85
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2026
85 points (98.9% liked)
World News
41624 readers
256 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
So when I see libs (liberals?) in reference to right-sided groups, that’s different than what the US calls “liberal” yea? Because I thought, in the US, the liberals were left. No?
Liberalism is inherently a right wing ideology. You have political liberalism which focuses on all these wholesome ideas like individual freedoms and democracy that are used to market it. But economic liberalism is the meat of the system and it centers around markets, private property, and wealth accumulation. So the whole idea that liberalism supports everyone’s freedom is fundamentally incompatible with enshrining private property rights as sacred because that removes them from political debate.
Equating private property with individual freedom provides the foundational justification for the rich to keep their wealth while ignoring the needs of everyone else. So all the talk of freedom and democracy ends up being just a fig leaf for capitalist relations.
Liberals are the people who support/defend/upholds neo-liberalism/capitalism.
So they are right wing.
They are also conservative if you think about it, because if the status quo is neo-liberalism supporting it is opposing change.
The so called conservatives are the ultra conservative.
I think a better label for the so-called "conservatives" is "regressives". They don't even want to preserve the status quo as it is, they want societal development to be rolled back 60-200 years depending on the issue
Your question is just one more example of how the USAians are cooked.
How many mandatory History, Geography, and Philosophy classes did you have in your education?
4, 1, 0 in that order. I don’t think the four history lessons count. I learned Christopher Columbus was a cute little explorer, for example.
OK, cool.
I realize I may have been slightly misleading, though not much. For each number, I meant that’s the number of years I was assigned to a class. The classes have a year long curriculum in grade school, spanning from about September to June. So I guess I could have said 5xweek for 4 years, 1 year, and none at all.
OK, cool.
It is backwards. It’s rather often that, as an adult, I learn something that is fundamentally contradictory to what I learned in grade school. Usually it’s the framing of events, details that got left out… They paint a story that usually ends with the US saving the day somewhere. Kids learn more politically accurate stories from their family members. Teachers will shush down a kiddo who speaks up on these details, because “professionalism” means yielding to the potential that any one of their student parents might not find the alternative material acceptable.
Moreover, when US schools teach history, it's mostly a pack of lies. A grain of truth per 1000 kg of 🐂💩.
So how can I react when an American guy calls the simple class struggle and mode of production terminology "cliquey" and "hermetic"? 🤷♂️ Because I met some of these idiots this week. 🤦♂️
Whoooo doggy! That's a question with an answer that depends on several variables.
I guess you can lead with, "I understand how you can think that, but it really isn't, it's just something that isn't taught in ____ schools."
If they show interest and time is short, you can explain it was once taught at certain levels, but this society stopped teaching it because they focused on business interests and profit motive? And discuss as much as you can in simple terms, and pick up again at the next opportunity.
If time is long, then I would say follow the same line but I hope you have patience to correct a lot of disinformed perceptions and answer questions.
But also be aware that ignorance very often leads to arrogant disinterest. As much as I want to make people interested, it's a fool's errand. That doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't put forth the effort, but it means if your energy and time are better spent following another avenue, then maybe you consider that.
Fascists believe in inequality based on race or gender.
(Neo)liberals believe in inequality based on class or wealth.
So they both believe in inequality. A rich man gets better healthcare, better legal help. Better education. Better food as a child. Have more say and hold more power. Social democrats try to ameliorate that a bit but fundamentally still believe rich man should be above others. This is all right wing from a socialists perspective. This shared belief in inequality also explains how easily they can ally themselves with fascists.