What`s a liberal?

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Is a liberal; anyone who isn't a Republican? Is it a democrat? Is it anyone who doesn't support Bush's War on Terror? Is it anyone who believes in gay rights? Are communists, socialists, and anarchists liberals?

[Essential Insignificance]

It's a lot more historical, then what I think you have in mind. And in the progression of history; liberalisms different connotations have developed and changed with each succeeding year. But not the "major principals"; they've remained in tact.

300 years ago liberals were very progressive, some of the original Enlightenment/liberal thinkers, such as John Locke and Baron de Montesquieu, were attempting to establish boundaries on existing political powers by affirming that there were "natural rights" and "fundamental laws" of governance that not even kings could exceed the limit without becoming despots--since when has that worried them.

As you can see, liberalism has been a very progressive element of world social history; but, it has outgrown its "usefulness"--like most things.

Today, Marxist see liberals as the enemies of the class war, because they still support the division of labor, personal property, the accumulation of wealth and in most cases uninhibited government intersection in public affairs.

Liberalism is one of the worlds leading ideologies, and is seemingly distinguished because of the importance it attaches to "civil and political rights" of individuals--as you can presume, these so called "rights", are but mendacity and fabrication--individuals have little to no "rights" in class society, not by chance but circumstance, inherited from preceding generations.

Liberalism tries stalwartly to highlight and "demand":

Personal freedom
Freedom of speech
Freedom of sexuality
Freedom of association

But with foremost restrictions!

[Hate Is Art]

Yawn, you just carry on a bit dont you!!!

Liberal is the opposite of Authortarian, a Liberal can be anything really, personally I don't like Labels and pinning yourself as something, you are what you are and you don't need a media friendly sound bite to fit in.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by The Arcadian [email protected] 28 2004, 12:52 PM
Yawn, you just carry on a bit dont you!!!

Liberal is the opposite of Authortarian, a Liberal can be anything really...
False!

Liberalism is much more than that! Essential Insignificance put together an excellent explanation of the history behind the word and you dismissed it, opting instead to use a definition devoid of any historical or dialectical analysis. The reality is, being a Liberal is different from being liberal. One is a historical economic and political movement, and the other can be used to describe being more in favour of social rights, though very few willingly use that definition anymore. And for good reason, it is very difficult to make the distinction between the strain of Capitalist thought that is Liberalism, and the idea of being liberal.

Liberalism was in fact the movement that brought Capitalism into play in the first place. Every major bourgeois revolution was led by the Liberal bourgeoisie, believing first and foremost in the free market. The Conservative movement had, till that point, been dragging its feet in implementing full Capitalism as they had their roots in monarchy and an old sense of "tradition".

Just as Essential Insignificance said, Liberalism, like Capitalism, was once progressive but has become outdated and taken its place as the thesis in the dialectical clash of ideas. We, as Marxists, understand that in order to gain anymore freedom Capitalism must be abolished. Liberals have gained us all they can in the way of "personal freedoms".

We have reached the point where they will simply be in the way, as the freedom we are looking for contradicts their belief in wage slavery.

[Hate Is Art]

they? who is they?

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Liberals...

[Invader Zim]

Modern socialists have this foolish habit of declaring modern nine conservative capitalists, as liberals, as a means of attacking them.

What they fail to realise is that in essance they are liberals, a liberal is mearly an individual who wishes to see change rather than the traditional. As such, every leftist is a liberal, whether they like it or not.

[Essential Insignificance]

Yawn, you just carry on a bit dont you!!!

I was wondering what kind of troglodyte would say such a thing; as it is obvious that you have changed your username.

Dare I venture to say that you were formally known as Digital Nirvana?

It would make sense.

Thanks Che y Marijuana, for addressing this nitwit accordingly.


What they fail to realise is that in essance they are liberals, a liberal is mearly an individual who wishes to see change rather than the traditional.

The wording of "change" and the context that you have surrounded it in is very tenebrous.

"Change rather then traditional" conducts, I assume?

