• Dale@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      Liberals will always put corporate interests ahead of the rights of the people. Of course they’d rather have happy people and happy corpos, but when push comes to shove they are always more willing to hand the keys to fascists than socialists. At least the fascists believe in capitalism.

      • Vlado@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Liberalism has nothing to do with corporations. These are two totally independents axis. One one you have liberalism and authoritarianism On the other you have socialism and capitalism. You can have liberal socialist and you can have liberal capitalist. People love to conflate these things based on the popular parties in their country. But just because there are opposing parties with some specific economic/social viewpoint combination in one country, it doesn’t mean that they make a template how it works.

        • Dale@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Dearest, no. The axis are economic left vs right (private vs public ownership) and authoritarian vs libertarian. Libertarian being “I can do whatever I want” and authoritarian being “you can only do what I say.” Libertarianism is distinct from liberalism which is a political ideology invented by John Locke which believes free market capitalism is the best economic system except that it needs to be regulated to protect consumers (think the FDA). Before Donald Trump and for most of American history, both parties were liberal parties.

        • leftytighty@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Capitalism is very tied into Liberalism, private property ownership and free markets are Liberal ideas. You’d have to bend them quite out of shape to arrive at socialist liberalism.

          The fact is that some individual rights have to be sacrificed for the collective good, and that includes private ownership over productive assets.

          You have to oppress oppressors, you have to resist violence with violence. You have to take things away from people who took things away from those they exploited.

          • Vlado@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 hours ago

            We have a major political party which is liberal, progressive and socialist. We also have a major political party which is liberal, progressive and capitalist. We also have a semi-major political party which is liberal, conservative and capitalist. And we also have major socalist conservative authoritarian party. No bending out of shape was necessary.

            • leftytighty@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              2 hours ago

              Socialism as in giving people social security is different from socialism as in socialist economy.

              • алсааас [she/they]@lemmy.dbzer0.comOPM
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                edit-2
                2 hours ago

                One is “social” “democracy”, the other is the inalienable human right to food, health, housing, education, work, rest etc. through an economy owned/controlled by the working people. An economy where the parasites as a class have not only been liquidated, but are actively suppressed from reemerging.

                • leftytighty@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 hour ago

                  But if being bad is bad how can you justify being bad to bad people to stop them from being bad? This is why nobody takes leftists seriously, 100+ years of communist and anarchist philosophy and you still haven’t figured out that basic contradiction

          • Vlado@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            3 hours ago

            I’m not sure what you’re trying to imply here. Are you saying that it’s not correct? Care to explain why?

              • Vlado@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                3 hours ago

                Honestly I don’t care for kids memes from the internet about a compass. Just because there are kids creating memes, it doesn’t make it incorrect. What is more illiterate is conflating things that don’t have anything in common just because “that’s how it always is” just because that’s how it works in your country.

                Also there’s actually a third very popular axis that tends to be conflated with the rest based on random thoughts, and that’s progresivism vs conservativism. People also like to say stuff like “all liberals are automatically progressive” (and vice versa) in the same way as the original post did.