Liberalism

[monkeydust]

I was just wondering if anyone here can give me a clear definition on liberalism, the concepts and ideas and all that cos I'm a bit confused on the topic at the moment. Is it simply to do with minimal government involvment in peoples lives or is that wrong?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

That is wrong... I think. Liberalism in America is a right-wing, reactionary movement disguised as leftist and for the people. It seeks to reform bourgeois society and achieve mkinimal rights for the working class, or it would seem. In reality, they serve only to fool the people of the U$ into thinking that their demands as citizens of a democratic nation are being taken into account when decisions are made.

[elijahcraig]

I agree completely with VC.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Liberalism has come to mean something different, as has been mentioned above.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2003, 07:28 PM
That is wrong... I think. Liberalism in America is a right-wing, reactionary movement disguised as leftist and for the people. It seeks to reform bourgeois society and achieve mkinimal rights for the working class, or it would seem. In reality, they serve only to fool the people of the U$ into thinking that their demands as citizens of a democratic nation are being taken into account when decisions are made.
It would be more accurate to define that as being "Neo-Liberalism."

[Invader Zim]

lib·er·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.

1.
A. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
B. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
C. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.

What being free from bigotry and being tolerant of progress is a bad thing... sounding a bit of conservative there V.C.

Also in america there is no liberal party, you have two conservative partys, one is just more reactionary than the other. Niether are remotly liberal, socialism is a liberal movment in essance, it looks to change socioty in a manner free from bigotry, hense the reason why stalin and stalinism is not socialism. So therefor Craig, your views on liberalism are automaticaly going to be flawed and bias, as you are not remotly liberal.

But then again Liberalism as a movment differs from being a liberal. One definition Liberalism is: -

An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard.

I choose to take being liberal as being open minded, free from bigotry and trying to advance progress, not the Liberalism as in "An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard."

Well thats my say.

[sc4r]

Unfortunately people confuse:

'liberal' as used by conservatives - when it just means anyone saying 'you cannot do whatever the fuck you like regardless of morality'.

'liberalism' - which is a bona fide socio economic movement.

Liberalism is founded upon the belief that the freedom of individuals (which rather importantly has at times not been as self evident a definition itself to 'liberals' as you might expect; it has at times meant 'property owning males' for example) should be maximised. It has no concept of society really except as, at best, a convenient label to attach to the consensus between individuals about how to reconciel the fact that they all want different things.

Liberalism takes it as an article of faith that individuals should be allowed to benefit from 'ownership rights' to property, means of production, and that contracts should be binding upon the descendants of the people who made them no matter how much duress the original signers were under. Why? dunno - it just does.

Ther are two main branches of liberalsim :

1) Positive liberals = who think that contracted rights are all anyone is ever entitled to - they cant explain why.

2) Negative liberals - who acknowledge that contracts made under extreme duress (like your alternative is to die) are unacceotable and therefore do want basic human rights like food shelter etc , to be guaranteed to all.

Both sorts say they believe in individual freedom. When analysed both sorts give freedom only to those who are, for whatevere reason, able to negotiate sucessfully. Like most ideologies both sorts are very very vague as to what 'freedom' actually means (it means nothing BTW).

Most socialist are called Liberals by American Conservatives (who rather confusingly adopty many, but not all of the tenets of positive liberalism).

Liberalsim sounds great. When analysed it is great if you happen to be in a position to negotiate powerfully as an individual.

Hardly anyone understands liberalism, including most definitely liberals.

best wishes m8.

[Saint-Just]

There is liberalism and classic liberalism. Classic liberalism is from concepts created by philosophers from the 17th C onwards generally.

Liberalism is the new ideal that echoes the beliefs of the Democrats in the U.S.

Neo-classic liberalism is classic liberalism in this age. It is an ideal followed by many on the right: e.g. Thatcher, Reagan.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

even the most "classical" forms of liberalism seek reform.

[SonofRage]

If I understand classical liberalism correctly, I believe that Libertarianism is probably the modern equivalent.

[Morpheus]

The term "liberalism" has numerous different meanings. There are three main types of liberalism:

Classical liberalism: This came around in the 19th century, it advocated representative government and free market capitalism against the defenders of the old aristocratic order.

left-liberalism: This is the American name for a watered down version of what Europeans call Social Democracy. Left-liberalism advocate a capitalist system, but they want a large degree of state intervention. Think welfare, social security, etc. They think these modifications to capitalism will make capitalism work well.

NeoLiberalism: This is basically a revived version of classical liberalism, but some modifications. Neoliberals advocate free market capitalism in opposition to left-liberals and authoritarian socialists. In practice it means state intervention for the rich, but market discipline for the poor. Think Bill Clinton.

It should be noted that the use of the term "liberalism" in the sense of left-liberalism is largely a US phenomenon. Most of the world uses the term in it's original sense - as advocates of market capitalism. However, the system of thought control in the US is so advanced that language gets all warped like Newspeak in Orwell's 1984. The term libertarian underwent a similar transformation - originally it was another name for an anarchist and still is in much of the world. But in the US the term got redefined to mean an advocate of free market capitalism, quite similar to what liberal originally meant.

