What IS liberalism?

[Questionable]

I realized today I only have a vague idea of what liberalism truly is. I always associated them with the type of people who believe that capitalism can be reformed to be less bad than it is, mixed with a poor understanding of economics that leads to a lot of idealism and utopianism. But that feels like a vague concept.

What really is liberalism?

What is its historical basis?

Its economic doctrines?

What are its principles?

How does it relate to conservatism? For instance, I always hear radicals say that the basis of capitalist society is liberalism, but then I hear about these big struggles between liberals and conservatives in the government.

Are there any real differences between these groups other than what bourgeoisie has purchased them?

What are some good Marxist works on liberalism?

[Prinskaj]

First of all, wouldn't this be better asked on a forum which has liberals on it? I think that they are probably the best at representing their own views..
Secondly, do you mean the social-liberals in the United States or the classical liberals?
But if you are mean reformism in general, then Rosa Luxembourg's "Reform or Revolution" is without equal.

[Questionable]

First of all, wouldn't this be better asked on a forum which has liberals on it? I think that they are probably the best at representing their own views..
Secondly, do you mean the social-liberals in the United States or the classical liberals?
But if you are mean reformism in general, then Rosa Luxembourg's "Reform or Revolution" is without equal.

Going along with what I said about their hazy economic views, liberals often times don't know what the real impact of their political philosophy is, it seems to be. They'll present themselves as defenders of freedom when they defend capitalism, seemingly oblivious to its inherently authoritarian structure. I'd rather get the bare-bones economic workings of liberalism, and Marxism seems to be one of the few ideologies that put economics before ideals when it comes to approaching an ideology.

I suppose I'm referring to the social-liberals of the USA, since they're the ones I deal with mostly.

[Prinskaj]

Going along with what I said about their hazy economic views, liberals often times don't know what the real impact of their political philosophy is, it seems to be. They'll present themselves as defenders of freedom when they defend capitalism, seemingly oblivious to its inherently authoritarian structure. I'd rather get the bare-bones economic workings of liberalism, and Marxism seems to be one of the few ideologies that put economics before ideals when it comes to approaching an ideology.
Dialog my friend, dialog. If they do not include aspects that you would like to know their perspective of, then ask about that. You mentioned the "authoritarian structure[s]", such as wage-slavery, class and the likes. If they do not incorporate these elements in their reply, then start a dialog. Ask them what they think of these concepts, and if they do not accept them, then ask them why.

I suppose I'm referring to the social-liberals of the USA, since they're the ones I deal with mostly.
Okay, being from Europe, I think of right-wingers when I hear the word liberal, which creates a ton of confusion. When discussing politics with these people, it's usually a good idea to bring up the concept of capitalism, as a point of discussion, since it is then easier to point out the fatal problems with it.

[Lobotomy]

For instance, I always hear radicals say that the basis of capitalist society is liberalism, but then I hear about these big struggles between liberals and conservatives in the government.

when people say that capitalism is based off of liberalism, they are probably referring to the classical liberals of the 17th/18th centuries. people like John Locke and the "founding fathers" of the US, and maybe Adam Smith, were considered liberals back in the day. This was radical at the time and it became the dominant ideology as the bourgeoisie overthrew the feudal ruling class. however, nowadays we would probably call classical liberalism right-wing libertarianism as it is characterized by the same call for freer markets and less state intervention in affairs.

Another thing to note is that in the modern day the word "liberal" has a different meaning depending on where you go. In Europe the people who are considered liberals are usually social democrat-types. but since the political climate in the US tends to be much more right-wing, liberals in the US usually are not social democrats, but more like centrists really. Sometimes liberal politicians in the US don't even want to call themselves liberals because it's been kind of a bad word ever since the age of McCarthyism.

So to answer your question, there isn't really one definite meaning to the world "liberal".

[Q]

According to some comrades liberalism is any and all people on the left would dare to utter critique to the Dear Leader (tm), the Right Party Line (tm) and/or the Socialist Motherland (tm).

But seriously: Liberalism (as we know it today) as a political project is closely linked with electoral demands, with the goal of establishing a stable dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, preferably via parliamentary means. It also involves defending a rule of law which revolves around the defense of private property.

Marxists are going beyond the democratic demands of liberals and rigorously defend them (such as the right to gather, the right of free speech, the right of free press, etc.) where liberals abandon and betray them when things become problematic for the regime. Marxists also differ in the core project of organizing the working class to overthrow the constitutional order and replace it by a new form of class rule of radical democracy.

[Ocean Seal]

According to some comrades liberalism is any and all people on the left would dare to utter critique to the Dear Leader (tm), the Right Party Line (tm) and/or the Socialist Motherland (tm).

Who says this?

Anyway liberalism is a bourgeois mode of thought which values the individual as some sort of mystical presence along with freedom in the abstract sense. Which translates to freedom of commerce in the applied sense. That's pretty much the values that it upholds to, and of course capitalist exceptionalism.

[Eagle_Syr]

I'm not too familiar with modern European politics, but in the United States, the "divide" between conservative and liberal, right and "left", is not a fundamental one.

Reforming capitalism still leaves you with capitalism. I would not classify the Democrats or liberals as left-wing at all, but rather, firmly on the right. Liberals do not propose a fundamental change in the mode of production; they simply want to "reform" it, and often not out of compassion, but out of self-preservation.

After all, many of the social programs today are simply results of class unrest. They are attempts by the bourgeoisie establishment to pacify worker unrest. Haven't you noticed that the Democrats are staffed by the bourgeoisie; that they receive their largest funds from the largest banks and financial firms?

[ArrowLance]

Often when I talk about liberalism I mean it in the Maoist sense described in Combat Liberalism (http://marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_03.htm) by Mao himself.