Question on liberuls

HOWEVER they don't generally recognize the fact that capitalism is incompatible with liberty.

Usually they're the ones running the notionally left-wing parties in countries (from the 1900s to the 1980s and in some rare cases the 90s, genuine socdems were running those parties, except in the USA where FDR was about the best we got.) despite accepting neoliberal reforms that basically render them identical to their opponents. (Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, etc.)

Now there's another element to this because there's basically two things: Social Liberalism (i.e. not electrocuting teh gays, sometimes even pretending you hate mass surveilance.) and economic Liberalism. Confusingly "Liberals" often pretend to hate economic Liberalism (but accept it as necessary for "electoral credibility") while "Conservatives" tend to love it. (Peter Hitchens iirc said we've basically just got three Liberal parties, he wasn't wrong.)

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Political_spectrum#Liberalism
is broadly okay for definition even if pro-Liberal.

Also their rejection of overt violence while defending the implicit violence of private property is maddening. Doubly so because Liberals are nearly always smug. They're a "step in the right direction" most of the time, but often not a step worth taking (i.e. Clinton 2016 was notionally the qualified status quo candidate versus a clown, but to vote for her would be to accede to the status quo, at least if we pretend the whole thing wasn't the spectacle at work.)

Mostly though, I just hate Tony Blair.

Not strictly true, the UK Liberal-Democrats had a stint of being left of Labour from ~2001-2005.
And then the Orange Book neoliberals came along and whined that they were being a party of "nice guys" instead of a serious party of misery and suffering, so Nick Clegg came along and took them into coalition with the Conservatives.

Which is the unspoken secret of Liberal-Democratic politics in the first world more generally: There's more diversity of opinion within major parties than between them. (Consider that Corbyn and Blair shared a party while Blair was broadly similar to Michael Howard.)

read this fam

Oh ok that explains it really well actually. So does anybody honestly believe that you can democratically instate communism? The bit about socdems made me feel like they're retarded.

...

socdems are definitely retarded

I would view the purpose of social democracy to manage capitalism within bounds where suicide isn't something you recognize as rational on a daily basis while still seeking long-term abolition.

It's absolutely possible to take advantage of ongoing events for this purpose. It's a meme position to believe that just because it upheld capitalism the postwar settlement was for nothing, or that life in Europe is no better than life in the US because both are capitalistic in nature.

tbqh it's the revolutionaries letting us down, we need a "bad cop"

Can someone explain to me what a keynesian is? If they're liberals how are they different from neoliberals?

So that means we have to have violent revolution? Sounds dangerous.

But you guys believe in "gradually shifting things to communism"? That just seems retarded. You'd always get co-opted in some way I feel like.

A century of betrayals and duplicity and you still believe this shit?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes
in a nutshell they want to ameliorate the disruptions caused by capitals contradictions via government stimulus

neo-keynesians kinda believe that, only they've drunk the reaganite trickle-down theory bullshit, so instead of giving money to consumers to stimulate consumption and the economy, they give it to the producers, to ??????????????????

...

Keynesianism is basically modern day social democracy.

I don't. I believe in playing with the cards I'm dealt rather than spending 70 years saying "late capitalism" while watching the world collapse around me while capitalism says strong, then starving to death because the welfare state was abolished and I got too old to work.

You always get co-opted either way. Will you fight, or will you die like a dog?

They're more like the "New Liberal" school of thought in the UK labour party, believing (well, recognizing) that laissez-faire capitalism is shit and passing reforms like welfare and pensions along those lines. But it's broadly an economic school of thought. Today only Post-Keynesians could credibly claim to actually have any lineage to Keynes beyond "I don't literally believe the market is perfect at all times."

As opposed to a century of lifestylism, revolutions that lead to state capitalism at the barrel of a gun anyway, and relatively interesting books that nonetheless haven't toppled capitalism?

err, UK Liberal party.

Not on top form today.

This

That's pretty funny coming from capital's bitch. Don't you have a liberal politician to go canvas for?

Isn't that Neoliberalism in the european sense, or at least a part of it? Cutting taxes, "stimulus", etc…

Alright I understand now. And the democrats were basically this until Reagan? And now they're not because $$$$? And they never will be again because $$$$?

Real talk, is revolution even close to ever being possible in the USA unless the world literally ends?

