Why is liberalism a bad thing?

[blackwave]

I've numerous times on this forum seen people using the term 'liberal' as a slur. What do they mean by it, and why is it a bad thing?

[ContrarianLemming]

Bigger cages, longer chains.

[ed miliband]

Liberal can mean many things. Margaret Thatcher was described as a liberal, for instance. What is now associated with liberalism, at least in the U.S.A. and to a lesser extent in Britain, is an ultra-weak form of social democracy. Many 'liberals' will cry their hearts out about the fact that some people are poor and some people are rich, but ultimately they do not what to change that - they just want to make society a bit nicer; capitalism a bit friendlier.

They tend to not value (or even acknowledge) class, and also seem to buy into the 'human nature' ideas that are so popular amongst "anarcho"-capitalists. They don't question property, and only question the size of the state and whether it is a threat to civil liberties, not it's roots, or its very existance.

etc.

In addition, somebody on here once said (can't remember who it was, I was lurking), that liberals are often worse than conservatives in that conservatism on the whole is born out of ignorance, etc. People like Bill Maher are obnoxiously, disgustingly elitist.

[The Ben G]

As said before, Bigger Cages, Longer Chains.

They see the problem, but instead of actually fixing it, they only make it less grueling.

[ContrarianLemming]

People like Bill Maher are obnoxiously, disgustingly elitist.

Not religulous!

anyhoo, as I said, bigger cages, longer chains, Liberals refuse to achknoledge class and only wish to make capitalism nicer, they still want a free market, just with weak safty nets.
America is currently under a liberal regime, and it's pretty awful nation to live in, in comparison to social democratic countries.

Liberals are Conservatives with hearts.

[Barry Lyndon]

It is pretty ironic that Marxists and anarchists are confused with liberals in the United States at times. If you read Marx, Bakunin, Trotsky, Lenin, or Mao, one can find fierce tirades directed not at the political right, but at liberals. Why?

Because if revolutionaries only had to deal with conservatives and outright reactionaries, their job of overthrowing capitalism would be much easier-most people could easily see the capitalist class for what it is. The liberals are in fact the most infuriating, because whenever capitalism enters a period of serious crises, it is the liberals who rush in and make some reforms to placate people, just long enough to lull people back into complacency and apathy and to head off any real radicalization of the population. In the context of the United States, this is what FDR did during the Depression, Lyndon B. Johnson did with his civil rights legislation and Great Society programs, and Obama is trying to do now during the current economic crises. Liberal's are the most dedicated capitalists, because they are most willing to do what is necessary for the capitalist system to survive.

[blackwave]

So it's not being 'liberal' that's being criticised, but being a liberal. Thanks for clearing that up.

[eyedrop]

Thanks for the explanatory post aufkleben, but I'm still somewhat unsure of what a liberal means, besides a person you disagree with in a debate.

Are the democrats liberals? A politician wanting to make US a scandinavian welfare state? Someone who has good intentions, but proposes ineffective law changes to improve a situation?

[Zanthorus]

Really "liberal" is a broad term. Originally it referred to classical liberalism, the ideology which the progressive bourgeoisie took while capitalism was in it's ascendant stage. The classical liberals promoted republicanism, free markets (In the sense of free from economic rent, not necessarily completely free from intervention) and equality before the law.

During the 20th century "social liberalism" arose and sort of converged with an increasingly reformist social-democratic movement. Just as originally classical liberalism had found spokesmen in the classical economists Smith and Ricardo, social liberalism found economic defenders in the likes of John Maynard Keynes. In addition to the classical liberal values of republicanism and equality before the law social liberals promoted extensives welfare states. This was the kind of liberalism that was exemplified by the growth of Keynesian welfare states in europe and FDR's new deal policies. It's what most americans think of as "liberalism" and what conservative demagogues like to attack as such.

Since the 70's though "social liberalism" has begun to give way to market or neo-liberalism which emphasises total absence of government intervention in the economy and a "free" market in the strictest sence of the word. The "social-democratic" parties of europe have increasingly drifted towards this kind of liberalism as have parties such as the liberal democrats in the UK whose leadership has been shifting to the right since they were formed and who recently entered into a coalition government with the conservative party. They talk the progressive talk with phrases like "fair taxes not higher taxes" but in reality these phrases are just used to disguise their commitment to free markets and union busting.

I think most people here use it in the sense of social liberalism to imply that the person they're attacking is a moralistic reformist instead of a communist. Most of the time it gets thrown around without justification.

[Blake's Baby]

In my experience the term 'liberal' is usually used on RevLeft as a term of abuse for those who don't advocate terrorism. Mentioning that you think shooting people and blowing shit up isn't all that grand an idea, and instead you think the working class can take power through the mass strike and the soviets, produces the reaction 'yeah well dream on, that's utopian, you liberal'.

