Good cop, bad cop.
Bad cop, worse cop.
Both are racist, but conservatives are open about it (targeting specifically dark-skinned minorities under the guise of fighting illegal immigration or DEI), while liberals are dishonest about it (propagating racist myths about China, for example).
As others have said or implied, the former is outright hostile, while the latter is paternalistic.
I’m just going to note conservatives are liberals, and we need to re-normalize the term to mean as such. American exceptionalism redefining the meanings of terms to confuse their populations is a dirty trick and constantly causes confusion. This coupled with the most lack of most rudimentary education, despite whatever level people have passed on paper, is the bane of communications, not just with educated people in the global south and Asia, but also even in Europe.
The same with social democracy and democratic socialism being conflated with actual socialism.
I’m just going to note conservatives are liberals, and we need to re-normalize the term to mean as such.
I would disagree with this under the definition of liberalism I have come to understand as being popular here, where liberals essentially want to make ethical progress but also want to uphold capitalism, resulting in far more of the latter than the former.
Conservatives love their hierarchies too much for that. I would argue that the only genuine tenet of conservatism is that society should be hierarchical. It’s a capitalist funded attempt to enshrine an aristocracy, and since that’s fundamentally unpalatable, they sell it as a whole hierarchy where you come in the middle, above those filthy Others, and the rich just so happen to have a slot above you.
American exceptionalism redefining the meanings of terms to confuse their populations is a dirty trick and constantly causes confusion.
I would argue that this is a conservative trait, not an American one; America just so happens to be deeper into conservatism than many other places. It’s an inherently dishonest philosophy because they know their only real goal is loathed by the public. (I know, liberalism isn’t innocent here, either, but bear with me) They propagandize and, relevant here, bastardize harmful language so it can be reappropriated in less harmful terms. This is why American conservatives call everything to the left of lynching minorities communism or socialism. It’s why they tried to claim that democrats were the REAL racists a couple years ago.
Liberalism is definitely subject to some of that. I would agree that it’s thoroughly corrupted by conservatism. I would argue it’s a little different, though. While conservative voters are ignorant to the intent to form an aristocracy, they’re all on board with enforcing hierarchy, especially to elevate themselves. Liberal voters, under the definition I expressed earlier, are generally pushing for more progressive goals but allow their endorsement of capitalism to hold them back.
i don’t think either group aims to form an aristocracy at all. there is already a class hierarchy, with capitalists on top. both left-liberals (“liberals”) and right-liberals (“conservatives”) seek to preserve this hierarchy. that’s what makes both of those groups liberal. they may disagree slightly on the best way to preserve these class relations, but they both, fundamentally, move in the same direction. the left-liberals may aim to put a more “human” face on the hierarchies they preserve, but they never aim to fundamentally change it. they share one goal. that’s why the left-liberals are always willing to “reach across the aisle” towards the right-liberals but never willing to “reach across the aisle” to the left.
This is not what liberalism is. This is a defense of “American Exceptionalism.” Our schools have failed us, by design. If you actually care to learn, rather than deny, delay, defend, please stick around. Read, reflect, ask questions if you don’t understand.
This is a definition I saw on .ml or Hexbear, I forget which. I figured it’d be a decent enough approximation for this crowd, but you obviously disagree, which is fair.
Read, reflect, ask questions if you don’t understand.
This is why I opened by providing the definition I’m aware of, so that I could be corrected if I was building my idea on faulty ground, but you’ve also notably not given a definition beyond encouraging me to stick around where everyone wants to disparage liberals but almost nobody ever gets specific enough to say what they mean by it. I wander into and read the occasional .ml or Hexbear post, but there are certain topics the communities treat as too foundational to be worth actually outright addressing when curious outsiders wander in. I’m open to learning and being convinced, but every time I try to engage, whether by asking questions or expressing disagreement, 90% of what I encounter is more vitriolic than educational.
If you want a thorough understanding of liberalism, and its historical evolution, there’s nothing better than Losurdo’s - Liberalism, a counter history. You can find the audiobook on torrents also. Here are some other sources too on Marxist critiques liberalism (Marxism itself evolved as a criticism of liberalism in the 1800s).
