Do You Call Yourself a Liberal?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I know this has been discussed before, and if you can link ‘em up to the previous debate(s) on this, I'd be very happy, otherwise we can do it again. But I'm interested in the definitions of liberalism, classical liberalism, neo-liberalism, etc. And how I can explain to Americans "leftists" that leftism is not synonymous with liberalism.

[ECGAmerica]

I call myself liberal because I promote social liberalism as well as socialist economics.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I'm trying to get replies from non-liberals, actually.
Liberals aren't real leftists, i'm sorry.

[Rasta Sapian]

That question depends on who I am talking to, to a conservative being a liberal is left winged, to a lefty a liberal is right winged, I feel that calling yourself a liberal in politics, can be essensial to gain power, while at the same time carrying a leftist dagger beside my calve, do you follow, JFK did

[apathy maybe]

No. In Australia the word liberal has a nasty link with the Liberal Party (which includes liberals and conservatives). Also why would I (as a leftist) want to be associated with a group that believes that property is a right?

[Guest]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 4 2004, 12:13 PM
No. In Australia the word liberal has a nasty link with the Liberal Party (which includes liberals and conservatives). Also why would I (as a leftist) want to be associated with a group that believes that property is a right?
because you're amdidextre

[guest2]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 10:22 PM
because you're amdidextre
come on man
so slim they are they won,t understand it
ideas comdamn people to stupidity. get free.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 03:23 AM
I'm trying to get replies from non-liberals, actually.
Liberals aren't real leftists, i'm sorry.
Actually they are, all leftists are by definition liberal, in that they are not limited by established views or traditionalism, and favouring reform.

All leftists are by their very nature liberal, and leftists who claims not to be is clueless... i'm sorry.

[refuse_resist]

Do You Call Yourself a Liberal?
Nope.

The reason being is because liberals side with the bourgeois on nearly everything. Liberals come very far from being actual leftist, and in many ways one can say they are closer to the right then left. It's not revolutionary at all.

[Red Heretic]

Actually... there is a very logical explanation to this...

The right - Capitalism
The left - Socialism
Leftist - Person who supports the left
Liberal - Person who seeks to reform capitalism

That quite obviously places liberals on the left hand of the RIGHT!

[socialistfuture]

I DON'T call myself a liberal.

i like the manic street preachers line ' i am just a liberals fashion accessory' it is liberalism that has allowed for labour parties to support war and become like New Labour in Britian - liberalism leades to neoliberism i think - its a sellout philosophy. not leftwing enough for me.

[insurgency03]

i call myself a progressive leftist, theyrs no confusion on that statement

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 06:28 PM
Actually they are, all leftists are by definition liberal, in that they are not limited by established views or traditionalism, and favouring reform.

All leftists are by their very nature liberal, and leftists who claims not to be is clueless... i'm sorry.
That would be according to the literal definition of "liberal".
But a "liberal" is only willing to stray from the status quo by advocating a different bourgeois politician than the ones currently in office.

That's not me.

Both neo-liberalism and classical liberalsim involve reformism. And today, the liberals tend to be downright reactionary.

[DaCuBaN]

Do you call yourself a Liberal?

No, and I don't call anyone else one either - I leave that to the petty minded folks who can't see the great whole, and have to pigeonhole everything they see.

The world is not a mass of 'teams', it's just fucking people. They can either agree or disagree with you on any given issue - all this kind of attitude promotes is a tendency to fight for something you don't necessarily believe in on the foundation that it is your 'allies' who are fighting for it, or the opposite because it's from the 'enemy'.

It's just a fucking tag

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 05:56 AM
That would be according to the literal definition of "liberal".
But a "liberal" is only willing to stray from the status quo by advocating a different bourgeois politician than the ones currently in office.

That's not me.

Both neo-liberalism and classical liberalsim involve reformism. And today, the liberals tend to be downright reactionary.
That would be according to the literal definition of "liberal".

Actually the correct definition of the word liberal, all this bullshit about "liberal parties" is bullshit, they largley are not and never will be.