Liberals don't what to change the basic tenets of class society, radical socialist do, there is an immense discrepancy interpolated between the two.


As such, every leftist is a liberal, whether they like it or not.

No...not really.

To quote Che y Marijuana, "The reality is, being a Liberal is different from being liberal".

You have imprudently added to your equation "a" liberal.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by Enigma+Aug 28 2004, 06:13 PM--> (Enigma @ Aug 28 2004, 06:13 PM) What they fail to realise is that in essance they are liberals, a liberal is mearly an individual who wishes to see change rather than the traditional. As such, every leftist is a liberal, whether they like it or not. [/b]
If you want to find something possibly in common between us and Liberals that is not easily dismissed by using correct definitions, then I would suggest you stick to the term "a progressive". That is the correct word for the context you are using it in, and that is what implies the opposite of conservative. Progressives, as is implied by the word progress, is an ever changing group that always reflects the political movement(s) on the side of progress. By that term, it could be argued that Liberals and Socialists are in some places and on some issues, on the same side.

I would say it is a very limited affiliation, but it is much better than the failed attempt at establishing a connection that does not exist at all.


Modern socialists have this foolish habit of declaring modern nine conservative capitalists, as liberals, as a means of attacking them.
And some people have a foolish habit of either ignoring the history of economic thought, or simply not studying it; and still speaking as though they were an authority on the subject.

<_<

Once again, Liberalism is an economic movement with very specific tents, the free market being held above all of them.

There are three major Liberal movements in history.

The first one, now known as Classical Liberalism, was the birth of Capitalism. It advocated a free market and establishing limited democracy, in the form of voting for property owning males. This strain of Liberalism is the one that remained in the United States, as Europe had several other Liberal revolutions, each one expanding on the earlier one. It is this isolation, and Classical Liberalism, that kept the US so far behind in the anti-slavery movement and many other moevments against discrimination. From Wikipedia:


Originally posted by Wikipedia+--> (Wikipedia)Classical Liberals have tended to favour a free market economy and reject government influence in society. Historically, Liberalism opposed opposed mercantilism and what they identify as socialism, and particularly Marxism, as well as any form of collectivism.[/b]

Then, a new movement began to rise within Liberal camps, sparked mostly by starvation riots by the poor and worker&#39;s revolt during the depression and WWI. This movement still rejected any form of Socialism, but sought to placate the workers by providing them with a few crumbs. Namely, they admitted the need to place minor controls on Capitalism. These were both economic controls, such as education and the like, and political controls against discrimination. This movement was known as Modern Liberalism. Classical Liberals rejected this movement, cause they implied that people have rights as members of the public:


[email protected]
If individuals have a right as a member of a community, they therefore have a right to expect that that community will regulate the economy, since rising and falling economic circumstances are not part of what an individual can control, if individuals have a right to participate in a public, they then have a right to expect education and social protections against discrimination as members of that public. And so on.

The final movement, is not so much a movement on its own. It is rather a return to fundamentals by the ruling class encouraged, I believe by the misconception that we have something to gain by working with Liberals, amongst the working class and the Left in general. As such, Leftists find themselves calling a one-sided peace in the war of classes, while Liberals go on an all out offensive repealing everything they once had to concede:


Wikipedia
Neoliberalism is a political philosophy and a political-economic movement beginning in the 1970s -- and increasingly prominent since 1980 -- that de-emphasizes or rejects government intervention in the economy, focusing instead on achieving progress and even social justice by more free-market methods, especially an emphasis on economic growth, as measured by changes in real gross domestic product

This complacency amongst Leftists has led to a rediculous situation, where Liberals crack down on unions and cut taxes, and the Left spends its efforts protecting those same Liberals by their old enemies and new allies. The reality is, the Left is protecting no one but the ruling class itself. The belief that we must protect the Liberals from the Conservatives in places such as the US and Britain is false, as the difference between those two camps has been all-but annihilated.

Wake up.

