this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2023
290 points (99.7% liked)

memes

22774 readers
9 users here now

dank memes

Rules:

  1. All posts must be memes and follow a general meme setup.

  2. No unedited webcomics.

  3. Someone saying something funny or cringe on twitter/tumblr/reddit/etc. is not a meme. Post that stuff in !the_dunk_tank@www.hexbear.net, it's a great comm.

  4. Va*sh posting is haram and will be removed.

  5. Follow the code of conduct.

  6. Tag OC at the end of your title and we'll probably pin it for a while if we see it.

  7. Recent reposts might be removed.

  8. Tagging OC with the hexbear watermark is praxis.

  9. No anti-natalism memes. See: Eco-fascism Primer

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Seriously though, the USA is virtually always bad.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 43 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Do you mind providing sources for your assertion that it actually happened?

Libs are capitalist swine

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Oh I thought libs were liberals, often leaning socialist. And the Republicans were the capitalists.

[–] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 50 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism. Liberals and republicans, conservatives, liberatarians, fascists you're all libs.

Marxists, Socialists do not support capitalism. There is no such thing as liberal socialist

[–] jack@hexbear.net 26 points 1 year ago (2 children)

fascists

Fascists aren't libs, though. Fascism is capitalism that has abandoned liberalism in order to fight communism.

[–] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I suppose that's fair.

Fascism doesn't have an intellectual tradition, or higher principle outside of serving capital and upholding liberal property relations amd hierarchies. So i suppose that's why i lump them in with the rest of the libs.

Am I i completely off base with this? Is it a gray area, or a clear break?

[–] commiewithoutorgans@hexbear.net 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I also think this is wrong. Fascism is baked into the borders of liberalism. Liberalism isnt abandoned, it's just the face of liberalism which always faces outside now needing to turn inward. There's never been a single instance of liberalism that didn't either 1. Have the outward facing fascism like the US to indigenous peoples or now towards the periphery or 2. Was the outside but with a government which accepted the periphery status and invited the expropriation as long as the class in power got to too.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You'd better tell them that then. I'm sure they'll be happy to know that it's impossible to be socialist and only want to curtail businesses.

[–] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 49 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

jesse-wtf

Libs and being completely politically illiterate, an iconic duo

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Why do you get to define socialism to exclude liberalism?

[–] robinn2@hexbear.net 35 points 1 year ago (2 children)

LIBERALSOCIALIST IS BACK 🎊

[–] Catradora_Stalinism@hexbear.net 15 points 1 year ago

OH MAH GOD MAH BOI IS POSTING

[–] ElChapoDeChapo@hexbear.net 11 points 1 year ago

Think he'll come back to movie nights?

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 32 points 1 year ago

Why do you get to define socialism to exclude liberalism?

Socialism seeks to abolish property relations, and thus the bourgeoisie with it. Liberalism upholds them.

They are ideologies that are in complete and total contradiction to one another. You either want private property in which some people can enslave others to exploit their labour or you want to get rid of that.

[–] Maoo@hexbear.net 32 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's been defined that way since long before Americans adopted their lexicon of liberal = Democrat-adjascent. And it's used internationally the way we use it here.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Okay cool. So Democrats arguing for limited or unlimited socialism aren't liberal by the international general definition?

[–] HornyOnMain@hexbear.net 29 points 1 year ago

Democrats arguing for limited or unlimited socialism

citations-needed citation needed

[–] Egon@hexbear.net 28 points 1 year ago

There's no democrats arguing for socialism you dumbass. At best you'll find some milquetoast succdem

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 28 points 1 year ago

limited or unlimited socialism

Welfare is not socialism. Social safety nets are not socialism. You've been duped by a misuse of the word.

These are policies that socialists like because they improve people's lives. They are not socialism itself.

[–] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 26 points 1 year ago

There are no democrats arguing for socialism. Socialism means a society having collective ownership of the means of production. The dems are a bunch of libs like you

[–] Sephitard9001@hexbear.net 26 points 1 year ago

Literally how in the fucking world could you arrive at this conclusion

Not one bit of this question makes sense.

  1. Democrats have never advocated for socialism. I don't even think Bernie Sanders has actually advocated for socialism.

  2. Liberal in America doesn't mean socialist or even socialist adjacent. If you zoom out to include a "international general definition", even less so. Liberalism is in direct opposition to Socialism. Both ideologies organize society in mutually exclusive ways. This is like telling somebody you believe in Cat-Mouseism. It makes no fucking sense

[–] somename@hexbear.net 22 points 1 year ago

Socialism isn't having shit like social security.

For context, social democrats are NOT socialist just because social is in the name. Egon’s comment shouldn’t need that disclaimer, but I doubt you knew this.

[–] Egon@hexbear.net 31 points 1 year ago

On the one hand we have the academically accepted definition. On the other we have yours. Why do YOU get to define it?

[–] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 30 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

Socialism was developed as an intellectual tradition in opposition to liberalism. I didn't define it

The people who invented liberalism defined it. Take that up with Rousseau and Locke, et al.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] somename@hexbear.net 27 points 1 year ago

You literally know nothing, and are such a smug bastard about it. Read a fucking book.

[–] CloutAtlas@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago

It's literally the definition of liberalism outside of the US, lol.

The right wing party in Australia is called the Liberal Party. The center left is Labor, the left wing is the Socialist party.

In many European countries, Liberals (or Liberal Democrats) are right wing.

Liberals are only equated to the left in the US, which is yet another reason that USA BAD.

[–] Annakah69@hexbear.net 42 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

One of the many goals of us propaganda is to deny you a an understanding of political theory.

Liberals are not socialists. It is impossible.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)
[–] 5ublimation@hexbear.net 45 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)
[–] ElChapoDeChapo@hexbear.net 49 points 1 year ago (9 children)

His name is Adrian Zenz, a middle aged German man who doesn't speak the Uighur language or Mandarin or any Chinese language and has never been to China

He's a devout conservative evangelical Christian who has gone on record saying he believes he is on a mission from god to destroy the PRC

If you did enough research on your links to find the original sources for each of your sources you would find almost all trails lead back to him

I find it especially funny a German his age would be throwing around accusations of genocide, I wonder what his father did during the 1930's and 40's

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] EmotionalSupportLancet@hexbear.net 37 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How the fuck do you not know who Zenz is? Have you done zero actual attempts at research? Did you think citations were just an extended bit in the forum signature line? Try clicking on those once in a while.

[–] Sephitard9001@hexbear.net 24 points 1 year ago

We know who Zenz is because we read sources Liberals send us. Liberals do not know who Zenz is because they do not read the sources they send us che-smile

[–] AntiOutsideAktion@hexbear.net 37 points 1 year ago

It's a running joke how all the citations about the genocide all point back to this guy who is a rabid white supremacist and the sole source of all of the worst allegations.