For the longest time, “liberal” seemed like it basically just meant “Democrat” the same way “conservative” has/had been used to mean “Republican.” Now, it seems like it means “bad Democrat” and is even worse than being MAGA the way many seem to use it. Where did its use as an insult within the [relative] political left come from, and what does it specifically accuse/identify someone of/as?

  • Cuberoot@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Phil Ochs says it better than I can:

    In every American community there are varying shades of political opinion. One of the shadiest of these is the liberals. An outspoken group on many subjects, ten degrees to the left of center in good times, ten degrees to the right of center if it affects them personally.

    The issues have changed slightly from the 1960s, but his song’s accusations of hypocrisy and NIMBYism among those who publicly espouse progressive causes still hit close enough to home.

    • Hereforpron2@lemmynsfw.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Ahh that’s interesting, so the issue is as much having a conveniently shifting position as it is a further-right-than-progressives static position. Thanks a ton, that helps me understand a lot!

      • Archelon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Basically liberalism tends to be capitalist, whereas leftism tends to be anticapitalist. Historically, there’s been a pattern of centrists and capitalist allying with authoritarians and fascists against leftists, so the insult boils down to “you’d support a fascist before you went against capitalism”

        • Optional@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Leftism, as it has been represented on Lemmy, also doesn’t usually have a path forward other than seizing weapons and goods and magically reforming everything through the miracle of revolution. So in one sense, kind of worse than useless if one were attempting to affect positive change.

          • The Stoned Hacker@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Anyone who thinks a revolution without a very solid, well researched, and peer reviewed plan is a good idea is an accerelationist at best.

            That being said, those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable. Eventually the powder keg will blow, and the way things are I don’t think we’ll have a single modicum of control.

        • aasatru@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          A brief rough history, in case anyone is interested:

          17th century: Kings and shit. The people supporting the rule of the king are in power. They become conservatives.

          18th century: Liberals appear. They believe men have certain inherent rights from nature. They don’t dig kings, but they do believe in private property. They sit to the left in parliaments, the conservatives sit to the right.

          19th century: Marx gives us his take on history and labour. Liberalism is given a competing framework from the left.

          20th century: All kinds of shit goes down, partly because the conservatives and the liberals are terrified of the Marxists and give the fascists the keys to the kingdom, partly because of a Marx-inspired Leninists take control in Russia. The “new” left (socialism) becomes a major force in the postwar era, promising to build a new world on the ashes of the old.

          21st century: There seems to be a head on collision. People feel strongly about these concepts, but it seems many have forgotten where they come from or what they mean. Disinformation campaigns have gotten efficient. Green politics enter the field.

    • cabbage@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      I think a big part of the problem is that liberalism dates back to the 17th century, and western civilisation is kind of built on top of it.

      As a result it could fit pretty much anywhere on the political spectrum. I consider myself pretty leftist, but of course I’m a fucking liberal. I take issue with inheritance and I believe in taxing billionaires out of existence, but that’s completely consistent with liberalism. And so is disagreeing with me.

      I guess a central thing about liberalism is refusing patriarchalism, which would explain why the stalinists and the trumpists alike get upset by it.