It’s the outside-the-US meaning that anarchists would typically use, and the US-centric definition is effectively a subset of the general definition when viewed from a leftist perspective, as they’re both capitalist with minimal regulation, just in the US it’s got the added connotations of being less homophobic and racist etc. then the centre of the Overton window, whereas classic liberalism isn’t incompatible with racism and homophobia etc…
the US-centric definition is effectively a subset of the general definition
Are you sure about that? Can you cite a real world comparative example with specifics (attitudes, views, perspective, key historical points relevant to this conversation)? No meaningless generalities.
It’s the outside-the-US meaning that anarchists would typically use … when viewed from a leftist perspective, as they’re both capitalist with minimal regulation
If that’s the case, are you saying that a liberal in Moldova, Oman and the US are all the same and “capitalist with minimal regulation” is all that they are?
And the points above are just the tip of the iceberg, the kindergarten-level stuff.
So here is another question, so when you say liberals in Oman and the US are a subset of the same thing, do anarchists have the final call of defining who qualifies as a liberal in Oman (or any other country)? Does self identification as liberal play any role or not? This is not a gotcha per se., well, maybe a little bit, I am referring to something specific :), but I am genuinely curious what you have to say on this.
I will say it again, this really is fascinating. There is a certain abstract beauty to the whole obsession with “libs” among American internet “leftists”.
Liberalism is a really broad family of conflicting political and moral philosophies, and it’s really just the capitalist with minimal regulation bit that’s consistently there in all the branches. Most of the time, people are only dealing with different branches of liberalism, and depending on the local politics, there might only be one major political party in a country calling themselves the liberals.
Generally, leftists will talk about liberals and liberalism a lot because they’re living under some branch of liberalism, and they disagree to some extent with every branch of liberalism. Socialism, Communism and Anarchism are not Liberalism (and if you want to upset tankies and say it’s distinct from communism or upset other leftists and say it’s leftist Marxism-Leninism is not liberalism, too). Fascism and Conservatism are also not liberalism, but they’re not leftist, either, and to confuse things, lots of political parties calling themselves conservative around the world only want things that fit a definition of liberalism.
I mentioned anarchism and what anarchists think in the previous post because you replied to a post with a screenshot where an anarchist mentioned libs and seemed to think it was ambiguous what he meant, when it’s deducible from the fact that he’s an anarchist.
So here is another question, so when you say liberals in Oman and the US are a subset of the same thing
The thing I’ve noticed about the most vocal leftists here is that they all subscribe to the “spheres of influence” idea, where countries essentially belong to the great power whose sphere they exist in. Such countries (and the people within them) don’t have any agency or rights except as afforded by their great power masters. As such, Oman doesn’t matter or even really exist.
It’s the outside-the-US meaning that anarchists would typically use, and the US-centric definition is effectively a subset of the general definition when viewed from a leftist perspective, as they’re both capitalist with minimal regulation, just in the US it’s got the added connotations of being less homophobic and racist etc. then the centre of the Overton window, whereas classic liberalism isn’t incompatible with racism and homophobia etc…
Mhmm.
I sense embrace-extend-extinguish.
Are you sure about that? Can you cite a real world comparative example with specifics (attitudes, views, perspective, key historical points relevant to this conversation)? No meaningless generalities.
If that’s the case, are you saying that a liberal in Moldova, Oman and the US are all the same and “capitalist with minimal regulation” is all that they are?
And the points above are just the tip of the iceberg, the kindergarten-level stuff.
So here is another question, so when you say liberals in Oman and the US are a subset of the same thing, do anarchists have the final call of defining who qualifies as a liberal in Oman (or any other country)? Does self identification as liberal play any role or not? This is not a gotcha per se., well, maybe a little bit, I am referring to something specific :), but I am genuinely curious what you have to say on this.
I will say it again, this really is fascinating. There is a certain abstract beauty to the whole obsession with “libs” among American internet “leftists”.
Liberalism is a really broad family of conflicting political and moral philosophies, and it’s really just the capitalist with minimal regulation bit that’s consistently there in all the branches. Most of the time, people are only dealing with different branches of liberalism, and depending on the local politics, there might only be one major political party in a country calling themselves the liberals.
Generally, leftists will talk about liberals and liberalism a lot because they’re living under some branch of liberalism, and they disagree to some extent with every branch of liberalism. Socialism, Communism and Anarchism are not Liberalism (and if you want to upset tankies and say it’s distinct from communism or upset other leftists and say it’s leftist Marxism-Leninism is not liberalism, too). Fascism and Conservatism are also not liberalism, but they’re not leftist, either, and to confuse things, lots of political parties calling themselves conservative around the world only want things that fit a definition of liberalism.
I mentioned anarchism and what anarchists think in the previous post because you replied to a post with a screenshot where an anarchist mentioned libs and seemed to think it was ambiguous what he meant, when it’s deducible from the fact that he’s an anarchist.
The thing I’ve noticed about the most vocal leftists here is that they all subscribe to the “spheres of influence” idea, where countries essentially belong to the great power whose sphere they exist in. Such countries (and the people within them) don’t have any agency or rights except as afforded by their great power masters. As such, Oman doesn’t matter or even really exist.