US and UK did indeed pioneer that, but it was with more focus on married women. Actual acts focused just on women were implemented by the Soviet Union with collective property and gender equality laws.
Driver’s license
There were little to no formal bans for that, social stigma was and is real though. Still an issue.
Pregnant and not get fired
USSR pioneered that in 1918, with labor codes protecting working mothers. Followed by the nordic socdem movement and the US only in the 1978
Husband can go to jail for beating you
USSR again, was the first to criminalize domestic battery in 1918. Although enforced unevenly it was legally punishable. Western Europe and the Northern America started it in 1970s with implementation continued to 1990s.
Many of the achievements listed are not of liberalism or neoliberalism, they were achievements of activists and unions working in a group to protect their collective interests. In many of the cases it was the Soviet Union with the revolution spearheading these rights, because the revolution itself was started by working class women. The nordics followed with their own social democrat feminist movement. In many things the PRC came before the neoliberal states in achievements of women’s rights, and that is a state that was ravaged by war and imperialism for years. Liberalism gave little to nothing, it maintained the hierarchies, and silenced the movement. Both democrats and republicans both do not care about women’s rights. They are both parties of the same right wing on the fascist eagle.
So this is almost definitely referring to social liberalism, not economic/classical liberalism which is an entirely different thing. Some ideas of social liberalism overlap with progressivism and even socialism.
The US happens to have two parties that are liberals - but it’s two different varieties of liberalism. Republicans are classical liberals whereas democrats for the most part are social liberals
Liberalism means so many things around the world, it’s a shit show.
What exactly could the women vote for in the USSR, or anyone for that matter?
I guess they can vote even today in Russian 😂
I will give you the feminism stuff embedded in the socialist system, that’s true…
…you can have an abortion if you want to not have a baby yet…oh actually you don’t have this one anymore.
Optional@fash.worldmisspelling “radicalism” for “liberalism” is peak liberal Illusory Truth Effect.Get more radical, law-boot licker.
The problem is that a significant portion of MAGA don’t actually want most of those things.
They feel that freedoms are responsibilities. They don’t want to think about who they should vote for, or have to have a job or think about credit cards and budgets and bank accounts. And they’re not worried about needing a divorce or their husband beating them because they figure “Well I married a good Christian man, that will never be a problem for me.”
They say that now, but they’ll be the first to whine about it when they’re inevitably taken away.
LOL liberalism.
American dumbOkay, but can I renounce them all to own the libs?
Hell yeah! Heck, in Texas this doubles as a yard sign for your candidacy!
Removed by mod
They don’t care and take everything for granted, that’s what stupid people do. Also they think 5 min in advance.
See the people who voted for Trump and then were shocked that they or their relatives get deported. Likewise here: "the bad stuff is for other people and not me“ or some version of that.
deleted by creator
No, that’s all due to leftism. Liberals just took credit for them, and have prevented leftists from protecting them.
Okay but “leftism” is just a made-up word like “cromulent” and “hypothetical”.
I mean…if you want to be pedantic, and I always do, every word is made-up. That’s how words work. Don’t have a word for something? Make it up from nothing, or by smashing two or more words together (lookin at you my German fam 😘👉) or just borrow a word from a different language. That’s literally just how words work. It’s all made up.
So true. Or as William Burroughs said, “Language is a virus from outer space.”
Im a left wing socialist, living in Scotland. From my point of view, American liberals are closer to nazis than they are to me.
I live in a country that has free healthcare, free education. That took the two party system, and told it to take a fucking walk. And we did all this, while under the rule of parliament in England. Are we perfect? Not even close. Even the SNP, the party most directly responsible for all the good shit we have today, is invested with corruption.
But if youre an American, and youre waxing lyrical about how amazing the Dems are or about how amazing it is being a “liberal”. Im sorry, but youre right wing and youre hated outside of the US by people who are actually left wing. I mean, youre left wing party is to the right of the fucking tories in the UK. And tories are, in no uncertain terms, massive fucking cunts.