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by The wise old [email protected] 26 2004, 09:59 PM
Is a liberal; anyone who isn&#39;t a Republican? Is it a democrat? Is it anyone who doesn&#39;t support Bush&#39;s War on Terror? Is it anyone who believes in gay rights? Are communists, socialists, and anarchists liberals?
Liberalism is the best friend of capitalism in peace and order, just as fascism is in war and disorder.


Liberals are people that talk about alots of bourgeoisie freedoms, the freedom to own private property is ofcource the most important, (so the state should not interfere to much in the economy) but freedom of speach and such is also good...except when the class struggle is intensifying, then thats not as important anymore.


When the bourgeoisie revolutioned on the old feodal system, the bourgeoise and their ideology - liberalism - was a proggresive force in society. But when they won, and feodalism was ultimatly defeated. They stopped they instead become reactionary. Now the proletarians was the new proggresive force in society.

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 28 2004, 05:14 PM



Che y Marijuana:

I agree in most you said but:

Liberalism was in fact the movement that brought Capitalism into play in the first place.

I would say that it was rather the opposite, the capitalistic movement brought liberalism into play, and then liberalism helped capitalism develop further, so to
speak.


----------------------

The development of capitalism...

The agrar development enabled an urbanization and the development of modern trade, the bourgeoisie was the new class that gained most of their income from this. As trade growed, so did their wealth. They started investing wealth in form of capital in a new form of production, the industries (primary weapons industry at the time). The agrar revolution took place which enabled a proletarisation of the peasants, now fewer could suport more. The peasants were forced from their farms with violence and into the cities and fabrics, and put under wage slavery.
They no longer had any means of productions of their owned, and thus forced to work at the fabrics for a wage in order to survive. But the feodal state was hindering the development of the bourgeoise production - capitalism, and the bourgeoise that now was the strongest class decided to get rid of the problem, and took control of the state as well (many former feodal lords and nobility soon realized that their time as feodalists where over, and changed side to the bourgeoisie, and invested their wealths into bourgeoise productions), now feodalism was totaly defeated, and as capitalism developed, feodal relations was terminated.

Something like this anyway...

[Guest1]

Agreed, in my original post I made that distinction when I said the Conservatives and the Monarchy were holding the developement of Capitalism back. What I meant by "brought Capitalism into play" was that it was what made Capitalism into an international movement, with revolutions across europe.

[gaf]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 29 2004, 06:13 PM
Agreed, in my original post I made that distinction when I said the Conservatives and the Monarchy were holding the developement of Capitalism back. What I meant by "brought Capitalism into play" was that it was what made Capitalism into an international movement, with revolutions across europe.
no che, bourgeois made it not the people

[Essential Insignificance]

no che, bourgeois made it not the people

Are the bourgeoisie not people? I guess some would agree that they are indeed not -- instead the immaterial incubus&#39;s unswervingly having sex with virgin laborers. :lol: :lol:

That would be contrary to historical materialism; Marx in his searching for a coherent materialist theory about history and the ensuing "laws" of development found that: the development of human history does not "cross the threshold" under the direct control or command of man.

Both the productive forces and the definite, corresponding productive relations advance "discretely" of mankind&#39;s calculated objective or force.

He came to realize that the "development of history" was determined by the progressing forces of material production...but not wholly&#33; So, therefore, the material side, that is, the forces of production, dominates the mental side of human consciousness.

For Marxists, the driving forces of history are not individuals whose voices "articulate" the future endeavors and consciousness of the masses, nor the masses force against circumstance, nor the "ideas" which move people from "slumber" into action.

The moving forces of history are not either, exclusively, the productive forces or the "laws of history" per se; but rather, the people making thier history in direct correlation under certain material and spiritual conditions, inherited from past events and experiences, bequeathed on to them free of selection.

[apathy maybe]

Liberalism is fundamentally minimalist-state to the extent that they think the state is only necessary to proved 1. services that are not profitable and 2. law enforcement.
Liberals believe that all humans have a fundamental right to, freedom (they define it differently to leftists but) and property. It is this belief in the fundamental right of property that puts Liberals at odds with Anarchists, Communists and other libertarian Socialists.

