All liberalism is on the right. The left starts at anti-capitalism. It’s been that way for quite a long time now. Liberals just like to act like they are “center-left” because it helps maintain the capital order.
Liberals just like to act like they are “center-left” because it helps maintain the capital order.
Also because liberalism started as the “left”; being anti-monarchy and advocating for a representative democracy. It’s well after when liberalism became the status quo that it became the default ideology and thus became the new conservative or right.
You are free to have a personal definition of the word “liberal” that differs from the widely accepted academic definition. It’s just not helpful in discussion to assume everyone else uses that definition.
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.
Left out a VERY important part of that definition there, bucko.
You fundamentally cannot be a proponent of liberalism without fundamentally supporting capitalism. It’s literally part of the definition of liberalism.
Correct. Prior to the concept of liberalism, all property was owned by the king and nobility. Liberalism includes the idea that non-nobles can own property. It also predates the distinction between private and personal property by a good 200 years.
You can be anticapitalist and liberal at the same time
No, that doesn’t even “check out” on the NATOpedia article. Even that article is explicit that liberalism is fundamentally a pro-capitalist ideology with private property as a core aspect. But it is fun watching you did a hole for yourself, step into it, then declare victory.
And how is the OP meme referencing anything “tankies” say, other than that the person speaking in the OP image is someone you would call a “tankie”? See that little hammer and sickle next to her name? You really are deeply confused, aren’t you.
It actually specifies property in general. Now, I know tankies like to see that and append “private” in front, but Liberalism has been around for hundreds of years longer than marxism, and prior to liberalism, property was handed out by the king, and owning property meant you were a noble.
The idea that non-nobility can own anything, including personal property, is a liberal idea.
I know tankies like to see that and append “private” in front
Private property is meant to include personal ownership of things other than land.
prior to liberalism, property was handed out by the king, and owning property meant you were a noble.
You’re talking about land… In most systems of feudalism the king granted land to the landed gentry who would then rent out that land for income.
Individuals still owned personal property like homes, businesses, and horses. They just didn’t own the land that property occupied.
The idea that non-nobility can own anything, including personal property, is a liberal idea.
That’s just wildly inaccurate… People have been owning different types of property since before recorded history. The only places this isn’t the cultural norm for humans in general is a select sect of small communal societies who share everything.
There are people who will claim that the property isn’t truly owned because it’s on someone else’s land. But that would be like saying you don’t truly own your home if you have to pay property taxes.
Hahaha holy shit man I can’t, you heard it here first folks, owning things was invented in the 1600s, nobody had stuff before that and no society had laws or ideas about it.
There are different opinions when it comes to what truly defines liberalism, but you would be hard pressed to find one that does not include the advocacy of a market economy and the right for an individual to own the means of production.
This is because liberalism arose as an alternative to mercantilism, where the state has more control over the economy. Under mercantilism the state had the means to control trade and the production of a large amount of goods meant to control the balance of import and export.
When you combine a market economy with the right of individual ownership over the means of production you end up with capitalism. When the founding fathers of America spoke about the right over personal property, they weren’t only talking about land ownership. That had already been an established right for men of their class in England since the late 17th century. They were speaking about property rights that were currently affecting their own lives, mainly the right to own and operate their businesses without the permit of the government.
That’s just pure ideology based in propaganda. Liberalism is inherently pro-capitalism, and you are deluding yourself if you don’t understand that. You can’t separate politics and economics, that’s why marxists use the term “political economy”.
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.
If the idea that people should have the freedom to control their own lives is inherently capitalist, you’ve just convinced me that capitalism is inherently good.
The right to private property is also the core foundation of being able to own property of any kind without being (a) the king or (b) granted a title of nobility by the king.
The distinction between personal and private property arose a few hundred years later.
Your continued conflation of personal liberty and capitalism is the core of your confusion. Fix that flaw in your understanding, and you might be able to reckon with the reality of political economy without these propaganda fairtales obscuring the truth.
No, I pretty clearly said one can be anticapitalist and liberal. I am not conflating the two in any way. One is about accumulating capital, the other is about not having to live life the way your king says you must.
People aren’t digging your comment because
I think you haven’t distinguished between liberal social values of upholding personal liberty and free and fair elections, with the liberal economic value private ownership of capital. The former makes sense and non-negotiable. The latter is becoming obsolete overtime.
Yes but you’re always looking at the world through some lens, some ideology. If it’s not a scientific one, it’s still a lens. There’s no escaping subjectivity
Neoliberals are right wing
All liberalism is on the right. The left starts at anti-capitalism. It’s been that way for quite a long time now. Liberals just like to act like they are “center-left” because it helps maintain the capital order.
Also because liberalism started as the “left”; being anti-monarchy and advocating for a representative democracy. It’s well after when liberalism became the status quo that it became the default ideology and thus became the new conservative or right.
You can be anticapitalist and liberal at the same time, you just need to believe that people should have the right to live as they’d like.
You are free to have a personal definition of the word “liberal” that differs from the widely accepted academic definition. It’s just not helpful in discussion to assume everyone else uses that definition.
Okay.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
Yup. Checks out. Rights of the individual, government through consent, etc…sounda like I’m using the commonly accepted academic definition.
Are you perhaps using the American definition provided by Fox News/tankies, that the meme references?
Left out a VERY important part of that definition there, bucko.
You fundamentally cannot be a proponent of liberalism without fundamentally supporting capitalism. It’s literally part of the definition of liberalism.
