Why throw the baby out with the bathwater on liberalism?

No one actually wants to get rid of liberalism wholesale here. Or very , very few actually do.

Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality, and international cooperation.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

So what besides free markets do you want to get rid of when you say you are against liberalism?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_conservatism
bunkermag.org/liberalism-ideological-essence-seen-left-right-wing/
truthdig.com/videos/cornel-west-charlottesville-protests-massive-awakening/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Liberals don't understand base-superstructure and don't see how capitalism is a big obstacle against enlightenment values. It's not that we dislike freedom or democracy, it's just that capitalism fails at providing it.

That didn't answer my question at all. You just said what you don't like about the people who call themselves liberal.

Require a ruling class to grant dumb poor proles those things.

Give Nazi's a chance, the truth is in the middle

To be bought

to placate and maintain status quo

For greater economic inequality

Granted by paternalistic rulers

No such thing with capital running things

Maybe, America does not have one.

If we had a woman president all our problems would be solved.

Globalism.

When people say they're against liberalism, a good chunk of the time they really just mean they're against idealism, because that is truly the ultimate flaw of liberalism. Just saying you're for equality doesn't mean your ideology actually upholds it or enables it in any meaningful way.

We're talking about modern liberalism. Rousseau is a good influence on most of marxism.

Oh, wow, I guess your source forgot to mention the most important aspect: private property.

Communist are not democrats, they don't "support ideas," they know that the so called "freedom of speech" is basically a propaganda term masking a much wider set of economic and power structures. Where communists are headed religions become obsolete, the market superseded, states withered and with it this mystified notion of civil society tied to a nation-state.

Liberal's "gender equality" means nothing to communists who will bring about the dissolution of the family, and we laugh at the liberals' notion of "international cooperation" which is, again, a propaganda term for market competition.

And that, bucko, is where you are completely mistaken.

I said besides free markets

And yea we have a democracy, it's secular, you believe in gender equality, you have no idea what globalism means, and you think freedom of the press is good in theory.

The only thing there besides free markets you theoretically don't like on principle is freedom of speech. So when you say you don't like liberalism, you are saying you are vehemently opposed to 2 out of those 10 things you mentioned.

Liberalism doesn't actually hold any of those promises. There is nothing to "get rid of".

Your post is an epitome of motte of the motte-and-bailey technique. Largely meaningless feel-good slogans that almost everyone can agree with, so that when people do agree with them you can switch to the bailey and start justifying wage slavery and muh privileges of old money families, corporations and bankers.
Guess what, nobody here is buying that. We're talking about actually existing liberalism, epitomized by its currently dominant neoliberal variety.

Private property. Not all of us are against markets.

No one actually wants to get rid of conservatism wholesale here. Or very , very few actually do.

Conservatism is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. By some definitions, conservatives have variously sought to preserve institutions including religion, monarchy, parliamentary government, property rights and the social hierarchy, emphasizing stability and continuity, while the more extreme elements called reactionaries oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were".[1][2]

There is no single set of policies that are universally regarded as conservative, because the meaning of conservatism depends on what is considered traditional in a given place and time. Thus conservatives from different parts of the world—each upholding their respective traditions—may disagree on a wide range of issues.

p.s. if you disagree you are disqualified from my poll

OP here I agree

divide and conquer is stupid when your way of doing that is removing everything good about every ideology and leaving a shallow husk of being a tankie

...

cute

Maybe because "serious academics" don't frame communism using the absolutely bourgeois dichotomy of liberal/conservative?

OC

...

This thread is pretty fucking ahistorical, real-world Liberals stopped defending those fancy ideals centuries ago, (Bastiat, Tocqueville, Spencer…) and Social-Democrats took up their burden.
The bourgeoisie got the freedoms that they wanted and tried to get cozy with the establishment afterwards, it's pretty fucking simple.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_conservatism

Not him but what's with the obsession to take private property? It seems way more productive to focus on everyone not being worried about necessities with basic income, ensure that key industries get nationalized but leave the rest to the market (with environmental, anti monopol, anti customerfraud and similar regulations)

The only downside I can think off would be that someone who accumulates enough capital might attempt to change the system, but since people wouldn't depend on work anymore, getting them on your side will be a lot trickier. The big upside is that it's way easier to sell this idea to the public than something much more radical and completely unproven.

A worldview and a mindset.
It's difficult to articulate without it sounding too much like I'm against individualism. I suppose in some ways it would be individualism as defined by consumption choices, or indeed just by choices, the demand for these choices, and the demand these choices are affirmed alongside the individuality of the individual themselves, with several barbaric things being essentially objected to not for their barbarism but for their constraint on these affirmed choices.

