"Liberal"

[727Goon]

I often see the word liberal used on here, and I am a bit confused as to what people mean by it. I've always thought that liberal meant supporting capitalism with reforms, but it seems that it has another meaning around here. For example I have seen people who support what I guess I could call "social libertarian" positions such as freedom of speech, gun ownership, drug legalization called liberals and I am wondering what any of that has to do with supporting reformist capitalism.

[The Red Next Door]

Well, We called people liberal, if they support given free speech to dangerous forces or support reformist policy and do not support revolutionary groups and criticize them.

[The Douche]

Classical liberalism (like enlightenment philosophy) and modern liberalism (like clinton)

[gorillafuck]

Sometimes it's used as a legitimate criticism of someones politics as being too, well, liberal during a time of class war. An example of ridiculous liberalism would be someone supporting the "right" of nazis to march through a Jewish neighborhood under the banner of "free speech" (I've never seen that here, it's just something that popped into my head). Though sometimes it's used by people as a blanket term for anyone who disagrees with them, I remember one specific instance of people being accused of being liberal was for wanting to end the war on drugs. Seeing as there is no argument that doesn't involve brutalizing the working class, drug war supporters started accusing people who disagree with them of being dreaded liberals. And then sometimes it's used to mean reformist capitalists, though that's more specific to the USA I think.

Maoists use it in a way that has to do with inner-party politics but someone else could explain that better because I've never read that text.

[jake williams]

Liberalism is an ideology which entails the promotion of a sort of "human freedom" defined by historical processes in such a way as to be in the class interests of the bourgeoisie. Thus it entails, at a minimum, a certain set of private property rights, but in different forms throughout several centuries of capitalist history has included support (or rejection) of gun rights, drug rights, certain kinds of civil rights, and state welfare programs. These varying forms and manifestations of the general ideology of liberalism, of course, themselves develop in response to historical circumstances faced by the bourgeoisie.

Let's take some examples. During various bourgeois revolutions, for example the American Revolution, restrictions on weapons were kept by monarchial states vying for power with the nascent bourgeoisie. "Liberal", pro-gun-right views were consist with arming the population to fight the British occupation. Historical circumstances, however, have changed significantly since then - now, the bourgeoisie is firmly entrenched as the ruling class, and wide possession by the general population of guns is not in their class interests.

The views held by liberals throughout history on state intervention in the economy are more complex. At the most extreme, liberals reject state intervention, which we see even today in the idea (whether or not it is a concrete ideological "phenomenon" is another question) of "neoliberalism". However, liberalism isn't some absolute ahistorical fact, it's the living ideology of the bourgeoisie, and thus it responds, for example, when capitalism is so threatened that some form of limited state intervention may be necessary (note the distinction here from fascism, which has only slight concern about placing limitations on state power).

Moreover, liberalism (distinct, let's say, from fascism) is the ideological pole to which the progressive bourgeoisie is attracted. Those members and segments of the bourgeoisie which for various reasons, subjective and objective, are drawn towards superficially or sometimes even actually progressive attitudes most easily do so through liberalism. So, for example, many so-called "campus radicals", in particular the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois youth drawn for various reasons to progressive causes, articulate their goals and their means using underlying ideological assumptions.

Thus, their goals with respect to gender politics tend to be the promotion of the "freedom" to express some or any gender identities (as opposed to a more concrete perspective about what the substance and social context of those gender identities might be). Their means would focus on a) supposedly freely determined personal subjective attitudes and b) formal legal protection (as opposed to class or mass movement based politics).



It's also worth noting that the term "liberal" is regularly misapplied, especially in the United States where both population and pundits have an unusually poor understanding of the actual meanings of terms (intentionally or otherwise). Thus for example the United States is maybe the only country in the world where liberals could be identified with socialists. In most European countries (and in Europe there's a shared political history and so there's no objective reason for the terms to have different meanings) liberals are considered the opposite of socialists, because (whether it's commonly articulated this way or not) liberals defend the class interests of the bourgeoisie whereas socialists defend those of the working class, whose interests are diametrically opposed to those of the bourgeoisie. Certainly it's quite common for Americans to call people like Dennis Kucinich and Michael Moore, people who are clearly social democrats, "liberals". I'm well aware that the meanings of words, especially describing complex phenomena, change and mutate regularly and naturally, but the application of a single term to opposite ideas is problematic to say the least, especially when doing so leads, as is quite clear, to the American working class misidentifying policies which would objectively enhance their lives with the people and policies whose goals are the opposite.

