Gladly, liberalism: a political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty.
“Can you use it in a sentence?”
Gladly: Liberalism emphasizes individual freedoms, democratic governance, and the protection of civil rights.
The phrase “money is speech” refers to the Supreme Court’s interpretation that spending money in political campaigns is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment. This concept was notably established in the 2010 case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts on political advocacy.
This is what liberalism does. Wealth inequality inevitably unbalances any sense of liberty in material reality over time. It is the ideology of capitalism that is destroying community, humanity and the biosphere and climate.
That is definitely a good definition of liberalism, it is one definition, and it happens to be my favorite one! I’m not testing you or being a way about it.
What do you think about the idea, that liberalism is also the idea that individual freedoms, liberties, etc., are based on a society that enforces the individual’s right to private property? Like before WW1 when a lot of countries still had an autocratic aristocracy, and the revolutionary liberals, over a period of 100s of years, overthrew their kings and queens? I think that was genuinely an advancement for humanity.
But I think that in many cases the individual right to private property is supported by society much, much more than individual liberties of the vast majority. This leads many people, including myself, to believe that the other rights are not defended nearly as strongly as other rights.
Do you think liberalism is an ideology? If so does it have like blind spots, or biases?
Sorry it is so many questions I’m not trying to be pushy or gish gallop. Just curious what you think. Btw I didn’t downvote you, I never do that, some dork did that.
I think it’s an ideology that has eventually come into existence because of human progress. Similarl to how monarchies have basically gone out of existence because of human progress.
There are definitely gaps in the implementation of liberalism, but those are largely exploited by objectively bad policies like corporatism and central planning.
And even though it does have gaps, it’s an enormous jump forward. It’s also important that those gaps are filled with forward thinking solutions and not past mistakes.
I dont think youre wrong, and your assessment that ideology is created by material human progress is how I think about it too.
But your phrase “monarchies have gone out of existence because of human progress” sort of side steps my point about private property. I would argue the private property question is inherent to liberalism.
As a leftist however, and this isnt a popular opinion for the online left, I think that liberalism appears to people in different ways. For conservatives, who are a type of classical liberal, the private property question is explicitly paramount, and all considerations of human rights, etc., are maybe given lip service and informal recognition. But materially it is deprioritized and in our era getting wiped out, such as “neo-liberalism.”
For modern day liberals however, and this seems to be the category you are in, human rights and freedoms are paramount. As a socialist, I feel affinity with these people and I believe that socialism is the next advancement of human rights over capitalism. I dont think power can be wrested from capitalists without organization of the masses and struggle. But I do think that our projects are the same in that regard. However since this second category of liberal isnt engaging with the private property questions of who owns the means of production, why they own it, how the mop are used to make stuff, and who gets the stuff, then these liberals actually can’t defend human rights and freedoms, because there is no material basis for the defense, its ideological.
I dont think we can change the effect that corporations have over politics, economics, and the lives of basically everyone on the planet without revolution. And by revolution I dont mean a bloody, head-choppy war, I mean fundamental change in social relations, and this process of emancipation will be a fundamental change called socialism.
The corporations are a front for the actual class that is in power. Analysis that leaves out this class component misses a lot. Corporations can not give this to us permanently. We will have to win it, and we will have to defend it with the same zeal that corporations defend the right to own the material basis for human advancement as well as the right to own people’s time in order to sell the produce of that time for more than they paid us.
However I believe that what is in your heart, the desire for freedom and liberation (“liberal” contains the root “liber” as in liberate) is very close to what is in mine. But I also think that when it comes to our theory of change, we are completely different, and I think the liberal theory of change, when it even exists, actually allows corporations free reign to continue their agenda against the masses. We need to build a new fundamental basis for global transformation, and imo part of that is convincing well-meaning and liberation minded liberals like you to come over to a liberatory socialist program and ditch analysis that has no concrete basis in class relations.
I have a lot of philosophical differences with liberalism, but you can see how long-winded I can be. But my primary focus is the advancement human spirit. And i think in that regard we largely agree.
> Gives the actual historically and materially correct definition of liberalism.
> Shitlib: No, here is the actual definition using the source that’s the biggest beneficiary of capitalism and imperialism, and is engaged in a genocide.
Edit: And it also talks about its origin embedded in Neo-European aristocratic thought. People who had all the property and money benefitted from this pseudo-liberty and freedom of speech, while the working class suffered. Idk why you just posted a self-own! 😂
Then define liberalism
Gladly, liberalism: a political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty.
