• davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        24 hours ago

        First sentence from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism :

        Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, the right to private property and equality before the law.

        Second paragraph from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property :

        Private property is foundational to capitalism, an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. As a legal concept, private property is defined and enforced by a country’s political system.

        This is in stark contrast to the first sentence from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism :

        Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership.

        What you call “liberal” and what you call “conservative” are both liberal.

        • stinky@redlemmy.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          17
          ·
          23 hours ago

          You’re arguing that liberalism isn’t to the left of conservatism. It’s been fun. Thanks for the laughs. :)

          • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            22
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            22 hours ago

            Liberalism is a conservative ideology, yes. It’s the ideology of capitalism and western imperialism.

            Leftism is the political realm of anti-capitalists. In a political dichotomy, liberalism stands on the right with other capitalist ideologies. Leftists stand opposed to them both. Liberalism is the ideology of billionaires, of strike breaking, of economic prosperity for the wealthy being the measuring stick of how successful a society is.

            • stinky@redlemmy.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              17 hours ago

              Here are the definitions I’m using:

              Dunn, John (1993), Western Political Theory in the Face of the Future, Cambridge University Press:

              political rationalism, hostility to autocracy, cultural distaste for conservatism and for tradition in general, tolerance, and … individualism

              Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan (2009), Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics:

              liberalism In general, the belief that it is the aim of politics to preserve individual rights and to maximize freedom of choice.

              Where are you getting your definitions from? I feel like you’re just making them up.

      • folkrav@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        23 hours ago

        You’re quite literally arguing that liberalism isn’t liberalism because conservatism/neoliberalism exists.

        • stinky@redlemmy.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          23 hours ago

          you meant “figuratively” here, surely. Nothing that I wrote could reasonably be understood to mean “liberalism isn’t liberalism”. I’m not sure where you got that from, I’m afraid, and it’s not my duty to help you achieve comprehension. Maybe you could reach out to your educational institution.

          • folkrav@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            edit-2
            22 hours ago

            Considering your original comment is gone, meaning I can’t even refer to what you said nor to my own response in its context, and that you basically instantly went to ad hominem attacks calling me uneducated, merely for what was either misinterpreting your original comment or disagreeing with it, I can only assume you’re not having this discussion out of good faith, so let’s end this here.

            • stinky@redlemmy.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              20 hours ago

              I didn’t edit my comment- talk to your moderation staff. I am discussing in good faith and meant everything I said. But I’m content to be done if you are. Have a day. 🫱

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        24 hours ago

        That’s not how things work. It doesn’t matter whether there is something worse out there or not. Each ideology has to be judged on its own terms. What you’re suggesting is a logical fallacy.

        • stinky@redlemmy.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          23 hours ago

          It doesn’t matter whether there is something worse out there or not.

          What gibberish is this? You’ve introduced wildly subjective metrics “better” and “worse” into a discussion about saving ourselves from exploitation, and then dared to suggest that ideology should be judged on its own terms ? Is this parody?