Well I'd probably vote for socdems if they were an option in the us don't get me wrong, but porky has such a stranglehold on our politics I feel like even a socdem like Bernie would get taken out if he had an actual shot at getting elected.

it depends on how finely you want to split hairs, but my understanding is that "neoliberalism" isn't so much an economic theory as it is a body of policies. paul krugman, shitpumping shillcuck that he is, is a neo-keynsian, but he's also a neoliberal. he makes sounds about workers rights and protecting industry–sometimes–but whenever his neoliberal masters need a justification for paring away protections for the working class, he eagerly dives to the mat for them

you could say that, yeah, from fdr to reagan. not all democrats, but if either they or the Rs could be called a "worker's party" it would be the democrats
exactamundo

When it comes to popular usage?
In Europe it pretty much equals centrists, ie. liking the free market and being relatively socially liberal(which is why staunchly conservative liberals tend to be classified as conservatives)
In the US it usually refers to people who are socially liberal/"progressive" first and foremost, thus Sanders wouldn't be classified as liberal in Europe due to being a socdem, but he might be in the US
On Holla Forums and leftist communities in general it's a pejorative applied to people who are too gay-friendly to be called fascists

Like most lifestylists I'm content to drown myself in theory or history and spend most of my time winding up liberals. :^)
I do have an excuse though: I presently live in the middle of nowhere with no local party structures and no easy mode of transportation because privatised public transport. Yay, capitalism!

neo-Keynesians are neoliberals.
(And neoclassicals, economically. It's like a socdem or liberal calling themselves a "socialist" to feel good about themselves.)

There are a lot of elements to the collapse of Keynesianism.

Part of it was an intellectual fightback by the right [ bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/fdb484c8-99a1-32a3-83be-20108374b985 ] , part of it was being misblamed for the stagflation of the 1970s (actually part of a banking cycle + shit policy on vietnam + collapse of Breton Woods + 1973 oil crisis.), Porky is always working to subvert and the left got lazy and unprepared. (Not to mention the rise of liberal-individualism in the 60s, more amenable to the "get the state out of your life!" message. By the mid/late-1970s the IMF and most economics journals had been purged of Keynesian influence.

Jimmy Carter instituted many neoliberal reforms (even mises.org praises him.) for example, and even the Republicans (While favouring balanced budgets) weren't too shit by US standards before the 1970s. Richard Nixon even oversaw some good stuff. (Though the ticking time bomb that was the Breton Woods settlement went off in his hands.)

my dude, the usa is a pot of unboiled revolution soup. all the elements are there and shit is starting to simmer, and the only reason things aren't fucking boiling over yet is because americans have experienced over a hundred and fifty years of political and economic stability. they still have faith that their system isn't completely fucked and are trying to work around it, but it's becoming increasingly apparent that not only is the system broken, but that it's designed to actively work against them.

anyone that tells you revolution in the usa is impossible is either gravely misinformed or a liar outright. if the left didn't have to rebuild itself completely from scratch, shit would be popping off.

John Locke and Jean Jacque Rousseau, those are Liberals. Read up on what they believed

So you guys use the socially liberal version? Now I'm confused again.

Who would revolt though? The angry red necks seem more likely to revolt over libertarian/conservative values rather than for any left reason and the 'liberal left' in america are anti-gun.
Does the great depression not count?

I just can't fathom it, man.

At best it'll be SocDems being president and making New Deal/Great Society style reforms like Universal Healthcare, raising taxes for social program, Carbon Taxes and repealing things like Citizens United and

In a thread about some random centrist European government fucking with labour rights you will find "reee fucking liberals" and "reee fucking neoliberals"
In a thread about some random Huffington Post journo saying that white people are racists or that guns should be banned you will likewise find "reee fucking liberals"
So it depends.

— Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism, 1927

Impossible to say tbh.

I thought the second example is "ree fucking Idpol"?

That's a really good quote.

Of course, but "ree fokken niggers" is also idpol, except the conservative/nationalist one.
Though I guess that there are more "die cis scum" types on the left anyways, which is why screeching about idpol on this board usually refers to the "socially liberal" version

from the mainsteam point of view, no, it doesn't, because it's been normalized as an aberration set to rights by fdr/ww2, just like the civil war is treated as an aberration caused by slavery rather than the economic/political system that created the institution

I should probably just stop trying to figure out the terminology of internet communities. I think half of Holla Forums's screeching is relative to wanting to be left but establish itself as cool and not like SJWs.

But both your examples did have solutions in capitalism. Americans wanted to pay slaves instead of housing them just like the answer to the stock market crash was greater regulation.

Most leftists operate within those boundaries too.