What's wrong with liberalism, /lefties/?
Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality...
Other urls found in this thread:
mariborchan.si
twitter.com
Private property and markets are the most glaring issues.
It's the ruling ideology of the ruling class under capitalism. Liberals were mostly based in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries (pics related), though.
...
there's your problem
also "democracy" under liberalism just means bourgeois democracy - democracy for the rich. it took centuries for workers to get the vote
So it's not the ideology itself, but its proponents?
It overthrew the ancien regime, but created new horrors in its stead.
shoulda read
Private property, aka land and equipment used by workers to produce, transport and sell goods, owned by another who claims a portion of each workers value as profit. Capitalism is a theft based economy.
What would you say is the difference in values between liberals and socialists?
As in, I often see liberalism vs. socialism portrayed as liberty vs. equality, but I feel like that's a bit inaccurate.
Primarily, it's the social aspects of liberalism which are what is most worth embracing. Respect for individual liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, the rights to fair trial and due process, ect.; are very important and the key weapons to fight against authoritarianism. They should be the cornerstone of any decent society. I'm less enamoured on the free market principles of liberalism simply on the basis that consolidation of capital very easily becomes an infringement on the liberties of others.
Liberals support private property and private ownership of the means of production, socialists oppose both.
Liberals prioritise individualism, socialists prioritise collective needs.
Liberals believe in competition, socialists believe in cooperation and solidarity.
Liberals want a class society based on property ownership, socialists want a classless society.
Liberals want production for profit, socialists want production for use.
Liberalism was pretty good when there was feudalism and reactionaries around, it has simply become shit due to its age.
I mean I know what the differences are between liberalism and socialism.
I was just wondering if there was a simpler way to state it.
We can say that, before approximately the 80s of the last century, we have always at the very general level, the subjective general level, two possibilities concerning the historical destiny of human beings. First, the way of liberalism, in its classical sense. Here, liberal has many significations, but I take liberal in its primitive sense, that is, fundamentally that private property is the key of social organization, at the price of enormous inequalities, but the price is the price. At the end, for liberalism, private property must be the key of social organization. And on the other side, we have the socialist way, the communist way — there are different words — in their abstract sense, that is, the end of inequalities must be the most fundamental goal of human political activity. The end of inequalities even at the price of violent revolution. So on one side, peaceful vision of history as the continuation of something which is very old, that is, private property as the key of social organization, and on the other side, something new, something which probably begins with the French Revolution, which is the proposition that there is another way, that in some sense, the continuity of the historical existence of human beings must accept a rupture between a very long sequence where inequalities, private property, and so on are the law of collective existence, and another vision of what is that sort of destiny, and the most important being in fact the question of equality and inequality, and this conflict between liberalism in its classical sense, and the new idea under many different names – anarchy, communism, socialism and so on — is probably the great signification of the 19th century and of a big part of the next century too.
So, during approximately near two centuries, we have something like a strategic choice, concerning not only the local events of politics, the national obligations, the wars and so on, but concerning what is really the historical destiny of human beings as such, the historical destiny of the construction of humanity as such. In some sense, our time, from the 80s to today, is the time of the apparent end of this choice. The progressive disparition of that sort of choice. We have today in fact the dominant idea that there exists no global choice, that there is no other solution. It was the word of Thatcher: no other solution. No other solution except, naturally, liberalism, or today generally we speak of neoliberalism. No other solution. And this point is very important because Thatcher herself is not saying that this solution is a very good one. It’s not the problem for her. The problem is that it’s the only solution. And so you know in the contemporary propaganda, the point is not to say that globalized capitalism is excellent, because it’s clear that it’s not. Everybody knows that. Everybody knows that monstrous inequalities cannot be a solution of the historical destiny of human beings — everybody knows that. But the argument is, “Okay, it’s not so good, but it’s the only real possibility.” And so, in my opinion, the definition of our time is the attempt to impose on humanity at the scale of the world itself, the conviction that there is only one way for the history of human beings. And without saying that this way is excellent, that this way is a very good one, but by saying that there is no other solution, no other way.
So, we can define our moment as the moment of the primitive conviction of liberalism as dominant in the form that private property and free market compose the unique possible destiny of human beings. And it’s also a definition of a human subject. What is, in this vision, a human subject? A human subject is a beggar, a consumer, an owner, or nothing at all. That is the strict definition today of what is a human being. So that is the general vision, the general problem, and the general law of the contemporary world.
mariborchan.si
Liberals are enemies of the worker.
That's the core of it all, and maybe the simplest way to put it.
The freedom that liberalism speaks of is only relevant to the ruling class. By eliminating private property and the imposition of wage labor the freedom that liberalism affords the bourgeoisie will be granted to all individuals by creating an environment where self realization is directly tied to one's labor and interests.
...
...
failed to liberate anyone
...
...
...
...
...
...
that's a bit harsh on pacifists. pacifism and socialism have gone hand in hand for many on the left for a long time.
...
Well, I've noticed that Holla Forums tends to conflate classical liberalism with the liberalism as defined by American political culture.
People here tend to shit on millennials for self-identifying as "liberals," but I can tell you that's more of a case with being influenced by the country's political culture. Many of the millennials I know are actual socialists, hell, I knew of a few people who identified as Communist. Millennials didn't support Bernie for the spectacle, they supported him because they recognized that there are inherent flaws within the capitalist system. None of the millennials that I knew supported Drumpf or Shillary. Maybe it's because I'm in California, but I can say for sure that class consciousness has a subtle presence.
Both classical and "modern" liberalism (or neo-liberalism) are for private property.
Millennials in the US like "socialism". Which just means infrastructure and socall programs. Sometimes they even include the military and the police into their special snoflake definition. This bullshit has been peddled by people like Bill Maher and Jon Stewart so it's really not that surprising.