Words mean what people use them to mean, and the definition of “liberal” as being “the opposite of conservative” is well established in general usage. You’re allowed to be annoyed by it, but saying that it’s wrong just makes other people take nothing you say seriously.
Stupid people stop taking true things serious all the time, since when is this the golden standard of whether information is true lmao? Ya’ll so desperate for socialization it’s genuinely pathetic.
Telling other people saying “liberal” has a definition will make people not take you seriously isn’t nice either lmao. But since it’s status quo that’s fine right?
I’ve made the same point so many times on Lemmy and it gets so much bitterness in return. The fact that I’m not the only one pointing this out repeatedly should be proof enough but noooooo.
ThAtS nOt ThE dEfInItIoN… I GET IT, IT’S COMMONLY USED THAT WAY THOUGH!!!
Only in the US. The “Liberal Democrats” in the UK are not understood to be the opposite of the Tories, and there are many similar cases in countries around the world.
The reason liberal is understood to mean the opposite of conservative in the US is only because historically socialism became such a dirty word, liberals did everything they could to distance themselves from it, and there was no major socialist party or movement.
Since socialism has become resurgent, it makes more sense, especially on an international platform like this one, to adopt the internationally understood meaning.
Not really. We don’t use the word liberal in the UK anywhere near so much, but any average person (as opposed to a person well into polsci) describing themselves as “liberal” would be understood to be saying that they are progressive on social issues, not that they are in favour of free markets (though that may or may not be the case).
The “Liberal Democrats” in the UK are not understood to be the opposite of the Tories
Eh, yes and no. It is historically correct that the Liberal in Liberal Democrats refers to capital L Liberalism, being a merger of the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party, but the fact that the Lib Dems and the Tories are basically aligned on economic policy and only differ on how much they hate multiculturalism and trans people only serves to give the impression to people not well read in theory that that is what makes them “liberal”, if anything.
The reason liberal is understood to mean the opposite of conservative in the US is only because historically socialism became such a dirty word, liberals did everything they could to distance themselves from it, and there was no major socialist party or movement.
Perhaps. I’m not actually from the US.
Since socialism has become resurgent, it makes more sense, especially on an international platform like this one, to adopt the internationally understood meaning.
No, it doesn’t, because there isn’t one single internationally understood meaning. That is why the word has multiple definitions in the dictionary; some of them relate to liberalism as a political ideology, and some of them don’t. You aren’t going to succeed in building community or solidarity with anyone if the first thing you do is tell them that they’ll aren’t using their words correctly because they aren’t using it according to your list of acceptable definitions.
Words can have more than one meaning. Liberalism means one thing politically and another philosophically. Arguing it means only one thing is misleading and wrong.
They still believe in the concept of a free market and capitalism being good. What we’ve seen with attempts to regulate is either the companies ignore it because the fines are less than what it’d cost to follow the law, skirt around it in some way, or just buy up people to then strike it.
Companies still dump untreated waste water right into water ways even with regulation. I just see it an endless chase of the capitalists one step ahead at all times at least, often more because it takes time to draft regulation. Capitalism has only brought “prosperity” to a few from the continued exploitation of others. It still believes growth infinite in a closed system.
I think punishments of anything to that degree of bad should be immediate bankruptcy with a ban on holding any C suite position for the rest of your life or face that ban in prison. We’re not harsh enough on them, and so they feel like its not a problem even if they get caught.
No matter what, if you can buy and sell ownership as a shareholder, then you have a fundamental misalignment from the direct stakeholders of a firm. This is why I find unions and regulations to be band-aids.
A capitalist system is fundamentally misaligned and it will always work to undo those regulations with capital accumulation and regulatory capture. The only way to fix that is to require direct stakeholder ownership whether that be worker-consumer coöps, syndicates, public ownership, or what have you. The ownership and decision-making must needs be aligned with the people benefitting or who are otherwise impacted by the operations of a firm. That is Socialism and that is not the regulation bandaids that Liberalism trys to paste over Capitalism’s flaws and cracks.
You’ve seen attempts to regulate that are generally company-sponsored and ineffective in preventing the harms the regulations are intended to prevent. Or you’ve seen out and out corruption which buys democracy and breaks it. Liberalism, as I understand it (as a European) allows state ownership and a free market, in different goods and dependent upon conditions in that market, to prioritise people over capital
Yeah, Liberalism doesn’t align companies with their direct stakeholders at all and so any attempt to regulate will be under tension like trying to push two magnets together.
Yes, economic is included but it also includes everything else.
Having no government at all is liberal. The issue socialists find is that there’s no one to protect against oppressors but anarchists and communists believe in a liberal society where there are no oppressors.
Liberal is shorthand for economically liberal aka free market capitalists, any other definition is wrong, fuck liberals
Words mean what people use them to mean, and the definition of “liberal” as being “the opposite of conservative” is well established in general usage. You’re allowed to be annoyed by it, but saying that it’s wrong just makes other people take nothing you say seriously.