It's very tied up with capitalism, but it's the sort of underlying ideology of our times. Many of my policy-preferences may cross over with those of liberals, but the journey to those preferences is completely detached.

Get the fuck outta here.
>>>/liberalpol/

cretin

...

I read it before the majority of channers was even born, probably.

It doesn't really include newer ideas and the focus on labour is dated given how automation will kill most jobs. And keeping all the robot factories under state control is a shitty idea because planned economy is inherently inflexible. It works when you have clear goals in mind, hence some industries absolutely should be nationalized, but even good ol' Karl agrees that free market drives innovation.

Yes we do. Social liberalism no, but that was really has little to do with economic liberalism as the majority of economically liberal countries (all of them) are also homophobic and racist etc

...

Finland and Denmark are rather economically liberal and some of the most progressive places out there. Switzerland and NZ aren't exactly social conservative hellholes either.

Great point, user!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

State-enforced freedoms that only really apply to the people who can directly afford them. Mostly reactionary and only beneficial to the capitalists.

Reactionary buzzword that doesn't make a real difference in anyone's every day life because corporations and social norms are still allowed to control speech. You only truly have it if you control your own platform to express yourself, which takes capital.

The freedom for the press to make their own propaganda for profit, leading to bad press being much more likely. You only have it if you can afford distributing your own press, which requires capital.

The freedom to impose arbitrary rules to anyone and make your own moral propaganda.

The freedom to get into the market and compete freely in the quest for capital. To do this and not fail miserably you need enough capital to compete in already saturated markets filled with mature competitors who have exponential power when compared to you or be lucky enough to hit a young market which is a race among a lot of people.

Same as free speech, they're only your rights if you have the capital to stay isolated from other people's power to suppress them.

Democratic among the people who have enough capital to buy power in the democratic society.

Only neutral in the sense that they like to attempt to benefit from conflict from both sides.

This the same as civil rights and free speech, it's only true if you have enough capital to stay isolated from external powers so that the state is the only thing that could violate this right.

That would require the international community to be liberal, which turns liberal states to imperialism.

How is it still possible to believe that nonsense?

Yeah, I mean I suppose that could happen.

It's not like people didn't subvert revolutions and attempts at communism.

...

Liberalism is harder to get rid of than authoritarianism tho.

And with them go the value of commodities which further diminishes the ever-shrinking profit margin. At the same time, the further diminshment of the earning power of labor causes poverty to expand and the consumer class to contract thus sending global capitalism into a death spiral from which it can never recover.

Food stamps already create money while feeding people, just in a relatively limited way. Basic income combines industry subsidies with welfare, so it'll take care of it.

The only danger for capitalism is that centuries of brainwashing and job fetishising will backfire once people can't define themselves over their job and the amount of money they make, but who knows, entertainment might take care of that.

Creating money is what mints do, not economies.

Individuals who do not produce do not create wealth, thus they cannot have wealth extracted from them. Such individuals cannot serve as a consumer class, because everything they consume is had without an exchange of value.

Did you skip the whole fiat money thing? Whether it's a meme or not doesn't matter as long people buy into it.

You create wealth for all the data mining companies by simply using their services. Now add more analytics, say observation of people watching shit on Netflix, when do they lose attention, when does it pick up, at what words/scenes do they get excited. Etc, etc. One could pay people for writing reviews too. Hell, even shitposting. It all happens already.

Now add basic income, which is just redistribution but as a consumer you still decide whether you invest it into some company, rent some shit from them or buy a 4d fidget spinner.

What does that have to do with anything? Economies are real things in motion. They are not money or numbers on ticker tape. Did you learn about economics from Econ 101 or something?

No, in that particular example the analysts create the wealth out of information which functions as a resource. Now bear in mind that most of the process is automated, which means that it has little actual value. Such information is only useful to businesses that can utilize that information to sell products to the individuals from whom the information is extracted. Businesses are not particularly concerned with data on those individuals who have nothing to spend.

That industry as well is reliant upon the existence and robust spending ability of a consumer class. Now, you can funnel enough wealth into a non-productive demographic to make them into consumers, but in that case it is only possible to extract as much value as you put into them making the entire exercise unprofitable. In the end, you have to extract wealth from productive individuals in order to create a non-productive consumer class that can buy the commodities that the productive individuals create.