I think it means 'someone who wants to stop me blowing shit up'.

But that's got nothing to why liberalism is bad in general; it's a pro-capitalist set of doctrines to do with a particular view of the state.

[The Red Next Door]

Usually people on here called people liberal for disagring with ideas of revolutionary violence.

[Zanthorus]

In my experience the term 'liberal' is usually used on RevLeft as a term of abuse for those who don't advocate terrorism.

It's not so much terrorism as some of the things that Stalinist regimes do. The criticisers of Stalinism are usually labelled "liberal" for objecting to some aspect of the USSR's policy on purely moralistic grounds and failing to realise the material forces at work at the time.

Personally I've never seen any noteworthy instances of non-stalinists calling others liberals.

I should probably point out that not all stalinists do this. Just the really dogmatic and irritating ones that seem to be everywhere on revleft.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Bigger cages, longer chains.

And less air (read: corporate media).

Your mouth may not be sealed like that of some kidnapped person, but without the air, what's the point of trying to speak?


The classical liberals promoted republicanism, free markets (In the sense of free from economic rent, not necessarily completely free from intervention) and equality before the law.

So you have read Michael Hudson and my quotes of him! :thumbup1:


"free" market in the strictest sence of the word

I don't think so. If that were the case, we'd have socialized all the economic rent by now. Instead, it's everywhere. Per Michael Hudson, "neo-liberalism" is a misnomer.

[Nolan]

When used as a slur by communists against other communists it typically means having a semi-bourgeois, or "first-world" mindset.

[Zanthorus]

So you have read Michael Hudson and my quotes of him! :thumbup1:

Yup :)


I don't think so. If that were the case, we'd have socialized all the economic rent by now. Instead, it's everywhere. Per Michael Hudson, "neo-liberalism" is a misnomer.

I meant as in zero government intervention i.e how most people think of the term "free market". This does bring up a problem though. I we use "free market" to describe a market free of economic rent then what do we use to describe a market without government intervention?

[Ocean Seal]

Liberal can mean many things. Margaret Thatcher was described as a liberal, for instance. What is now associated with liberalism, at least in the U.S.A. and to a lesser extent in Britain, is an ultra-weak form of social democracy. Many 'liberals' will cry their hearts out about the fact that some people are poor and some people are rich, but ultimately they do not what to change that - they just want to make society a bit nicer; capitalism a bit friendlier.

This is essentially what Zizek describes as capitalism with a human face so yes liberals just want people to think that capitalism works for them so that they can maintain the status quo.

I remember a friend of mine said that he would become a businessman/ Wall Streeter, but a liberal businessman like Warren Buffet. Then in an attempt I told him that from a material standpoint his views meant little and that both liberals and conservatives exploit their workers in the workplace. He argued that we had to work with the system and never work against it. I said why work with something that is broken?



They tend to not value (or even acknowledge) class, and also seem to buy into the 'human nature' ideas that are so popular amongst "anarcho"-capitalists. They don't question property, and only question the size of the state and whether it is a threat to civil liberties, not it's roots, or its very existance.


Yes every liberal that I have debated has told me that people will never work in communism in an attempt to bring me to their side:laugh:.
Every time I tell them to define human nature for me and I ask them why I don't share that human nature which by definition I should as "nature" is intrinsic. :lol::lol:
Silly capitalists



In addition, somebody on here once said (can't remember who it was, I was lurking), that liberals are often worse than conservatives in that conservatism on the whole is born out of ignorance, etc. People like Bill Maher are obnoxiously, disgustingly elitist.

Yes, ironically at least in the United States conservatives seem to have a lot more popular appeal hence the comments "I could sit down and have a beer with Bush". Which is why the working class vote favors the Republicans in this country and part of the reason is that they see liberalism as a movement of the elite and other things which I plan to write a paper on. The funny thing is that we could probably find more potential communists on the side of the republicans than we could on the Democrats.
And Bill Maher don't even get me started on him.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I meant as in zero government intervention i.e how most people think of the term "free market". This does bring up a problem though. I we use "free market" to describe a market free of economic rent then what do we use to describe a market without government intervention?

Well, I don't think there's much of a point trying to "win the battle" of "free markets" as a term. We could stress that, back in the day, "free markets" meant rent-free markets.

A market without government intervention is economic anarchy (not in the sense of anarchism). We could contrast rent-free markets with economic anarchy.

[Zanthorus]

Well, I don't think there's much of a point trying to "win the battle" of "free markets" as a term. We could stress that, back in the day, "free markets" meant rent-free markets.

