Why do I get the feeling that “radical liberalism” just means throwing socialists out of helicopters Pinochet style?
They would at least bring up how much it hurts them to have to do this and then act like it never happened a few moments later.
The inability of elites to even say the word fascists is pretty hilarious.
Well we did nothing about the brutal rising tide of fa… right wing populists… but now that socialists are trying to stop them, we better try to do something about… ugh… both of them.
Like. I just can’t even.
The schadenfreude is so thick it shuts down the brain
“You’ll only have to fill out twelve forms a year to qualify for government cheese.” - radical liberals
And have an income between $29000 and $29020 a year after federal and state but not municipal taxes, of course.
Liberal should mean in favour of Liberty. I know it doesn’t at the moment, and fighting fascists needs priority, but it’s a word worth reclaiming.
Removed by mod
OK, maybe push Socialism and let liberal die in the ground for a generation or two. Still think there should be a word for ‘believes in (human) rights’, maybe Punk will have to do. Stupid liberals, ruined liberal.
Stupid liberals, ruined liberal.
“The problem with Scotland is it’s so full of Scots”
(You’re absolutely right, unlike Longshanks about Scotland, you just reminded me of that quote 😁)
Thanks mate.
That’s impressively horrible.
The thing is, liberal also means being capitalist as it originally means. The term could not really be separated.
As a social democrat, liberal as a social value is worth fighting for. But as an economic system, liberalism i.e. capitalism, has proven incompatible with democracy. The wealthy and property-owning class would rather let the right win than lose their privileges. We did see it with centrist Democrats court neoconservative Republicans like Dick Cheney and George Bush to rally conservative votes in 2024 elections, which we all saw failed spectacularly. Kamala was also told not to mention about wealth inequality or taxing the rich before any interviews and debates, which also frustrated many Democrat voters.
deleted by creator
This is the type of shit you hear from someone who proceeds to punch progressive liberals because they aren’t good enough despite being the most left-leaning politicians currently in office.
Left leaning when you are barely to the left of.someone ike Trump isn’t progress. We wouldn’t be punching at liberals if they weren’t getting the way of defending fascists.
You ain’t punching left, you are punching the left side of a right-leaning lineup.
I didn’t say I was punching left, thats what liberals do to protect the system
I’m sorry, I couldn’t tell your demeanor apart from a left-punching Republican. My mistake.
Anybody got a link to the actual article? Or better yet, the full text of it so I don’t have to give them a click?
Here you go.
The first is passivity. Modern liberalism, certainly since the 1990s, has celebrated free markets and free people. In practice, that has meant deregulating both economic life and personal life, then treating the consequences as the price of freedom. In markets, this has allowed corporate consolidation and inequality to run wild. In personal life, liberals have become reluctant to say that certain behaviors are socially destructive. The result is liberal fatalism. People camp out on city streets, addicted and mentally ill, and liberals often describe this as a housing problem. Millions suffer from obesity-related illnesses, and liberals are more comfortable blaming “food deserts” than taking on the companies that hook their customers on processed food. Social media companies do the same with their consumers’ attention.
uh huh…
The way out of liberalism’s crisis is not to abandon liberalism. It is to recover its radical spirit. Liberals should once again be the people who hate monopoly, inherited advantage, closed systems and rigged games. They should champion real competition, real meritocracy and real equality of opportunity. They should take on corporate power when it crushes markets, government power when it protects insiders and cultural power when it creates bureaucracies that substitute group identity for individual dignity.
So he wants to dress up liberalism in socialist/communist/anarchist’s clothing? For who? The boomer liberals who still knee jerk at their Red Scare propaganda trigger words?
liberalism must get radical… hahahaha it is… it’s fascism. Never has it been so clear.
Right? They’re response is just, “Sigh. We have no choice but to be fascist, too. Bummer.”
More PAC money?
“In order to keep the status hierarchy in place, we’ll have to pretend to care more about poor people.”
Word salad
And leftists just punch themselves in the face
What’s the radical stuff he mentions?
They locked up Eugene Debs for simply speaking out against war and the oligarchy. History may not repeat itself but it does rhyme
Is Zakaria writing about speaking against the war or wdym
You don’t get context, just accept the propoganda.
I found the article but it is paywalled and I’m managing to bypass it. Annoying
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/06/27/why-liberalism-is-losing-socialists-populists/
At least his ghost haunts Lemmy still.
Eugene Debs was a socialist, not a liberal
right.
Where do you think we are headed? Trump locked up people for speaking out against ice, and I’m typical liberal fashion they will do nothing to get that reversed when they come back into power.
OK. I was just pointing out that the article is specifically about liberals. Eugene Debs was not a liberal.