Something to think about the next time you are looking at the Dems to be your heroes…
Well that’s excellent news for Scotland, and well done. The US has a little ways to go with that one.
One of the things that kibbles my bits is that people not well versed in USA look at the turd circus we’ve managed to inflict on everyone and think it’s some agreed-upon settled system. It is absolutely not agreed-upon other than we have to do something today so this is what we’re doing.
Here’s a little flava of what it’s like to support the only national party with elected officials who support healthcare for all, living wage, public transportation, free education, and scientifically backed public health and environmental initiatives: our party “is to the right of the fucking tories in the UK. And tories are, in no uncertain terms, massive fucking cunts. Something to think about the next time you are looking at the Dems to be your heroes…”
That’s what it’s like. So either people who state right up front that they don’t live here and don’t know what it’s like are correct that the Democrats are “to the right of the Tories” and “closer to nazis than [the left]” - OR - They’re wrong.
My position is the latter. But that’s different from “waxing lyrical about how amazing the Dems are”. No no. Nay nay. Dems are extremely critical of the Democratic party for all the reasons you’d expect and some you wouldn’t.
But Lemmy doesn’t need any help shitting on the Democrats, do they? No. Because most of them vote Democrat. They want the national party to do All The Things, All The Time and will never be happy with it except in little pocket of time. That’s what it’s like.
The thing is, dems are the only other party choice.
And while dem leadership is absolutely awful, there are progressives in the Democratic party. Like actual socdems and demsocs. The issue is nobody votes in primaries.
There’s lots of other parties. But the Dems sued the socialist candidate off my state’s ballot last election.
It’s moronic to claim the people setting the fire are the only ones who can fix it.
Link pls?
Just dig a little. The Democrats do this every single election. There’s no better options on the ballot, precisely because they spend a ton of time and money to keep it that way.
https://whyy.org/articles/election-2024-georgia-robert-kennedy-jr/amp/
https://whyy.org/articles/pennsylvania-election-2024-third-party-ballot/amp/
https://dcist.com/story/23/08/07/dc-democrats-sue-to-stop-ranked-choice-voting-initiative/
“I see no good reason for Mr. West to be kept off the ballot or Pennsylvanians otherwise prevented from voting for him,” the lawyer, Matt Haverstick, said in an interview. Haverstick declined to say who hired him or why.
Jill Stein was your socialist candidate? The party that very specifically, under the direction of russia, runs in order to help trump win? The party that filed late and incompletely?
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — The Green Party will remain an official party in North Carolina, able to field candidates statewide through the 2028 elections, even though their 2024 nominees for governor and president failed to get the votes required by state law.
The Republican-led State Board of Elections voted 3-2 on Thursday to continue recognizing the North Carolina Green Party, potentially affecting close contests for president, U.S. Senate and governor or other statewide and local offices.
I hope that’s not too complex for everyone to grok as to what’s going on there.
And it’s funny you say they “always” do that because they didn’t used to do that. Until republiQan ratfuckers like Roger Stone realized they just needed to siphon off 2% more of votes and the GOP would win everytime.
This isn’t the DNC gatekeeping elections, this is an offensive line that is gatekeeping the quarterback. Stunt candidates are a tool the GOP uses all the time - ask them what Ross Perot taught them. Or John Anderson. Scant, last-minute candidates who may or may not know who’s backing them are not serious political entities on a national stage.
Jill Stein? Really? Are we gonna do that one again?
You know, the real progressives are fucked, mate. Bernie was the key. The one chance to drag the U.S. into the new millennium with a bit of decency, fairness, and genuine progress. The kind of shift that could’ve reset the tone for an entire generation. But it was all scuppered, not by the right, not by the voters, but by the same gaggle of corrupt party leaders and donors so many still put their faith in today.