[incogweedo]

well "liberals" are usually the center-left and moderate-left, and are in all classes. Most of them are generally socialist-capitalist, so they don't hurt us at all in our path to communism. They do not embrace communism as we do, but they wouldn't mind it.

[Thirsty Crow]

well "liberals" are usually the center-left and moderate-left, and are in all classes. Most of them are generally socialist-capitalist, so they don't hurt us at all in our path to communism. They do not embrace communism as we do, but they wouldn't mind it.
Aiberal, let's say, teching at a "radical campus" while owning his own firm which produces electronics (hypothesis) wouldn't mind being expropriated?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

well "liberals" are usually the center-left and moderate-left, and are in all classes. Most of them are generally socialist-capitalist, so they don't hurt us at all in our path to communism. They do not embrace communism as we do, but they wouldn't mind it.

Is that the terminologically confused United State's brand of "liberal"? In which case most of them are just as much enemies of socialism and communism as any right-wing conservative.

The term liberal, applied to a person's politics, can also imply a laissez-faire attitude to or thing or other, "let it be" and "let it sorts itself out", the sort of distanced position that it's "no business of me/organisation/whatever" and so on.

[Aesop]

Most of them are generally socialist-capitalist, so they don't hurt us at all in our path to communism. They do not embrace communism as we do, but they wouldn't mind it.

Liberals are not 'socialist-capitalist', i have a feeling your thinking of social-democrats here. In addition most liberals that i have encountered tend describle themselves as 'moderates' in which they view communists and anarchists as people who are 'class reductionists'.

[Proletarian Ultra]

I often see the word liberal used on here, and I am a bit confused as to what people mean by it. I've always thought that liberal meant supporting capitalism with reforms, but it seems that it has another meaning around here. For example I have seen people who support what I guess I could call "social libertarian" positions such as freedom of speech, gun ownership, drug legalization called liberals and I am wondering what any of that has to do with supporting reformist capitalism.

If you can find an example or two it would be easier to answer your question.

[RadioRaheem84]

well "liberals" are usually the center-left and moderate-left, and are in all classes. Most of them are generally socialist-capitalist, so they don't hurt us at all in our path to communism. They do not embrace communism as we do, but they wouldn't mind it.

Comrade, this is a horrible definition of the liberal. They are far from being "socialist-capitalist", what ever that means?

I understand that the United States has severely skewered the word to make it look like it's part of the left, but I assure you it's not. Liberals are generally centre or centre-right. Lately, liberals have been outright neo-liberals like Clinton, Obama and Tony Blair. They do not believe in socialism at all.

[jake williams]

I understand that the United States has severely skewered the word to make it look like it's part of the left, but I assure you it's not. Liberals are generally centre or centre-right.
Liberals are the left wing of the bourgeoisie. The identification of liberalism with "the left" isn't a problem of distinguishing between left and right, but between ruling class and working class ideologies. Liberalism doesn't even exist on the same spectrum with socialism or social democracy.

[ContrarianLemming]

Well, We called people liberal, if they support given free speech to dangerous forces or support reformist policy and do not support revolutionary groups and criticize them.

Basically saying anyone who doesn't support national liberation are liberals.

Liberals are democratic capitalists in there own words, which might be why they have trouble implementing there system

[RadioRaheem84]

Liberals are the left wing of the bourgeoisie. The identification of liberalism with "the left" isn't a problem of distinguishing between left and right, but between ruling class and working class ideologies. Liberalism doesn't even exist on the same spectrum with socialism or social democracy.


As far as I know the liberals have usurped many working class notions and taken the mantle that they somehow represent the working class. Everything from social reforms to civil rights. The identification of liberals with the left seems like it was something rather consciously done to heavily distinguish themselves with the right. A lot of democrats do not necessarily hate it when you call them left in the working class sense, hence why they call us or even soc dems, "far left".

But yes, you're essentially correct, as a ruling class ideology, they are "left". Yet, it is sad that the US doesn't even have a soc dem "left" section of the bourgeoisie.

[RadioRaheem84]

Liberals are democratic capitalists in there own words, which might be why they have trouble implementing there system

:lol: Yes, it is silly.