Correct. Prior to the concept of liberalism, all property was owned by the king and nobility. Liberalism includes the idea that non-nobles can own property. It also predates the distinction between private and personal property by a good 200 years.
Ah, I see, you and I are both arguing with someone who keeps hanging their hat on private property.
It seems they all do.
No, that doesn’t even “check out” on the NATOpedia article. Even that article is explicit that liberalism is fundamentally a pro-capitalist ideology with private property as a core aspect. But it is fun watching you did a hole for yourself, step into it, then declare victory.
And how is the OP meme referencing anything “tankies” say, other than that the person speaking in the OP image is someone you would call a “tankie”? See that little hammer and sickle next to her name? You really are deeply confused, aren’t you.
It actually specifies property in general. Now, I know tankies like to see that and append “private” in front, but Liberalism has been around for hundreds of years longer than marxism, and prior to liberalism, property was handed out by the king, and owning property meant you were a noble.
The idea that non-nobility can own anything, including personal property, is a liberal idea.
Private property is meant to include personal ownership of things other than land.
You’re talking about land… In most systems of feudalism the king granted land to the landed gentry who would then rent out that land for income.
Individuals still owned personal property like homes, businesses, and horses. They just didn’t own the land that property occupied.
That’s just wildly inaccurate… People have been owning different types of property since before recorded history. The only places this isn’t the cultural norm for humans in general is a select sect of small communal societies who share everything.
There are people who will claim that the property isn’t truly owned because it’s on someone else’s land. But that would be like saying you don’t truly own your home if you have to pay property taxes.
Hahaha holy shit man I can’t, you heard it here first folks, owning things was invented in the 1600s, nobody had stuff before that and no society had laws or ideas about it.
Unironically yes. Only nobles owned things before that. That’s what made you a noble.
Technically correct, but this combination of beliefs only appears in people who have no political education or class consciousness.
There are different opinions when it comes to what truly defines liberalism, but you would be hard pressed to find one that does not include the advocacy of a market economy and the right for an individual to own the means of production.
This is because liberalism arose as an alternative to mercantilism, where the state has more control over the economy. Under mercantilism the state had the means to control trade and the production of a large amount of goods meant to control the balance of import and export.
When you combine a market economy with the right of individual ownership over the means of production you end up with capitalism. When the founding fathers of America spoke about the right over personal property, they weren’t only talking about land ownership. That had already been an established right for men of their class in England since the late 17th century. They were speaking about property rights that were currently affecting their own lives, mainly the right to own and operate their businesses without the permit of the government.
Yeah, that’s like saying you live in a forest fire, but believe folks can decide to not just spontaneously combust
One describes the level of control authorities have over your life, the other is an economic system.
I know that conflating the two would really make tankie arguments much simpler, but unfortunately they are separate dimensions of politics.
That’s just pure ideology based in propaganda. Liberalism is inherently pro-capitalism, and you are deluding yourself if you don’t understand that. You can’t separate politics and economics, that’s why marxists use the term “political economy”.
This is quite the nothing-burger reply you’ve assembled. What’s the definition of Liberal you’re operating on?
Honestly, I’ve reread your first sentence so many times. I might make a hat with it.
Here ya go.
Great, that’s the same one I follow, but you’re not the one I was asking.
If that is the definition you’re working on, it’s pro-capitalism.
Also, it’s a public forum, dillweed. Didn’t matter you didn’t ask me specifically.
You’ve heard of liberal socialism?
If the idea that people should have the freedom to control their own lives is inherently capitalist, you’ve just convinced me that capitalism is inherently good.
Uh huh.
Don’t forget to pay rent this month.
Rent? What’s that? Some poor people thing?
Very Free. Much Liberty!
You’re missing the part of the definition of liberalism that upholds the right to private property, which is the core foundation of capitalism.
There are other ideologies that uphold the right to control your own life that don’t also uphold private property, such as socialism.
The right to private property is also the core foundation of being able to own property of any kind without being (a) the king or (b) granted a title of nobility by the king.
The distinction between personal and private property arose a few hundred years later.
Ok, well since kings don’t rule the world anymore, how about e use the definition that is relevant to today’s systems?
Would you say that exchanging goods and services is fundamentally capitalist? It’s not like barter is relevant to today’s systems?
Propaganda has burrowed so deep into your thinking. Capital accumulation is inherently oppressive.
I didn’t know that freedom to live your life as you see fit was the accumulation of capital.
Your continued conflation of personal liberty and capitalism is the core of your confusion. Fix that flaw in your understanding, and you might be able to reckon with the reality of political economy without these propaganda fairtales obscuring the truth.
No, I pretty clearly said one can be anticapitalist and liberal. I am not conflating the two in any way. One is about accumulating capital, the other is about not having to live life the way your king says you must.
People aren’t digging your comment because I think you haven’t distinguished between liberal social values of upholding personal liberty and free and fair elections, with the liberal economic value private ownership of capital. The former makes sense and non-negotiable. The latter is becoming obsolete overtime.
I think some of the people who are unhappy with my comment have a vested interest in conflating the two as well, tbh.
C’est la vie.
I see you’ve got into argument with .ml users 😂 not all of them are bad but they are in their own bubble and see everything in material dialectics.
Genuinely, what do you find preferable to examining the world through a scientific lens?
A lens is not the only tool in science.
Yes but you’re always looking at the world through some lens, some ideology. If it’s not a scientific one, it’s still a lens. There’s no escaping subjectivity