A market without government intervention is economic anarchy (not in the sense of anarchism). We could contrast rent-free markets with economic anarchy.

Well I think making the point that capitalism isn't actually a free market as the original free marketeers understood it would be quite an effective attack on capitalist hegemony. There was a thread recently about using reactionary rhetoric to cloak progressive goals (In the same way that reactionaries like David Cameron have been using progressive rhetoric). I think this is one effective way of doing that.

Also I think anomie (From the greek "a" meaning "no" and "nomos" meaning law) would be better to use than anarchy first off to avoid alienating anarchists and secondly because the capitalist marketplace is characterised by extremely heirarchical production methods. I don't think anyone is really going to believe that being bossed around from 9 to 5 is really "anarchy".

Also, fuck, I've been drawn into playing around with Richterisms (Or should that be DNZ'isms? Or maybe Zeitisms?) :lol:

[Palingenisis]

I've numerous times on this forum seen people using the term 'liberal' as a slur. What do they mean by it, and why is it a bad thing?

Because Socialists support things like the death penalty and censorship of pornography.

[Joesky]

Because Socialists support things like the death penalty and censorship of pornography.
I presume you're trolling. Hard.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well I think making the point that capitalism isn't actually a free market as the original free marketeers understood it would be quite an effective attack on capitalist hegemony.

Perfectly competitive free markets are a fantasy which even the free marketeers back then realized.

Contemporarily speaking, an economic portion of a minimum program for workers power should start off with at least some form of "Ricardian Socialism":

http://www.revleft.com/vb/prospects-russian-revolution-t126942/index.html

Look at the last post in that thread; within that rent-free framework, the rest of the rent-free market would be littered with coops.

However, Proudhon was wrong to go batshit insane over coops so as to suggest things like mutual insurance and coop banking (since rents there aren't socialized):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/critique-direction-towards-t134508/index.html


There was a thread recently about using reactionary rhetoric to cloak progressive goals (In the same way that reactionaries like David Cameron have been using progressive rhetoric). I think this is one effective way of doing that.

Are you referring to the Politics thread on the "leftist Nazbols" (not Duginites or Strasserites) using fascist aesthetics to cloak progressive activism?

Or are you referring to the plain and obvious fact that capital markets can never be "patriotic," that outsourcing can be seen as treasonous, that clamping down on capital flight is a national security concern, etc.?


Also I think anomie (From the greek "a" meaning "no" and "nomos" meaning law) would be better to use than anarchy first off to avoid alienating anarchists and secondly because the capitalist marketplace is characterised by extremely heirarchical production methods. I don't think anyone is really going to believe that being bossed around from 9 to 5 is really "anarchy".

Perhaps.


Also, fuck, I've been drawn into playing around with Richterisms (Or should that be DNZ'isms? Or maybe Zeitisms?) :lol:

You've got a new PM. ;)

[ed miliband]

So it's not being 'liberal' that's being criticised, but being a liberal. Thanks for clearing that up.

Well I don't think it's at all necessary for anybody who considers themself to be a socialist/communist/anarchist/or so on to be liberal as such. If you truly understand socialism and its implications I don't think it's possible to be racist, and if you are racist and consider yourself a socialist well yr. doing it wrong (race is just one example). It's nothing to do with being liberal.

[scarletghoul]

What liberalism is and why it must be eradicated from the Left :

Liberalism is the ideology of bourgeois rule. This is its essence. It was born with the bourgeoisie, rose up with the bourgeoisie, decayed with the bourgeoisie, and so it must die with the bourgeoisie.

Originally it was a revolutionary ideology, advocating the right to private property, consent of the governed, human rights, etc, in opposition to the feudal ideology which had been dominant. This was as the bourgeoisie were rising as a powerful class and the feudal relations between people were replaced by capitalist relations. Liberalism accompanied this change, rejecting the divine right of kings and all that crap, instead saying everyone should have rights, including most significantly the right to private property. Of course now we know that the right to private property is in fact a terrible thing, but back then it was revolutionary as it undermined feudalism completely, allowing the new bourgeoisie to take power from the aristocracy. Liberalism was the ideological justification for the bourgeoisie's rise to power.

As the capitalist epoch continued, and the exploitation increased, these liberal Rights became less revolutionary and more hollow. What is the point in the right to private property when none of us can afford it ? What is the point in freedom of speech when no one can hear us , or when we are starving to death ? Capitalism became thoroughly reactionary and so did Liberalism, which justified this awful mode of production. "You have the right to free speech, the right to vote, the right to start your own business, etc. You're free so don't you dare try to abolish this system. Also, this company has the right to take these resources from these countries, to exploit these child labourers, and so on."

