Well it is 2025.
this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2024
7 points (100.0% liked)
US Authoritarianism
1155 readers
6 users here now
ChonkyOwlbear is an Illegitimate Usurper
There's other groups and you are welcome to add to them. USAuthoritarianism Linktree
See Also, my website. USAuthoritarianism.com be advised at time of writing it is basically just a donate link
Cool People: !thepoliceproblem@lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The Democrats do not care if you and your children starve.
The push for a “$15 minimum wage” was first made law in Seattle, and the law included annual increases to keep up with inflation.
The current minimum wage in Seattle in 2024 is $19.97 / hour.
Any minimum wage law that doesn’t address inflation is not taking itself seriously.
Tankies here saw a community called "US Authoritarianism " and thought "finally, people who love the taste of boot as much as I do!"
Pretty sure liberals are past 15 an hour and have been for awhile. Centrist Dems are still on board for 15, at least in the party platform. And regardless it's a damn sight better than those calling for the elimination of the minimum wage altogether.
Meanwhile Congress has never missed a pay raise and that receives minimal attention.
They're referring to liberalism, not social democracy or progressive or whatever weird definition American media started using in the last 25 years or so.
Oh.
And here's how the rest of the world uses the word "Liberal": https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=liberal+
Here is the Wikipedia article on liberalism: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
Here is the dictionary definition of the word: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/liberal
But, hey, your racist asshole made a shitty song about how much he liked Malcom X being shot so liberal is bad and something vote trump, right??
You realize the person you’re responding to literally cited a book length academic source by an actual historian, right? Why do you think a Wikipedia article, a google search and, a basic dictionary definition is an adequate response to that?
Judging by your comment history you really need to do some reading on the history of liberalism as a political ideology. This is a long but accessible starting place from a left-wing perspective. Feel free to form your own opinion, man. But at least understand some of the basics of the history of an ideology before you start an argument about what it is and isn’t.
That's a you tube series. I'm talking about real life. Get off the internet and talk to real people. See if anyone uses the word "Liberal " like you do. One guy wote a book. Even if you can sight several scolars, it that's more than that to change the definition of a word or how 99.9998% of the population uses the word. To mean freedom. Likes it does.
Read the damn book, it goes through its use by the major liberal thinkers since the 1700s. If you read any leftist or semi-serious literature on the subject, they'll be using that same definition.
If that's too much, just peruse https://www.google.com/search?q=site:marxists.org%20liberalism
Every work there is political and either historical or of some level of academic rigor.
"Liberalism is a word that means different things to different people."
That is literally first damn sentence that come up for your under your link!
We've supplied you with works showing the definition that OP and every even semi-serious political philosopher, both liberal and communist means when they say it.
Why are you dying on this hill? Just educate yourself.
Dude, I literally showed you the dictionary. You think that Wikipedia, the OED, and everyone else is wrong but one dead Italian communist was right. Yes, pinko maranara had half a point in that some bad things have been done in the past in the name of liberalism, but that can be said for every major political philosophy.
I find it very telling that not one of you russian trolls can tell me who you would support in the upcoming US election.
You think that Wikipedia, the OED, and everyone else is wrong but one dead Italian communist was right.
There's 30 pages of citations, he goes through every major liberal philosopher and most of the leaders, if you want to say everyone from Locke to Smith to De Tocqueville and Washington to Jefferson to Teddy Roosevelt didn't understand their own philosophy, that's a hell of a take.
I find it very telling that not one of you russian trolls can tell me who you would support in the upcoming US election.
Do you genuinely believe that anyone you're talking to is a Russian troll? You can look at people's post histories.
Answer the question. If you can or if you could, who would you vote for ?
Here is the fun part of this hill. I'm not dying on it. No matter what direction thus little internet debate goes, at the end of the day, liberal still means liberal. You all insisting that up means down and liberal is bad because reasons doesn't change anything except amuse me. It's like watching monkeys flung poo. I'm not dieing on this hill, I got my feet up earing popcorn. Let me know when y'all get the dictionary updated.
I am voting PSL.
A vote for trump. A vote that looks at the only two possible outcomes of this election and see no difference between the two. Thank you, go fuck yourself.
... As opposed to the superior Republican plan for increasing minimum wage?
Crickets
What if I told you the viable alternative wasn't to look further right, but further left?
Well, I don't know about you, but I can't teleport. the last time I checked, neither can the u.s. political zeitgeist. If we want more left, we are going to have to get there the long way.
LOL
It's always fascinating watching people pretend the Democrats are powerless, when they pretend Donald Trump is omnipotent.
How do you get there the long way? Is it maybe by pushing leftist agenda and leftist talking points? Is it maybe by like endorsing workers rights and fair pay? Is it maybe making sure people don't live in poverty by raising the minimum wage? Sure seems like a good road map to me.
Sure. But none of it gets passed as there no majority in Congress to support it, that's what he's saying. There's been numerous instances of liberals trying to push more progressive agendas and they are always dead in the water due to Republicans. He's suggesting we "take it slow" as in we need to vote left-leaning people into office in order to start making progress....Not the fire and brimstone tactic of Revolution that some ML leftists support.
The Dems have to win, repeatedly, for years, with such a landslide that the Republican party is completely destroyed and the new competition for the Dems is a party that is further left.
That's how progress can actually be made at anything other than a snail's pace.
That Trump won the last election and will likely win this one means the Democratic party is going to target center and right of center people, because that's where the votes are.
I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. You're right though when they lose the Democrats tend to run right. That's how we got Clinton. However by winning Democrats tend to Trend left. Continued winning is how we got the strongest string of civil rights and labor rights victories in American history. So not necessarily overwhelming destructive Victory but consistent Victory I think would move us further left. There's of course the other way which is the Grassroots Ray which is what Republicans have done. First with the tea party then with the trump movement. Consistent victories at small levels lend results to National levels. Their party moved much further the right because they moved it from the ground up. Both are options and both can be done simultaneously.
Although its moneyed backers used that line in recruiting and messaging, the Tea Party was the opposite of grass roots: https://time.com/secret-origins-of-the-tea-party/
But yes, consistent victory at the ballot box over a long time period is key. The Koch money investments in the 1990s - thirty years ago - are still playing out now.