Is classical liberalism traditional or radical

[Richard Roth]

I have heard arguments from some people that classical liberals, such as Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagen, were radical right wingers rather than respecting the market because of tradition.

However this perhaps depends how you define "tradition". If you define tradition as things such as the Church and the work ethic in Europe then perhaps unrestrained capital and markets are radical because capitalists can seek to turn churches into money making property for example. However this is not "radical" or "progressive" in comparison to the world before 1789 because to rely on capital and markets to dictate progress alone is to bestow a morality and ethic onto a survival of the fittest mentality.

Classical liberalism is extreme tradition. It predates antiquity and the religious dark ages because it believes that the market is more important than morality.

[tuwix]

I think there is misuanderstanding what liberalism realy means.

The concept of 'liberalism" originate in Latin word 'liberalis' which means free. Private property enslaves humianity and has nothing to do with freedom and thusly with liberalism.

Thatcher and reagan are just conservatists.

[G4b3n]

Classical liberalism met its death before capitalism had really began to develop. Reagan's conservatism more reasonables the ideas of early 20th century free market proponents like Ludwig Von Mises than actual classical liberals like Adam Smith who preached of freedom from their rulers.

[Comrade Dracula]

I would have to disagree with tuwix here.

Despite it's etymological origins, liberalism in modern discourse has a different meaning (just like the Latin word obvious no longer means across the street, or somesuch). Namely, it arose as a political tradition during the French Revolution, a revolution waged under the banners of liberty, among other things.

To return to the topic itself, I'd argue that Thatcher, Reagan, et al. were not classical liberals at all. Rather, it is my understanding that they were the first of the mainstream neoliberals, that is to say, the fusion between neoclassical economics of the Austrian School, Hayek, etc. (forming the "practical" aspect, which is often opportunistically modified as suits the situation and particular interests) and the classical liberal utopian project, liberty, individualism, and so on (forming the ideological aspect, which the ruling class ignores whenever it feels the need).

Classical liberals were certainly radicals in their era. During the course of the French Revolution and its subsequent spreadings, they certainly played a very progressive role. Today, however, the roots of what they were trying to spread (i.e. capitalism) are rather well spread and entrenched. As such, to be a liberal in most senses of the word (and especially classical) is to be a traditional (or conservative, if you prefer).

As for the role the neoliberals you mention played, theirs too was conservative, but one that radically changed the socio-economical landscape. Neoliberalism was a project of restoration of the somewhat shaken class dominance of the bourgeoisie, both ideologically and economically. Ideologically, this was done by pretty much crushing any leftish sentiment wherever it could be done (the trade union consciousness, left-leaning trends among students, etc) and replacing it with what we have today (the idea that the free market is the solution to everything, freedom included). Economically, it was attempted to replicate the neoliberal experience of Pinochet's Chile, et al. and crush the crisis of the 70'ies. How much this was a success is another story.

[tuwix]

I don't really know in what would you like to disagree with me. :)
I only see that you point out that some time some Latin words don't mean what they did. But I agree with that. Nonetheless, liberalism refers to its origin in Latin even today. They base their own rhetoric on freedom. But it's still fake freedom. They want to continue to enslave people by private property which exclude them from freedom that is base of liberalism. This why they're called neo-liberals and this “new” ('neo') means just fake. They're fake liberals.

[TheIrrationalist]

To be more correct Thatcher and Reagan were neoliberals. Classical liberalism might have been radical in the 18th and 19th century, but not in the 80's (one of the reason why liberals in America are conservatives). Thatcher and Reagan certainly were traditionalists or conservatives rather than liberals, on social issues. If Thatcher had been radical, in the vein of classical liberalism, she would have challenged reactionary political institutions in Britain, like the monarchy or the house of lords, which is inconsistent with 'radical' label. Furthermore some classical liberals seem to have been just fine with reactionary right-wing dictatorships, for example Hayek's admiration of Pinochet's Chile and Ludvig von Mises was economic adviser of Engelbert Dollfuss.