I find it quite sad that people, deny what they are because of the very slight connection to some hated ideology.

The question you must answer is, do I wish to progressivly change society? If yes then you are a liberal, no getting away from it.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 09:04 AM
I find it quite sad that people, deny what they are because of the very slight connection to some hated ideology.

The question you must answer is, do I wish to progressivly change society? If yes then you are a liberal, no getting away from it.
You are pathetic.

Just cause you chose to ignore economics and politics, doesn&#39;t mean everyone else should. <_<

Go answer the pages of refutations to your delusional ideas in the other thread on Liberalism.

[h&s]

The reason being is because liberals side with the bourgeois on nearly everything.
They don&#39;t just side with the borgeoise, they are the borgeoise. Liberals are right-wingers who just happen to agree that poeple deserve human rights, such as the right to marriage regardless of sexuality. Becasue these are views traditionally held by leftists the neo-conservatives accuse them of being on the left for this, but it couldn&#39;t be further from the truth.

[Djehuti]

A liberal? Hell no&#33;

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 11:49 PM
I call myself liberal because I promote social liberalism as well as socialist economics.
Eh...how can you promote social liberalism and "socialist economics"?
It does not makes sence.

[Guest1]

He&#39;s confused, there&#39;s a difference between being liberal and being a Liberal. When is a description of being progressive socially, and the other is a word for the follower of a specific economic movement that proliferated Capitalism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No, I am not a liberal, and here&#39;s why:

I don&#39;t support freedom of speech for reactionaries. Liberals do, because in their distorted viewpoint of the world, everything must be &#39;fair&#39;

I believe every sane and upright individual has the right to possess and carry firearms. Liberals do not because &#39;guns are dangerous and nasty <puts hand to throat>&#39;

I am against nanny-statism in general. Liberals think everybody is about as responsible as a 5-year old child. The same goes for drugs, fireworks, and about every other thing that might be dangerous.

I think nazis and fascists are the most evil thing on the earth, while liberals simply say they&#39;re &#39;misquided&#39;. Idiots.

[refuse_resist]

They don&#39;t just side with the borgeoise, they are the borgeoise.
Indeed. It&#39;s just a sugar coated right-wing philosophy that&#39;s made to look appealing.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 5 2004, 08:06 PM
You are pathetic.

Just cause you chose to ignore economics and politics, doesn&#39;t mean everyone else should. <_<

Go answer the pages of refutations to your delusional ideas in the other thread on Liberalism.
No your the pathetic one, who is completely clueless about history and what it has meant to be liberal throughout the ages, and how one defining chracteristic constantly remains, liberalism. :rolleyes:

[Saint-Just]

Liberalism, very simply, is a word usually used to term the view that the individual is prior, freedom is integral to the humyn and that we develop through choice. To describe what liberalism is and how it relates to the whole political spectrum in any meaningful way would require more writing than anyone here is likely to be willing to contribute.

For example, the ideals above are ones that, in some form or another, are adopted by every political idealogy.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 03:36 PM
No your the pathetic one, who is completely clueless about history and what it has meant to be liberal throughout the ages, and how one defining chracteristic constantly remains, liberalism. :rolleyes:
No one is going to take anything you say seriously until you address the history of Liberalism. I have done that extensively, as have Essential Insignificance and monkeydust. Our accounts of the historical significance of the noun "Liberal" as opposed to the adjective "liberal" are backed up extensively by basic economics and political textbooks as well as independant sources such as Wikipedia and Marx.

Your attempts to address our responses have consisted of meaningless spam. Two line posts that don&#39;t even acknowledge the evidence provided or attempt in anyway to counter it.

Read up and formulate a meaningful response or stop confusing new members with patently false ideas that even a grade 10 level economics student would laugh at.

Go to the what&#39;s a Liberal thread and enlighten us with a real response.

[Palmares]

I&#39;m not a liberal.

Liberals did shape leftist thought, but we have evolved from that to be something (almost) entirely seperate from it.

