• admiralteal@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It’s not actually that crazy, it’s just that all these words like “liberalism” are thrown around in an utterly meaningless way.

    The pillars of liberal philosophy are (1) fundamental rights are inviolable by the state (2) the right to privately own property that is exchanged through markets (3) egalitarian democracy (one vote per person) (4) the rule of law cannot be ignored and due process must be pursued.

    People on the left see these as the policy points “conservatives” obsess over in their rhetoric, so they call it conservative politics. Entirely ignoring the fact that conservatives throughout history care little about fundamental rights, egalitarianism, or rule of law… Ignoring the fact that the original “right” opposed a “left” that WERE the liberals, when liberalism was the new progressive politic.

    Socialism is a quite different thing from liberalism. Both liberalism and socialism are opposed by conservatives (the right), but liberalism and socialism have some serious, fundamental tensions and reasonable people may argue they are fundamentally incompatible. I personally think they mostly are, though tools from each are going to be part of making a more just world.

    • spaduf@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      To be clear, neoliberalism differs from classical liberalism (the french revolution kind) in that it tries to fundamentally associate these values with a free market capitalist system.

      • admiralteal@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I am not the one who substituted neoliberalism for liberalism. Take it up with them and don’t be an asshole.

          • admiralteal@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Does it now?

            Explain to me what version of liberalism does not include property rights and markets to exchange that property.

            The other guy waved his hands and cast all of liberalism into neoliberalism. I didn’t. I pointed out the word was being abused, and I did so correctly and with context. And you’re calling it “incoherent”. Stop being an asshole.

    • DreamerOfImprobableDreams@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s also not some all or nothing divide like some socialists try to make it out to be, there’s a huge spectrum of opinions between “totally free market” and “totally socialized command economy”. The vast majority of liberals/progressives support a mixed market, where the damage markets can do is kept in check by strong regulation, and there’s a robust safety net to catch people who fall through the cracks.

      • WabiSabiPapi@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        the actual criticism by those on the left is that private ownership of the means of production necessitates an inequitable heirarchical relationship between an ownership class and the working class.

        this relationship is enforced by the state, which is essentially an abstraction of capital, by inflicting violence in order to protect the interest of the capital owning class.

        neoliberalism is conservative in that it functions to conserve this status quo, offering incremental material improvement as a social pressure-release valve, but liberal democracy can not deliver liberation to the working class because of its primary function of enforcing private capital.

        most liberals don’t consider neoliberalism conservative because the coloqial usage in US contemporary politics is referring to the reactionary position of the christo-fascist right.

        • Lols [they/them]@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          even internationally, the divide between left-wing and right-wing is rarely “do they believe in completely abolishing private ownership”

        • DreamerOfImprobableDreams@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          the actual criticism by those on the left is that private ownership of the means of production necessitates an inequitable heirarchical relationship between an ownership class and the working class.

          I have to strongly disagree here. Human nature results in inequitable hierarchical relationships between upper and lower classes-- not just between the rich and poor, but between the dominant racial / ethnic group and minorities, between men and women, between cis heterosexual people and queer people. No matter what kind of economic system we use, assholes are going to try to game it to cement themselves and their cronies in power, and the out groups they hate at the bottom. It happens in capitalist systems just as often as it happens in communist systems.

          The only way to counter it is by building safeguards that prevent people from accumulating too much power, and prevents those who do have power from abusing the power they have. (That’s why I’m personally skeptical of anarchism; removing all safeguards that prevent power-hungry people from consolidating power is deeply concerning to me.)

          this relationship is enforced by the state, which is essentially an abstraction of capital, by inflicting violence in order to protect the interest of the capital owning class.

          True. The state is also the abstraction of minority groups, inflicting “violence” in order to protect minorities from having our rights trampled by the majority (although I’d personally go with “arresting fascist motherfuckers”). It’s both at the same time, because in a democracy the state is a giant organization made up of thousands of legislators and literally millions of bureaucrats. Oh, and they’re all divided into dozens of factions with completely different goals that are at each other’s throats all the damn time. Attributing one set of motives to such a diverse group of people doesn’t really ring true to me. Especially when you’d need literally millions of people to be in on this evil plot for it to work.

          neoliberalism is conservative in that it functions to conserve this status quo, offering incremental material benefit as a social pressure-release valve, but liberal democracy can not deliver liberation to the working class

          When my grandmother was my age, here in the US she couldn’t legally open a bank account, divorce her husband, or pursue charges against him if he r*ped her. Jim Crow was a thing, and gay marriage was illegal in all 50 states. Liberal democracy has already delivered liberation to us-- except I don’t like that passive voice, we the people fought for a better world, and thanks to millions of people’s hard work and sacrifice, we won. There are still huge problems, don’t get me wrong, and there’s a huge amount of work left to be done. But I can’t help but look back at the legacy of my ancestors and feel inspired, energized to take up the fight and keep working for a better world.

          most liberals don’t consider neoliberalism conservative because the coloqial usage in US contemporary politics is referring to the reactionary position of the christo-fascist right.

          Definitely true, but even in Western European countries true Reagan / Thatcher style neoliberals are considered center-right, and “neoliberals” in the modern Democratic party sense are considered center-left.

          • Sparking@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m not even going to read this. The differences between these ideologies have litigated and re-litigated continuously for the past century. Whether you agree with them or not, you have to recognize at some point that some people have a slightly different perspective and you don’t have to word vomit every time that comes up.