you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 11 points 1 month ago (26 children)

I love that American liberals have no idea what liberalism is and just think it's all the good things about liberalsim and none of the bad things, and they have no idea what conservatism is and wind up believing it's all the bad things about liberalsim and none of the good things.

  • source
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (24 children)

    What does liberalism mean to you

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    Liberalism is a political philosophy that emerged as feudal political structure started to strain with the growth of mercantilism. Merchants wanted the wealth they were hoarding to translate into power, but they couldn't buy power because power was tied to land and land was tied to nobility which was entirely determined by the unitary sovereign which was entirely determined by heredity.

    Merchants wanted their wealth to translate to power, so they developed a new political theory for where power should come from - private property. Private property was to be the basis for all political power and political power was not to impinge on the power of wealth unnecessarily. Liberalism was focused foundationally on ending the power of the sovereign to that merchants could buy and sell land, build privately-run cities, own and breed slaves for sale...

    ... and then they realized that they needed a way to do it to brown people who were too numerous to just kidnap. So they started to invent abstract concepts to disconnect power from reality so they could reassign power. They invented the concept of abstract rights, and they put a right to private property into a list of things like the right to print whatever they wanted in newspapers that they owned and the right to buy and sell anything.

    Liberalism invents this concept of private property and then invents a rule that states that if you apply labor to land then you get private property rights to it. This was great because they could claim that indigenous people weren't working the land and all the European merchants had to do was chop down some trees and put up a fence and now they had an "inalienable right" of private property.

    And then they needed a solution to every merchant raising a military to become warlords and destroy the wealth of others, so they landed on the democratic republic form as a mechanism to resolve conflicts between the wealthy in a way that didn't require war.

    Liberalism is the political philosophy of merchants and land owners that gives them political power on the basis of their effectiveness at accumulating wealth and makes the bare minimum concessions to the laboring masses required to get them to fight against the kings on behalf of the merchants.

    It is the political philosophy of settler colonialism, of privatization, of chattel slavery, of Thomas Jefferson's breeding plantations, of Coca Cola hiring death squads, of the Opium Wars, of killing all the buffalo so that land could be taken from the Lakota, of getting people addicted to drugs in order to get them into debt.

    Liberalism is the political movement that destroyed the social safety net that feudal societies maintained through nobilesse oblige and impoverished the masses everywhere until it forced the emergence of a labor movement and the creation of labor unions to give the masses a vehicle to fight the liberals, which the liberals crushed with military and paramilitary violence.

    A faction of Liberals developed a theory of progressivism that they thought could appease the labor movement and maintain liberalism. But traditional Liberals chafed at the idea of the government doing anything to help the masses, because they believed if people wanted a better life they should just work harder for the Liberals with money and land. So factions within Liberalism fought and continue to fight in the best way to express Liberalism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    You're talking about the ends of Liberalism but never from the basis of the philosophers and minds who came up with the concept. This is the same disconnect people have with socialism. They view how it was played out, not what the core philosophies are.

    I wouldn't say it is wrong, but it is definitely a perspective of how one can view a political theory, through theory or in practice. Do you view all governing philosophies with this lens?

    I'd also argue a lot of what you said has more to do with religion but it is pretty hard to separate religion and governing styles when they intentionally intertwine themselves with beliefs like "god given rights" and what not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    No, I'm not. I explicitly started with the beginnings of Liberalism, not its ends. Liberalsim is not defined as "all the good stuff". It's a distinct real historical process and private property is its foundation, not an accident.

    Yes, I view all political philosophies through a historical concrete lens and not through an abstract idealist one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    The foundation of liberalism is natural rights, the rule of law and personal autonomy. The US was the first country founded on those principles and a lot of what you said came from how the US managed to do that, with the financial backing of rich southern slave-owning states and the concept of manifest destiny which is directly tied to religion and the concept of owning land to embrace liberalism.

    But liberal concepts first played out in Europe in opposition of monarchies, not really on the basis of land owning but more private property in the face of a king which you could argue are the same but a lot of private property wasn't specifically just land. Which is what I mean, you're talking about the American liberalism evolution, not the like two hundred years before that where it existed as a political theory used to wrestle power from the ultra rich of that time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago

    No, I am talking the 200 years prior. You don't get to separate the USA from the French, Dutch, English, and Spanish. You don't get to separate the emergence of mercantilism as a mechanism of wealth accumulation from the struggle against monarchy. Peasants were not inventing abstract concepts of natural rights in letter writing campaigns to each other. Liberalism was not a grassroots movement. It was a position developed, as you said, to fight the monarchy, but the people looking to fight the monarchy were the non-noble wealthy merchants. That's it's history.