Stupid people stop taking true things serious all the time, since when is this the golden standard of whether information is true lmao? Ya’ll so desperate for socialization it’s genuinely pathetic.
Why are you being mean? Does that help make your point?
Telling other people saying “liberal” has a definition will make people not take you seriously isn’t nice either lmao. But since it’s status quo that’s fine right?
No.
I saw their statement as broad and untargeted. Saying people won’t take you seriously doesn’t really “ding” on my mean-dar.
You calling someone pathetic does though.
Why you angry? Why does it matter if there’s a different usage of a word that you disagree with?
It’s a losing battle in here my dude.
I’ve made the same point so many times on Lemmy and it gets so much bitterness in return. The fact that I’m not the only one pointing this out repeatedly should be proof enough but noooooo.
ThAtS nOt ThE dEfInItIoN… I GET IT, IT’S COMMONLY USED THAT WAY THOUGH!!!
Only in the US. The “Liberal Democrats” in the UK are not understood to be the opposite of the Tories, and there are many similar cases in countries around the world.
The reason liberal is understood to mean the opposite of conservative in the US is only because historically socialism became such a dirty word, liberals did everything they could to distance themselves from it, and there was no major socialist party or movement.
Since socialism has become resurgent, it makes more sense, especially on an international platform like this one, to adopt the internationally understood meaning.
Not really. We don’t use the word liberal in the UK anywhere near so much, but any average person (as opposed to a person well into polsci) describing themselves as “liberal” would be understood to be saying that they are progressive on social issues, not that they are in favour of free markets (though that may or may not be the case).
Eh, yes and no. It is historically correct that the Liberal in Liberal Democrats refers to capital L Liberalism, being a merger of the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party, but the fact that the Lib Dems and the Tories are basically aligned on economic policy and only differ on how much they hate multiculturalism and trans people only serves to give the impression to people not well read in theory that that is what makes them “liberal”, if anything.
Perhaps. I’m not actually from the US.
No, it doesn’t, because there isn’t one single internationally understood meaning. That is why the word has multiple definitions in the dictionary; some of them relate to liberalism as a political ideology, and some of them don’t. You aren’t going to succeed in building community or solidarity with anyone if the first thing you do is tell them that they’ll aren’t using their words correctly because they aren’t using it according to your list of acceptable definitions.
Words can have more than one meaning. Liberalism means one thing politically and another philosophically. Arguing it means only one thing is misleading and wrong.
But yes American liberals are not helpful at best
The classical definition is actually free markets with protection from harm, which is very different
They still believe in the concept of a free market and capitalism being good. What we’ve seen with attempts to regulate is either the companies ignore it because the fines are less than what it’d cost to follow the law, skirt around it in some way, or just buy up people to then strike it.
Then you’re not regulating it properly are you?.. there are tons of regulations in play that do work.
Companies still dump untreated waste water right into water ways even with regulation. I just see it an endless chase of the capitalists one step ahead at all times at least, often more because it takes time to draft regulation. Capitalism has only brought “prosperity” to a few from the continued exploitation of others. It still believes growth infinite in a closed system.
I think punishments of anything to that degree of bad should be immediate bankruptcy with a ban on holding any C suite position for the rest of your life or face that ban in prison. We’re not harsh enough on them, and so they feel like its not a problem even if they get caught.
It will always be a fight of capital in politics that the c-suite would push to prevent this.
No matter what, if you can buy and sell ownership as a shareholder, then you have a fundamental misalignment from the direct stakeholders of a firm. This is why I find unions and regulations to be band-aids.
A capitalist system is fundamentally misaligned and it will always work to undo those regulations with capital accumulation and regulatory capture. The only way to fix that is to require direct stakeholder ownership whether that be worker-consumer coöps, syndicates, public ownership, or what have you. The ownership and decision-making must needs be aligned with the people benefitting or who are otherwise impacted by the operations of a firm. That is Socialism and that is not the regulation bandaids that Liberalism trys to paste over Capitalism’s flaws and cracks.
You’ve seen attempts to regulate that are generally company-sponsored and ineffective in preventing the harms the regulations are intended to prevent. Or you’ve seen out and out corruption which buys democracy and breaks it. Liberalism, as I understand it (as a European) allows state ownership and a free market, in different goods and dependent upon conditions in that market, to prioritise people over capital
Yeah, Liberalism doesn’t align companies with their direct stakeholders at all and so any attempt to regulate will be under tension like trying to push two magnets together.
The definition I’d go with is: “Anyone who is in favor of both free market capitalism and individual rights.”
Which, yeah, would be kind of neat if you could have both. But the former tends to erode the latter quite badly over time.
That’s called a classical liberal fyi
Great! Welcome to now
If the market involve buying and selling shares, then that is still capitalism, just with social safety nets.
It means lack of government involvement.
Yes, economic is included but it also includes everything else.
Having no government at all is liberal. The issue socialists find is that there’s no one to protect against oppressors but anarchists and communists believe in a liberal society where there are no oppressors.