Liberalism is not synonymous with democracy and refers to a democratic government that isn’t too powerful, doesn’t decide too much what people may or may not do (religious freedom, socially liberal, free speech, etc), has open borders, and a very free capitalist market (only minimal involvement by the government to ensure no monopolies). It should be more or less something like this, it’s been a while since I last checked the definitions.
In a leftist context the criticisms against liberalism are usually aimed at the capitalist aspects of liberalism while conservatives are opposed to the socially liberal parts (and any part that is supposed to counteract corruption). Leftists in general dislike liberalism and feel it ultimately ends in fascism because of the incentives and structures in capitalist societies. The main goal in captitalism after all is greed; that the few should amass wealth and property via exploiting others. Monopolization and hierarchies is built into capitalism at its very core and we consider this to not be compatible with democracy (at the very least in the long run).
There are more criticisms and I’m sure others are better at explaining them, but the main thing is that we don’t believe liberalism is capable of implementing true lasting democracy, and that when it temporarily does it’s at the expense of people elsewhere.
Cool, so do libs want to collab wiyh us on some compromise between ‘open birders’ and ‘no borsers’?
Or do they just build concentration camps for immigrants that the fasch will eventually stick me in, and the border enforcement shutzstaffel they’ll use to do it?
Do libs want to work with us on free speech, or do they keep increasing the power of copyright and web censorship?
You’re talking about fantasy bullshiy imaginary psople who don’t exist.
In the US, Obama’s administration was publicly against “boots on the ground” since it was largely unpopular in “liberal” circles after Bush’s “War on Terror”. Instead, Obama’s administration increased drone based missions to do the violent bidding of the owning class.
“Liberals” may talk a great game about immigration reform, ending prisons like Guantanimo, net neutrality and protecting consumers from the owning class. When action is required “liberals” continue to advance the owning classes agenda using means that do not look bad to their base. Japanese internment camps were an executive order by a “liberal” President.
This is US centric, but the issues are inherent to Liberalism. Historical non-fiction is a genre of book.
I’m talking about the dictionary definition of liberalism. Real implementations of ideologies ofc will diverge from the definitions. Again, the part of my comment about how liberalism isn’t compatible with democracy and how liberalism is also defined by democracy should tell you a bit about why liberalism isn’t always as good as the ideal :P
Additionally liberalism is a broader definition and there are more specific versions of it as well. A liberal party might not specifically claim to be a specific kind of liberalism, but they are likely not the most general version
Also! Liberalism varies from country to country. I’m not american and liberalism here is different from your liberalism. That should also be noted. It’s a just as flawed ideology here mind you, but they aren’t putting people in camps (but they are perfectly willing to work with the populists ofc).
I should maybe have been clearer and said the political science definition? What I described is at least what liberalism means in a more formal context. Other definitions are more informal and will vary based on region and context.
I don’t think the leftists who dislike liberalism understand it or liberal philosophy.
Liberalism isn’t intrinsically tied to capitalism or even democracy.
It’s a moral & political philosophy that emerged from the Enlightenment in opposition to power imbalances derived from ideologies & traditions that justify divine hereditary privilege, absolute authority of the church & state.
To contest the legitimacy of traditional authority, it needed a new basis of legitimacy & found it in liberty.
It holds that individuals have inherent rights & liberties that exist apart from any law just for being human.
All individuals have the same fundamental rights, so are fundamentally equal.
Legitimate authority must protect these rights.
Governments exist for the people, and the people have a right & duty to correct & replace governments with illegitimate authority.
That’s the essence of liberal philosophy: legitimate governments protect fundamental rights & liberties of individuals.
It was the original leftism.
While left & right varieties of liberalism exist, its leftist varieties are more coherent.
All the ideals in opposition to traditional power imbalances serve as well to oppose authoritarianism in general.
Legitimate leftism should oppose authoritarianism due to the power imbalances.
Liberal socialism is a valid approach to socialism.
The social democracies in Europe are another approach to socialism in liberal democracies.
All of these are antiauthoritarian leftism.
Liberalism isn’t intrinsically tied to capitalism or even democracy.
It literally is. Here’s Wikipedia on the topic.
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.[1][2] Liberals espouse various and sometimes conflicting views depending on their understanding of these principles but generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion.[3] Liberalism is frequently cited as the dominant ideology of modern history.
Pedantry aside, though, liberals have always (and I mean always) batted for capitalism, and this is reflected in literally every political change liberals have been a notable party in (if you have counterexamples, go ahead). Private property rights are an integral part of liberalism as a political philosophy.
PS: Social democracy is a scam, as seen from the ongoing rise of fascism in Europe.
The actions of governments don’t necessarily follow from a philosophy they may fail to track.