“Can you use it in a sentence?”
Gladly: Liberalism emphasizes individual freedoms, democratic governance, and the protection of civil rights.
This is what liberalism does. Wealth inequality inevitably unbalances any sense of liberty in material reality over time. It is the ideology of capitalism that is destroying community, humanity and the biosphere and climate.
I disagree, but that’s the definition.
That is definitely a good definition of liberalism, it is one definition, and it happens to be my favorite one! I’m not testing you or being a way about it.
What do you think about the idea, that liberalism is also the idea that individual freedoms, liberties, etc., are based on a society that enforces the individual’s right to private property? Like before WW1 when a lot of countries still had an autocratic aristocracy, and the revolutionary liberals, over a period of 100s of years, overthrew their kings and queens? I think that was genuinely an advancement for humanity.
But I think that in many cases the individual right to private property is supported by society much, much more than individual liberties of the vast majority. This leads many people, including myself, to believe that the other rights are not defended nearly as strongly as other rights.
Do you think liberalism is an ideology? If so does it have like blind spots, or biases?
Sorry it is so many questions I’m not trying to be pushy or gish gallop. Just curious what you think. Btw I didn’t downvote you, I never do that, some dork did that.
I think it’s an ideology that has eventually come into existence because of human progress. Similarl to how monarchies have basically gone out of existence because of human progress.
There are definitely gaps in the implementation of liberalism, but those are largely exploited by objectively bad policies like corporatism and central planning.
And even though it does have gaps, it’s an enormous jump forward. It’s also important that those gaps are filled with forward thinking solutions and not past mistakes.
Who tf is down voting you on a week old thread.
I dont think youre wrong, and your assessment that ideology is created by material human progress is how I think about it too.
But your phrase “monarchies have gone out of existence because of human progress” sort of side steps my point about private property. I would argue the private property question is inherent to liberalism.
As a leftist however, and this isnt a popular opinion for the online left, I think that liberalism appears to people in different ways. For conservatives, who are a type of classical liberal, the private property question is explicitly paramount, and all considerations of human rights, etc., are maybe given lip service and informal recognition. But materially it is deprioritized and in our era getting wiped out, such as “neo-liberalism.”
For modern day liberals however, and this seems to be the category you are in, human rights and freedoms are paramount. As a socialist, I feel affinity with these people and I believe that socialism is the next advancement of human rights over capitalism. I dont think power can be wrested from capitalists without organization of the masses and struggle. But I do think that our projects are the same in that regard. However since this second category of liberal isnt engaging with the private property questions of who owns the means of production, why they own it, how the mop are used to make stuff, and who gets the stuff, then these liberals actually can’t defend human rights and freedoms, because there is no material basis for the defense, its ideological.
I dont think we can change the effect that corporations have over politics, economics, and the lives of basically everyone on the planet without revolution. And by revolution I dont mean a bloody, head-choppy war, I mean fundamental change in social relations, and this process of emancipation will be a fundamental change called socialism.
The corporations are a front for the actual class that is in power. Analysis that leaves out this class component misses a lot. Corporations can not give this to us permanently. We will have to win it, and we will have to defend it with the same zeal that corporations defend the right to own the material basis for human advancement as well as the right to own people’s time in order to sell the produce of that time for more than they paid us.
However I believe that what is in your heart, the desire for freedom and liberation (“liberal” contains the root “liber” as in liberate) is very close to what is in mine. But I also think that when it comes to our theory of change, we are completely different, and I think the liberal theory of change, when it even exists, actually allows corporations free reign to continue their agenda against the masses. We need to build a new fundamental basis for global transformation, and imo part of that is convincing well-meaning and liberation minded liberals like you to come over to a liberatory socialist program and ditch analysis that has no concrete basis in class relations.
I have a lot of philosophical differences with liberalism, but you can see how long-winded I can be. But my primary focus is the advancement human spirit. And i think in that regard we largely agree.
A political ideology that advocates for hyperindividualism, selfishness, and protection of private property.
False.
> Gives the actual historically and materially correct definition of liberalism.
> Shitlib: No, here is the actual definition using the source that’s the biggest beneficiary of capitalism and imperialism, and is engaged in a genocide.
Edit: And it also talks about its origin embedded in Neo-European aristocratic thought. People who had all the property and money benefitted from this pseudo-liberty and freedom of speech, while the working class suffered. Idk why you just posted a self-own! 😂
Origins don’t change the definition.
What kind of pseudo-intellectual take is this? 😆