Locke put that pre-society life was good, but people formed a &#39;Social Contract&#39; to help protect their &#39;freedoms&#39;, including the freedom to own property. This is of course bullshit, but hey.

[Essential Insignificance]

Liberalism is fundamentally anti-state to the extent that they think the state is only necessary to proved 1. services that are not profitable and 2. law enforcement.

Come on apathy maybe&#33;

Take a long hard, look at the above: "liberalism is fundamentally anti-state", perhaps superficially anti-state would have been more correct.

Anti-state -- what rubbish -- liberalism endorses, and at times, exercise&#39;s the maximum powers of the state, to protect both private and personal property.

You said it yourself -- law enforcement -- with unrestrained limits.

"Services that are not profitable" -- yet, more claptrap.

I presume that you mean charities and public services.

Ask yourself, apathy maybe, if there wasn&#39;t social and economical inequality in liberal -- capitalist nations -- would there need to be phony charities and "special" public services to keep people in existence.

[apathy maybe]

You are right about the first bit, I have fixed it.

As to services that aren&#39;t profitable, I mean by that such things as some roads, water supply in some cases and other things that an otherwise unaddressed community need (which is un-able to make a profit).

Charities are something different. These are run by private individuals for the purpose of looking after those in community who aren&#39;t well-off. The government is supposed to stay out of this area &#39;cause it impinges on "freedoms".

Note I am not a Liberal, but rather an Anarchist. I oppose state and property.

[Essential Insignificance]

As to services that aren&#39;t profitable, I mean by that such things as some roads, water supply in some cases and other things that an otherwise unaddressed community need (which is un-able to make a profit).

Not profitable&#33; :lol:

Who pays for all of these "public services" in liberal -- capitalist nations -- the proletariat -- taken from him without any say, nor any option on how it will be used -- through taxes?

Of course they would be a surplus, left over; but were does it go?


Charities are something different. These are run by private individuals for the purpose of looking after those in community who aren&#39;t well-off.

I hope that is not what you truly believe.


Note I am not a Liberal, but rather an Anarchist. I oppose state and property.

Good to here... I think. :lol:

[monkeydust]

With the possible exception of Essential Insignificance and Che y marijuana, I think there are a number of people here who are quite confused about what Liberalism really is. And though they may be able to cite certain values as markedly "Liberal", they exhibit some misconceptions about the core values at the heart of the Liberal paradigm and how these materialize in practice. So here&#39;s my brief guide to Liberalism, I hope this will clear up some misconceptions about the ideology.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liberals have, and always have disagreed much about their ideas. Indeed, the term "Liberalism" has changed in meaning considerably since the mid- 19th century, when it first began to be popularly used. Nonetheless, there are a number of central themes running through the Liberal ideology, a number of core values which all Liberals hold "close to heart."

Foremost amongst these is the primacy of the individual; the belief that the individual is the most fundamental unit of society, and that everyone should be able to develop and flourish in their own way.

Relating to this, is the importance to Liberals of freedom. Freedom itself is, strictly speaking, an "essentially contested concept", and many Liberals have disagreed about what freedom actually is (I&#39;ll come onto how later). Liberals, do , however, believe the maximum freedom for the greatest number of individuals to be an intrinsicaly "good" thing to have.

Liberalism was originally a product of the Enlightenment project and liberals tend to exhibit a strong belief in human reason, and the capacity for man to rationally decide his own fate, and to solve problems in a rational manner. Liberals tend to believe, therefore, that individuals are rationall self-responsible beings.

Liberals believe in the importance of justice, though what this means in practice is debatable. Nearly all Liberals show a commitment to formal equality, that is "equality before the law". Liberals have also generally agreed on a meritocratic society, though some modern Liberals, inspired by thinkers such as John Rawls, deviate from this trend somewhat.

Finally, Liberals believe in the importance of Toleration and Divesity in society.