But still they could be radicals. As radical comes from the Latin word radix, root, radical is someone who wants to make fundamental changes, i.e. change it from the root. But would I call Thatcher's change of the Keynesian economics, applied in the UK before her time as the PM, to neoliberal economics radical? Is it a fundamental change? Not really, just another side of the same coin.

It should be added that radical right-wing is also a synonym to far-right.

[hatzel]

Nonetheless, liberalism refers to its origin in Latin even today. They base their own rhetoric on freedom. But it's still fake freedom. They want to continue to enslave people by private property which exclude them from freedom that is base of liberalism. This why they're called neo-liberals and this “new” ('neo') means just fake. They're fake liberals.

And modernism is pretty old-fashioned nowadays, does that mean it's no longer modernism or something? It is what it is. The word 'modernism' refers to a specific art movement. The word 'liberalism' refers to a specific political ideology. You clearly have no idea whatsoever what liberalism is or what it entails...

[Richard Roth]

Well I would argue that the laissez faire theory is very traditional and the main argument for defending the market is tradition.

All the movements against capital and against work have come from religion or Marxism. In this sense, classical liberalism has more in common with conservatism than the left whilst Christian democracy, fascism and Communism all define themselves as being against what Mussolini called a "mask behind which there is no face".

All modern ideologies define themselves on the terms set by classical liberalism because we live in a classically liberal world. Communism, fascism and other "grand ideas" are not a "mask behind which there is no face" because they are ideologically consistent and clear about what they are about whereas classical liberalism seeks to justify a mercinary totalitarianism which ignores the material reality of capitalism and encourages individualism, involving society to turn in on itself and individuals to look into themselves whereas theories which recognise the suffering of the poor, albeit in radically different ways, whether its Christianity, Marxism or One nation Conservatism encourage society to come out of itself and to look outwards. One of capitalism's great strengths has been its optimism. Classical liberals are very optimistic about free trade and capitalism which makes them intellectually distanced from other ideologies.

Classical liberalism is an abhorrent elitist ideology which if followed to its logical conclusion is anarchism and being complicit in bullying by a minority who have the strength and power, and totalitarianism by a minority of the rich and the powerful.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Hi, Graffic. Bye, Graffic.

[tuwix]

The word 'liberalism' refers to a specific political ideology. You clearly have no idea whatsoever what liberalism is or what it entails...

And you clearly have no idea what 'liberalis' means and that the people who uses this term refering to freedom don't know what freedom means.
I know very well who are the people calling themselves liberals both in the USA and Europe. But I say they have nothing to do with freedom that is supposedly core of their ideology. The they're just fake liberals.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Classical liberalism was, at one time, a very radical ideology. In an age of monarchies and mercantilism, it's emphasis on capitalism was the primary revolutionary ideology of Western radicals.

But once capitalism became the entrenched economic force in the industrialized world, it ceased to become the radical ideology it once was. It's from there that socialism became the primary ideology of radicals.

So, yeah. At one time it was very radical, but not now.

[Richard Roth]

I think people are mistaking "radical" with optimistic. Whilst classical liberalism was radical in opposing the monarchy, today its role is being insanely optimistic about capitalism and technology.

The inherent contradiction in classical liberalism is that it stands for minimal government interference and for the government to protect the individual from each other yet it allows the individual to organise collectively in business and for the individuals to use other individuals, coercively, not individually, to create profit. I think when Mussolini said it is a "mask behind which there is no face" he is referring to the fact classical liberalism is pure propaganda that promotes false consciousness which deliberately ignores the animal spirits and hides the true forces that succeed in capitalism. Classical liberalism followed to its logical conclusion would lead to commodification of philosophy, journalism and ideas so that all is left is classical liberalism or free-market theory. By holding profit and capitalism as the sovereign, not only is classical liberalism an extremely impoverished philosophy, it is the propaganda arm of an extremely violent phenomenon that would destroy everything around it until only it is left. As Marx said, the bourgeoisie creates everything in its own image. Classical liberalism is the propaganda arm of the bourgeoisie that encourages the bourgeoisie to create a world in its own image to the extreme.