Is whatever you’re criticizing due to a proposition of the philosophy or due to an act that departs from the philosophy?
Likewise, knowing only liberals who are capitalists, doesn’t imply liberalism is capitalist.
Only knowing about socialists who are tankies/authoritarian, doesn’t imply socialism is authoritarian.
They are general philosophies.
Now you’re just admitting ignorance of socialism, which permits private property & even markets.
Socialism only demands public ownership of the “means of production”.
It doesn’t reject personal property & only extreme varieties demand public ownership of practically everything.
Even so, your objections don’t imply a rejection of the core propositions mentioned before: the core propositions are distinct from & independent of the criticality of property rights or markets.
“Generally supported” in your quote does not mean always or necessarily, only often.
What do we call a philosophy that accepts the core propositions without the elements you object to?
Liberal: your objected elements aren’t essential to the philosophy.
Moreover, changing economic systems wasn’t a historical consideration (no alternative was conceived) at the time, so economic system wasn’t a historical or necessary part of the philosophy, either.
Finally, counterexamples have already been provided: liberal socialism.
So, do you accept the moral proposition that individuals inherently have fundamental rights & liberties independent of legal status, all individuals are categorically equal, authority is legitimate only when it protects those rights & liberties?
If so, then believe it or not, you’re liberal.
If we’re going to drag in the performance of actual governments, though, then liberal democracies in Europe, Canada, East Asia, Australia including those social democracies you dismiss beat most communist states (China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba) in lower economic inequality: check out the detailed view of this world map of gini coefficients.
Counterexamples (liberal socialist philosophies & governments) have already been provided.
Your denial of fact doesn’t make it untrue.
You don’t speak for all socialists.
Is whatever you’re criticizing due to a proposition of the philosophy or due to an act that departs from the philosophy?
Due to a proposition of the philosophy: the sanctity of private property rights. And no, there is no private property under socialism, you’re thinking of personal property. That’s your house, your car, your toothbrush, nobody wants to take those away. Private property is a wider concept, which includes among other things the means of production. You can’t argue that private property is sacred (a fundamental proposition of liberalism) and then seize the privately owned means of production; that’s a contradiction.
Likewise, knowing only liberals who are capitalists, doesn’t imply liberalism is capitalist.
I read your link about liberal socialism, and my takeaway is that these guys range from reformist socialists with a veneer of liberalism (again, they’re out the moment they advocate for seizing the means of production) or liberals with a veneer of reformist socialism (those not advocating for seizing the means of production). I mean the article lists fucking Proudhon for ffs we already know how liberals think about Proudhon’s ideas.
Now you’re just admitting ignorance of socialism, which permits private property & even markets.
See above. Only personal property is permitted under socialism.
Finally, counterexamples have already been provided: liberal socialism.
See above.
If we’re going to drag in the performance of actual governments, though, then liberal democracies in Europe, Canada, East Asia, Australia including those social democracies you dismiss beat most communist states (China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba) in lower economic inequality: check out the detailed view of this world map of gini coefficients.
First, these all liberalized; I don’t consider any of them a success on the socialism front. Second, China at least is fucking big, which does matter. Notably,
One of the lowest ever recorded Gina was for urban China in the late 1970’s, with a figure of around 0.11. Czechoslovakia also recorded a Gini of 0.17 in the 1980’s.
Also again, social democracy in Scandinavia is currently being peeled off by the far right, so it’s not exactly the success you’re painting it as.
Due to a proposition of the philosophy: the sanctity of private property rights.
Was answered with
What do we call a philosophy that accepts the core propositions without the elements you object to? Liberal: your objected elements aren’t essential to the philosophy.
and counterexample of liberal socialism.
And no, there is no private property under socialism, you’re thinking of personal property.
Contradiction: personal property is private, ie, owned by non-governmental entities per conventional definition.
I already wrote about “personal property” & "means of production”.
Owning certain items is illegal even in the US[1], yet people have private property rights.
Prohibiting ownership of some things doesn’t prohibit the right to have property.
fucking Proudhon
Don’t know, not critical to the argument.
The fact remains the core propositions of liberalism & socialism can be combined without conflict, and liberalism isn’t an economic philosophy.
You never stated your disagreement with the core propositions I had identified.
China at least is fucking big
That doesn’t explain the other communist states or excuse the failure to meet the main outcome & whole reason for existing.
All countries have developed & underdeveloped regions.
Same excuse would apply to liberal democracies with lower economic inequality, yet they don’t need it.
social democracy in Scandinavia is currently being peeled off by the far right
Again
The actions of governments don’t necessarily follow from a philosophy they may fail to track.
Lapses from a philosophy don’t inform us about the propositions of that philosophy.
Are liberalism & socialism consistent together?
Philosophies combining both exist.