I consider liberalism as being in the centre, as they are open to both left and right-wing ideas. Leftists can be relatively liberal, but are not liberals themselves.

[The Immortal Goon]

Conservitive - The elite shall rule with no concessions to the masses

Liberal - The elite shall rule jointly with the masses.

Me - Cut out the parasitic-middle-man. Let the masses run the masses.

-TIG :rockon:

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by The Immortal [email protected] 7 2004, 08:27 PM
Conservitive - The elite shall rule with no concessions to the masses

Liberal - The elite shall rule jointly with the masses.

Me - Cut out the parasitic-middle-man. Let the masses run the masses.

-TIG :rockon:
&#39;Conservative&#39; and &#39;Liberal&#39; governments are the same; bourgeois dictatorships. Both give concessions to the working-class, however, they are equally as oppressive. In Liberalism, the ruling elite does not work with the masses, the ruling class is a class ruling over another class that does not represent their interests at all. They way you describe liberalism would be better used to describe socialism.

[__ca va?]

I&#39;m not exactly a liberal, because for example I disagree with them on abortion. And I don&#39;t want to build capitalism. I want to "tame" it so it would be in favor of the people. But I don&#39;t want to destoy it either. In this respect I&#39;m a social democrat

[RageAgainstTheMachine]

Um.... Well i dont thing im a liberal what do they stand for?

[The Immortal Goon]

&#39;Conservative&#39; and &#39;Liberal&#39; governments are the same; bourgeois dictatorships. Both give concessions to the working-class, however, they are equally as oppressive. In Liberalism, the ruling elite does not work with the masses, the ruling class is a class ruling over another class that does not represent their interests at all. They way you describe liberalism would be better used to describe socialism.

You&#39;re right in practice. In theory though, the liberal would say he wanted the same thing.

Furthermore, to be slightly more thorough, the Liberal would place the Elite on a pillar and then set up a system of &#39;check and balances&#39; to make sure no Elite would have more power than another elite or the masses combined. This would, by its very nature, put the elite in charge. Hence &#39;elite.&#39;

-TIG :ph34r:

[monkeydust]

I know this has been discussed before, and if you can link ‘em up to the previous debate(s) on this, I&#39;d be very happy, otherwise we can do it again. But I&#39;m interested in the definitions of liberalism, classical liberalism, neo-liberalism, etc. And how I can explain to Americans "leftists" that leftism is not synonymous with liberalism.


If you haven&#39;t yet visited this thread, Here&#39;s (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=28514) some definitions of Liberalism.



I call myself liberal because I promote social liberalism as well as socialist economics.


Let&#39;s get one thing straight: Liberals are diametrically opposed to socialist economics.


Actually they are, all leftists are by definition liberal, in that they are not limited by established views or traditionalism, and favouring reform.


I suggest you go read a few books on Political ideology.

A Liberals is not merely someone who wishes to reform the status quo. In fact, many Liberals (in the modern sense) would be fairly pleased with the way things are now.


The world is not a mass of &#39;teams&#39;, it&#39;s just fucking people. They can either agree or disagree with you on any given issue - all this kind of attitude promotes is a tendency to fight for something you don&#39;t necessarily believe in on the foundation that it is your &#39;allies&#39; who are fighting for it, or the opposite because it&#39;s from the &#39;enemy&#39;.


Who said anything about "teams".

Liberals have always placed individuals at the core of their ideology.



The question you must answer is, do I wish to progressivly change society? If yes then you are a liberal, no getting away from it.


Seriously, where did you get this idea from?


No your the pathetic one, who is completely clueless about history and what it has meant to be liberal throughout the ages, and how one defining chracteristic constantly remains, liberalism.

Seriously, you don&#39;t need to insult CheyMarijuana for simply knowing what Liberalism is all about.

Liberalism is not simply a broad force that shapes history. It is a specific tradition of Philosophical, theoretical and ideological thought.

Great Liberal thinkers such as Bentham, J.S. Mill, Isaiah Berlin and John Rawls did not simply write about "Reforming the status quo". There is a lot more to their ideas than that.