I am super confused by your take here. Liberals who, and let's be clear, regularly push for better if not universal health care (and are the only major party to do so) jerk off big Pharma to you? How exactly do you get to that conclusion?

[–] Emmie@lemm.ee 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

Liberals means different things around the world. Here it means free markets circlejerkers, Adam smith cultists, invisible hand of the market preachers while at the same time anti lgbt for some reason. Pro freedom but anti freedom. Full of paradoxes. Neonazi too and even conservative despite based around free market peddling.

After all we live in a post truth word where even people who agree with each other cannot communicate anymore due to shifting meaning of the words thanks to the politicians and media.

How can we even converse if the words itself are stolen, changed and used for war? Do we need to use mathematics instead of language if the latter is disfigured beyond recognition? Changed into a tool of some demagogue?

[–] sneakybells@lemmy.ml 3 points 7 months ago

Adam Smith had a completely different definition of "free markets" than Neoliberals did.

[–] UmeU@lemmy.world -3 points 7 months ago (3 children)

You just said that liberals are hardcore capitalists despite the fact that liberals are the ones pushing for a hybrid socialist democracy where key industries are socialized so that rampant corruption, which is an effect of the invisible hand, can be avoided. You go on to say that liberal means conservative.

Phrases like ‘we are living in a post truth world’ are a self fulfilling prophecy for those who use that phrase… for the rest of us you just sound like a far-right provocateur.

It appears you are either very confused or you are a dishonest interlocutor and are completely full of shit.

[–] Strawberry@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 7 months ago (1 children)

.world user try not to be confused about the word 'liberal' challenge (impossible)

[–] UmeU@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

This is a really insightful argument you have proposed. am going to have to give it a lot of thought because it’s so sophisticated and well thought out/communicated. You should be proud of yourself.

[–] Emmie@lemm.ee 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Lmao sounds like you got some stick up your ass. Go get some qualified help with pulling it out

[–] UmeU@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Careful, your ad hominem is showing

[–] Emmie@lemm.ee 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Damn I am trying to stay classy today despite all odds. I may need to kill someone (in a game) before the day comes to an end to release that steam from hormone inbalances

Fuck it I am going out to the city

[–] UmeU@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

Maybe you should try putting a stick in your ass

[–] sparkle@lemm.ee 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

"Liberal" isn't only a word used for modern US/Canadian progressives. "Liberal" is used to mean someone who believes in "free-market" capitalism, free trade, private ownership of the means of production and anti-nationalizationism, anti-protectionism/anti-regulationism, and individualism/anti-collectivism. It's pretty much synonymous with right-wing "libertarian" ideologies, including neoliberalism, classical liberalism, and "anarcho"capitalism. This is what the word has always referred to normally, and is by far the most common usage in most of the world, and it's still used this way in the US – mainly in economic, philisophical, or "fundamental rights" contexts though.

Liberalism is pretty much the antithesis of socialism, in a purely left-versus-right sense at least. The American ideology is often considered "social liberalism" or even "modern American liberalism", which still holds beliefs of individualism and capitalism, but differs from liberalism in that it pushes for a regulated mixed economy, as well as the government contributing to fulfilling social needs like healthcare, education, and infrastructure. It also is defined by focusing on social justice/civil rights, as opposed to traditional liberalism (which is opposed to social justice and civil rights, believing people in a "free market" will decide to do the right thing). It ranges from being a centrist ideology to being a left-leaning right-wing ideology, so when the only opposition is basically dormant fascism, it is the "left" ideology. In a full political view though, it isn't leftism.

The American misappropriation of the term came from a time when the word "progressive" was starting to be seen as "radical" (and therefore negative). Progressives started using "liberal" instead, and it became a way to say "I only want some government intervention in the economy and social issues, but not a radical amount". When New Deal politicians like FDR popularized it, it kind of became cemented in American political discourse as meaning that.

[–] UmeU@lemmy.world -2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Modern American liberalism is democratic socialism and that’s what it has meant since FDR…

"In the United States, liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal programme of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited governmentand laissez-faire economic policies."Consequently, the ideas of individualism and laissez-faire economics previously associated with classical liberalism are key components of modern American conservatism and movement conservatism, and became the basis for the emerging school of modern American libertarian thought.

This doesn’t mean that liberalism = conservatism.

[–] sparkle@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Surely you must notice that "Modern American Liberalism" and "Liberalism" are two separate terms? "Liberal" can mean MANY things other than American liberalism. It even specifies in the article you're quoting. You cannot just assume that any and every usage of the term "liberal" is in reference to social liberalism, even in America it's still used in the common/typical/"original" sense frequently (just not by uninformed voters).

And AFAIK nobody said anything about liberalism (and American liberalism) and conservativism being equivalent either. "Conservative" is a significantly more broad term than "liberal" and it's impossible to definitively equate or oppose them, but generally conservativism is opposite to progressivism – seeing how liberalism is usually socially progressive, it isn't generally a perfect match. But there does exist "conservative liberalism", which is socially conservative and economically liberal – in theory what American conservatives are supposed to be, but in reality they're a bit more... fascist.

Relatively though, American liberals are significantly more conservative than, say, socialists and most leftist ideologies. They still hold many very (especially fiscally) conservative beliefs. There are plenty of American liberals that are in the pockets of big pharma.

Also calling modern American liberalism "socialism", even "democratic socialism", is laughable. Socialism requires abolishing capitalism and having the means of production belong to the workers/public. Democratic socialism is an ideology that believes that socialism can be achieved through peaceful democratic reform rather than violent revolution. Modern American liberalism specifically advocates for a mixed economy with mostly private, but some nationalized, industries, which is very much NOT socialist. It is quite literally, regulated capitalism. It also specifies that in the same article you quoted. You can't just take any welfare state (or attempt at one) and call it socialism.

For the most part, "lib" is synonymous with "so-called market capitalist and liberty advocate", i.e. almost all Americans in politics. A non-American using it to describe American politicians bought out by big pharma makes perfect sense, as most of them also claim to like the free market and (negative) freedom and stuff.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 7 points 7 months ago

Liberal = laissez faire

[–] Glytch@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

Liberals don't do that, progressives do. Liberals say that universal health care is too complicated and nuanced so we better just stick with the system we have because that's generating profits so it must be working.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

They might mean neo libs.

It's fucking annoying when capitalists keep coming up with capitalist positions and naming them so that they sound like they are something else. Like neo liberalism or libertarianism, which are pretty close to the same thing (all about a deregulated, private, free market), only libertarians like to emphasize how they are ok with sex and drugs.

Liberals want governments and collective public elements to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals (from other individuals, organizations, and governments).

Neo liberals want governments and collective public elements to stay out of their affairs and let them manage their own interests.