Question on the whole "liberal" thing

[cheisgreat]

People on this 'forum' seem to really dislike/hate the whole liberal thing- liberal people, the ideology and liberal political parties. I don't have a problem with that at all since nearly everyone on here is a leftist, including myself. As a beginner I can't fully understand the hatred towards liberalism. Is it not a good thing that society has moved on from being very conservative (specifically the UK, perhaps the US aswell) to being more liberal? I know many will disagree with this strongly- but is liberalism not a compromise and maybe its a sign that things will move on to become more leftist (hopfully sooner rather than later).

A major problem of this 'liberal bullshit' for me and maybe others is the race for the centre and this rush to be seen as being liberal. The Labour party in the UK are total sell-outs (especially since the removal of clause IV from the party manifesto) and the Tory party under Cameron are essentially liberal now with them abandoning the whole Grammar School origins. There is not really a sense of Left V Right, just personality politics. Style not substance.

So is liberal ideology not a compromise from Conservatism? Or should we definitely not see liberalism as this. Ok now I'm beginning to sound like a bloody liberal because I've been banging on about if for ages. But I guess I need someone to explain to me why us leftists are supposed to despise the liberal bullshit. Or are we?

[Faux Real]

I think it's criticized for not being "liberal" enough, as in requiring the state government as a "necessary evil" in order to maintain "law and order." Also, the fact that liberals are not in favor of egalitarianism/socialist economies and uphold capitalism to a high regard, although some would like to make it more 'humane' through welfare.

So...yeah, not socially libertarian enough.

[cenv]

Liberalism is antithetical to revolutionary working-class politics. Liberals fail to look at things in terms of class. They also refuse to recognize that capitalism is an inherently exploitative, alienating, and oppressive system, which leads them to believe that the system should be reformed instead of replaced.

[bootleg42]

Don't forget they believe in individualism, something we wish to defeat.

[Tower of Bebel]

Liberalism can be individualist, yes. This in contrast with socialism which should use the perspective of classes.

I sometimes see liberalism as a reaction to mercantilism. Nothing more, nothing less. A theory for the bourgeoisie of the 18th century. You cannot use liberalism to make life better for the working class. And when liberals point to the 50s and 60s, a period where economic growth was accompanied with the welfare state, we should point to the fact that this was unique and that neoliberalism again defines what liberalism really is: economic growth at the expence of the working class.

[Labor Shall Rule]

It's a stupid bourgeois ideology. It's as simple as that.

[RGacky3]

Interestingly I prefer Conservative type people, and I mean the old time conservative type, that put a big emphasis on Family and community values, anti-material/commercialism, old time good neighbor values. Many Liberals have a me-first attitude, and a very egotistical attitude, i.e. what I want is the most important thing, and I want to get to the top.

The thing I don't like about Liberalism, (as opposed to everyother ideology including conservatism) is that attitude, a self-centered, commercialistic attitude.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Don't forget they believe in individualism, something we wish to defeat.
They don't believe in individualism. If they did they wouldn't support capitalism.

Capitalism supports individual initiative for about 4% of the population. Everyone else is a slave. We should strive for allowing the individual initiative of every member of society.

If you talk of defeating individualism you sound like a hackneyed Stalinist stereotype. We should instead strive to give everybody the chance to assert their individuality, something that capitalism does not allow.

[Don't Change Your Name]

The word "liberalism" has been used both for "laissez-faire" types and those who want a "welfare state" or such measures as the nationalization of a few industries (the latter case being common in the US as you all might know)...in both cases they support the representative "democracies" that exist in capitalist societies (although they can condradict themselves in the first case), and as you probably know, the "left liberals" are those who want to make reforms in capitalist economies through state policies to improve certain aspects of it and how it affects most of the population.

Most people here would agree that if "liberal" governments take socially progressive actions (like allowing gay marriages or legalizing abortions), it is better than if they don't, and many would agree that it would, at least, in theory, be better for the working class if certain economical reforms introduced by this kind of institutions benefitted them and improved their living conditions. What most people around here reject is the fact that "left liberals" are fulfilling, in some aspects, the same role fascists had historically: at best, they want to make bosses and workers negotiate, but keeping the same economic system and defending private property over the means of production (not to mention the fact the such politicians do this to get elected and hence they are corrupted and surely willing to submit to bourgeois interests).

I've seen plenty of people say things like "liberals are worse than conservatives because they actually give false illusions to the proletariate!". Maybe. But this is simply rethoric - if it wasn't for some of those reforms the working class would have had it much worse in many cases. Most people here despise "liberals" because they see them as "more of the same".

"Liberalism" represents the institutions that exist under capitalist economy, or those who should ideally exist (a "free market" with private property being defended could exist under a tyrannical government, or simply a government that limits what liberals of all sorts consider "freedom". Therefore, it can't achieve anything else than trying to improve capitalism.


Originally posted by bootleg42+--> (bootleg42)Don't forget they believe in individualism, something we wish to defeat.[/b]

Who is "we"?


Originally posted by [email protected]
Liberalism is antithetical to revolutionary working-class politics. Liberals fail to look at things in terms of class. They also refuse to recognize that capitalism is an inherently exploitative, alienating, and oppressive system, which leads them to believe that the system should be reformed instead of replaced.

I don't think this is always the case, at least if you're talking about what they usually call "liberals" in the US. Some of them might think that, but since the USSR collapsed they assume that "communism" "doesn't work" so they prefer improving the "efficient capitalism". I suspect many of the "ex-communists" that "grow up" are such people.


RGacky3
Interestingly I prefer Conservative type people, and I mean the old time conservative type, that put a big emphasis on Family and community values, anti-material/commercialism, old time good neighbor values. Many Liberals have a me-first attitude, and a very egotistical attitude, i.e. what I want is the most important thing, and I want to get to the top.

You hate things too much

[RGacky3]

You hate things too much

Your right man, what a right asshole I am.

[CornetJoyce]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)do+August 12, 2007 12:53 am--> (El Infiltr(A)do @ August 12, 2007 12:53 am)

I've seen plenty of people say things like "liberals are worse than conservatives because they actually give false illusions to the proletariate!". Maybe. But this is simply rethoric - if it wasn't for some of those reforms the working class would have had it much worse in many cases.

.



cenv
Liberalism is antithetical to revolutionary working-class politics. Liberals fail to look at things in terms of class. They also refuse to recognize that capitalism is an inherently exploitative, alienating, and oppressive system, which leads them to believe that the system should be reformed instead of replaced.

I don't think this is always the case, at least if you're talking about what they usually call "liberals" in the US. Some of them might think that, but since the USSR collapsed they assume that "communism" "doesn't work" so they prefer improving the "efficient capitalism". I suspect many of the "ex-communists" that "grow up" are such people.
[/b]
It has been noted that "liberal" in America includes what Europeans call "social democrat." And that included not only some excommuists but also some- the communist party, for instance- who regarded themselves as practicing communists. "Social democracy is in retreat everywhere and of course the US is far along that path.

Liberals and leftists worked side by side in the labor movement and the civil rights movement, and it was liberals who bailed us out of jail and defended us in court. Sure, we wished they had been a little smarter, a little more willing to see the forest as well as the trees. But they frequently showed great courage and commitment. Anyone who thinks those conservatives on the other side were warm and cuddly needs to get out more.

[Tower of Bebel]

The American situation and the Brittish is not a mirror of waht happened on the continent. In Europe the liberals were motly afraid of the so called social democrats. They equaled social democracy with communism and therefor the social democrats were there main enemy.