A lot of people here express hatred for liberalism, and I think it leaves a wrong impression. The socialist message, in my view, should be that socialism is the logical conclusion of liberal political philosophy. If we look at major Enlightenment thinkers, like Locke and Rousseau, they all believed that populations have an implicit right of revolution, and even a duty to dismantle illegitimate authority. It is irrelevant that the forms of authority they were trying to dismantle don't match our own, they couldn't know the consequences of deregulated capitalism. The fact is that corporations today wield more power and influence than the feudal nobility could ever dream of, and private property is just as much of an obstacle to human flourishing as feudalism. "Actually-existing" Liberalism fails on its own terms outlined more than 2 centuries ago, it doesn't even require a Marxist to see this, just read Rousseau.
I propose that in propagating socialist ideas, we shouldn't present them as radical theories of interpreting the world, we should present them as common-sense understandings of all the noble Enlightenment ideas, and express incredulity at their nonexistent application in "liberal-democratic" states.
A lot of people here express hatred for liberalism, and I think it leaves a wrong impression. The socialist message...
Other urls found in this thread:
You make the mistake of assuming that liberals espouse the beliefs held by those Enlightenment philosophers. I doubt that any more of them have read Locke than have read Marx.
About time somebody made OP's pic.
It gets tiresome copy and pasting from Wealth of Nations over and over again.
Classical liberalism failed first in theory, thus followed your "actually existing liberalism."
Liberals are not our allies, and socialism communism doesn't share the goals of the idealism of the Enlightenment since it doesn't share its methods. The two can not be separated – that you think it can be is a sign of your idealism.
I agree actually
Even if it were taught in all schools that Adam Smith wasn't actually a Hayekian sperg, what good would it do? Americans with ingrained faith in markets would just dismiss him as another dead (white) philosopher with no relevance to the modern world.
This. The foreword of my edition of the Wealth of Nations talks disdainfully of his "outdated" ideology which should be considered only for its historical value and dropped in favor of more "advanced" and "modern" theories.
So Op is proposing something like enlighten socialism ?
m'socialism
Bookchin agrees.
Liberalism leads to bourgeois democracy.
Only cure for the liberalism is a bullet to liberals head.
...
Post-fascist social democrat.
It is the only ideology that I will identify with until end of my days.
Kek. Are you the Canadian mgtow socdem or the Finnish one that has severe autism
...
Better late than never. Marx himself always struck me as doing the same thing, pointing out that liberal capitalism could not fulfill what it claimed to fulfill. Remember the leisure economy vision people like Keynes had in the 30s? Capitalism can't do that despite how many claimed it would.
ftfy
Sooo, pally-pal-pal, about this Rosa lady…
Stop attempting to fit the superstructure of capitalism unto a completely different economic base. It's impossible and pointless.
A pic like that but with citations or links to a source supporting the claim would be 10/10 BTFO material against libertarians.
Hilarious how most of the left actually uses the common "failed, doesn't work, human nature" arguments against everyone they disagree with.
This is literally the main argument against Stalinism reworded to be about liberals. lol
Novelty isn't an argument.
I have to, but nailed it. The pic is good and all, but withoutany direct quotes and/or citations it may as well be the lefty version of that "Trotsky coined 'racist'" that Holla Forums peddles from time to time
I totally agree OP. I used to be a socdem until I read John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, then I realized that large disparity of wealth effectively infringed on the Liberty Principle by artificially keeping the poor from realizing a prosperous and free life, instead condemning them to subjugation.
Classical liberal theorists are based tbh.
I have these two at least.
No only soc libs, not classic libs and others who strongly defended the markets ability to level out social inequality and access to technology and healthcare. Additionally you have people like Malthus in there who were Classic Libs who despised the poor and thought proles were proles because they're inferior fundamentally (much like his contemporary Spencer).
Libs and Socialist are similar in that they seem to take no specific pleasure in haranguing minorities and don't advocate for theocracy. Other than that (and their hatred of monarchy) they are completely irreconcilable.
Correct. They don't want to advance human civilization's class struggle
How so? Perhaps insofar that the idealism of the Enlightenment and its general sensibilities at the time simply couldn't see what Liberalism would turn into, but I feel you're doing a disservice to completely deny that Communism is the next evolutionary step above what the Enlightenment brought in class struggle, much like how the Enlightenment was the next step above what Mercantilism brought in class struggle. As I said in another thread, Communism seeks to finish what the Enlightenment started by bringing democracy to the economic sector of human civilization, where as Enlightenment-Era Liberalism was only capable of bringing democracy to the political/social sector
Indeed, no, they harangue the majority on behalf of the only minority the Founders gave a fuck about: the landed gentry.
In other words, bullshit drama.
with them.
This lecture by Chomsky might be pertinent.
youtube.com
It follows the roots of liberal ideas that are embedded in both Marxism and Anarchism.
19th century liberalism had its moments
20th and 21st century liberalism is gulag fodder