Amerikkkan republicans aswell as democrats are both of the liberal capitalist tradition. However the word liberal has been corrupted somewhat to refer to the 'left' sections of the capitalists. These people still uphold the liberal ideology, only unlike conservatives some of them tragically think that it is still progressive. This means --

They can not effectively challenge the capitalist mode of production, because to do so would violate peoples 'human rights'. They buy all that bullshit about 'fair trade' and pacifism and charity being ways to change the world. They believe that liberal rights of people are the most important thing as it means we are all potentially equal and 'could make a differance'. We all have free speech and the freedom to buy fair trade etc etc. They deny the role of capitalist exploitation in oppressing and binding a huge section of the populace and starving millions to death. They think that 'rights' are more important than relations of production and they equate the violence of the oppressed with that of the oppressor. They judge a movement or historical figure by the death toll the bourgeois media attributes to it. They oppose 'authoritarianism', ignoring the fact that authority is always necessarily exercised in any class society. They try to address the symptoms, but can never challenge the problem.

They also want to spread wonderful liberal ideals to other parts of the world, mostly 'totalitarian' places like China, barbaric arab lands, and other areas of the undemocratic Orient. They think it is good and will liberate the poor oppressed brainwashed Chinese. Of course in fact they are supporting imperialism and exploitation, but they do not realise it. (We all know what liberal property rights have done to China so far...)

This is the 'left-liberal', who perhaps has good intentions but is in reality supporting capitalist exploitation and oppression.

Liberalism is everywhere now, as the dominant thought of capitalism. Its an ideology that most people accept like the air they breathe. Unfortunately a lot of communists and socialists also unconsciously adopt parts of liberal ideology and moralism, and will find themselves taking some liberal positions like the ones mentioned above, aswell as buying into a host of liberal myths about Tibet, Ghandi, nature, human nature, and so on. These all stem from ignoring the central defining role of the relations of production and placing too much importance on the rights of people, in accordance with the bourgeoisie's interests.

If we really want to overthrow the bourgeoisie and their economic system, we must also overthrow their ideology, starting with ourselves. We are not liberals, we are revolutionary communists.

So yeah the anti-liberalism is not because "these stupid liberals have too much feelings and love for puny humans", its because liberalism always has been and always will be the ideological justification for capitalism, and now more than ever serves to oppress and exploit the people via blind assertion of their own rights.

Hope this helps.

[Barry Lyndon]

They can not effectively challenge the capitalist mode of production, because to do so would violate peoples 'human rights'. They buy all that bullshit about 'fair trade' and pacifism and charity being ways to change the world. They believe that liberal rights of people are the most important thing as it means we are all potentially equal and 'could make a differance'. We all have free speech and the freedom to buy fair trade etc etc. They deny the role of capitalist exploitation in oppressing and binding a huge section of the populace and starving millions to death. They think that 'rights' are more important than relations of production and they equate the violence of the oppressed with that of the oppressor. They judge a movement or historical figure by the death toll the bourgeois media attributes to it. They oppose 'authoritarianism', ignoring the fact that authority is always necessarily exercised in any class society. They try to address the symptoms, but can never challenge the problem.

This.

I know people on my college campus, no doubt well-intentioned, who are always pushing this 'fair-trade' bs and setting up student tables promoting it via groups like Oxfam. Like yo have noted, this is just one out of many ways that liberals support the overall system by criticizing specific injustices of the capitalist system, but continuing to perpetuate the myth that their can be some 'humane' version of capitalism. I have tried to explain to them that such a system of 'fair trade' capitalism will never be able to economically compete with multinational corporate capitalism in the Third World, and even if it ever did, it would be violently crushed through brute force. And that the best way to end exploitation and unfair trade practices is for the workers and peasants of those countries to seize control of the means of production and for these nations to exercise control of their own economies, and that furthermore the same should be done here. They just stare at me with this bewildered look on their face.

*Sigh*

[scarletghoul]

Fair trade is actually worse than just addressing a symptom and not the problem, it doesn't even address the symptom a lot of the time. Many workers producing fair trade products still get paid barely anything, often below minimum wage. These 2 articles are great-
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/d191adbc-3f4d-11db-a37c-0000779e2340.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3326576/Fairtrade-fails-to-tackle-poverty-report-says.html

The only problem Fair Trade addresses is the liberal's middle-class guilt.

[ckaihatsu]

Maybe appeal to their romanticism by asking them what they consider a "real revolutionary" to be like. Would a "real revolutionary" bow to the petty rules of trade, or would there be some higher political ideal in mind -- ? (Etc.)