Liberals

[ComradeAV]

where do you consider liberals to be on the political compass? Center,center-left, or center-right? Also do you classify them as reactionary or as progressive reformists?

[Catmatic Leftist]

Liberals can be anywhere on the spectrum to the right of communists and anarchists. As far as being reactionary/progressive, perhaps social democrats could be considered "progressive reformists", whereas the average Democrat would probably be full out reactionary. However, I think they're all reactionaries and are just as guilty of upholding capitalism.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Social Democrats and Liberals are both reactionary and hold up capitalism. It's pretty hard to even defend democrats if you wanted to, because all they really do is just absorb social movements and then never further their interests. They didn't even legalize abortion; a conservative supreme court did.
Liberals try to tout themselves as left, but from all their actions the past 90-100 years, I would definitely call them center-left, sometimes even close to center-right (as far as politicians go; average folks who call them "liberals" may be center-left)

[GPDP]

I'm probably a bit outspoken when it comes to this subject, but I think it's pretty useless to try to identify liberals on a political spectrum, unless that spectrum is one dedicated entirely to liberalism, for two reasons:

- Liberalism is a very diverse ideology, with many tendencies and competing viewpoints, very much like us socialists

- Saying they are to the right of us implies socialists are just an even more left-wing version of liberals, which is an absurd proposition due to the fact that we reject many of liberalism's most fundamental tenets

I mean, I guess you could say we are to the left of even the most left-wing liberals, but then that again implies the difference between the most right-wing socialist and the most left-wing liberal is one of degrees and not substance. Where is the line that thoroughly separates a socialist from a liberal, and if such a line exists, would it not be embodied by a rejection or acceptance of a number of principles within socialism and liberalism, which would defeat the entire point of a continuous political spectrum?

And again, liberalism, understood under the context of political economy, houses many schools of thought and practice, some more progressive, some more reactionary. There are social-democrats, centrists, neo-liberals, libertarians, conservatives, etc. They all compete with each other, and sometimes even come into open conflict. Yet they are all liberals, because they all accept capitalism, the free market, and the institution of private property, among other things. Sure, they all disagree on how capitalism should function, reforms and regulations, their views on social values, religion and tradition, etc., but nevertheless they all agree that capitalism is the best system, and it should be protected. To this end, even the most left-wing liberals would fight against any attempt to bring about socialism.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm probably a bit outspoken when it comes to this subject, but I think it's pretty useless to try to identify liberals on a political spectrum, unless that spectrum is one dedicated entirely to liberalism, for two reasons:

- Liberalism is a very diverse ideology, with many tendencies and competing viewpoints, very much like us socialists

- Saying they are to the right of us implies socialists are just an even more left-wing version of liberals, which is an absurd proposition due to the fact that we reject many of liberalism's most fundamental tenets

I mean, I guess you could say we are to the left of even the most left-wing liberals, but then that again implies the difference between the most right-wing socialist and the most left-wing liberal is one of degrees and not substance. Where is the line that thoroughly separates a socialist from a liberal, and if such a line exists, would it not be embodied by a rejection or acceptance of a number of principles within socialism and liberalism, which would defeat the entire point of a continuous political spectrum?

And again, liberalism, understood under the context of political economy, houses many schools of thought and practice, some more progressive, some more reactionary. There are social-democrats, centrists, neo-liberals, libertarians, conservatives, etc. They all compete with each other, and sometimes even come into open conflict. Yet they are all liberals, because they all accept capitalism, the free market, and the institution of private property, among other things. Sure, they all disagree on how capitalism should function, reforms and regulations, their views on social values, religion and tradition, etc., but nevertheless they all agree that capitalism is the best system, and it should be protected. To this end, even the most left-wing liberals would fight against any attempt to bring about socialism.

I agree with what you are saying about these politics not really being part of one large continuum - like both conservatives and liberals commonly argue ("if you move far enough to the left you become like the right-wing":rolleyes: Ok, whatever you say Mr. TV liberal apologist for wars).

The reason for this or the "line in the sand" is class perspectives. As other people said, official liberalism is just another take on how best to run capitalism. Liberal politicians and pundits who are actually against the war argue that these particular wars "hurt the US" - usually hurts the US economically or even in our ability to wage "necessary" wars.

I think the reason that the line between liberalism and socialism gets blurred is (mainly right now) because many working class people who are attracted to liberal arguments and ideas are coming at these ideas from a more working class or populist place. For capital L-liberals, pacifism is something that American workers and workers/oppressed people in countries bombed by the empire should embrace... but cops and the US military, not so much. When people in Iraq began resisting, liberal pundits demanded that they should restrict their actions to peaceful protests if they want support from the US population; when people in the US protested the war, the pundits complained that the medium wasn't right (too divisive) even though they claimed to "support the message". Liberal environmentalists don't care as much that poor coastal regions will go under-water because of global warming, to them (death and destruction for the world's poor because of global warming) is just a little inconvenient truth, their main worry is how to find an alternative to fossil fuels to keep industry and war machines going - so they favor Agra-fuels and Nuclear and even "clean coal" not because it's the best alternative for the earth and people, but because it is the best alternative for keeping present-day capitalism running and expanding without loosing power or profits.

So some workers get won to liberal explanations for war, poverty, and so on largely because these are the answers people hear from politicians, pundits, academics, and liberal NGOs and so on. I think that means that many people that are self-described liberals are very susceptible to our arguments and can be won to radical explanations on an individual basis and eventually, by seeing the example of increased struggle actually winning things for regular people, in large swaths of the population.

[The American]

American liberals range from center right to center left. But liberal is a pretty "liberal" term:lol:

[Nolan]

It depends what you mean by liberals.

If you mean like the constituency of the democrats, then they range from center left to center right.

But the word liberal can mean anything from social democrats to libertarians.

[indya]

in America, liberals are equivalent to democrats are equivalent to republicans are equivalent to center-right to right. they vary very little. both are committed supporting big business and suppressing the people. they would like you to think they are so different, so it seems like you have a choice, but they are all corrupt individuals aiming only for money and power.