The paradox with classical liberalism is that it is a philosophy but perhaps unlike other philosophies, followed to its logical conclusion classical liberalism would result in the destruction and commodification of all other philosophies until only it is left. The idea of small government and unrestrained capital is not only relaxed about capital commodifying everything, it encourages the worst in humanity and encourages destructive behaviour, which makes it ironic that it should be considered as an intellectual philosophy in the first place because intellectualism and education is supposed to be constructive and enlightening, not trivial in its outlook and encouraging capitalist animal spirit behaviour.

I think part of the problem is the utilitarian philosophy, specifically that man is created "good" and has "good" intentions, is wrong, and combined with free-market liberal economics leads to decay. Firstly the idea that men are flawed is very liberating because you cannot develop and grow as a person unless you first acknowledge you are wrong. Whilst there are downsides to the concept of original sin, one of the upsides is that the idea that men are born sinners and should repent tames the arrogance of man and promotes a skepticism of human nature and also capitalism.

This idea that men are born "good" and have "good intentions" and should be left alone from government to make as much money as possible to create "the greatest amount of happiness" brings out the worst in people and encourages animal spirits because it is a rotten philosophy not rooted in an objective morality and with no basis in actual human biology or psychology.

[TheIrrationalist]

I think part of the problem is the utilitarian philosophy, specifically that man is created "good" and has "good" intentions, is wrong, and combined with free-market liberal economics leads to decay. Firstly the idea that men are flawed is very liberating because you cannot develop and grow as a person unless you first acknowledge you are wrong. Whilst there are downsides to the concept of original sin, one of the upsides is that the idea that men are born sinners and should repent tames the arrogance of man and promotes a skepticism of human nature and also capitalism. I.e. they are idealists.

This idea that men are born "good" and have "good intentions" and should be left alone from government to make as much money as possible to create "the greatest amount of happiness" brings out the worst in people and encourages animal spirits because it is a rotten philosophy not rooted in an objective morality and with no basis in actual human biology or psychology.

I think you are mistaking utilitarianism with humanism. Also I think you are mistaking when you say that classical liberals think men are born good. Locke, who was a great influence on the classical liberals, held that the human nature was a tabula rasa, which is most consistent with classical liberalism's view of individual as atomistic. But there is a sense of a fixed human nature in later classical liberal philosophy, that is that individuals are egoistic, solely working for their own profit. So rather than seeing humans as morally good and having good intentions, they view that humans are individual egoistic actors in an atomistic society. Humans seek for their own profit for their own good, not for the greater good of the whole society. As they see the society just as a sum of individual members, there is no greater good than that of the individual. In other words society cannot be understood as whole, but that every member of that society is an atom, and actions of other atoms on the economic field don't affect others.

Today especially conservatives, who in the US share much of the same economic policies with classical liberals, hold that man is evil. View that is rooted from the original sin concept in the Bible. Humans aren't to be trusted so everyone has moral right to live their lives egoistically always working for their own good. A view that is shared with some classical liberals.

[Richard Roth]

Classical liberalism was, at one time, a very radical ideology. In an age of monarchies and mercantilism, it's emphasis on capitalism was the primary revolutionary ideology of Western radicals.

But once capitalism became the entrenched economic force in the industrialized world, it ceased to become the radical ideology it once was. It's from there that socialism became the primary ideology of radicals.

So, yeah. At one time it was very radical, but not now.

I think we should be wary of calling privatisation and commercialisation "radical". Technology is not necessarily our best friend.

I find the commercialisation aspect of classical liberalism just as offensive as fascism. Although fascists would suppress art and intellectuals, classical liberals would commodify it, which is extremely offensive to me emotionally and morally.

Commodification is the price we pay for freedom from a totalitarian state. But I'm wary of this triumphalist tone Western progressive liberals have about the fact the West promotes freedom and considers itself to superior to the ideological dictatorships of the 20th century because although we have more "freedom", we also have the emotional and spiritual assault of commodification and "the man" putting a dollar sign over everything which is a different kind of dictatorship, a dictatorship that is about bringing out the worst in humanity and dumbing everything down so its only purpose is to create profit. Classical liberalism, the intellectual arm of the capitalist, is unforgivably offensive emotionally because it is an attempt to dumb down philosophy and intellectualism. It is also an attempt to have it both ways because commodification and ruling by numbers economics is diametrically opposed to everything art and intellectualism stands for (it wants to commodify it.) Classical liberalism is an insidious attempt at propaganda to put honeyed words around something and present something that is anti-intellectual as intellectual. Lying sells, so according to classical liberalism dogma with capital as the sovereign it supports lying and manipulation.

