Liberalism -what does it mean to a commie?

[spiltteeth]

I've noticed the term liberalism is used on this forum in many different, sometimes obscure, ways. I know what it means in economic terms, but it seems to have specific communist connotations.
I'm trying to get more clarity on its ideological and theoretical clashes with the communist outlook.
Thanks for the help!

[Pogue]

Stalinists use it to refer to anyone who doesn't like dictatorships, theres a few other interesting uses too.

[Bright Banana Beard]

We use it for those who can't read well such like Pogue who can only scream out mass murder, stalinist or evil, but again, why waste debating with him when he subscribed to "black and white" theory? He just like to defend his ego and be happy in the line with bourgeois viewpoint.

[BobKKKindle$]

When used in a Marxist context, it refers to a tendency to consider the world from an abstract perspective, and specifically in a way that obscures the role of class antagonisms. So, if someone objected to all forms of violence in principle, then that would be an example of a liberal point of view, and something that a Marxist would reject, because, as Marxists, we recognize that violence can be progressive, depending on whether it is used to further the class interests of the bourgeoisie or the proletariat. The philosophers who operate from this abstract viewpoint are ultimately defenders of ruling-class interests precisely because they do not acknowledge that what individuals are capable of doing and what any given individual has an interest in doing is always conditioned by which class that individual belongs to - in fact their claims to universality act as a way of obscuring the importance of class and so their ideas can be considered an ideological prop for the continued existence of capitalist society. So, when someone like John Stuart Mill argues that there are certain rights which should be protected, including the right to private property, and that individuals should not be able to do anything that leads to the rights of someone else being violated, they are essentially denying that the oppressed should use force to overcome their oppression. Also, liberalism might refer to someone who approaches historical events in a way that focuses on the role of individuals to the extent that they are also blind to the role of class struggles in shaping the course of human history. For example, if someone argued that the Cambodian genocide was the result of Pol Pot being crazy (note the assumption that Pol Pot was all-powerful and could control literally everything that was going on in Cambodia whilst he was alive) or that the Russian Revolution led to Stalinism because Lenin was an evil individual who was fixated on gaining power, those would also be liberal perspectives, because they do not consider the role of class (both in the form of class divisions within those societies, and the impact of imperialism) at all.

[Pogue]

We use it for those who can't read well such like Pogue who can only scream out mass murder, stalinist or evil, but again, why waste debating with him when he subscribed to "black and white" theory? He just like to defend his ego and be happy in the line with bourgeois viewpoint.

This is the best answer, he got it all in one, fair play to you.

[x359594]

...what individuals are capable of doing and what any given individual has an interest in doing is always conditioned by which class that individual belongs to -...

By and large I agree with this, however I would modify it by saying it's as much a matter of which class an individual identifies with as of which class he or she belongs to.

For example, in the US the majority of people identify themselves as "middle class." With the advent of Fordist production, mass media and modern advertising, the assumptions and imaginative limits of all public discourse in America became those of the "middle class." The term notoriously designates a psychological rather than an economic order. The fact that almost everyone claims to belong to this order testifies to the triumph of words over facts.

[Pogue]

@bob

I'd disagree a liberal analysis is one which criticises dictatorial individuals. I think thats a leninist corruption of the word liberal used to accuse us of something bad when we dare to say that some of their figures (lenin, trotsky, pol pot) made bad decisions as individuals. For example I don't see who chose to supress the factory committees attempts to federate nationally other than the bolsheviks, i.e. head bolsheviks in the CC such as lenin and trotsky. I think its a major error of the Leninist tradition to fail to recognise individuals can rise to positions of power and make decisions they are responsible for.

I think a liberal is someone who opposes the idea of revolution and class conflict but talks about equality, freedom within the context of capitalism etc. Its a vague term on here and not really worth defining but I might give it a go later.

[RadioRaheem84]

I wouldn't say they oppose revolution but they would certainly try to avoid it and yes , they tend to deny or downplay class conflict and promote capitalism.

[yuon]

I think a liberal is someone who opposes the idea of revolution and class conflict but talks about equality, freedom within the context of capitalism etc. Its a vague term on here and not really worth defining but I might give it a go later.
Your definition is close indeed.
A liberal wishes for freedom and equality of opportunity. They believe that the state is essential to this freedom, because it prevents discord in society. Mostly they think that capitalism, and the free market, is the best economic method of providing freedom.

It should not be used as an insult against revolutionary leftists. To do so shows ignorance on the part of the insulter, and a lack of knowledge about political theory.

[scarletghoul]

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_03.htm

[spiltteeth]

Thanks for the responses everyone. In this forum, it seems people use the term 'liberal' synonymous with 'idealist'
And here in NY when someone calls you a liberal it connotes a whole lifestyle too -upper class, intellectual, divorced from real-life and regular people etc

[snowball21]

Comrades,
I would say that a communist is rather broadly defined...not reading Marx's books literally I think is critical, or it becomes like the bible to radical religionists. Revolutionaries need to have some flexibility and some foresight in their revolution...revolutions usually don't happen effectively over a short period of time...and quick ones cause much needless blood and mayhem...capitalists may sometimes be pigs, but they're people nonetheless.

In short, a communist is (I think) anyone who wants the best for his people by collectivizing the state...but not necessarily all at once...liberal and social democracies, even welfare democracies are well on their way...its a great first step to social revolution. Perhaps Marx's idea is unworkable in human nature, but a communist wants to go as close as possible and make an effective system that benefits ever member of society without trying to take their civil rights...Dictatorships in Communism are byproducts of communism gone too fast...
as communists, we must look to the greater future good of Humanity and not be swayed like capitalists by instant gratification...

that's my definition, I know its kinda broad...feel free to debate (I'm sure you all will :laugh:)

[blake 3:17]

For radicals/revolutionaries, it usually means wishy-washy, can't-make-up-your-mind, unclear.

I've been amazed at how it has been turned into a cuss word denoting radicalism. I think that probably happened post 9/11 and with international social democracy shifting to the right...



Thanks for the responses everyone. In this forum, it seems people use the term 'liberal' synonymous with 'idealist'
And here in NY when someone calls you a liberal it connotes a whole lifestyle too -upper class, intellectual, divorced from real-life and regular people etc

It's kind of crazy! I'm a very left socialist but on some issues would consider myself very liberal or libertarian -- free speech especially.

Be careful about people here use the term 'idealist' -- this is usually in the philosophical sense in opposed to 'materialist' (which doesn't designate a greedy capitalist)...