Just to be clear, you don’t think I should be against liberals enabling fascism? You don’t see anything wrong with the slow march to the far right that’s happening in so many parts of the world recently?
I’m just really annoyed by “liberal” constantly being equated with “fascist enabler” round here. If anyone calls themselves a liberal while supporting fascists, they’re just fascists in disguise. While there are people like that, that’s not what liberalism means, in fact, it’s quite the opposite.
It’s a language issue. You’re likely from the United States, where liberal is used to suggest an adherent to classical liberalism or progressivism. Most of the rest of the English speaking world means neoliberal, as in an advocate or supporter of free-market capitalism, deregulation, and the reduction of government spending.
Please, enlighten me about what you think liberalism means. In my view (as an anarchist) liberalism is at best ineffective at preventing fascism from taking over. It enables colonialism and imperialism, and offers no solution to the horrors of capitalism. Liberal ideology is one of state violence and compromise with literal fascists.
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. Liberals espouse various and often mutually warring 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, Liberalism is frequently cited as the dominant ideology of modern history.
Did… Did you really just copy Wikipedia’s page on liberalism here? You think that’s conductive of a meaningful conversation? Try reading a book and maybe you’ll be able to imagine a better world than what the ruling class has decided for us. A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey might be a good place to start. It’s often taught in university but is well written and accessible compared to some of the more lofty rhetoric you might find.
Well, it seems to me that’s a better definition than some vague ‘ideology of state violence etc’. Objectively liberal politics (not to be confused with your own very local take on ‘libs’) is very much rooted in your own anarchism but with the addition of a limited state to things like, you know, use organised violence to keep the fascists from taking over the place
Liberal hence Libertarianism is definitialy a shortening of Economic Liberal. What you’re quoting is the colloquial/slang/propaganda definition. Modern “liberals” are absolutely better than classic liberals. Simply by virtue of their tepid support for social safety nets. That isn’t their failing. Their failing is that despite being “liberals” they’re still, and more importantly more committed to economic liberalism than they are social investment. And as such, eager to reach across the aisle to normalize and work with bigots, proto fascists, and full fledged fascists. Just to appear bipartisan.
Yeah. That’s pretty spot on. Personally I’d also put more emphasis on social and economic justice, but to achieve these I consider the human rights, representative democracy, free and fair elections and the rule of law absolutely indispensable preconditions.
Just to be clear, you don’t think I should be against liberals enabling fascism? You don’t see anything wrong with the slow march to the far right that’s happening in so many parts of the world recently?
The irony of a liberal calling an anarchist authoritarian… Liberals are simps for an authoritarian economic system
I’m just really annoyed by “liberal” constantly being equated with “fascist enabler” round here. If anyone calls themselves a liberal while supporting fascists, they’re just fascists in disguise. While there are people like that, that’s not what liberalism means, in fact, it’s quite the opposite.
It’s a language issue. You’re likely from the United States, where liberal is used to suggest an adherent to classical liberalism or progressivism. Most of the rest of the English speaking world means neoliberal, as in an advocate or supporter of free-market capitalism, deregulation, and the reduction of government spending.
I’m fortunately not from the US. But you’re right. A lot of people equate liberal with neoliberal or libertarian. Which is a real bummer.
Please, enlighten me about what you think liberalism means. In my view (as an anarchist) liberalism is at best ineffective at preventing fascism from taking over. It enables colonialism and imperialism, and offers no solution to the horrors of capitalism. Liberal ideology is one of state violence and compromise with literal fascists.
Did… Did you really just copy Wikipedia’s page on liberalism here? You think that’s conductive of a meaningful conversation? Try reading a book and maybe you’ll be able to imagine a better world than what the ruling class has decided for us. A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey might be a good place to start. It’s often taught in university but is well written and accessible compared to some of the more lofty rhetoric you might find.
Edit: its->it’s
Well, it seems to me that’s a better definition than some vague ‘ideology of state violence etc’. Objectively liberal politics (not to be confused with your own very local take on ‘libs’) is very much rooted in your own anarchism but with the addition of a limited state to things like, you know, use organised violence to keep the fascists from taking over the place
neoliberalism isn’t liberalism tho
In popular discourse it generally is.
Liberal hence Libertarianism is definitialy a shortening of Economic Liberal. What you’re quoting is the colloquial/slang/propaganda definition. Modern “liberals” are absolutely better than classic liberals. Simply by virtue of their tepid support for social safety nets. That isn’t their failing. Their failing is that despite being “liberals” they’re still, and more importantly more committed to economic liberalism than they are social investment. And as such, eager to reach across the aisle to normalize and work with bigots, proto fascists, and full fledged fascists. Just to appear bipartisan.
Yeah. That’s pretty spot on. Personally I’d also put more emphasis on social and economic justice, but to achieve these I consider the human rights, representative democracy, free and fair elections and the rule of law absolutely indispensable preconditions.
focusing on voting as the only allowed political action, supporting capitalism, valuing order over justice…
Dude, liberals literally helped Hitler become Reichskanzler.
For anyone not familiar, that was in no small part thanks to Paul von Hindenburg. If only he had instead gone the way of the zeppelin named after him.