    The USA was not the first country to imagine what manifest destiny was all about. The concept of divine right of expansion and dominion emerged from European monarchists and monarchists relied on the merchant class to go forth and spread that dominion. The Pope decreed to all the Europeans that they could rape, enslave, and murder to save the souls of non-Europeans.

    The fact that the European colonists who broke away from the crown chose Liberalism and were also wealthy merchants is not an accident.

    The fact that liberalism in the US led to mass poverty doesn't discount all the subsequent liberal revolutions that also led to mass poverty.

    And the reason this is obvious is because private property being an abstract human right is so obviously contradictory that no one focused on universal human rights would be able to reconcile. It was Liberalism that said the state should not have any obligations to the laborers, it was liberalism that said private property should allow a single man (and only a European man) to deprive literally the entire society and indeed the entire world from the benefits of that land and that it was the state's job to use violent force on enforcing that deprivation.

    The foundation of Liberalism, like every political philosophy, is a theory of power on the basis of some beliefs about outcomes. The abstract idea of moral good is a post hoc rationalization.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Personal property is the foundation. Because before liberalism, everything belonged to the king.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    The right to self determination, but I'm not a tankie.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (7 children)
  • [+] -7 points 1 month ago (4 children)
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Tankism is when knowledge through study.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    Liberalism is the most hypocritical ideology that exists and always try to not offend any side and they do not respect their own rules . Stuart Mill for example talked about the concept of harm principle at the same time was enabling and theorizing about colonialism worked as a high-ranking official for the British East India Company for 35 years, directly managing the bureaucratic machinery of imperial rule over India.

    Modern liberals claim to support Palestinians at the same time talking about supporting the colonial power and are financing the occupation .

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    Aren't all political theories like this? Communism gives rise to privileged ruling class and tends to take worker's rights away when in theory it is supposed to equalize and support worker's rights, planning an economy to distribute goods equally creates inefficiencies. Democracies create plutocracies, Fascism leads to cronyism, Anarchism leaves gaps for might makes right-thinking, Monarchies claim divine right and then falls to civil war and assassinations who then claimed the same divine right rule.

    I also think it is rather silly to call everything liberalism or throwing that blanket on every action a country does because it calls itself liberal. A country that calls itself liberal can still do imperialism, a country that calls itself fascist can still do socialism, a country that calls itself a democracy can still do authoritarianism.

    Government, politics, political theory, economy. They're big beasts, they don't just do what they say on the tin.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

    You're just spitting vibes, Doom. Imperialism and Liberalism are compatible. Communism makes the working class into the ruling class and doesn't make a new one. When you talk of workers "right" you're confusing communism and liberalism. Communism isn't about workers rights as defined by Liberalism. Communism is about the interests of the working class driving the decisions of the state. Which is why every communist project ever has raised the poorest of the poor into food abundance, housing abundance, positive health outcomes, and positive education outcomes. These things are what the working class needs and sometimes the path there tramples on what liberals imagine are metaphysical "rights".

    Democracies create plutocracies

    No. Liberalism creates plutocracies. Your definition of democracy is limited to existing liberal democracies. Real democracy is when the people have the ability to influence the state, which is what communist movements have done successfully despite being called "undemocratic" by the Liberals. Mostly because Liberalism cannot abide a state deciding to nationalize its natural resources.

    a country that calls itself fascist can still do socialism

    This is probably the strongest evidence that you're all vibes and no awareness.

    a country that calls itself a democracy can still do authoritarianism

    That's why we think there's no such thing as "authoritarianism" in a meaningful sense. All states are, by definition, authoritarian. Democracy is not an opposite of authority.

    At this point, you might as well say "Liberalism is all the good things and none of the bad things and all the bad things are not liberalism because liberalism is all the good things"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago* (2 children)

    Lost me almost immediately.

    "You’re just spitting vibes"

    This is the lamest version of the debate pervert.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments