What is Liberalism?

[Crunkenstein]

What is Liberalism? Is it just a word, one with so many meanings as to be meaningless? When I hear about a liberal, I think of liberty and using the government to do good things for others. I think egalitarian. Sean Hannity seems to think it means revolutionary and forced redistribution of the wealth. Leo Strauss saw Liberalism as the road to nihilism and apathy.

And yet many socialists have a different definition of the liberal. He is the libertarian, the anarchist, the capitalist, the bourgeois fat-cat who wants nothing more than to rape the proletariat and pretend that he's a generous dictator.

Why does Liberalism get such a bad rap from socialists? Certainly, the definition of liberalism has changed over time but most would agree that it means limited government, and constitutional protection. Ironic then that conservatives (who are supposedly a branch of Liberalism) say that Liberalism is all about big government and big spending. I feel that I can be a liberal and also an anti-capitalist, meaning that I belief that current and future definitions of Liberalism and the behaviour of liberals can be a non-violent path to a stateless communism. What I'm looking for is opinions from leftists on all sides of the Liberalism fence: those for, those against, and those who would simply like to add more complex and accurate definitions to both the history of Liberalism and it's corruption into current forms of operational theory and behaviour.

[Dimentio]

In north-western Europe, liberals are generally right-centrists.

[Nolan]

Liberalism in American politics normally refers to the social democratic or "progressive" wing of the Democratic Party. Even the most left of liberals do not seek to overthrow the capitalist system. They sometimes give themselves a revolutionary image, like protesting against corporate abuse and the IMF, but all they (the people on the ground, their voter base, at least) want is a more egalitarian capitalism. Sometimes they even pay lip service to left-populism, like Obama did when he promised to take on the corporate oligarchy. In reality they serve the system in providing a quick alternative to the neocon right when the public gets angry enough with it, then when the public is dissatisfied with the liberals, the neocons get back in power. The cycle continues ad infinitum. They are in no way revolutionary.

Liberalism can also refer to pro-capitalist economics, but I think that's neo-liberalism.. This type of liberalism is universally practiced in the capitalist world with a few exceptions.

Anarchists? I don't consider anarchism liberal, though there is a very strong liberal childish part/movement within it. Most of them are good revolutionaries.

[RadioRaheem84]

He is the libertarian, the anarchist, the capitalist, the bourgeois fat-cat who wants nothing more than to rape the proletariat and pretend that he's a generous dictator.The Libertarian? No, sir. They usurped that label.

The Anarchist? No, sir. They're not anarchists by any stretch of the imagination.



Look, conservatives are not to be taken seriously at all. They've managed to construct an alternative universe (through their financial backers in the media) where all meaning behind political labels have been turned on their heads.

Liberal in the US means progressive or favoring reforms and government spending to aid some of the failures of the market. Now that has been severely gutted by the Clinton administration, and most Democrats now a days are nothing but center-rightists. They have all but left their rather Progressive FDR roots a long time ago, I would almost say with the advent of the Kennedys but for the most part Clinton managed to totally destroy any actual barrier between Democrats and Republicans that was left, much like what Tony Blair did with the Labour Party.

Liberal, I believe in the REST of the world that hasn't been managed to be brainwashed by American Conservative Media, means centrist or sometimes rightist but mostly centrist and in favor of free markets. The liberalism that American right wingers think that they're fighting against (the one they label as "socialist") is a really, really, really watered down version of Social Democracy, while in reality it is just American Progressivism, which doesn't really exist anymore in the Democratic Party.

Any of this making sense? :blink:

[Nolan]

Liberal in the US means progressive or favoring reforms and government spending to aid some of the failures of the market. Now that has been severely gutted by the Clinton administration, and most Democrats now a days are nothing but center-rightists. They have all but left their rather Progressive FDR roots a long time ago, I would almost say with the advent of the Kennedys but for the most part Clinton managed to totally destroy any actual barrier between Democrats and Republicans that was left.

Liberal, I believe in the REST of the world that hasn't been managed to be brainwashed by American Conservative Media, means centrist or sometimes rightist but mostly centrist and in favor of free markets. The liberalism that American right wingers think that they're fighting against (the one the label as "socialist") is a really, really, really watered down version of Social Democracy, while in reality it is just American Progressivism, which doesn't really exist anymore in the Democratic Party.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Working class self-identified liberals still have illusions of the Democrats being American Progressives.

[RadioRaheem84]

Both the liberal voters and the American conservatives are chasing ghosts. One wants desperately for their to be a progressive party and the other desperately wants one to fight with.

In reality, American politics are so skewered to the right that any centrist is automatically going to be labeled a liberal socialist. What we have is a successful campaign of financial interests that have systematically weeded out the real leftist elements from the political debate and have constructed a framework that is merely comprised of centrist vs. rightist, and sometimes rightist vs. batshit crazy as all to hell proto-fascist right winger.

So in terms that our international brothers (especially in the UK) can understand; imagine a country where the political debates were between the most conservative elements of the Liberal Democrats vs. the Tories, with the occasional appearance of the BNP embedded within the Conservative Party.

[Zanthorus]

I've never actually heard people throwing "liberal" around too much in the UK. When it is used it's mostly to refer to stupporters of the liberal democrats. They're a centre-right party whose leadership mostly consists of market liberals (American "libertarians") and whose base consists of snobby middle-class progressives (I was once called an "underclass leech" by a libdem supporter for supporting the labour party as the lesser of the three evils. This was before I became an anarchist obviously :p ). They are also getting a lot of support at the moment from conservative party members at the moment. And back in the day the liberals were the party of free trade and were often accused of supporting freedom of speech and association only up until the point that workers started demanding it. Although they like to veil themselves with a lot of "progressive" rhetoric I think most real socialists can see right through them.

When "liberalism" first emerged as a political current it was as classical liberalism, the vanguard of the bourgeoisie. The classical liberals where the ones calling for parliamentary democracy, seperation of church and state, freedom of trade etc. They were the "progressives" of their time against the reactionary and pro-aristocracy layers of the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy itself. At the turn of the century and especially after the great depression and the rise of Keynesianism "liberalism" came to refer more to "social liberalism", which involved various policies for intervention in the market to achieve "social justice" as well as fairly liberal social policies.

For the most part a "liberal" is a progressive who in the last instance would vote to maintain capitalism. "Liberal" can also be used as a perogative by anti-capitalists to other anti-capitalists who base their opposition to capitalism or other political beliefs on some kind of moral schema rather than class politics.

Really I think liberalism in any of its forms has never offered much to the working classes.

[here for the revolution]

It has to be said however, that once Liberalism progressed from the `Classic` era (involving entirely free-market capitalism alongside the idea of a nighwatchman state) to the `Modern` era it did include ideas such as state controls on the economy and some element of a welfare state. In this way they could be seen as trying to `tame` capitalism, obviously not to any real left wing standards though.

[Crunkenstein]

Are natural rights and state guaranteed rights, such as those established in the Bill of Rights, liberal protections from the state? In that sense, can the authoritarian left be seen as anti-liberal because it violates the natural and granted rights of the individual?

[CartCollector]

In that sense, can the authoritarian left be seen as anti-liberal because it violates the natural and granted rights of the individual?Lenin wrote a book called Left Liberalism: An Infantile Brain Disorder, whose title succinctly explains what authoritarian communists think of liberalism.
EDIT: Got title wrong.

Also the concept of 'natural' rights doesn't get much respect from communists. Rights are taken by the ruling class through their power- they never appear spontaneously through 'nature.' Also, rights are by no means natural since the interpretation of what rights people have has changed extensively over time- if they were really natural they would be the same in every human community that ever existed.

[cb9's_unity]

There are some 'comrades' on this site who believe a person can support the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and working class control of the means of production, but if that person dare's to denounce a certain semi-theocratic despot who believes his father is the eternal president of his country, they are most certainly a liberal.

[Manifesto]

Lenin wrote a book called Left Liberalism: An Infantile Brain Disorder, whose title succinctly explains what authoritarian communists think of liberalism.

Did you mean "Left-wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder" by any chance?

[CartCollector]

Yeah, that's what I meant.

[Crunkenstein]

I think it just hit me that this place isn't a good place for general political discussion.

[GPDP]

I think it just hit me that this place isn't a good place for general political discussion.

It sure seems that way, huh?

Seriously, people, that this poster says this should be a major cause for concern for all of us. Can't we raise the level of discussion a bit above the usual petty sectarian insults and condescending image macros? At the very least, take that shit to Chit-Chat, not Learning.

[Manifesto]

Yeah, that's what I meant.
Oh wait you probably being sarcastic lol. I shouldn't post after midnight.

[CartCollector]

Actually I was being serious. I didn't quite remember the title of the book, and I was too lazy to look it up.

[Red Commissar]

Liberalism to me is just as broad of a classification as socialist is. We have varying interpretations/variations of liberalism as one would do in socialism.

There's the common goal of liberalism: as the name implies, the concept of liberty. Then we get into a whole other can of worms over liberty- varying regimes going into dictatorial praised themselves as being for liberty.

Generally though we saw most liberal movements eventually create some sort of republic/representative government when some emphasis on civil liberties- freedom of speech, of press, religion, etc that had their roots in enlightenment thinking.

Liberalism, in its classical form, supported a laissez-faire capitalist economy. To them this contributed further to the concept of the individual. Most economies in Europe before then were typically dominated by the nobility and sanctioned by the crown. They wanted to make some thing different, that would achieve their notion of an individual being free.

I would then say that Liberalism began to fracture at the turn of the century. We essentially got two major groupings.

Market (classical) liberals who want an adherence to free market concepts, and in the case of the US a strong current of social conservatism as per the Republican Party.

Social (modern) liberals who are in favor of modest taxes and regulation, and focus their efforts on social well being. They might bring up social justice more than the other bunch.

A big matter of contention between the two was over civil rights. Whereas civil liberties were meant to protect citizens from an overbearing government, civil rights typically addressed social and discrimination issues that could happen in both public and private circles, and entrusted the government powers to make sure those weren't broken. Some liberals felt that this gave the government undue powers, others felt it was a necessary addition to combat racism and other issues that exist beyond government actions.

Ultimately, both are still capitalists. That is generally why socialists ultimately oppose liberals of any shade- some might have progressive notions on social matters but ultimately will not change the system.

[AK]

It has to be said however, that once Liberalism progressed from the `Classic` era (involving entirely free-market capitalism alongside the idea of a nighwatchman state) to the `Modern` era it did include ideas such as state controls on the economy and some element of a welfare state. In this way they could be seen as trying to `tame` capitalism, obviously not to any real left wing standards though.
When capitalists say they want to try to 'tame' capitalism, they just want the state to throw them a lifeline when shit does inevitably fuck up - as is the nature of the free market. It's nothing more than a way to secure the supremacy of their business empires.

[AK]

I feel that I can be a liberal and also an anti-capitalist, meaning that I belief that current and future definitions of Liberalism and the behaviour of liberals can be a non-violent path to a stateless communism.
Well, you certainly can't be a communist - seeing as you advocate a state with limited government. A stateless society can't be achieved by a permanent state of state existence. Unless, of course, you refer to the liberal state as one that exists only for the duration of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Even so, I'm pretty sure Liberal economics stink of private property and free enterprise...

[Crunkenstein]

Fair enough. I suppose my next question would be "what is the system?" What the system really is is less important than what socialists consider the system to be. It seems to me that different socialists, and even other anti-capitalists, have various definitions of the system is, it's ills, and what should be done. For example, some anti-capitalists suggest there must be trade and currency, and that anti-capitalism isn't anti-money. What would a liberal believe if they were anti-capitalist and against "the system?"

[Red Commissar]

Fair enough. I suppose my next question would be "what is the system?" What the system really is is less important than what socialists consider the system to be. It seems to me that different socialists, and even other anti-capitalists, have various definitions of the system is, it's ills, and what should be done. For example, some anti-capitalists suggest there must be trade and currency, and that anti-capitalism isn't anti-money. What would a liberal believe if they were anti-capitalist and against "the system?"

You see then why it's hard to define socialism, and we we have so many different variations of it.

What I mean by the "system" is what you see most of the western societies. You have corporations and businesses being run for private benefit first. Social liberals might try to make this system fairer for everyone, to let anyone get in on it, but they are still ultimately preaching the benefits of capitalism for the individual and what it allows for advancement. They will not suddenly decide to allow workers to take control of their industries. They still see capitalism, even in a slightly regulated form, the best way to move economy and benefit those like themselves.

You can be a socialist and still believe in a limited government and liberties for the people.That is why we have the various camps of socialism who profess to be non-"authoritarian".

The issue is when you call yourself a "liberal" in the political sense, you are referring to the tradition of the pro-capitalist tradition. You can not be a "liberal" and not like capitalism.

[khad]

If you want to go to definitions, classical liberals were the early capitalist theorists like Say, Smith, and Ricardo, who favored the idealized open market and individual freedom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

This line of thought has its direct descendants through such 20th century economists such as Hayek and Mises. This is in fact how "liberal" is commonly understood in the European context and in most of the world. For the rest of the world, "Liberal" is virtually synonymous with the right wing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Liberal_Democrat_and_Reform_Party

The American definition commonly used by the "left" actually traces its roots to the New Deal, taking the line about personal freedom, decoupling it from the faith in the free market (but still adhering to a capitalist framework), and grafting it onto state-managed (but not planned) development.

In the history of political thought, "left" liberalism is an aberration specific only to a certain time period in the United States. Indeed, there was already pushback during the New Deal and especially after WW2.

You may or may not recall the term "Cold War Liberalism." In simplest terms, it was political centrism. Going to historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr's influential piece The Vital Center, LIBERALISM (writ large) rejected the "namby-pamby," "unmanly," "weak," and "soft" "progressivism" of Henry Wallace, who actually embodied more of the ideals of the New Deal.

Cold War liberalism was absolutely invested in hostility towards the Left and committed to the maintenance of a vast military-industrial complex exercising dominion over an expansive American empire.

Which is why I completely reject this semantic game of rehabilitating a term that has consciously defined itself from the highest echelons as an ideology committed to corporate capitalism, empire, and political centrism.

[The Inquisitor]

It always boils down to a discussion of technicalities, how droll.

[Crunkenstein]

This semantic game, Khad do you suggest that those who discuss the definition of liberalism as childish? Is this a flame? You're obviously an intelligent person with strong convictions but every other post of yours is useful information mixed with a well placed flame. I'd appreciate it if you didn't follow me through any more threads because I don't want anything to do with you, I don't have the credibility to fight you, and I honestly don't give a shit where your stand or what your judgments are. Please have the chivalry to respect this sentiment and back off.

[GPDP]

This semantic game, Khad do you suggest that those who discuss the definition of liberalism as childish? Is this a flame? You're obviously an intelligent person with strong convictions but every other post of yours is useful information mixed with a well placed flame. I'd appreciate it if you didn't follow me through any more threads because I don't want anything to do with you, I don't have the credibility to fight you, and I honestly don't give a shit where your stand or what your judgments are. Please have the chivalry to respect this sentiment and back off.

He wasn't talking to you. He merely copy-pasted his response to a liberal from this thread:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-leftists-not-t134191/index.html

[Manifesto]

Actually I was being serious. I didn't quite remember the title of the book, and I was too lazy to look it up.
It happens but I wonder where the hell you got the brain damage thing from. lol