The Democratic establishment couldn’t stomach the idea of someone who didn’t owe them. Twice they closed ranks to stop him, all while pretending it was about “electability.” They said he couldn’t win, then worked behind the scenes to make sure he never got the chance. The DNC changed debate rules mid-campaign, the media ran coordinated hit pieces about his “temperament” and “supporters,” and everyone from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama made calls to make sure endorsements went to the “safe” choice. And for what? So they could put up a candidate who barely inspired his own party to show up at the polls?
Even now, the same pattern plays out. Last year, Nancy Pelosi made sure AOC didn’t get a committee seat that could have set her up for a presidential run in 2028. Instead of giving a 35-year-old woman in her prime the chance to build real experience and influence, the seat went to a 75-year-old man dying of cancer. Because, in their eyes, loyalty to the machine matters more than the future of the movement. And even after the guy died 4 months later, they still wont allow her get the seat.
And it’s not just AOC. Look at what they did to Nina Turner, Cori Bush, Ilhan Omar — anyone who dares to challenge corporate donors or question U.S. foreign policy gets smeared, sidelined, or primaried by DNC-backed “moderates.” The second you talk about universal healthcare, higher taxes on billionaires, or ending endless wars, you’re branded “unelectable.” Yet somehow, it’s always the moderates who lose the winnable races.
You can see this play out at every level of government. look at the New York mayoral race. The establishment had the chance to back real progressives like Maya Wiley or Dianne Morales, people who actually wanted to tackle policing, housing, and inequality at the root. But instead, they rallied behind Eric Adams. A former cop, drenched in real estate money, who branded himself as “working class” while taking donations from every developer in the city. The media treated him like the grown-up in the room, the DNC donors opened their wallets, and the result was inevitable. The city that gave the world Occupy Wall Street ended up with a mayor who governs like Bloomberg with a badge. That’s not progress. That’s regression dressed in identity politics.
And look at what’s happening with Zohran Mamdani. Here’s a guy who’s actually walking the talk, pushing for housing as a human right, calling out landlords and real estate money in politics, standing with tenants instead of developers. You’d think the party would hold him up as the future. A young, articulate, principled leader who speaks to working-class people and immigrants alike. But no. The establishment treats him like a nuisance. They quietly back primary challengers against him, strip funding from his allies, and pretend he’s “too radical” for a state drowning in rent debt and corporate greed. That tells you everything you need to know. In their eyes, the problem isn’t corruption. It’s anyone who dares to point it out.
The truth is, the party doesn’t want progress, it wants control. It’s built to absorb progressive energy, milk it for enthusiasm and votes, then smother it before it threatens the donor class. Bernie showed what was possible. Millions of people, young and old, left and right wing, saw a vision of America that wasn’t built on cynicism or corporate handshakes. And the establishment made damn sure it never got close again.
Because if people like AOC, Bernie, or Turner ever actually got power, the kind of power to change how the system works, it wouldn’t just rattle the right. It’d end the cosy little club at the top of the left too. And they’d rather burn the whole thing down than let that happen.
But it was all scuppered, . . . by the same gaggle of corrupt party leaders and donors so many still put their faith in today.
No they don’t. It’s arguable they ever did. What we do is support our candidate (Bernie, in my case) and then when he doesn’t win, we support the next one down. No faith involved.
The Democratic establishment couldn’t stomach the idea of someone who didn’t owe them.
You’re making that up, but it sounds believable. Oh, you’ve got names, quotes, dates? Well in that case yeah [that person]’s a real asshole and we want them to die. But you don’t, do you. Who said “we can’t stomach the idea of [supporting] someone who doesn’t owe us”? Hm? No one. You’re writing your own little political thriller there.
Even now, the same pattern plays out. Last year, Nancy Pelosi made sure AOC didn’t get a committee seat that could have set her up for a presidential run in 2028.
So true, and - couple of things: 1) that was extreme bullshit and we’re all on board with kicking Nancy to the curb for it. Is Ken Martin going to go on the Sunday talk shows and say that? No. That’s not how we do it because we’re a real party of actual humans. So you won’t get your proof other than what an actual Democrat actually living the US who actually votes is telling you. 2) That may be some sort of recognized path in the UK to run for PM, but here it is not - nothing prevents AOC from running except the age limitation.