Could you point out which of the core propositions I identified are incompatible with socialism?
those items may either not be legal property, be restricted, be public domain, or simply be illegal to possess ↩︎
You never stated your disagreement with the core propositions I had identified.
It’s that they’re not the core propositions of liberalism, at least according to the father of liberalism.
Locke is often credited for describing private property as a natural right,
If you’re not at least in broad agreement with John Locke (and other Enlightenment thinkers subscribing to the same philosophy) about what constitutes a natural right, you can’t call yourself a liberal, for the same reason you can’t have liberalism without freedom of religion.
Liberalism is not synonymous with democracy and refers to a democratic government that isn’t too powerful, doesn’t decide too much what people may or may not do (religious freedom, socially liberal, free speech, etc), has open borders, and a very free capitalist market (only minimal involvement by the government to ensure no monopolies). It should be more or less something like this, it’s been a while since I last checked the definitions.
In a leftist context the criticisms against liberalism are usually aimed at the capitalist aspects of liberalism while conservatives are opposed to the socially liberal parts (and any part that is supposed to counteract corruption). Leftists in general dislike liberalism and feel it ultimately ends in fascism because of the incentives and structures in capitalist societies. The main goal in captitalism after all is greed; that the few should amass wealth and property via exploiting others. Monopolization and hierarchies is built into capitalism at its very core and we consider this to not be compatible with democracy (at the very least in the long run).
There are more criticisms and I’m sure others are better at explaining them, but the main thing is that we don’t believe liberalism is capable of implementing true lasting democracy, and that when it temporarily does it’s at the expense of people elsewhere.
Cool, so do libs want to collab wiyh us on some compromise between ‘open birders’ and ‘no borsers’?
Or do they just build concentration camps for immigrants that the fasch will eventually stick me in, and the border enforcement shutzstaffel they’ll use to do it?
Do libs want to work with us on free speech, or do they keep increasing the power of copyright and web censorship?
You’re talking about fantasy bullshiy imaginary psople who don’t exist.
In the US, Obama’s administration was publicly against “boots on the ground” since it was largely unpopular in “liberal” circles after Bush’s “War on Terror”. Instead, Obama’s administration increased drone based missions to do the violent bidding of the owning class.
“Liberals” may talk a great game about immigration reform, ending prisons like Guantanimo, net neutrality and protecting consumers from the owning class. When action is required “liberals” continue to advance the owning classes agenda using means that do not look bad to their base. Japanese internment camps were an executive order by a “liberal” President.
This is US centric, but the issues are inherent to Liberalism. Historical non-fiction is a genre of book.
I’m talking about the dictionary definition of liberalism. Real implementations of ideologies ofc will diverge from the definitions. Again, the part of my comment about how liberalism isn’t compatible with democracy and how liberalism is also defined by democracy should tell you a bit about why liberalism isn’t always as good as the ideal :P
Additionally liberalism is a broader definition and there are more specific versions of it as well. A liberal party might not specifically claim to be a specific kind of liberalism, but they are likely not the most general version
Also! Liberalism varies from country to country. I’m not american and liberalism here is different from your liberalism. That should also be noted. It’s a just as flawed ideology here mind you, but they aren’t putting people in camps (but they are perfectly willing to work with the populists ofc).
Whoever wrote that dictionary is fucking stupid.
Also, when them damn lefties say to read books about politics, we do not mean ‘the dictionary’.
I should maybe have been clearer and said the political science definition? What I described is at least what liberalism means in a more formal context. Other definitions are more informal and will vary based on region and context.
I have the utmost respect for that field, second only ro business and possibly law degrees.
I don’t think the leftists who dislike liberalism understand it or liberal philosophy. Liberalism isn’t intrinsically tied to capitalism or even democracy.
It’s a moral & political philosophy that emerged from the Enlightenment in opposition to power imbalances derived from ideologies & traditions that justify divine hereditary privilege, absolute authority of the church & state. To contest the legitimacy of traditional authority, it needed a new basis of legitimacy & found it in liberty.
It holds that individuals have inherent rights & liberties that exist apart from any law just for being human. All individuals have the same fundamental rights, so are fundamentally equal. Legitimate authority must protect these rights. Governments exist for the people, and the people have a right & duty to correct & replace governments with illegitimate authority. That’s the essence of liberal philosophy: legitimate governments protect fundamental rights & liberties of individuals.
It was the original leftism. While left & right varieties of liberalism exist, its leftist varieties are more coherent. All the ideals in opposition to traditional power imbalances serve as well to oppose authoritarianism in general.
Legitimate leftism should oppose authoritarianism due to the power imbalances. Liberal socialism is a valid approach to socialism. The social democracies in Europe are another approach to socialism in liberal democracies. All of these are antiauthoritarian leftism.
