Fundamentally shit like this is projection. Leftist leaders are consistently either tyrrants, comically corrupt, or liberals with leftist talking points.
Quiet_Comparison_872 on
I don’t think Thatcher would’ve ever called herself a liberal.
JohnnyElRed on
“The Napoleonic Empire wasn’t really a liberal republic” excuse, as if it founder wasn’t a well known anti-monarchist revolutionary.
ImNoob89 on
Fun fact, in Sweden the biggest liberal party is center right and the biggest republican party is left wing.
Dandy-Dao on
I’ve literally never heard someone give a compelling definition of what ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ even really mean.
PadishaEmperor on
The problem is the US political landscape confusing liberal with leftist.
IlikeGeekyHistoryRSA on
> look inside
> tankie
lol
vincim2010_13 on
Bolsonaro is a conservative
Ambitious-Poet4992 on
I feel like only the uk and USA lump in liberals and leftists. I guess it comes down to both being progressive but even then they would disagree on a whole lot of issues
marten_EU_BR on
Strong r/USdefaultism vibes by OP…
Woden-Wod on
yeah I’ve come to completely hate the left right perspective of the political landscape.
not because it polarises political groups in a us vs them mindset regardless of stance but simply because it is inaccurate.
naplesball on
“Liberalism is when ***I HATE KIDS GETTING MILK***”
– Maggy Tatcher
BasedAustralhungary on
Liberalism as Socialism isn’t a proper and specific ideology but a term that defines a group of ideologies. Liberalism as a group of ideas were from 1750 to 1850 what we’d consider to be the ‘Far Left-Left’ which evolved time to time to be from 1850 to 1950 ‘Left-Center Left’ and from 1950 to the present ‘Center Left-Center Rights’
However, during the 50’s the ideas of free market or just economic liberalism (laissez faire) were expanded and taken under Conservative parties and ideologies. When this happened, the liberal ideas made so the Conservative parties would get into a more moderate area while leaving traditional protectionism ideas.
Those politicians and those parties aren’t liberals just because they adopted liberals views in terms of the relation between the state of the market, since they are only liberal only in those practices (which in terms of dictatorships or authoritarian regimes, It usually also meant corruption) Like… those people are the reason of why the term neoliberal exist as a whole.
Neoliberal basically define authoritarian and conservative ideologies that sometimes go inside the terrain of nationalism and reactionary movements and are very traditional in terms of social policies but also are very open about the free market and how the state should be the bare minimum and provide only security as a service.
However, neoliberal families go inside the conservative umbrella, not the liberal one. One could argue they are their own umbrella those times.
While you’d see a lot of ideologies that are born from liberalism to be very vocal about this same small state with not that much agency on the matter of the markets (or even be against the concept of state as a whole) they’d never be against social progressive policies, since that’d would be opposite to the core views of that family.
I’m far away from the concept of free market as an absolute dogma because I think that the lack of control is as bad and against human nature as the absolute control, so I’m more in the Socialism area of the political spectrum. This means I have no agency about defending anything about liberalism or this people than the proper reality itself and fairness with the facts since for me going against them would be lacking honestity and integrity.
16 Comments
Margaret Thatcher wasn’t economically liberal, she was a hardcore Friedman lover.
Liberalism like leftist is a meaningless term today.
Bolsenaro is literally the imagine of [ultraconservitiveism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraconservatism?wprov=sfla1) on Wikipedia what? [Idk average leftist leader i guess](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin?wprov=sfla1)
Fundamentally shit like this is projection. Leftist leaders are consistently either tyrrants, comically corrupt, or liberals with leftist talking points.
I don’t think Thatcher would’ve ever called herself a liberal.
“The Napoleonic Empire wasn’t really a liberal republic” excuse, as if it founder wasn’t a well known anti-monarchist revolutionary.
Fun fact, in Sweden the biggest liberal party is center right and the biggest republican party is left wing.
I’ve literally never heard someone give a compelling definition of what ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ even really mean.
The problem is the US political landscape confusing liberal with leftist.
> look inside
> tankie
lol
Bolsonaro is a conservative
I feel like only the uk and USA lump in liberals and leftists. I guess it comes down to both being progressive but even then they would disagree on a whole lot of issues
Strong r/USdefaultism vibes by OP…
yeah I’ve come to completely hate the left right perspective of the political landscape.
not because it polarises political groups in a us vs them mindset regardless of stance but simply because it is inaccurate.
“Liberalism is when ***I HATE KIDS GETTING MILK***”
– Maggy Tatcher
Liberalism as Socialism isn’t a proper and specific ideology but a term that defines a group of ideologies. Liberalism as a group of ideas were from 1750 to 1850 what we’d consider to be the ‘Far Left-Left’ which evolved time to time to be from 1850 to 1950 ‘Left-Center Left’ and from 1950 to the present ‘Center Left-Center Rights’
However, during the 50’s the ideas of free market or just economic liberalism (laissez faire) were expanded and taken under Conservative parties and ideologies. When this happened, the liberal ideas made so the Conservative parties would get into a more moderate area while leaving traditional protectionism ideas.
Those politicians and those parties aren’t liberals just because they adopted liberals views in terms of the relation between the state of the market, since they are only liberal only in those practices (which in terms of dictatorships or authoritarian regimes, It usually also meant corruption) Like… those people are the reason of why the term neoliberal exist as a whole.
Neoliberal basically define authoritarian and conservative ideologies that sometimes go inside the terrain of nationalism and reactionary movements and are very traditional in terms of social policies but also are very open about the free market and how the state should be the bare minimum and provide only security as a service.
However, neoliberal families go inside the conservative umbrella, not the liberal one. One could argue they are their own umbrella those times.
While you’d see a lot of ideologies that are born from liberalism to be very vocal about this same small state with not that much agency on the matter of the markets (or even be against the concept of state as a whole) they’d never be against social progressive policies, since that’d would be opposite to the core views of that family.
I’m far away from the concept of free market as an absolute dogma because I think that the lack of control is as bad and against human nature as the absolute control, so I’m more in the Socialism area of the political spectrum. This means I have no agency about defending anything about liberalism or this people than the proper reality itself and fairness with the facts since for me going against them would be lacking honestity and integrity.
Dude Pinochet was not liberal.