Nobody is defending Trump, and your article did not mention how many people sat out that would have voted, nor the people that voted for Stein and De La Crúz. You're dishonest, and running defense for a genocidal liberal.
More muslim leaders supported Jill Stein and Claudia De La Crúz, or called for a general boycott of the election. You're magnifying an ultimately small part of the election with the purpose of shifting the blame for Harris' loss to muslims, and not on the genocidal liberal DNC.
I don't mean "historical source" as an old source, but one that acknowledges the history of the terms. Your beloved Wikipedia explains the origins of liberalism in the same way I did. If I point you to Chinese economics institutions that agree with me, you'll dismiss them. Again, liberalism is not a science, it's an ideology centered around the dominant mode of production.
Even Time Magazine, itself an intensely liberal publication, recognizes the role of property relations in what determines left and right, ultimately chalking up the modern US viewpoint implicitly to the Overton Window, a political outlook that centers the median of any given society, rather than property relations.
This is not the "same argument" that Trump voters made. Again, you rely on equating me to the far-right to emotionally attack me, rather than the logic of my arguments or the overwhelming fact that you only accept western, liberal publications, and precisely the ones that focus on the Overton Window when describing concepts as left and right instead of their origin as property relations. You're making an appeal to authority as your only argument, yet you don't accept non-western sources.
Because Trump never campaigned on being good for Palestine, you linked a liberal news site trying to shift the blame of a horribly run campaign from the DNC to muslim voters.
It's clear that by avoiding the discussion that you aren't a serious person. I accept sources that aconowledge the historical answers to the questions I asked you.
Again, for the 5th time or so, the categorization of "left" vs "right" originated in France. When debating the power a King should hold, those who were against the monarchy sat on the left, and those who wanted to uphold the monarchy sat on the right. Liberalism, therefore, was a historically progressive and revolutionary ideology, as it was anti-monarchist and pro-bourgeois property. It was left not because it was liberal, it was left because it stood for progression onto the next emerging mode of production, that of bourgeois property.
Now, however, bourgeois property is dominant. Kings hold nearly no power on the global stage. The question of which position is revolutionary, which position stands for progression onto the next mode of production, is to be found in the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, not the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy as was found in the late 1700s. Liberalism is the status quo, as capitalism is the status quo. Socialism, whether it be Marxist, anarchist, etc, is the proletarian position, while liberalism is the bourgeois position, once revolutionary, now reactionary.
The publications that you listed, like Princeton, are portraying a narrow scope based on median viewpoints within liberal society. "Left-liberalism" is used in reference to liberals with socially progressive views, and perhaps supportive of some level of welfare expansion, but this doesn't fundamentally change the property relations in society. It is "left" in comparison to conservativism (which itself is right-liberalism), but right wing overall.
Now, if you can make the case why you believe liberalism to be left, then please, do so, because you haven't outside of linking liberals saying they are left in the context of a liberal-dominated society. Liberalism is not a science, it's a viewpoint, so disagreeing with liberal economists is not the same as disagreeing with the CDC. The PRC's economists are trained in Marxism, and there are far more of them than there are western liberal economists, so the argument that I disagree with economic consensus doesn't hold water unless you take a western exceptionalist viewpoint.
Yea, all my pictures look a bit fuzzy due to being on my phone, a dedicated camera sounds great. I'm tight on cash now, though, so that'll take a while.
That would have helped, sure, but it would have had to be genuine. The real reason Harris lost is because she ran a right-wing campaign when the working class has been increasingly radicalized.
I've been dabbling a bit, but I never thought to go out and intentionally do it, it's always been incidental on my walks around where I live. I should try and expand it!
What does "left" mean to you? What did it originally mean when it first became a phrase, and how does that apply to modern times? Again, I may be a Marxist, but this is a dominant viewpoint outside of highly western, liberal publications, and it isn't just Marxists that have this understanding of right and left. Trying to equate my logic to anti-vaxx movements is just a baseless jab that avoids answering the arguments I made.
I always recommend Blowback, and I've recently been getting into Rev Left Radio. The former is an excellent anti-imperialist podcast going over the crimes of the US Empire, the latter is a solid podcast discussing Marxist-Leninist history, theory, and practice.
These are all good points, but I do think it's important for those with the capacity to join an org and get organized. Capitalism is the problem, and we cannot just wait for it to fall. It gets easier to topple over time, but if we never kill it, it will stay on life support.
The reason it's a false dichotomy is because the implicit point of the OP is that revolution is necessary. The original commenter either didn't pick that up or ignored it, centering voting as the primary means of political engagement without addressing the point raised by the OP.
![Cowbee [he/they]](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/c18ce632-5fb5-4888-8226-3dc55a07acc4.jpeg?format=webp&thumbnail=128)
Aww, good ol doggie.