You didn’t ask why, you asked how. It’s really broad question so I was gearing up to answer how by starting with what the two (overly broadly classified) schools of thought called the why.
Then I pushed reply instead of preview and realized while editing my post that I don’t want to reply to you the way I started because it would be long winded and you probably aren’t interested in reading that and I’m certainly not interested in writing it.
Liberalism creates the conditions for revolt and reaction in a lot of different ways but primarily it’s through a combination of pursuit of profit leading to unaccounted for externalities buttressed by primacy of the powerful disguised as freedom in the marketplace and in word and deed.
If you want specific examples or you want examples related to a time, place or event you’re already familiar with just let me know.
It’s hard to summarize hundreds of years of history and philosophy in just a few sentences while on break so please do me the courtesy of not nitpicking my overly broad statements.
Liberalism creates the conditions for revolt and reaction in a lot of different ways but primarily it’s through a combination of pursuit of profit leading to unaccounted for externalities buttressed by primacy of the powerful disguised as freedom in the marketplace and in word and deed.
The only place I can find such an association with pursuit of profit and liberalism is specifically in the capitalist-liberal perspective, and that is conjoined with neo-liberalism, basically “free market” that isn’t really free.
I can find no connection with liberalism, as a philosophy or a socioeconomic choice in governance, where the pursuit of profit (other than oligarchy or other authoritarian regimes that pay only lip service to liberal concepts, but that’s the end result, not the philosophical precursor) is the focus or result of liberalism.
If all you care to do is mic drop and gesture aimlessly in the direction of history, I’m afraid your point is lost.
Do you think the philosophy of liberalism can be separated from the atomized individual acting in a market?
Those ideas underpin all philosophical liberalism that I’m aware of. We can’t have liberal social relations or philosophy without a market to act as a replacement for the often feudal social relations and theocratic philosophy that existed before liberalism.
Consider Protestantism if you want a great example. It was only possible because the market allowed a class of people access to a new social relation and they needed a new system of beliefs that fit it.
You can’t separate any part of liberalism from the elevated position of the market.
I’m really not trying to be aggressive or only make pithy, in your words mic drop replies. The question you asked is very broad and I’m not able to summarize it without glossing over lots of stuff. I also don’t have the time to type, source, check, proofread and edit a reply that covers the last 800 years.
Like I said, if you want something more specific or that you’re familiar with just name it and we can talk in those terms.
Ok. You continue to make connections between liberalism to religion, markets, personal economics, and more…clouded by words like atomize, feudal, and “elevated position of the market”.
Frankly, you don’t make sense. If you are incapable of reducing the connection between the philosophy of liberalism and the direct path to fascism due to plain text tenets of that philosophy it very much sounds like you don’t understand it yourself. Or you’re just making shit up.
You have expended extraordinary paragraphs waving your hands at every point of the compass while claiming you can’t be bothered to expend effort to type an explanation. I spent a good 20 minutes searching for papers, academic, historic, or otherwise, that could connect your claims - in effect I was attempting to prove you right. There are none.
I don’t see any point in continuing this conversation, you make lots of claims using fun words, but nothing to substantiate them.
I’m so sorry you’re not understanding. I’m trying my best to choose words carefully so that it’s clear what I’m saying. If something’s not clear feel free to ask for more information and, as I’ve said before, please tell me if tying my replies to a particular line of study, time, place, person or event would help!
If you don’t think it’s worthwhile to have this conversation you’re free not to. It would be pretty illiberal of me to force you to interact in the marketplace of ideals, that would be a violation of your basic liberties!
You didn’t ask why, you asked how. It’s really broad question so I was gearing up to answer how by starting with what the two (overly broadly classified) schools of thought called the why.
Then I pushed reply instead of preview and realized while editing my post that I don’t want to reply to you the way I started because it would be long winded and you probably aren’t interested in reading that and I’m certainly not interested in writing it.
Liberalism creates the conditions for revolt and reaction in a lot of different ways but primarily it’s through a combination of pursuit of profit leading to unaccounted for externalities buttressed by primacy of the powerful disguised as freedom in the marketplace and in word and deed.
If you want specific examples or you want examples related to a time, place or event you’re already familiar with just let me know.
It’s hard to summarize hundreds of years of history and philosophy in just a few sentences while on break so please do me the courtesy of not nitpicking my overly broad statements.
The only place I can find such an association with pursuit of profit and liberalism is specifically in the capitalist-liberal perspective, and that is conjoined with neo-liberalism, basically “free market” that isn’t really free.
I can find no connection with liberalism, as a philosophy or a socioeconomic choice in governance, where the pursuit of profit (other than oligarchy or other authoritarian regimes that pay only lip service to liberal concepts, but that’s the end result, not the philosophical precursor) is the focus or result of liberalism.
If all you care to do is mic drop and gesture aimlessly in the direction of history, I’m afraid your point is lost.
Do you think the philosophy of liberalism can be separated from the atomized individual acting in a market?
Those ideas underpin all philosophical liberalism that I’m aware of. We can’t have liberal social relations or philosophy without a market to act as a replacement for the often feudal social relations and theocratic philosophy that existed before liberalism.
Consider Protestantism if you want a great example. It was only possible because the market allowed a class of people access to a new social relation and they needed a new system of beliefs that fit it.
You can’t separate any part of liberalism from the elevated position of the market.
I’m really not trying to be aggressive or only make pithy, in your words mic drop replies. The question you asked is very broad and I’m not able to summarize it without glossing over lots of stuff. I also don’t have the time to type, source, check, proofread and edit a reply that covers the last 800 years.
Like I said, if you want something more specific or that you’re familiar with just name it and we can talk in those terms.
Ok. You continue to make connections between liberalism to religion, markets, personal economics, and more…clouded by words like atomize, feudal, and “elevated position of the market”.
Frankly, you don’t make sense. If you are incapable of reducing the connection between the philosophy of liberalism and the direct path to fascism due to plain text tenets of that philosophy it very much sounds like you don’t understand it yourself. Or you’re just making shit up.
You have expended extraordinary paragraphs waving your hands at every point of the compass while claiming you can’t be bothered to expend effort to type an explanation. I spent a good 20 minutes searching for papers, academic, historic, or otherwise, that could connect your claims - in effect I was attempting to prove you right. There are none.
I don’t see any point in continuing this conversation, you make lots of claims using fun words, but nothing to substantiate them.
I’m so sorry you’re not understanding. I’m trying my best to choose words carefully so that it’s clear what I’m saying. If something’s not clear feel free to ask for more information and, as I’ve said before, please tell me if tying my replies to a particular line of study, time, place, person or event would help!
If you don’t think it’s worthwhile to have this conversation you’re free not to. It would be pretty illiberal of me to force you to interact in the marketplace of ideals, that would be a violation of your basic liberties!
Ok buddy.
Is there something I can help you understand?