[Sotionov]

Classical liberals are enlightenment thinkers, the guys today are neoliberals, which came of the right wing of classical liberalism, and thinkers like Turgot, Malthus, Say, Bastiat and Molinary, and Ricardo, Locke, Bentham and Smith (although these four were also [mostly unwillingly] forerunners of socialism and "social-democracy").

[Richard Roth]

The problem with calling neo-liberalism/classical liberalism "radical" is that people then say that "trade unions" and nationalised services are "old fashioned" and "conservative", therefore implying that socialists have a lot in common with fascists. However free-market ideology and the classical liberal aspect of conservatism is the most backward and reactionary ideology. All it shows is with fascists who supported some degree of nationalisation and keynesian, they were progressive in some respects.

I think when Mussolini called it "the mask behind which there is no face" he was making a profound point about lying and deception being one of the main features of capitalism because money is a force which does not show itself. By making capital the sovereign, which is what classical liberals do, they make the profit motive the sovereign, and therefore lying and cheating are fair game if they result in profit. Classical liberals are not interested in advancing humanity, their arguments followed to a logical conclusion are the mindset similar to that of a thug or petty criminal.

[Fakeblock]

...Ricardo, Locke, Bentham and Smith (although these four were also [mostly unwillingly] forerunners of socialism and "social-democracy").

Can you elaborate on this? Do you mean the utopian socialists or the social-democrats from the 1860s onwards, including Marx and Engels? To me the latter seem to be completely different and opposed to liberal thought. I see your point if you mean the former though.

[Sotionov]

Ricardo with his "unearned income like boss-profits, interests, rent etc are a product of state and past violence" and Locke with his "definition of property is that it is a product of labor" are inspiration behind the socialist core notion of exploitation.

Bentham and Smith are forerunners of modern Keynesians and "social-democrats" in that they're for capitalism, but with neccessary regulations to ensure normal living standard of the workers.

Also among classical liberals you real leftists like Rousseau who, as oppossed to Locke, formulated a consistent form of Labor theory of property, that when applied means libertarian socialism, and Humbolt and Stuart Mill, who explicitly advocated workers' control over production, which is socialism.

[GerrardWinstanley]

Ricardo with his "unearned income like boss-profits, interests, rent etc are a product of state and past violence" and Locke with his "definition of property is that it is a product of labor" are inspiration behind the socialist core notion of exploitation.

Bentham and Smith are forerunners of modern Keynesians and "social-democrats" in that they're for capitalism, but with neccessary regulations to ensure normal living standard of the workers.

Also among classical liberals you real leftists like Rousseau who, as oppossed to Locke, formulated a consistent form of Labor theory of property, that when applied means libertarian socialism, and Humbolt and Stuart Mill, who explicitly advocated workers' control over production, which is socialism.Rousseau probably exercised the greatest influence on the French revolution of all political philosophers of the 18th century, but I wouldn't have called him a liberal by any stretch, although he recognised property rights... with conditions. I don't think, say, Chomsky, who bases his thought in classical liberalism, would have approved of Rousseau's understanding of liberty, imposed through compulsion (not that I would agree with Chomsky).

[Sotionov]

The problem is that Rousseau has been misrepresented in modern textbooks, with two two things primiraly tied to him- "noble savage" and "justifier of totalitarian tyranny" having pretty much nothing to with what he really said, just like your comment that Roussau was for "imposing" liberty. Roussau's thought is pretty much identical to that of John Rawls, being that Roussau's concept of General will is exactly the same thing that Rawls calls Original position, and the society that is implied by his concepts of property and general will is a libertarian socialist one.

[Richard Roth]

Classical liberalism was, at one time, a very radical ideology. In an age of monarchies and mercantilism, it's emphasis on capitalism was the primary revolutionary ideology of Western radicals.

