Liberals are the right wing in Brazil

After being introduced to the American politics, I got really surprised after realizing Brazil is a freakin comunist country. I call myself a liberal, what would be a leftist in US, am I right? So, here in Brazil, a liberal is seen as bad (for the leftists) as a conservative. The brazilian leftists are comunists, what really scares me. They love Che Guevara and all those creepy socialists murders, and defend the red system as if it could actually work (there's a party, which lost all the power it once has, that used this catchy phrase: "against bourgeois, vote 16". Yes, insane.

Now, if someone really could explain this to me: Are the liberals in US seen as socialists?

If yes, then the american liberals are not the same as the brazilian ones.
Here liberals and conservatives share the same right wing. But the conservatives are more to the extreme. Liberals here are more to be like moderate right (economically right-sided, but socially centrists).

If no, then Brazil can be seen as a 40% red country.
Good news: the biggest socialist party is falling apart.

Thanks for answering me

a reply to: jacob33

this might help you understand.

liberalism vs socialism

a reply to: jacob33

Id say that in the US, liberal is leftist, left of center. Socialist is further left of liberal.
Comunist is left of socialist, and anarchist is left of Comunist.

Brazil is just a mess from what I can tell.

a reply to: jacob33

Maybe because south of the equator things spin the opposite way. Or maybe not.

a reply to: jacob33

Don't worry The messed human being known as Che is also a hero here in the US among certain group of people.

liberal in its real term means is closer to the term libertarian in the US. free markets, property rights, individual choices, individual outcomes, hands off approach.

What confuses me about S. America is that Chile has shown the way, why do the other countries not follow?

a reply to: jacob33

Want to be careful applying labels. Historically, they have been used to represent falsely. It becomes apparent after the empire burns down.

Nazis called themselves socialists, its in their party name National Socialist Workers Party. How liberal isn't that? Same with the Soviets. United Soviet Socialist Republics, USSR. They even included Republic in their label.

All labels are disingenuous, used to fool people about ultimate goals during their formation. Then tenants of the label are used to keep fooling people into conforming. Here in the states we have both sides of the same coin. And we still call ourselves these United States. Yet, all the cities, public works like mail delivery, fire, police, public transport, schools, etc, are social engineering on a grand scale.

So are we divided along party lines or united, right or left, democrat or republican?

As many heads of the hydra there are, pick one. As long as you conform to the law, they don't care what you believe.

to the OP...so what?.....how is brazil even comparable to the U.S.?.....political parties around the world have all kinds of different nomenclatures for their respective parties....didn't anyone have a political science course in school?

We started off as classical liberals. Most of us want to conserve our founding, but some want to go far right and some want to go far left. And then we have centrists.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: jacob33

Want to be careful applying labels. Historically, they have been used to represent falsely. It becomes apparent after the empire burns down.

Nazis called themselves socialists, its in their party name National Socialist Workers Party. How liberal isn't that? Same with the Soviets. United Soviet Socialist Republics, USSR. They even included Republic in their label.

All labels are disingenuous, used to fool people about ultimate goals during their formation. Then tenants of the label are used to keep fooling people into conforming. Here in the states we have both sides of the same coin. And we still call ourselves these United States. Yet, all the cities, public works like mail delivery, fire, police, public transport, schools, etc, are social engineering on a grand scale.

So are we divided along party lines or united, right or left, democrat or republican?

As many heads of the hydra there are, pick one. As long as you conform to the law, they don't care what you believe.

I've heard the NAZIs described (for the sake of simplicity) as Nationalist Socialists.

a reply to: jacob33

In the US, the whole left side of the spectrum broke off. So you have far right, center right and center, with Progressives just starting to rebuild a left side. There's virtually no Socialists in the US though liberals and progressives are called that.

a reply to: jacob33


Totalitarian --- Authoritarian -- Traditionalists/conservative(Republican)Social Progressives(Democrats) ----(Classical)Liberals --- Minarchists --- Anarchists.

A liberal is a person for personal freedom.

"For classical liberals — sometimes called the ‘old’ liberalism — liberty and private property are intimately related. From the eighteenth century right up to today, classical liberals have insisted that an economic system based on private property is uniquely consistent with individual liberty, allowing each to live her life —including employing her labor and her capital — as she sees fit. Indeed, classical liberals and libertarians have often asserted that in some way liberty and property are really the same thing; it has been argued, for example, that all rights, including liberty rights, are forms of property; others have maintained that property is itself a form of freedom (Gaus, 1994; Steiner, 1994). A market order based on private property is thus seen as an embodiment of freedom (Robbins, 1961: 104). Unless people are free to make contracts and to sell their labour, or unless they are free to save their incomes and then invest them as they see fit, or unless they are free to run enterprises when they have obtained the capital, they are not really free."

plato.stanford.edu...

a reply to: Kali74

Hmmmm, were the Bernie Sanders supporters basically socialist? That was quite a few people.

With robots, AI, and automated assembly lines, along with self-driving cars and trucks, the US may NEED a socialist party just so the former workers can continue to eat!

a reply to: TonyS

Most of them are Progressives, IMO.

originally posted by: 4003fireglo

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: jacob33

Want to be careful applying labels. Historically, they have been used to represent falsely. It becomes apparent after the empire burns down.

Nazis called themselves socialists, its in their party name National Socialist Workers Party. How liberal isn't that? Same with the Soviets. United Soviet Socialist Republics, USSR. They even included Republic in their label.