[Don't Change Your Name]

We can say in a few words that liberalism is a system where the rich control the economy and pretend to support the "individual liberties" and "democracy", and they dont want the state to take part in economy, but they want it to protect their interests and do good decisions that helps their interests. In neo-liberalism they speculate a lot, depending on what the government says or decides, to try gaining more money, which is very different to what they say about the free market, because the establishment's decisions infludes in the same way than the supply and demand, but only infludes the economic decisions made by the richer groups.

[Pete]

I usually align the Neo-Con's with Liberalism, as they are trying to conserve what the liberalism of the late 18th through mid 20th centuries gained them. It is bourgeosie capitalist rule, and has nothing to do with the modern left.

Neo-Liberalism. Would that not be the large socail democracy of places like Canada? Although capitalist, still having supports for the under fortunate?

Ahh anyways. Definitions. Labels. They don't agree with me.

[Invader Zim]

It seams to me many people confuse liberalism with conservitism and centralism. In essance the word simply means to have an open mind towards change, the oppersit to reactinary. Therefor being liberal and being a conservative is ideological impossibility. There are those who claim to being such but they obviously dont know the meaning of what they are saying.

To be conservative is to wish to conserve or protect traditional tory party values and members, to protect the Upper and middle classes from reform so that they stay prosperus. The very meaning of the word liberal is to be open minded towards change and reform. Therefor you cannot be liberal and conservative/Bourgeoisie/reactionary or whatever you want to call it.

Thats my view anyway.

[Finality]

The way i've heard it told is that Liberalism is the idea of 'liberalizing' things, i.e. breaking down boundaries and giving right to people who did not have them before.

Whereas conservatism is where you are 'conservative' with who gets their rights and what is changed (if anything at all).

[sc4r]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2003, 06:13 PM
The way i've heard it told is that Liberalism is the idea of 'liberalizing' things, i.e. breaking down boundaries and giving right to people who did not have them before.

Whereas conservatism is where you are 'conservative' with who gets their rights and what is changed (if anything at all).
Nope finality it is not.

Liberalism is as several have said pretty much synonomous with modern libertarianism or lassez faire capitalism.

it has two branches. One is concerned partly with what you describe (but also with property rights). The other (more trad type) disposes of what modern american vernacular would call 'Liberal values' altogether.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

The meaning of liberalism has shifted with history. In the United States, Jefferson was a leading liberal among the so-called "Founding Fathers." Jeffersonians believed in lower taxation and little commitment to public works projects. High taxes to fuel construction of infrastructure was an idea of the conservatives of the era. In the twentieth century, the leading ideological liberals have been FDR and Lyndon Johnson. To FDR and LBJ, liberalism was about high taxes to fund infrastructure and welfare safety nets. Except for the social welfare part, conservative and liberal had an economic flip flop between the presidencies of Jefferson and Franklin Roosevelt.

On top of the economic madness, you have social liberals. Social liberalism deals with issues like civil rights--getting fundamentalists out of the bedrooms of homosexuals, affirmative action to help African-Americans and women, etc.

Then we have capitalist "globalization" advocates taking up the title of neo-liberalism.

I find liberal or libertarian vs. conservative or authoritarian to be useful on social questions, but it gets fucked up immensely if you start applying economics to it. I like the political compass idea for categorizing politics. I recommend politicalcompass.org to everyone reading this. I have to thank Comrade SonofRage for putting that site in his signature.

[trudeaumania]

Excellent topic here. What is Liberalism? In the era we live in it means, in my understanding. That the Federal Government intervene's to try to better the economic and social conditions for the people. The perfect American example of a liberal is President Franklin Roosevelt.(1933-1945) He advocated the establishment of the NRA, the National Recovery Act. It not only classified workers to skill, but also set wages and conditions of employment. The NRA was struck down, despite support by the people. But it was struck down by the Supreme Court, which held private (corporate) concerns supreme. But he was a firm advocate against lazzie-fare style policy. In fact he is one of Fidel Castro's heros. - During the Depression, Mr. Roosevelt basicaly declared a war of survival against, the economic capitalists. But he was later forced to compromise in the war, against facism. He had to join with the leaders of capitalism, in order to produce the armaments needed to win this struggle of survival. But in the end, he finally wore out from the polio, he suffered, and died. And whatever type of leadership he was to inspire in post WWII, is just speculation. But he always held the banner of liberalism high. He made a speech in which he said, that if America was ever overthrown and became a dictatorship, it would be because of one thing. And that, being the buisnessman, capitialism, the attitude of 'who cares'. That would in his eyes bring the end to democracy. -And isn't he right? What does bring down a corrupt leader, especially in a democratic society. If not greed. May I add, Che (as a young man) origianally supported the democratic elected leader of Guatemalia, President Jacobo Arbenez. And if Batista, had been about the true reforms to help his people. Who knows what history may have written? But as FDR, put it, it is really about those in influence and power, just how the reaction will be. Anyway friends, thank for this post to discuss this. :D

[Xvall]

Liberalism does not exist. Liberalism, like Conservatism, is for the most part a made-up concept. Do some people claim to follow such ideologies? Of course. That does not, however, mean that it really exists. Just like some people follow certain religion, there is no definitive proof that their god exists. Anyways; I'll try and make sense now. Let us take, for example, Communism. Now, we can actually say what communism is. Why? Because an individual (Karl Marx) was essentially the father of communism. They were the ones who came up with the idea, and therefore communism can be put into a simple, non-arguable statement. Something like, 'The abolition of private property' or 'The elimination of the class system'. Quite simply, nothing anyone can say will ever change that. It was written by the proprietor of communism. The same can be said of Fascism. Mussolini invented Fascism. He laid out the Fascist doctrine, and clearly stated what it was and would be. A system of hierarchical corporatism. Once again, nothing anyone can say will change this face, because it was written.