It literally is. Here’s Wikipedia on the topic.
Pedantry aside, though, liberals have always (and I mean always) batted for capitalism, and this is reflected in literally every political change liberals have been a notable party in (if you have counterexamples, go ahead). Private property rights are an integral part of liberalism as a political philosophy.
PS: Social democracy is a scam, as seen from the ongoing rise of fascism in Europe.
The actions of governments don’t necessarily follow from a philosophy they may fail to track. Is whatever you’re criticizing due to a proposition of the philosophy or due to an act that departs from the philosophy?
Likewise, knowing only liberals who are capitalists, doesn’t imply liberalism is capitalist. Only knowing about socialists who are tankies/authoritarian, doesn’t imply socialism is authoritarian. They are general philosophies.
Now you’re just admitting ignorance of socialism, which permits private property & even markets. Socialism only demands public ownership of the “means of production”. It doesn’t reject personal property & only extreme varieties demand public ownership of practically everything.
Even so, your objections don’t imply a rejection of the core propositions mentioned before: the core propositions are distinct from & independent of the criticality of property rights or markets. “Generally supported” in your quote does not mean always or necessarily, only often. What do we call a philosophy that accepts the core propositions without the elements you object to? Liberal: your objected elements aren’t essential to the philosophy.
Moreover, changing economic systems wasn’t a historical consideration (no alternative was conceived) at the time, so economic system wasn’t a historical or necessary part of the philosophy, either.
Finally, counterexamples have already been provided: liberal socialism.
So, do you accept the moral proposition that individuals inherently have fundamental rights & liberties independent of legal status, all individuals are categorically equal, authority is legitimate only when it protects those rights & liberties? If so, then believe it or not, you’re liberal.
If we’re going to drag in the performance of actual governments, though, then liberal democracies in Europe, Canada, East Asia, Australia including those social democracies you dismiss beat most communist states (China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba) in lower economic inequality: check out the detailed view of this world map of gini coefficients.
Only, North Korea achieves low economic inequality, and that state overspends on military instead of lifting people out of poverty, thus allowing famines & food shortages to stunt growth & shorten life expectances by 12 years compared to their South Korean neighbors.
Counterexamples (liberal socialist philosophies & governments) have already been provided. Your denial of fact doesn’t make it untrue. You don’t speak for all socialists.
Due to a proposition of the philosophy: the sanctity of private property rights. And no, there is no private property under socialism, you’re thinking of personal property. That’s your house, your car, your toothbrush, nobody wants to take those away. Private property is a wider concept, which includes among other things the means of production. You can’t argue that private property is sacred (a fundamental proposition of liberalism) and then seize the privately owned means of production; that’s a contradiction.
I read your link about liberal socialism, and my takeaway is that these guys range from reformist socialists with a veneer of liberalism (again, they’re out the moment they advocate for seizing the means of production) or liberals with a veneer of reformist socialism (those not advocating for seizing the means of production). I mean the article lists fucking Proudhon for ffs we already know how liberals think about Proudhon’s ideas.
See above. Only personal property is permitted under socialism.
See above.
First, these all liberalized; I don’t consider any of them a success on the socialism front. Second, China at least is fucking big, which does matter. Notably,
Also again, social democracy in Scandinavia is currently being peeled off by the far right, so it’s not exactly the success you’re painting it as.
Was answered with
and counterexample of liberal socialism.
Contradiction: personal property is private, ie, owned by non-governmental entities per conventional definition. I already wrote about “personal property” & "means of production”.
Owning certain items is illegal even in the US[1], yet people have private property rights. Prohibiting ownership of some things doesn’t prohibit the right to have property.
Don’t know, not critical to the argument. The fact remains the core propositions of liberalism & socialism can be combined without conflict, and liberalism isn’t an economic philosophy.
You never stated your disagreement with the core propositions I had identified.
That doesn’t explain the other communist states or excuse the failure to meet the main outcome & whole reason for existing. All countries have developed & underdeveloped regions. Same excuse would apply to liberal democracies with lower economic inequality, yet they don’t need it.
Again
Lapses from a philosophy don’t inform us about the propositions of that philosophy. Are liberalism & socialism consistent together? Philosophies combining both exist.
Could you point out which of the core propositions I identified are incompatible with socialism?
those items may either not be legal property, be restricted, be public domain, or simply be illegal to possess ↩︎
It’s that they’re not the core propositions of liberalism, at least according to the father of liberalism.
If you’re not at least in broad agreement with John Locke (and other Enlightenment thinkers subscribing to the same philosophy) about what constitutes a natural right, you can’t call yourself a liberal, for the same reason you can’t have liberalism without freedom of religion.
Ywah, libs understand philosophy and read way more political theory way more than those damn commies and ‘anarchists’.