All labels are disingenuous, used to fool people about ultimate goals during their formation. Then tenants of the label are used to keep fooling people into conforming. Here in the states we have both sides of the same coin. And we still call ourselves these United States. Yet, all the cities, public works like mail delivery, fire, police, public transport, schools, etc, are social engineering on a grand scale.

So are we divided along party lines or united, right or left, democrat or republican?

As many heads of the hydra there are, pick one. As long as you conform to the law, they don't care what you believe.

I've heard the NAZIs described (for the sake of simplicity) as Nationalist Socialists.

Thats part of their party label. NSDAP translating roughly to National Socialist German workers party.

Every aspect of life and economy Nationalized, every social program extending from the state. Their claim to be comprised of the workers was misleading, workers were subservient to the state, not corporations. They were politicized, happy in their work.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: 4003fireglo

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: jacob33

Want to be careful applying labels. Historically, they have been used to represent falsely. It becomes apparent after the empire burns down.

Nazis called themselves socialists, its in their party name National Socialist Workers Party. How liberal isn't that? Same with the Soviets. United Soviet Socialist Republics, USSR. They even included Republic in their label.

All labels are disingenuous, used to fool people about ultimate goals during their formation. Then tenants of the label are used to keep fooling people into conforming. Here in the states we have both sides of the same coin. And we still call ourselves these United States. Yet, all the cities, public works like mail delivery, fire, police, public transport, schools, etc, are social engineering on a grand scale.

So are we divided along party lines or united, right or left, democrat or republican?

As many heads of the hydra there are, pick one. As long as you conform to the law, they don't care what you believe.

I've heard the NAZIs described (for the sake of simplicity) as Nationalist Socialists.

Thats part of their party label. NSDAP translating roughly to National Socialist German workers party.

Every aspect of life and economy Nationalized, every social program extending from the state. Their claim to be comprised of the workers was misleading, workers were subservient to the state, not corporations. They were politicized, happy in their work.

Sounds fascist.

They also hated all the good art.

a reply to: 4003fireglo

If it didn't glorify Greater Germany and or Hitler's twisted racist Aryan philosophy, it was banned. They also stole a lot of art and other treasure that way.

Even math and science was politicized on some level.

originally posted by: brutus61
a reply to: jacob33

this might help you understand.

liberalism vs socialism

Good text. Short and clear. The liberals don't mind living the capitalist (or American) dream, unlike the socialist.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: jacob33

Id say that in the US, liberal is leftist, left of center. Socialist is further left of liberal.
Comunist is left of socialist, and anarchist is left of Comunist.

Brazil is just a mess from what I can tell.

39 "different" parties: 4 comunists; 2 socialists; 10 center-leftists; 6 centrists; 8 center-right; 4 right. (Some new haven't been updated yet. Our congress has 26 different parties represented.

Those 24 center or center-something do not follow the party own label (usually act the opposite what they say, for example: PSDB is a center-left party that is seen as the biggest right-sided opposition of PT, the biggest socialist party).

And 23 more parties in the process of acceptance.

A real mess, as you said. And what's worse: most of the politicians do not follow their parties too. They are mostly conservative self-seeking corrupt people, what is a reflection of the average brazilian voters.

originally posted by: jimmyx
to the OP...so what?.....how is brazil even comparable to the U.S.?.....political parties around the world have all kinds of different nomenclatures for their respective parties....didn't anyone have a political science course in school?

I'm sorry, but political parties ideologies can be compared, YES. Socialism is the same thing for borth Brazil and USA. What I'm comparing (and trying to understand) is how Brazil nominates liberals and how US does, and not about political parties names, but PERSONAL political choices. Political science may differ from country to country too, my friend.

And please, just asking for some RESPECT, write my country name with capital letter.

Thanks

a reply to: Kali74

What you're saying is true, but it's only part of the picture.. it's not that the left doesn't exist, it's that they've ceder all their real struggles since the 60's and their beliefs have been twisted and perverted to fulfil a totalitarian agenda, i.e. they were co-opted and became the establishment.

You can't say that progressivism or leftism isn't a powerful force in US politics. But they also have to deal with the fact that the US is the most powerful nation in the World so powerful interests will make sure that their geopolitical plans get play, none of the career politicians like Hillary are interested in challenging these interests, they are merely their representatives and outwards faces.

There's some specific core tenets in the American mind that is in its essence right wing, but it's an ideology that is on the defensive on the political landscape. Just look at American major media, Fox being the only major right win network and even the Simpsons - a Fox show - constantly makes fun of Fox.. It's a declining demographic.

But they are both still powerful political forces and they were both co-opted long ago.

I liked this:

All labels are disingenuous, used to fool people about ultimate goals during their formation. Then tenants of the label are used to keep fooling people into conforming. Here in the states we have both sides of the same coin. And we still call ourselves these United States. Yet, all the cities, public works like mail delivery, fire, police, public transport, schools, etc, are social engineering on a grand scale.

You want to talk about somewhere where the right broke off look at Sweden. Sweden hasn't had a real conservative movement with political representation in forever. But of course they went and created one with multiculturalism. That should tell you enough that they're doing this because it's a sound divide and conquer strategy that is demonstrably working. Don't have a left? We'll give you one, don't have a right? We'll supply that too.

A quote from a recent James Bond movie sums it up:

"You should know something about me and the people I work with. We deal with the left and the right, dictators or liberators. If the current president had been more agreeable, I wouldn't be talking to you. So if you decide not to sign, you'll wake up with your balls in your mouth and your willing replacement standing over you... if you doubt that, then shoot me, take that money and have a good night's sleep."