You could share this sublemmy’s pinned post, or the megathread it links to:

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/10901

https://rentry.co/megathread

The deregulation march you’re talking about is neoliberalism, and it hasn’t just affected USA. And in a sense neoliberalism is capitalism’s response to regulation.

It’s not that regulation doesn’t work per se, it’s that the (political) hierarchy through which it functions is susceptible to being taken advantage of, and inevitably it will be (*has been) taken advantage of by the capitalist class to protect their economic hierarchy.

For democracy to truly represent the people it’d need to be federated from the ground up through free association. Large scale organisation and cooperation would be ephemeral, existing when/if the need arises and dissolving as soon as projects are concluded (or cancelled). But within the rigidity of the current system(s), where power is consolidated at the ‘top’ through processes we’re lead to believe are necessary for ‘order’ (when their real purpose is of course control), horizontal forms of social organisation seem impossible (I like how Anark calls this - “hierarchical realism”).

Can we please stop pretending “regulation” is all that effective. It’s been tried, and has resulted in corrupt bureaucracy or given way to neoliberalism (and corporate bureaucracy).

What we need is a radically different system where the power truly is in the hands of the people, and not just nominally like in representative democracy (and which is completely lacking anyways in most workplaces). And what this requires is the construction of fundamentally different modes of production and human interrelation that will not resemble what we’ve got now, neither economically nor politically nor socially. Regulating capitalism won’t get us there.

I’m confused, I’ve never seen gpservices take a screenshot. Is there any reason/context I should be looking out for?

How did you catch it taking the screenshot?

I wonder if making the colours partially transparent could work as an interesting / fun twist?

Ok, I looked into it a bit more and stand partially corrected, I guess you technically could be a “liberal anti-capitalist” depending on the definition used, but still, I think that’s precisely why semantics is important. If you’re going for such a particular definition then you’d do good to specify it. At least mention an author or smthn.

If anything, bickering would arise from misunderstanding. E.G. even though libertarianism is through and through leftist, (personally) I always clarify that I’m not referring to the self-contradictory thing that is “right libertarianism”.

Nah, semantics is important, without it it would be impossible to properly communicate complex ideas.

Liberalism and (left) libertarianism are very distinct, and seeing that freedom and equality are important to you, I think it would do you good to learn more about the latter. Particularly libertarian socialism, and anarchism :)

Mate it sounds like you’ve got some nice ideals but are mixing them up with the wrong terminology.

What you described is personal property, not private property.

The fact that under capitalism, “rights” are bought is precisely why the “freedom” under liberalism is fake.

Also, what do you mean with your rhetorical question example? That it wouldn’t happen under liberalism because such heirarchies would be prevented by governmental reform?

dw, happens to me too!

It was definitely satire

Could you link me the wikipedia article / paragraph you’re referring to?

The first sentence of the article on Liberalism states:

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law.

Private property is a fundamentally capitalist concept.

Also, “consent of the governed” is non-existent in practice. Even without bullshit like gerrymandering, and the efficacy of propaganda, the tyranny of the majority is still a problem.

Maybe you mean (left) libertarianism? Liberalism has never been anti-capitalist.

Right-wingers have appropriated themselves of leftist terminology many times (notably, “right libertarianism”, “anarcho capitalism”, and “national socialism”) but liberalism is already right-aligned as its still fundamentally capitalist despite being superficially progressive - permitting the oppressed the hope for change through reform, and giving every poor sucker the “freedom” to get fucked by the social/economic heirarchies of the status quo. Liberalism is how you get greenwashing and rainbow capitalism.

Congratulations, you have discovered the inherent contradiction of the “free” liberal ideology

What violence? Is open discussion of anti-capitalist ideas violent to you?

It’s classic false equivalence from “freedom lovin” liberals, lol

Free speech for everyone! ^(as long as you keep quiet about anything that questions capitalism / the status quo)^

Yay reform! Aren’t we just sooo progressive? Conservatives hate us so that means we’re totally leftist!