In Europe and Latin America, liberalism means a moderate form of classical liberalism and includes both conservative liberalism (centre-right liberalism) and social liberalism (centre-left liberalism).[26]
Liberalism essentially encompasses the entirety of what is broadly considered acceptable within western politics, which is why you’ll sometimes hear the term ‘western liberal democracies’, but for our purposes we are usually referring to the less immediately fascist end of the spectrum (liberalism always eventually decays into fascism due to the utter disempowerment of any force with material interests in resisting the pull of fascism, but nevermind that for now) that like to consider themselves progressive because they engage positively with identity politics.
They aren’t truly progressive because they don’t fundamentally challenge the systems and power structures that enable these kinds of political developments (loss of bodily autonomy, marriage equality, affirmative gender care, etc) and the proliferation of the “culture war” in the first place, and are very often minimizing and hostile towards those who do take a principled stance against these systems. The extent of their political understanding is largely bound by establishment liberal media which has a clear stake in the continuation of that very same system that is threatened by any real material social progress. This contradiction often leads liberals into defending those systems and power structures even at the expense of the marginalized groups that a liberal would purport to defend, and lashing out against those to the left of them for not “knowing their place” in a system that has for a very long time been ratcheting itself towards fascism.
No. Liberal countries do most of the resistance of Fascism. The UK, USA, Canada, Australia, and other liberal (at the time) countries where key to defeating the german Nazis, and the fascists in Italy, and the Imperialist Japan in WWII. Institutions like the UN, European Court of Human Rights, and NATO all came about from liberal countries, and were specifically designed to prevent more fascism. If liberalism is alwasys headed towards “decay into fascism,” those liberal-led alliances would have collapsed into authoritarianism decades ago. Instead, they’ve mostly grown and improved human rights.
Liberals have driven a load of meaningful structural changes. How about . . .
Civil Rights Act which brought down the racial segregation, and was led by liberal lawmakers and other progressive movements.
Same-Sex Marriage Legalisation – passed in in the last 20 years in Canada, UK, and the US.
The UK, France, US, Canada, and Australia all paled in comparison to the USSR, who killed 85% of the total Nazis killed during World War II. Many of these liberal countries, the US especially, had thriving trade with Nazi Germany and non-aggression pacts early on in the 1930s. The US even continued to do business in Nazi Germany during World War II by cloaking assets owned by Ford, Coke, etc. It isn’t liberals, but communists that have been the most consistent and steady anti-fascists in history.
NATO isn’t anti-fascist, it’s anti-communist, and has been led by literal Nazis like Adolf Heusinger. There is no part of NATO that has been anti-fascist.
These liberal countries have always been authoritarian, as they are all dictatorships of capital.
They have grown economically thanks to the spoils of imperialism.
The Civil Rights Act was won by leftist agitation from leftists like Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X, and outright communists like the Black Panther Party relentlessly pushing for it. Liberals opposed it initially.
Same-sex marriage was pushed for relentlessly by leftists such as the Black Panther Party, Gay Liberation Front, and more, until liberals eventually conceded.
Universal Healthcare has been regularly pushed for through millitant organizing from leftists, liberals have been responsible for weakening or privatizing healthcare.
As much as some of that is partly true is does more to demonstrate your focus on disregarding postive stuff, which is the majority, only calling out the negative takes that serve your argument. based on this behaviour I’m guessing you are a Trump support. btw, Trump is old an English word meaning to pass wind, aka fart.
Trump is old an English word meaning to pass wind, aka fart.
The best way to describe Trump is a wet fart. But you saying this doesn’t hurt our feelings. We 100% agree he’s a fart. We just also think Starmer is a fart, and you fail to see that part.
Liberalism is the ideological justification for capitalism. Outside of that, any “principles” it holds are purely in service of uplifting private property rights, any positive movement attributed to liberalism can only really be expressed in opposition to feudalism and other more backwards modes of production, or as dragged into progressive movement by the working class. I’m not a Trump supporter, I’m a communist.
Put aside the UK government and the BBC. Now find people in Britain today who call themselves liberals and also support Israel, there won’t be many. In fact you won’t find many people who do at all. It doesn’t matter what a trifle meant in the past, it only matters what it means to people on the street today, and that is openness, tolerance, and freedom.
Liberalism essentially encompasses the entirety of what is broadly considered acceptable within western politics, which is why you’ll sometimes hear the term ‘western liberal democracies’, but for our purposes we are usually referring to the less immediately fascist genocidal end of the spectrum that like to consider themselves progressive pro-Palestine because they engage positively with identity politics denounce the genocide of Palestinians.
They aren’t truly progressive unsupportive of Israel because they don’t fundamentally challenge the systems and power structures that enable these kinds of political developments Israel’s settler-colonialist project and the proliferation of the “culture war” Zionism in the first place, and are very often minimizing and hostile towards those who do take a principled stance against these systems. The extent of their political understanding is largely bound by establishment liberal media that has a clear stake in the continuation of that very same system Israel’s statehood which is threatened by any real material social progress the existence of Palestinians on their own land. This contradiction often leads liberals into defending those systems and power structures even at the expense of the marginalized groups that a liberal would purport to defend the Palestinian cause, and lashing out against those to the left of them for not “Knowing Their Place” considering the feelings and safety of the Israeli settlers in a system that has for a very long time been ratcheting starving, removed, beating, generally dispossessing, and apartheid-ing itself towards fascism all-out genocide.