The second you talk about universal healthcare, higher taxes on billionaires, or ending endless wars, you’re branded “unelectable.” Yet somehow, it’s always the moderates who lose the winnable races.
Well no, but also yes the Democratic consultants (whom AOC famously elected to not employ) are all about losing winnable races. That’s a long-standing tradition that also helps hide a lot of cheating the GOP does. Here’s what that comes down to: candidates willing to run. The dance floor is always open. There aren’t a lot of Bill Clinton / Barack Obamas that want to run, and people to the left of them even less so. Name a socialist running for the House next year.
You can see this play out at every level of government. look at the New York mayoral race.
Man, NY is fucking Mars politically. Your narrative is convincing to people who don’t know that.
The city that gave the world Occupy Wall Street ended up with a mayor who governs like Bloomberg with a badge. That’s not progress. That’s regression dressed in identity politics.
The city that gave the world OWS voted for “Bloomberg with a badge”. What’s your point? NY politics is fucking insane? That’s my point!
The truth is, the party doesn’t want progress, it wants control.
Bullshit. Of course they want progress, hyperbole fails you here. And all parties “want control” of the party - no shit. That’s what they exist to do. That’s how you get on the ballot in all 50 states. I’d imagine whatever parties are big in Scotland also want control of their party. That’s how it works.
Because if people like AOC, Bernie, or Turner ever actually got power, the kind of power to change how the system works, it wouldn’t just rattle the right. It’d end the cosy little club at the top of the left too. And they’d rather burn the whole thing down than let that happen.
I disagree, but I’m here for Bernie and AOC and anyone like them who wants to run. Bernie’s a fucking Independent, anyone can (and does) run on that - so why don’t they? Because in a lot of places in America (not fucking New York, will you forget about fucking New York for five minutes?) but in Albuquerque and Grand Rapids and Dumas and Tacoma the Democratic party gets it done when nobody - no other party is there to move the country forward. Did that make the news in Scotland? I bet it didn’t.
Socialist Party? Communist Party? The fucking Green party? No. Doesn’t exist, or, exists and is a giant clusterfuck. As most parties are, because they’re human-centered communications organizations with the potential of tremendous money and power.
TL;DR what you’ve got here is not exactly wrong, but it ain’t right.
Enjoy your nightmare, mate. Youve earned it.
Oof. Hey fwiw, I hope you guys leave the UK and rejoin the EU. But if that’s not leftist enough then, y’know whatever helps there. I would think that would be good but wtfdik.
yeah but “leftism” really embiggens the wordostrophe
You’ve really ponked on the big kamimbo there, no refutinating that.
This is a post talking directly to MAGA women. Right-wingers generally don’t know the difference between leftism and liberalism. You gotta talk to people at their level. Being pointlessly pedantic doesn’t convince people.
No, it’s just one group of rightwingers, talking to another faction of rightwingers, trying to take credit for the left’s work to increase their recruitment.
It’s not “pointlessly pedantic.” It’s crucial distinction we have to constantly make, because liberals have been trying to steal that credit for as long as there have been liberals. And nice job throwing in the standard liberal condescension, straight up admitting the tactic is to talk down to conservatives as if they’re children. Because that’s worked so well?
First off, I’m definitely not a liberal.
No idea why you think I’m being condescending, please explain so I can avoid giving that impression in the future. I’m just explaining something that you seemed to have missed in your original comment.
And credit doesn’t matter when the person you’re talking to doesn’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.
Talking to someone at their level doesn’t mean talking to them like they’re a child. It means stopping to think about where that person is coming from and using that to more effectively make your point. Empathy is an incredibly useful skill when you’re trying to communicate with someone, especially someone with very different beliefs from you.
So why not just tell them conservatives accomplished all of those things? If we’re just trying to make them feel good, and giving credit to people who had nothing to do with it, why not just reinforce their bias?