Now; when you ask someone to tell you what things like liberalism and conservatism are, it is much more difficult. Unlike communism, there is no Liberalism Manifesto. There are no Ten Commandments of Conservatism. Unlike Karl Marx, there was no John Lefty who invented liberalism, and no Mr. Right that invented conservatism. For this reason, it would be very hard to tell someone what liberalism means. Unlike Fascists, who are essentially all the same, or communists, who for the most part follow the same long-term goals; many liberals and conservatives can be entirely different. As I stated, there is no document one can simply look up in order to find a solid definition of 'liberalism'. Using this term would be like using the term 'revolutionary'. It would be like asking someone to tell you what the ideology of a 'revolutionary' is. Something like this can vary from being a 'revolutionary' who seems to oust a corrupt dictionary, or a 'revolutionary' who wishes to sieze power and establish a powerful dictatorship. Liberalism is no different. After all. There is democrat-liberal and then there is anarchist-liberal. There are 'old-school' liberals and there are neo-liberals. For this reason, I can not give you a definition.

[Xvall]

By the way, AK. The dictionary isn't always the best place to look for a definition. Keep that in mind.

[sc4r]

You could not be more wrong.

Liberalism is very clearly defined, it has many branches but they all have definite features in common. The fact that it is not the work of a single person does not invalidate it, by that measure evolution theory is badly defined for exmple. The confusion only exists because one of the main branches of Liberalism calls itself capitalism, and others in other countries have so many competing liberal parties (both Republicans and democrats are liberals for example) that it serves little practical purpose to refer to liberalism.

Type 'Liberalism' into any search engine to find any number of good clear descriptions. The fact that merely reading the opeing page wont tell you everything about Liberalism is neither here nor there. Reading a page on Socialism would not either (as the huge number of totally misinformed people who ask about it testifies).

There is actually far more definitive work on liberalism even than Socialism. The only confusion about Liberalism is simply that it does have these fairly distinctive two main branches (positive and negative); when you look at extreme positive versions then it can appear that the two are radically different (certainly they are very opposed to each other).

Conservatism is a bit harder to pin down fully but it is still a recognisable political stance.

Fascism on the other hand is notoriously difficult to define (which is why places as diverse as Soviet Russia, The USA, and Nazi Germany have all been accused of it). There are hardly any definitive or seminal writings on it; and no single defining feature at all. All you can really do with Fascism is list the features it is likely to have and if a movement has many of these features then probably it is useful and descriptive to call it Fascism.

Liberal Property rights is the single most important concept for a socialist to understand next to democracy. If you dont get these two things fully, and understand their implications you will neither know what you are for nor what you are opposing. All you will be doing is repeating rhetoric.

[Severian]

Good post by Morpheus.

Liberalism is not a "right-wing, reactionary" ideology like someone posted. But it is a capitalist ideology.

[Xvall]

Although liberals do share things that are similar, I believe that it is wrong to 'define' liberalism into one simple term, considering that most people who advocate 'liberalism' all have their own personal codes of conduct.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 06:42 PM
even the most "classical" forms of liberalism seek reform.
Yes, most definately, neo-liberals seek massive reform. Although, their ideas of what creates freedom are to a large extent very old ideas. They seek to create a society with very few restrictions and controls, rather uncivilised.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by Drake [email protected] 26 2003, 06:42 AM
Unlike communism, there is no Liberalism Manifesto.
There is a liberal manifesto at http://home.vicnet.net.au/~victorp/lib-47.htm

[FabFabian]

Both Liberalism and Conservatism are defined in very narrow views. Conservatism itself has gone through a devolution. Yes, it is the classic party of the upper and middle classes, but we have to remember it's original incarnation. Conservatism believes that no matter how you slice it, there will be people on the top, middle and bottom of the economic scale. Having said that, their belief in the wonders of Capitalism meant that anyone could have access to what they want in life if they work hard for it. At the same time, they did not denegrate those who were on the lower end of the scale. They believed that in order to have a stable society it behooves the better off to ensure that the unfortunate are taken care of. Even Capitalism's poster boy Adam Smith knew this. The way to eleviate suffering though, was to be done more through charity rather than through the gov't.

Flash forward to the late 70's and you get Neo Conservatives, Thatcher and Reagan. They were hell bent on smashing unions and privatizing everything in sight. Their policies did more to divide people and demonize those who didn't measure up.