On Liberalism
- Why do communists dislike liberals?, 2
- What about free speech?
- Why do leftists think that FDR co-opted the left to “save” capitalism?
- What’s wrong with democrats ( insert moderate party here ) ?
- Why not vote for the lesser of two evils (Lesser-evilism)?
- Can’t we change the democrats from within?
- What about “moderates” like Jimmy Carter? Can’t we push them to change?
- Can’t we use voting to solve our problems? Is violence really necessary? What about Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi? audiobook
I want to add, remember liberal liberals signed onto he who shan’t be named’s “centrist” Promise to America, and that Democratic Socialism isn’t Democratic, nor socialism. It’s just lipstick on amoebae, enough welfare to keep enough people settling for subsistence, rather than bettering themselves.
And that’s by USian definition. Also remember media literacy takes time to unlearn the propaganda, especially with the memory hole (forgive me, fellow socialists and aspiring socialists), and re-learning how to recognize propaganda, and distinguishing true from false propaganda.
You’re going in with a defined liberal perspective, with a fundamentally different understanding of terms, and with cemented, very likely propagandized beliefs. It is inevitable that you will disagree.
Knowing those foundational topics is expected here. We are happy to educate, but do not expect any kindness if you repeat propagandized talking points.
I see a wounded ego, not vitriol. Even if there is vitriol, have you ever paused to consider why?
Look, you can go look up the fedopedia or Britannica definition for a closer approximation, but even those are riddled with lies that the most conservative liberal could spot, if they’re honest.
https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Liberalism
Finally, I’m answering between necessary chores. You can do a little work for yourself.
Some libs objectify their target as an extension of their self-gratification process. Despite the alleged secularism, liberals have very religious thinking, as all idealists do. They buy their way out of their complicity in imperialism/white supremacy/hegemonical capitalism (purgatory - the Christian equivalent) via consumption of social justice causes (indulgences), or the transformation of a non-black minority identity into social capital (Suffering = Beatification & Divine reward). Though Black American liberals do have a different relationship with what was mentioned above, due to their position in the base of the hierarchy, despite this - Black Excellence and Hustle Culture are still rooted in Calvinistic thought.
Condescension and infantilization vs Hostility and exclusion, really that’s the main difference, either way you will never be treated with respect.
I like Malcom X’s way of describing conservatives as the snarling wolf and the liberals as the smiling fox.
Both are racist but the fox is deceptive to bring your guard down.
Conservatives want to openly kill minorities. Liberals want any minorities they can’t use to be murdered by conservatives.
Similarly MLK Jr’s thesis was that he is far more worried about the white moderate than the white conservative; at least a person of colour knows where they stand with the vulgarly racist conservative.
After reading about how past revolutionaries and those taking on the anti-imperialist struggle describe American Democrats/liberals, I’ve come to the conclusion that the Democrat Party is the primary antagonist that the revolutionary working class force must contend with. We already know Republicans love laying out their fascistic, racist, imperialist tendencies to bear for the chauvinists to revel in. But the Democrats, not only do they gorge themselves on the blood and labor of the international working class as much as their Republican counterparts, but they perform the critical task of ensuring that any dissent, discontent, and revolutionary potential against this vicious imperialist regime is smothered. They have carried out their counter-revolutionary role with so much success with all of their moralistic, populist rhetoric, but the substance of their actions has always aligned with and upheld bourgeois interests and ambitions.
Libs sugarcoat their racism.
Lib racism can take two forms in my experience. Either they are paternalistic or they fetishize you. Conservatives also fetishize you but they also want you dead or deported.
Rhetoric.
There isn’t a serious material difference.
Paternalist and patronizing vs Rabid extermination or subjugation.
Two sides of the same coin, and two flavors of the same supremacist belief system.
Only saving grace is that those who aren’t to far gone on the lib side, and sometimes the conservative side, can see the error of their ways and pivot into being a minority ally through education.