To summarize, the central vaues that all Liberals share and commit to in some way, are, in my opinion:

-The individual
-Freedom
-Reason
-Justice
-Toleration and Diversity

Furthermore, in terms of practical government, nearly all Liberals subscribe to some form of Constitutional, democratic government.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I have said, Liberal thought has changed noticeably since the 19th century. Broadly speaking, Liberals thought can be divided into two categories: Classical Liberalism (nowadays called Neoliberalism) and Modern Liberalism (although the distinction is sometimes vague, indeed,certain thinkers, most notably John Stuart Mill, advocate a form of Liberalism somewhat in-between the two)

Classical Liberalism

Classical Liberalism is, I think, characterized by a commitment to:

-Negative Freedom
-Economic Liberalism
-Social Darwinism
-Natural rights theory
Utilitarianism

Classical Liberals always talked about freedom in "negative" terms. Negative freedom is a fairly complex concept, but, in simple terms, it means "Freedom from. Thus Classical Liberals advocated a society where people where free from the state to do, essentially as they pleased. As long as one&#39;s actions did not impinge upon another&#39;s freedom.

Economically, classical Liberals have always been commited to the free market and laissez faire capitalism. Regarding the market as the most efficeint and proper means for distribution of goods and resources in society. The state, in the view of a classical liberal, should only intervene to maintain free trade and competition; for example, by preventing monopolies or price fixing.

Social Darwinism is a creed that views poverty and social inequality as quite natural. Its proponents (Samuel Smiles and Herbert Spencer, for example) believed that, in society, those who work hard and are intelligent will reap the best rewards. Likewise, the inept and lazy will fall into poverty.

Natural rights were in many ways the precursor to modern "human rights". Early thinkers who influenced the Liberal ideology, such as John Locke and Thomas Jefferson, claimed that all humans possessed fundamental rights which are, essentially, inalienable. Locke defined these as "Life, Liberty and property"; Jefferson as "Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Supposedly, the state is justified as an institution by a hypothetical contract between citizens to use it to protect these rights.

Finally, Classical Liberal thought was firmly rooted in Utilitarian ideas, essentially that all humans are rationally self-interested beings and, therefore, "greates happiness for the greatest number" is essentially a "good" thing to strive for.

I think it&#39;s worth mentioning here that Neoliberals (sometimes called Neoclassical Liberals) advocate much of Classical Liberalism in modern times. The "new right" of the 70s and 80s was markedly Neoliberal in character. There are differences between Neoliberalism and Classical Liberalism, but I really can&#39;t be arsed to go into them unless anyone really wants to know.

Modern Liberalism

Modern Liberals are best distinguished by Classical Liberals by their commitment to:

-Economic management
-Social Liberalism
-Positive Freedom

By the economic depression of the 1930s, it seemed to many, that unregulated capitalism did not work as well as Adam Smith and others had previously believed. Modern Liberals came to put forward theories about economic management, that the state couod somehow intervene on market affairs to stablize things, or sometimes to drive the market towards more social ends. This often manifested itself in Keynesianism, the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes which gained so much importance after the second world war.


Witnessing the poverty and deprivation of unmanged capitalism, many Liberals came to believe that the state should in some way manage social affairs. This came to materialize in social welfare schemes developed in many Western states.

Positive freedom is, in short, "freedom to". In conjunction with a belief that unregulated capitalism is unjust, Modern Liberals thought that negative freedom (that is, "freedom from") often amounted to "freedom to starve". What use was freedom from others and the state, when one was to poor to actually do anything in a free market economy? Commitment to positive freedom, in part, led Modern Liberals to justify social welfare shemes and market regulation.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I make no apologies for spelling or grammatical errors here, for I wrote this at fast speed and haven&#39;t the time to check through it.

All the same, I hope that those who read it will have a better idea of what Liberalism is and what it means in practice, today. In fact, Modern Liberalism is, in many ways, more akin to Social democracy than Classical Liberalism.

So the next time you liberally band around the term "Liberal". Have a thought for what it actually means in practice.

I hope this helped. :)

[monkeydust]

Any questions?