It’s easy to denounce genocide and say you don’t support Israel but if you aren’t challenging the systems that led to this point; which even still in the face of this genocide are working overtime to normalize it in whatever angles they can; and confronting the relationship you have with settler-colonialism by default as a person born in the west, you aren’t anti-genocide in any meaningful way that could actually end the genocide or prevent another from occuring. You are only reacting to the aesthetics of genocide; exclusive of the mechanisms that produce it; which makes you an unwitting, vibes-based cog in the genocide machine.
I have news for you
Yes they are.
Liberalism essentially encompasses the entirety of what is broadly considered acceptable within western politics, which is why you’ll sometimes hear the term ‘western liberal democracies’, but for our purposes we are usually referring to the less immediately fascist end of the spectrum
(liberalism always eventually decays into fascism due to the utter disempowerment of any force with material interests in resisting the pull of fascism, but nevermind that for now)that like to consider themselves progressive because they engage positively with identity politics.They aren’t truly progressive because they don’t fundamentally challenge the systems and power structures that enable these kinds of political developments (loss of bodily autonomy, marriage equality, affirmative gender care, etc) and the proliferation of the “culture war” in the first place, and are very often minimizing and hostile towards those who do take a principled stance against these systems. The extent of their political understanding is largely bound by establishment liberal media which has a clear stake in the continuation of that very same system that is threatened by any real material social progress. This contradiction often leads liberals into defending those systems and power structures even at the expense of the marginalized groups that a liberal would purport to defend, and lashing out against those to the left of them for not “knowing their place” in a system that has for a very long time been ratcheting itself towards fascism.
No. Liberal countries do most of the resistance of Fascism. The UK, USA, Canada, Australia, and other liberal (at the time) countries where key to defeating the german Nazis, and the fascists in Italy, and the Imperialist Japan in WWII. Institutions like the UN, European Court of Human Rights, and NATO all came about from liberal countries, and were specifically designed to prevent more fascism. If liberalism is alwasys headed towards “decay into fascism,” those liberal-led alliances would have collapsed into authoritarianism decades ago. Instead, they’ve mostly grown and improved human rights.
Liberals have driven a load of meaningful structural changes. How about . . .
This is wrong on many accounts.
The UK, France, US, Canada, and Australia all paled in comparison to the USSR, who killed 85% of the total Nazis killed during World War II. Many of these liberal countries, the US especially, had thriving trade with Nazi Germany and non-aggression pacts early on in the 1930s. The US even continued to do business in Nazi Germany during World War II by cloaking assets owned by Ford, Coke, etc. It isn’t liberals, but communists that have been the most consistent and steady anti-fascists in history.
NATO isn’t anti-fascist, it’s anti-communist, and has been led by literal Nazis like Adolf Heusinger. There is no part of NATO that has been anti-fascist.
These liberal countries have always been authoritarian, as they are all dictatorships of capital.
They have grown economically thanks to the spoils of imperialism.
The Civil Rights Act was won by leftist agitation from leftists like Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X, and outright communists like the Black Panther Party relentlessly pushing for it. Liberals opposed it initially.
Same-sex marriage was pushed for relentlessly by leftists such as the Black Panther Party, Gay Liberation Front, and more, until liberals eventually conceded.
Universal Healthcare has been regularly pushed for through millitant organizing from leftists, liberals have been responsible for weakening or privatizing healthcare.
You don’t really know what you’re talking about.
As much as some of that is partly true is does more to demonstrate your focus on disregarding postive stuff, which is the majority, only calling out the negative takes that serve your argument. based on this behaviour I’m guessing you are a Trump support. btw, Trump is old an English word meaning to pass wind, aka fart.
I hope you’re doing a bit and aren’t actually this much of a dipshit.
The best way to describe Trump is a wet fart. But you saying this doesn’t hurt our feelings. We 100% agree he’s a fart. We just also think Starmer is a fart, and you fail to see that part.
Liberalism is the ideological justification for capitalism. Outside of that, any “principles” it holds are purely in service of uplifting private property rights, any positive movement attributed to liberalism can only really be expressed in opposition to feudalism and other more backwards modes of production, or as dragged into progressive movement by the working class. I’m not a Trump supporter, I’m a communist.
Put aside the UK government and the BBC. Now find people in Britain today who call themselves liberals and also support Israel, there won’t be many. In fact you won’t find many people who do at all. It doesn’t matter what a trifle meant in the past, it only matters what it means to people on the street today, and that is openness, tolerance, and freedom.
Let me re-apply my analysis for you
It’s easy to denounce genocide and say you don’t support Israel but if you aren’t challenging the systems that led to this point; which even still in the face of this genocide are working overtime to normalize it in whatever angles they can; and confronting the relationship you have with settler-colonialism by default as a person born in the west, you aren’t anti-genocide in any meaningful way that could actually end the genocide or prevent another from occuring. You are only reacting to the aesthetics of genocide; exclusive of the mechanisms that produce it; which makes you an unwitting, vibes-based cog in the genocide machine.
Supersonic goalpost movement there, blue fash