But once capitalism became the entrenched economic force in the industrialized world, it ceased to become the radical ideology it once was. It's from there that socialism became the primary ideology of radicals.

So, yeah. At one time it was very radical, but not now.

It was radically primitive.

The traditional working class/peasents in Europe arguably did not know anything other than a simple life of working and sharing the wealth to an extent before the industrial revolution.

Capitalism and technology was revolutionary but the classical liberals seeked to justify and encourage primal behavior and legitimize bringing out the worst in humanity. i.e selfishness being good.

Friedrich Nietzsche called classical liberalism a "pig philosophy" because of its commercialism and economics and numbers.

Although there has been class struggle throughout history and rich and poor, the idea of justifying selfishness and greed theoretically was something completely new and is against most peoples idea of social good and morality. It was arguably this profound emotional insult which encouraged movements against liberalism such as Communism and fascism, which, unlike liberalism, are not a "ruling by numbers" or a "non-ideological" mindset but are deeply ideological and, unlike liberalism (which is inherently elitist) create mass movements with mass support and had devastating consequences in the 20th century.

I would argue that sharing has an actual basis in our psychology and biology and classical liberalism is the root of all evil (money is the root of all evil) and its capitalism and urbanisation that are to blame for the emergence of totalitarian ideology and fanatacism because its the idea of greed and selfishness being "good" that provokes the emotional response of the masses manifested in communism.

[Fakeblock]

It was radically primitive.

The traditional working class/peasents in Europe arguably did not know anything other than a simple life of working and sharing the wealth to an extent before the industrial revolution.

Capitalism and technology was revolutionary but the classical liberals seeked to justify and encourage primal behavior and legitimize bringing out the worst in humanity. i.e selfishness being good.

Friedrich Nietzsche called classical liberalism a "pig philosophy" because of its commercialism and economics and numbers.

Although there has been class struggle throughout history and rich and poor, the idea of justifying selfishness and greed theoretically was something completely new and is against most peoples idea of social good and morality. It was arguably this profound emotional insult which encouraged movements against liberalism such as Communism and fascism, which, unlike liberalism, are not a "ruling by numbers" or a "non-ideological" mindset but are deeply ideological and, unlike liberalism (which is inherently elitist) create mass movements with mass support and had devastating consequences in the 20th century.

I would argue that sharing has an actual basis in our psychology and biology and classical liberalism is the root of all evil (money is the root of all evil) and its capitalism and urbanisation that are to blame for the emergence of totalitarian ideology and fanatacism because its the idea of greed and selfishness being "good" that provokes the emotional response of the masses manifested in communism.

Liberalism was an extremely radical ideology back in the day precisely because the bourgeoisie was such a revolutionary class. Communism originated as the ideological expression of the interests of the new revolutionary class, the proletariat, not as an objection to liberal values (which are only the ideological expressions of the interests of the bourgeoisie).

Fascism is not at all as radically different from liberalism as communism is. Communists seek the dictatorship of the proletariat. Like liberals, fascists seek the unabashed dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

[Richard Roth]

Liberalism was an extremely radical ideology back in the day precisely because the bourgeoisie was such a revolutionary class. Communism originated as the ideological expression of the interests of the new revolutionary class, the proletariat, not as an objection to liberal values (which are only the ideological expressions of the interests of the bourgeoisie).

Fascism is not at all as radically different from liberalism as communism is. Communists seek the dictatorship of the proletariat. Like liberals, fascists seek the unabashed dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

Fascism seeks to return to a place that existed in the past. Fascism is not as radically opposed to capitalism as communism is (for example they support work) but it is opposed to the revolutionary bourgeoise ideology (liberalism.)

Liberal individualism is the ideology of upstarts and people with pagan values or perhaps freemasons whereas the fascism of Mussolini was the Catholic Right.