[hobo8675309]

liberalism is the political concept of screwing old fashioned government and trying to innovate in order to solve problems. therefore, anybody who wants change the 200 year old constitution, or create a new system of government, is somewhat of a liberal.

[RadioRaheem84]

therefore, anybody who wants change the 200 year old constitution, or create a new system of government, is somewhat of a liberal.

Wouldn't that make them a radical? I was under the impression they were simply reformers? They still share many of the characteristics of conservatives in thinking that capitalism is a rather natural economic order so they do not see it as a social order that can be transcended; only reformed for the better.

[Kayser_Soso]

I often see the word liberal used on here, and I am a bit confused as to what people mean by it. I've always thought that liberal meant supporting capitalism with reforms, but it seems that it has another meaning around here. For example I have seen people who support what I guess I could call "social libertarian" positions such as freedom of speech, gun ownership, drug legalization called liberals and I am wondering what any of that has to do with supporting reformist capitalism.

In general, if we need a workable term, a modern day liberal(as long as we are speaking of the US for the most part) is a person who believes that we can reconcile the social contradictions of capitalism in such a way that preserves the system, while not making any particular class upset. Everyone can get what they want.

This definition is very handy(and can be expanded to cover many pseudo-leftists throughout the world) because depending on the situation some liberals will speak about capitalism as a negative thing, and will feign interest in socialism(e.g. Michael Moore or Naomi Klein). But when it comes down to anything unpleasant, they are against it. Somehow we must achieve justice and equality in such a way that every group of people can go on doing what they are doing without being upset.

[Barry Lyndon]

Maoists use it in a way that has to do with inner-party politics but someone else could explain that better because I've never read that text.

Combat Liberalism: By Mao Tse-Sung(1937)-

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

[RadioRaheem84]

In general, if we need a workable term, a modern day liberal(as long as we are speaking of the US for the most part) is a person who believes that we can reconcile the social contradictions of capitalism in such a way that preserves the system, while not making any particular class upset. Everyone can get what they want.

This definition is very handy(and can be expanded to cover many pseudo-leftists throughout the world) because depending on the situation some liberals will speak about capitalism as a negative thing, and will feign interest in socialism(e.g. Michael Moore or Naomi Klein). But when it comes down to anything unpleasant, they are against it. Somehow we must achieve justice and equality in such a way that every group of people can go on doing what they are doing without being upset.

This.

[Uppercut]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the word "liberal" comes from the Latin word "Liber" which means "much freedom". In that sense, liberalism sounds very attractive. But the problem is that it rejects class struggle on the basis of reconciliatory peace and collaboration with all sects of classes and society. The state is left to be the moderator between the different groups in an attempt to sedate the less privilaged.

But in the other sense, the word liberal could mean openness, such as a liberal view of the arts or a liberal sexual policy, meaning much artistic and sexual freedom. In this sense of the word, I don't have a problem with the meaning of the word.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Yes the actual word liberal can mean a person who is oppend minded, enough with semantics.

Liberalism is, currently, the dominated ideology of the world, unfortunatley. It has effected most people and giving them the idea of that we all have to walk our own way, rejecting all forms aof collectivism and saying that the asolute form of freedom is to be able to drunk-drive with your motor cross trough a nature reserve, without anny consequences, all according to the stupid sentence "Evrybody should be able to do what they want."
For socialists of all kinds its essencial to understand liberalism (especialy neoliberalism) this is the ruling classes ideology the idea of hyper individualism, to split people and reject structural analysis, evrything thats happening is explained by individuals choices, like on the question "why is there so much crime in that particular neighbourhood?", liberalism would say; "yeah those people there are just scum for no particular reason, maybe some of them have had a tuff time when they grew up, but if they dont stop being criminals and unemployd of theire own force its just shows that they deserves to live like this." Observe that liberals allways talks like if there was some sort of god that has decided whats fare and not.

The kind of freedom that liberals talks about, is the freedom for some few to exploit the vast majority, they never challenge the idea of why your boss isnt democraticly elected (yet in the same time they speak so warmly about parlamentarism) ore why you cant say/write what you want at your work, and if your questioning why your boss has 4 houses 3 cars and 2 boats and yourself nothing even if you work your ass of evry day, they will just say that he has comed to this position by his own effort and therefor deservs it (once again observe the liberal god capitalism) without regarding that he actually just inherited it frome his father. So all the liberals talk about freedom is just Bullshit!

Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism, allways declairing it as the moste natural, effective and faire way of having a society/economy. When you then say that we actually have enough food and material to feed and make life comfortable for All people on earth, and its just an unfair system thats keeping evrybody frome theire share of the cacke, they will just ignore it and start talking about free trade and fair-traide-marked products that you can by so that maybe someone will have a liiiittle better life (ore at least you get a better consciousness), never that you would questioning the free market no, no. Neoliberalism tends to seek for all thing thats can be exploited, like the idea of taking patent on gens, prostitution, trade with human organs andheavy drugs, allways saying that theese people have choosed to do this, without concidering the circumstances. Ooh i think im starting to repeat my self now.

[Kayser_Soso]

I usually hate to promote myself but this is why I proposed the definition I gave on the first page- We know that there are different meanings if we speak of classical liberals, neo-liberals, modern liberals, or progressives as they like to call themselves. Even progressive sucks. After all, the modern conservative is progressive compared to ones of old, and though conservatives often think they are preserving some old aspect of culture or morality they are often unwittingly advancing new ideas. And we have serious problems when we have people like Michael Moore, Naomi Klein, and Amy Goodman running around playing with words like socialism and attacking capitalism and what not.

Yet in a strange way when someone here says liberal a lot of us subconsciously know what the other is talking about. We know who this person is whether it is Anna Politkovskaya or Naomi Klein, Keith Olbermann, Bernie Sanders, George Soros, Karl Popper or whomever. We know liberals. We just need a working definition when so many are trying to play revolutionary. That is why I suggested - one who believes/tries to resolve the contradictions of capitalism(regardless of whether they understand these contradictions as products of capitalism) without doing anything unpleasant to any class. It's like a line from that cartoon King of the Hill- TIE GAME!!! EVERYBODY WINS!!! That's what liberals want, though they won't admit it. If you don't believe me, here's a wacky paragraph which perfectly illustrates this mentality:

About the American system:

"When it's working right, this contract guarantees the upper classes predictable, reliable wealth in return for their investments. It promises the middle class mobility, comfort, and security. It ensures the working classes fair reward for fair work, chances to move ahead, and protection against very real risk that they'll be forced into poverty if they can't work any more. Generally, as long as everybody gets their piece of this constantly re-negotiated deal, everybody stays invested in keeping the system going -- and a democratic society will remain upright, healthy, and moving mostly forward."

LOL WUT

[Apoi_Viitor]

Communists are more liberal than liberals could ever be. Liberals are fake left that talk about freedom and equality but just support the system and rat out real communists and anarchists in the end

I think this is more or less true. Neoliberals tend to use vague calls for greater "individualism" and liberty - which end up giving freedom to the rich, at the expense of the poor/working class. In America, everyone has "free speech", but that varies greatly depending upon what social class you are. In liberalism's most extreme form, it would be an extension of Marques de Sade's ideas / or a Randian "utopia", where everybody has the freedom to oppress others. If you were a real supporter of "free speech", consent, autonomy, etc., you would support communism, as that is the only form of society where the majority of the population will have the ability to exercise these freedoms, unlike a liberal capitalist society, where only the rich do.

[x359594]

...An example of ridiculous liberalism would be someone supporting the "right" of nazis to march through a Jewish neighborhood under the banner of "free speech" (I've never seen that here, it's just something that popped into my head)...

It happened in Skokie, Illinois in the mid 1970s when the American Civil Liberties Union represented the National Socialist Whit People's Party who sought a permit to march through the mainly Jewish community. They won the right and the march was held.

[RadioRaheem84]

It happened in Skokie, Illinois in the mid 1970s when the American Civil Liberties Union represented the National Socialist Whit People's Party who sought a permit to march through the mainly Jewish community. They won the right and the march was held.

Were there any scuffles or worse, causalities as a result of this display of "free speech"? Do people have to get injured or die at the hands of preserving an impractical idealistic premise?

[The Red Next Door]

I usually hate to promote myself but this is why I proposed the definition I gave on the first page- We know that there are different meanings if we speak of classical liberals, neo-liberals, modern liberals, or progressives as they like to call themselves. Even progressive sucks. After all, the modern conservative is progressive compared to ones of old, and though conservatives often think they are preserving some old aspect of culture or morality they are often unwittingly advancing new ideas. And we have serious problems when we have people like Michael Moore, Naomi Klein, and Amy Goodman running around playing with words like socialism and attacking capitalism and what not.

