anarchiddy

Nah, I can just see past the noise of nationalism to what systemic conditions gave rise to it. Thinking we can return to liberal democracy without seizing some portion of our means of production away from private ownership is nothing more than naivete.

But keep winging about the horrors of socialism.

You could be, yea. But its not at all because you refuse to use particular labels, but because you seem all too comfortable running cover for people who fit them.

A euphemism and an understatement of fact is pretty illuminating on your views of the world's most famous mass murderer.

You didnt criticize him at all, you said you didnt like 'what he did with concentration camps'.

You have stronger criticism for feminists, and that says quite a bit about your politics.

I certainly have questions when you're loath to use it for literal- fucking-hitler.

liberals are protecting individual rights

Yes, they are protecting individual rights to property, and that's a huge issue.

If rights to one person contradict the rights of another, resulting in loss and harm then guess what? Individual rights aren't being mandated and upheld and that's not Liberalism

I dont think you're getting it, honestly. There are a ton of examples where liberalism exposes tensions between individual and collective rights, and most of them revolve around the right to property. Liberal democracies are constantly having to enforce new regulations because capital owners are constantly finding new ways to abuse their ownership of property in ways that harm others. You can say all you want that isn't 'true liberalism', but then what democracy would qualify then? What happens when the accumulation of wealth under liberal democracy leads to such a disparity of power that government can no longer function as a regulating body? hint, you're living it, bud

No, they don't, because that has never existed

Are you sure? There have been no examples of socialized systems of production?

I think you're confusing socialist and communist states with socialist and communist systems.

Mandated, unconditional individual rights ARE collective rights and also human rights

Not when those rights are in conflict with another individual's. The classic example is the individual right to private property, but there are many others. American liberals do recognize these limits and contradictions, but accept as granted the right to private property. It's the center tenet of leftist critique, so it makes a lot of sense why there's a lot of cynicism about liberals claiming to occupy the same space. Sure, they have some overlap, but the main contention is left unaddressed by American liberals and so leave themselves open to derision.

if Capitalism is not a regulated Market System then the USA is also not a capitalism

It's a type of regulated market system, but it's defined by its mode of production being capitalist in nature. Socialist and communist systems still employ regulated markets, but collectivize ownership over productive capital instead. Abolishing capitalism isn't a way of saying we should abolish markets, but to remove capital as the mode of production

Liberal means advocate of human rights

Not unless you're creating your own personal definition. At best, liberalism means advocating for individual rights, and where you or I might disagree with the application of that idea is where individual rights are in tension with communal or collective rights more broadly

In what way does exchanging money for goods cause outlawing gay marriage or banning books?

Markets are not the same as capitalism. It's a description of a system that enshrines abstract ownership over systems of production. If you dont take issue with the coercive mechanisms within capital relations, then im not really sure where to put you 'on the left'.

I haven't excluded him as being vegan, I'm just not going out of my way to avoid calling him an antisemitic eugenicist. Just because the label sounds mean doesn't make the label false.

Sexism is expressed in a lot of different ways, and some are more harmful than others. It doesn't make the label inaccurate simply because it hurts your feelings. You can be a lot of other things in addition to being sexist, too.

You don't seem to have a problem with the use of labels when it comes to dietary choices, im not sure why you'd go to such lengths to avoid calling Hitler a eugenicist. You even used passive language by saying 'what he did with concentration camps' instead of stating plainly that he 'exterminated 6 million jews' in them.

"What he did with concentration camps"

vs

"Vegan"

You're not beating the allegations here.