pjwestin

I was about to downvote until I saw the community.

Yup. We gotta vote for them this election, but replace them in the next. Otherwise, we're just hitting snooze on fascism for another 4 years.

What about my original comment led you to believe I thought they were equivalent? As I said, Republicans are vile, hateful, and exploiting our political divisions for power. But the Democrats are just as responsible for the material conditions that have allowed facism to flourish, and demanding accountability and change for that isn't nitpicking. If the Democrats don't stop being corporate stooges, this doesn't end if Trump is defeated; it ends when another fascist finally wins.

History didn't start in 2016. The Democrats were happy to cozy up to the Silicone Valley tech giants, even as they developed into monopolies whose products gave users the very brain-poisoning that delivered Trump. They were happy to prioritize Wall Street bailouts over homeowners' bailouts after the subprime mortgage crises, even if meant their constituents lost their homes. They've been happy to sideline or undermine anyone who dares run to their left, from Bernie Sanders to Rashida Tlaib.

The Democrats are not well-meaning, helpless progressives that just can't get anything done because of America's byzantine political structure. They have actively stopped any significant changes to the status quo in order to keep their donors happy. They've spent decades deluding themselves into thinking they could somehow improve conditions for the working class without demanding concessions from the billionaire class, even as the largest wealth transfer in history, from the lowest income Americans to the highest income Americans, was taking place. They may not be as vile or hateful as the Republicans, but they are just as responsible for America's decay.

Oh, that's easy; we don't! Every four years, the fabric of our society frays and tears a little more, while our politicians either exploit our divisions or attempt to repair them without making any changes to the material conditions or systemic problems that create these fractures, because fixing these underlying issues would upset the handful of billionaires that actually control our government! But there's a new Fast & Furious movie every two or three years, so it balances out.

No, this is literally where the U.S. falls on a global political spectrum. The Democrats would be considered center-right in most other nations. Even by their own historical standards, they're center right; if you took a Democrat from 1975 and transported them to 1995, they'd ask you why the party had adopted the Republicans' fiscal policies.

You:

Wikipedia agrees with me

Wikipedia:

Left-wing politics describes the range of political ideologies that support and seek to achieve social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy as a whole or certain social hierarchies...Ideologies considered to be left-wing vary greatly depending on the placement along the political spectrum in a given time and place...In addition, the term left-wing has also been applied to a broad range of culturally liberal social movements, including the civil rights movement, feminist movement, LGBT rights movement, abortion-rights movements, multiculturalism, anti-war movement and environmental movement as well as a wide range of political parties.

Anyway, we're done here.

You are welcome to disagree with it, but your definition is not shared by Merriam-Webster, Dictionary.com, or Wikipedia. The Encyclopedia Britannica comes closest to agreeing with you by saying that, "Socialism is the standard leftist ideology in most countries of the world," but it does not limit its definition of the political left to socialist and communist ideologies, and it certainly doesn't say, "Left wing means ending Capitalism, not just 'reigning it in." So maybe next time, before you jump into someone's comments to tell them they're using a word wrong, check if they're actually using it wrong or simply using it in a way that doesn't align with your personal beliefs.

I've run out of ways to say this, so I'll just reiterate it one more time and be done with it; the meaning of left-wing is not that rigid and will vary based on context. It does not specifically mean revolutionary or anti-capitalist. It generally means a set of social or economic principles aimed at creating a more egalitarian society, but what that means in terms of policy will depend greatly based on the culture and system of government in place. Do I think it sucks ass that the American liberals are considered left-wing in the U.S.? Yeah. Do they meet my definition of left-wing? Fuck no. But I don't get to define that broad term based on my personal standards.

Right. So, you want to take the term, "left-wing," which has held different meanings in different contexts over more than two centuries and redefine as exclusively anti-capitalist, so you can tell liberals that they're not actually left-wing. Now that's an attempt to shift the Overton Window.

Left-wing has always had a loose, relative meaning, and arguing otherwise isn't attempting to stop the Overton Window from shifting. It's just an attempt to gatekeep who gets to be a, "real," leftist.

...and Sanders himself defines Democratic Socialism as the completion of the New Deal reforms, not a gradual transition to a socialist economic system. There's a difference between the Overton Window shifting and a gradual change in definition over generations, but if you want definitions to remain entirely static, then we're both using left-wing incorrectly, as it's, "real," definition is opposing monarchy's veto power over parliament.