Yet in a strange way when someone here says liberal a lot of us subconsciously know what the other is talking about. We know who this person is whether it is Anna Politkovskaya or Naomi Klein, Keith Olbermann, Bernie Sanders, George Soros, Karl Popper or whomever. We know liberals. We just need a working definition when so many are trying to play revolutionary. That is why I suggested - one who believes/tries to resolve the contradictions of capitalism(regardless of whether they understand these contradictions as products of capitalism) without doing anything unpleasant to any class. It's like a line from that cartoon King of the Hill- TIE GAME!!! EVERYBODY WINS!!! That's what liberals want, though they won't admit it. If you don't believe me, here's a wacky paragraph which perfectly illustrates this mentality:

About the American system:

"When it's working right, this contract guarantees the upper classes predictable, reliable wealth in return for their investments. It promises the middle class mobility, comfort, and security. It ensures the working classes fair reward for fair work, chances to move ahead, and protection against very real risk that they'll be forced into poverty if they can't work any more. Generally, as long as everybody gets their piece of this constantly re-negotiated deal, everybody stays invested in keeping the system going -- and a democratic society will remain upright, healthy, and moving mostly forward."

LOL WUT

Amy Goodman is not a liberal, what the fuck are you talking about!

[RadioRaheem84]

Amy Goodman is not a liberal, what the fuck are you talking about!


She is a progressive from what I have gathered. Maybe she has some sympathy toward socialism, I don't know, but I've never heard her advocate views that went pass progressive left-liberalism.

[jake williams]

In general, if we need a workable term, a modern day liberal(as long as we are speaking of the US for the most part) is a person who believes that we can reconcile the social contradictions of capitalism in such a way that preserves the system, while not making any particular class upset. Everyone can get what they want.
That's a social democrat. Certainly a lot of social democrats are called liberals in the United States, but that doesn't necessarily make them so - and the converse isn't true, there are many self-conscious liberals who self-consciously are not social democrats.


This definition is very handy(and can be expanded to cover many pseudo-leftists throughout the world) because depending on the situation some liberals will speak about capitalism as a negative thing, and will feign interest in socialism(e.g. Michael Moore or Naomi Klein).
Michael Moore is a social democrat. Naomi Klein is a lot more complicated because she's presented very different political positions both at different times, and in different places. She has taken some pretty radical positions at points actually, she's also regularly presented a much less edgy face on mainstream US television.

[Kayser_Soso]

Amy Goodman is not a liberal, what the fuck are you talking about!

Does she support the expropriation of all private property? If no, then LIBRUHL.

[Kayser_Soso]

That's a social democrat. Certainly a lot of social democrats are called liberals in the United States, but that doesn't necessarily make them so - and the converse isn't true, there are many self-conscious liberals who self-consciously are not social democrats.


Michael Moore is a social democrat. Naomi Klein is a lot more complicated because she's presented very different political positions both at different times, and in different places. She has taken some pretty radical positions at points actually, she's also regularly presented a much less edgy face on mainstream US television.

The term social democrat doesn't mean much in the United States. But liberal is well recognized.

[RadioRaheem84]

I really think that the American press confuses social democrat with socialist, so liberal policies or at least policies to the left of Republican conservatives look social democratic (in the contemporary term), so hence they look socialist? :confused:

[Qayin]

NjfFpFW9OdA


What the fuck?

Edited by Fuserg9, removed the pic.....

[Animal Farm Pig]

There's a wonderful Phil Ochs song called "Love Me, I'm a Liberal" that lays it out pretty well. I wish I could link to a youtube video or audio file, but I can't find any, so here are the lyrics.


I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every colored boy becomes a star
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
I'm glad the commies were thrown out
of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board
I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
as long as they don't move next door
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

The people of old Mississippi
Should all hang their heads in shame
I can't understand how their minds work
What's the matter don't they watch Les Crain?
But if you ask me to bus my children
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I read New republic and Nation
I've learned to take every view
You know, I've memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I'm almost a Jew
But when it comes to times like Korea
There's no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I vote for the democratic party
They want the U.N. to be strong
I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs
I'll send all the money you ask for
But don't ask me to come on along
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

It's a little bit dated in the lyrics (Phil would undoubtedly have updated them), but it gets the point across.