Gah, you’re so close to being correct. If you were to just qualify that last statements by saying “some liberals” instead of “all liberals”, you’d have it right. But your black and white statements you’re making ignore the reality, which is that most liberals are pro-union, most liberals are anti-exploitation, and most liberals are pro-socialized healthcare/energy/schools/etc, which are all left-leaning ideals.
You’re right, property rights is one of the only things separating liberals from socialists. Which means we agree on most things with them, and they are therefore fellow lefties.
I am referring to Liberalism the ideology, and those who follow it. Of course I am speaking of the average, do you expect me to make a poll?
Most liberals like to think that they are pro-union, but Capitalism has crushed most American Unions. Most liberals think they are anti-exploitation, but support Capitalism, which is necessarily exploitative. Most liberals are indeed pro Social Programs, but not Socialism, and so they generally fall short of enacting actual change.
Most liberals like to think that they are pro-union…
First, I just want to say that I appreciated the added nuance. In my mind you went from sounding super extremist to pretty reasonable with just a few added adjectives.
With that said, honest question: Are you’re mixing up neoliberalism and liberalism? Because the things you’ve said makes more sense if you replace “liberal” with “neoliberal” and “capitalism” with “neoliberalism”.
Not necessarily. If you’ve ever traded pokemon cards, then you know it’s possible for two people to be happy in a transaction. Again, if you meant “neoliberalism” your statements would make sense.
pro Social Programs, but not Socialism
Yeah, it definitely sounds like you’re talking about neoliberals now.
I am not mixing up thatcher-esque Neoliberalism with the enitrety of Liberalism. The Unions in America weren’t crushed because a random powerful figure took office, but because over a long period of weakening them and conflict that also led to the conditions for Reagan to take president.
Capitalism is not trade, I already explained what Capitalism is to you earlier. Exploitation isn’t when someone is unhappy, it’s the way Capitalists make profit, by paying workers less than the Value they create.
Socialism is Worker Ownership of the Means of Production.
All in all, you’ve been incredibly condescending this entire time.
Gah, you’re so close to being correct. If you were to just qualify that last statements by saying “some liberals” instead of “all liberals”, you’d have it right. But your black and white statements you’re making ignore the reality, which is that most liberals are pro-union, most liberals are anti-exploitation, and most liberals are pro-socialized healthcare/energy/schools/etc, which are all left-leaning ideals.
You’re right, property rights is one of the only things separating liberals from socialists. Which means we agree on most things with them, and they are therefore fellow lefties.
I am referring to Liberalism the ideology, and those who follow it. Of course I am speaking of the average, do you expect me to make a poll?
Most liberals like to think that they are pro-union, but Capitalism has crushed most American Unions. Most liberals think they are anti-exploitation, but support Capitalism, which is necessarily exploitative. Most liberals are indeed pro Social Programs, but not Socialism, and so they generally fall short of enacting actual change.
First, I just want to say that I appreciated the added nuance. In my mind you went from sounding super extremist to pretty reasonable with just a few added adjectives.
With that said, honest question: Are you’re mixing up neoliberalism and liberalism? Because the things you’ve said makes more sense if you replace “liberal” with “neoliberal” and “capitalism” with “neoliberalism”.
Reaganism (neoliberalism) crushed American Unions. Unions were doing great up until then.
Not necessarily. If you’ve ever traded pokemon cards, then you know it’s possible for two people to be happy in a transaction. Again, if you meant “neoliberalism” your statements would make sense.
Yeah, it definitely sounds like you’re talking about neoliberals now.
I am not mixing up thatcher-esque Neoliberalism with the enitrety of Liberalism. The Unions in America weren’t crushed because a random powerful figure took office, but because over a long period of weakening them and conflict that also led to the conditions for Reagan to take president.
Capitalism is not trade, I already explained what Capitalism is to you earlier. Exploitation isn’t when someone is unhappy, it’s the way Capitalists make profit, by paying workers less than the Value they create.
Socialism is Worker Ownership of the Means of Production.
All in all, you’ve been incredibly condescending this entire time.