Mussolini's Fascist Italy and Disraeli's One Nation Conservatism are less mercenary and commercial than classical liberalism because they promote the idea of the ruling class looking after the have nots in a country where everyone is the same nationality where workers can come out of themselves and look outwards whereas liberal individualism promotes the idea of workers turning completely into themselves, except for anything commercial which can organise pro-actively and come out of itself. It promotes passivity for all the beautiful things in life, such as the arts, family and community whilst simultaneously promotes aggressively bringing out the worst in humanity such as low cunning and profit chasing. It is a type of totalitarianism that seeks to aggressively commercialise everything and put a dollar sign over everything. Classical liberalism is a form of extremely impoverished and debased nerd totalitarianism that aggressively promotes bullying and bad behaviour all because everything is pathetically seen through the prism of numbers and cold economics.

It is successful because its a lot easier to sell to the masses than Communism or a more conservative/religious type of capitalism because it is inherently anti-intellectual and short termist.

[Fakeblock]

Fascism seeks to return to a place that existed in the past. Fascism is not as radically opposed to capitalism as communism is (they support the work ethic) but it is opposed to the revolutionary bourgeoise ideology (liberalism.)

Fascism is opposed to liberalism, but they have the same class basis. Fascism isn't opposed to capitalism in any meaningful way, even though they try to rally the petit-bourgeoisie with anti-Jewish banking/big business rhetoric.

And by the time fascism arose in Italy, liberalism had completely lost its radical character.


Liberal individualism is the ideology of upstarts and people with pagan values or perhaps freemasons whereas the fascism of Mussolini was Catholic and Mussolini talked about if winning the war creating an egalitarian society for Italians, whereas Nazism was pagan and more obscure/extreme and arguably not fascism.

Mussolini's support of the Catholic church was a purely opportunistic move. He was atheist himself and merely supported it because of its influence in Italian politics. Fascists, including Nazis, are not religiously homogenous. Some believed in the occultist stuff, some promoted Christianity (though mostly for propaganda purposes)

I haven't heard Mussolini talk about egalitarianism, but that concept is completely liberal anyway.


Mussolini style fascism and Disraeli's One Nation Conservatism are less mercenary and commercial than classical liberalism because they promote the idea of the ruling class looking after the have nots in a country where everyone is the same nationality and there is a higher sovereignty than profit where workers can come out of themselves and look outwards whereas liberal individualism promotes the idea of workers turning completely into themselves, so that they are most vulnerable and wililng to be exploited by more organised industrial capitalists.

These promotions, however, have shown themselves to merely be rhetorical disguises for an even more organised and centralised form of bourgeois class rule. Liberals, especially in the neoliberal age, have always claimed that free, unregulated markets are in the interests of the whole population.

The early fascists hid their reactionary ideology behind socialists rhetoric. They were wolves in sheep's clothing. Fascists are in no way less "greedy", more moral or whatever you're suggesting.

[Richard Roth]

The early fascists hid their reactionary ideology behind socialists rhetoric. They were wolves in sheep's clothing. Fascists are in no way less "greedy", more moral or whatever you're suggesting.

I was not saying they were. I was saying however horrific fascism was, there is more to admire in its intellectual origins than classical liberalism (which must make tough reading for centre leftists who have bought into classical liberal economics.)

Right wing social democracy and Christian democracy is not "fascism" as the neo-liberals like to paint it as. Mussolini in his early days was an intellectual and there were many people in the fascist movement or drawn to its intellectual origins, who did want the best for society, although they were wrong. Classical liberalism is, as Friedrich Nietzsche said a "pigs philosophy".

Your claim that fascists seek the "unabashed dictatorship of the bourgeoise" is incorrect. If you watch the film Schindlers list the battle with Schindler is that he wants to make money but the Nazi's aren't interested in business and money anymore. Similarly Mussolini talked about creating an egalitarian Italy if he won the second world war. Fascism was a dictatorship of the bourgeoise, but it was a different type to classical liberalism.

Fascism was the religious right and they seeked to go back to a place that existed in the past. However horrific fascism was, the intellectual origins of religion and religious philosophy has more to admire than cold, impoverished classical liberalism which is ugly and commercial, its sole purpose to commodify everything and its absolute sovereign is money. Because religious philosophy is more intellectual, any self respecting artist or intellectual should be more attracted to this than debased classical liberalism.