Value has to come from production, and profit can only be realized through the exploitation of productive individuals. Imaginary markets cannot be the basis of an economy.

the right side looks like neoliberalism without the free speech>>1986516

You know liberal socialists are pro-free-markets right? OP is anti-free-market.

I don't want to get rid of the good stuff–reason, universal suffrage, rule of law, etc.
But it's sort of like being a Chartist in the modern day; we have already achieved the aims of that ideology, and there are new needs that surpass its ontological capacity.
Liberalism is incapable of addressing the novel and particular problems of the modern world, because we already live in a largely liberal world.

When Luka is around, rightists get outa town.

Liberals are waking upp

Essentially this:
Liberalism had achieved its goals around the time of the industrial revolution. It did not substantively evolve to address the political, economic and social challenges of modern capitalism. The point of Marx and of socialism is to build upon liberalism, to actually take the ideas of liberty, equality, and solidarity seriously and extend them to all.

Related reading: bunkermag.org/liberalism-ideological-essence-seen-left-right-wing/

Context?

Charlottesville.

Should have let them get beat up tbqh. Then maybe they might join anti-fa.

Christians love masochism, and when you actually help them not get fucked they still retain a sense of moral superiority over you. Probably something from this bunch: truthdig.com/videos/cornel-west-charlottesville-protests-massive-awakening/

Ha!

The little bits don't. Overall … well, just look at Google or FB.

Of course but everyone would have a bit to spent, so after the basics are done, it'd be crazy competition for the last bits.

Why wouldn't it be profitable if company A gets all the customers instead of company B, C, D? Only the economy itself wouldn't change, which is fine due the last part.

People love to do shit. Someone will find the shit useful and worth paying for. Just imagine how many motherfuckers will write that novel now they have the time. Now you need people to read through all the crap for reviews and recommendations, and of course someone buying the thing itself. Jobs relying on the human aspect will be fine too.

What about the financial market and the debt meme?

If 2008 haven't been sufficiently telling, i'll spell it out loud for you: Thoses are ticking bombs.

That don't do too much damage. Things were back to normal after few years and 2008 was a massive fuck up. A lot of the debt is simply caused by tax evasion of trillions. If porkie would learn not to bite the hand that feeds him, 2008 wouldn't be nearly as dramatic.

Where do you live? Things are still fucked.

Germany.

They were pre 2008 too.

screencapped. sometimes i forget why I hate liberalism, not anymore.

OC

Right, what you see there is economics of scale in action. While the value of individual pieces of information that they extract diminishes, they progressively extract so much new information that their profit margins grow even as their rates of profit decrease. Such a model requires an exponential rate of growth. The bitch of it all is, that there is a definite ceiling to that growth. At a certain point, the industries that consume their information will simply no longer require that much more of it. Then production will slow, and the entire model will fall apart. Google and Facebook are anticipating this by branching into other industries much in the same way that General Electric once branched into finance when selling electricity hit its peak.

On the contrary, the less consumers have to spend, the less competition there is. That is because, when the market for a given product shrinks, the only way for a business to maintain the rate of growth necessary to stay solvent is by consuming their competitors. Poor consumers have very little choice in regard to what they consume.

Fine? Do you not know what economists call it when a capitalist economy stops growing? A depression. A capitalist economy absolutely needs to grow, or it begins to fall apart at the seams. The flow of capital slows when growth becomes unprofitable which in turn drives down the price of labor. That further diminishes consumer spending, which, once again, makes production even less profitable. Again, that slows the rate of capital investment… and so on and so on. It's a death spiral, and the only way out of it is either socialist revolution or some horrible cataclysm like a world war that slaughters enough of the workforce that a labor shortage is created which allows for a new consumer class to form thus making an increase in capital investment profitable again.

Market crashes do not do much damage? What the hell, man?

The principles of liberalism are generally good, with the exception of the free market. However, it fails to see the class conditions behind all those "freedoms".

Take freedom to participate in elections. It is very hard to gather money for your candidacy if you aren't super rich. Poor people's speech is generally not heard because we don't own the media. How much freedom for us is that really?

Liberalism's conception of freedom always boils down to "freedom to enter into contracts." Anything that falls outside that is a form of liberty that liberalism can't really incorporate.

Yes.

Socialist freedoms should include the Democratic values of liberalism, but doesn't see it divorced from the class restrictions that are opposed on is.

What we as socialists have as additional freedoms and rights that liberalism doesn't have:

* Right to get education
* Freedom from unemployment
* Right to healthcare
* Right to work
* Freedom to take control of the economy