[LovingEmbrace]

classical liberalism is reactionary. it is a humbug. a corruption. a fucking walking corpse. it claims to be for individualism, but constrains individuality by reason, and reason is connected to language and therefore corrupts the human mind. emotion is far superior to reason, because it makes humans feel greater.

"cut your hair!"

"get a job!"

"study hard now son!"

not, explore space... not love and fight... not run over the wild plains barefoot, not climbing up the mountains to retrieve the moon, not compose wild independent music, not make a tattoo with the devil.

liberals love reason. they love horse carriages. coffeeshops selling latte tea. they love kraftwerk. they love the city. they love ordered things. neat things. middle class things. suffocating human expression with politeness and reason, economics and political science.

all universities shall burn. all academics purged. story-tellers and shamans will arise, with human emotions unbound by logics and reason, intellectual masturbation!

[player-zgb]

I have heard arguments from some people that classical liberals, such as Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagen, were radical right wingers rather than respecting the market because of tradition.

However this perhaps depends how you define "tradition". If you define tradition as things such as the Church and the work ethic in Europe then perhaps unrestrained capital and markets are radical because capitalists can seek to turn churches into money making property for example. However this is not "radical" or "progressive" in comparison to the world before 1789 because to rely on capital and markets to dictate progress alone is to bestow a morality and ethic onto a survival of the fittest mentality.

Classical liberalism is extreme tradition. It predates antiquity and the religious dark ages because it believes that the market is more important than morality.
Well, classical liberalism is about 100 years old... and today it has not a lot in common with the 19th century one.

[Tim Redd]

I have heard arguments from some people that classical liberals, such as Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagen, were radical right wingers rather than respecting the market because of tradition.I agree with another thread poster that in the most common definition of the word liberal, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were conservatives not liberals.

The poster also said that they could be considered neo-liberal but that is different from just plain liberal. Neo-liberal is the policy of facilitating the reach and dominance of private, global monopoly capital at the expense of feudalism, state capitalism and weaker local capitalism. On the other hand, just plain liberalism is like Franklin Delano Roosevelt New Deal social welfare capitalist policy whereas conservatism is like anti social welfare policies of the current US Republican party.

[Tim Redd]

"cut your hair!"

"get a job!"

"study hard now son!"

not, explore space... not love and fight... not run over the wild plains barefoot, not climbing up the mountains to retrieve the moon, not compose wild independent music, not make a tattoo with the devil.
all universities shall burn. all academics purged. story-tellers and shamans will arise, with human emotions unbound by logics and reason, intellectual masturbation!Sounds much more like the conservative policies the US Republican party than the liberal policies of the US Democratic policy. It's wierd to me that anyone would think of liberalism in way that you and Roth do.

[Fakeblock]

That definition of liberal is American, though. In Europe, liberals are right-wing, free-market supporters. Most conservatives are economically liberal, though not the extent of actual liberals, who may support privatisation of institutions that conservatives value, because they're integral to the national identity or something like that.

Conservatives tend to be against immigration, overzealous about the family unit and nationalist to a degree, whereas liberals tend to be less traditionalist.

What you call a liberal in the US would be called perhaps social liberal or centre-left in Europe. Some might be more like social democrats. The American political scene is quite unique, though, and a lot of conservative stances in America are completely condemned by conservatives in Europe (like gun rights).

[Tim Redd]

That definition of liberal is American, though. In Europe, liberals are right-wing, free-market supporters. Most conservatives are economically liberal, though not the extent of actual liberals, who may support privatisation of institutions that conservatives value, because they're integral to the national identity or something like that.

Conservatives tend to be against immigration, overzealous about the family unit and nationalist to a degree, whereas liberals tend to be less traditionalist.

What you call a liberal in the US would be called perhaps social liberal or centre-left in Europe. Some might be more like social democrats. The American political scene is quite unique, though, and a lot of conservative stances in America are completely condemned by conservatives in Europe (like gun rights). But would you not agree that Labor in Britain are more like Democrats in the US and Conservatives in Britain are more like Republicans in the US.?

To me all 4 are neo-liberal as I defined earlier.