Liberalism has nothing to do with corporations. These are two totally independents axis. One one you have liberalism and authoritarianism On the other you have socialism and capitalism. You can have liberal socialist and you can have liberal capitalist.
People love to conflate these things based on the popular parties in their country. But just because there are opposing parties with some specific economic/social viewpoint combination in one country, it doesn’t mean that they make a template how it works.
Dearest, no. The axis are economic left vs right (private vs public ownership) and authoritarian vs libertarian. Libertarian being “I can do whatever I want” and authoritarian being “you can only do what I say.” Libertarianism is distinct from liberalism which is a political ideology invented by John Locke which believes free market capitalism is the best economic system except that it needs to be regulated to protect consumers (think the FDA). Before Donald Trump and for most of American history, both parties were liberal parties.
I’m saying that the political compass (the two axes you described) is for the politically illiterate; a farce that distorts political economy into delusion.
For its flaws, it sure does more service than you let on. ML folks like to make a big stink about it, same with liberals. It exposes authoritarianism and right and right-leaning ideologies for what they are.
What do tool do you prefer to visualize political ideologies?
Honestly I don’t care for kids memes from the internet about a compass. Just because there are kids creating memes, it doesn’t make it incorrect.
What is more illiterate is conflating things that don’t have anything in common just because “that’s how it always is” just because that’s how it works in your country.
Also there’s actually a third very popular axis that tends to be conflated with the rest based on random thoughts, and that’s progresivism vs conservativism. People also like to say stuff like “all liberals are automatically progressive” (and vice versa) in the same way as the original post did.
Capitalism is very tied into Liberalism, private property ownership and free markets are Liberal ideas. You’d have to bend them quite out of shape to arrive at socialist liberalism.
The fact is that some individual rights have to be sacrificed for the collective good, and that includes private ownership over productive assets.
You have to oppress oppressors, you have to resist violence with violence. You have to take things away from people who took things away from those they exploited.
We have a major political party which is liberal, progressive and socialist. We also have a major political party which is liberal, progressive and capitalist. We also have a semi-major political party which is liberal, conservative and capitalist.
And we also have major socalist conservative authoritarian party.
No bending out of shape was necessary.
One is “social” “democracy”, the other is the inalienable human right to food, health, housing, education, work, rest etc. through an economy owned/controlled by the working people. An economy where the parasites as a class have not only been liquidated, but are actively suppressed from reemerging.
But if being bad is bad how can you justify being bad to bad people to stop them from being bad? This is why nobody takes leftists seriously, 100+ years of communist and anarchist philosophy and you still haven’t figured out that basic contradiction
Liberalism has nothing to do with corporations. These are two totally independents axis. One one you have liberalism and authoritarianism On the other you have socialism and capitalism. You can have liberal socialist and you can have liberal capitalist. People love to conflate these things based on the popular parties in their country. But just because there are opposing parties with some specific economic/social viewpoint combination in one country, it doesn’t mean that they make a template how it works.
Dearest, no. The axis are economic left vs right (private vs public ownership) and authoritarian vs libertarian. Libertarian being “I can do whatever I want” and authoritarian being “you can only do what I say.” Libertarianism is distinct from liberalism which is a political ideology invented by John Locke which believes free market capitalism is the best economic system except that it needs to be regulated to protect consumers (think the FDA). Before Donald Trump and for most of American history, both parties were liberal parties.
I think it’s spelled ‘ephebophile’ but close enough.
Just an FYI: this comment reads like your whole political education is based on the political compass 💀💀
I’m not sure what you’re trying to imply here. Are you saying that it’s not correct? Care to explain why?
Yes
No. I feel like it would be wasted.
Lol
Liberalism is not a libertarian ideology. Look it up - and the pairing on the axis is libertarianism and authoritarianism.
I’m saying that the political compass (the two axes you described) is for the politically illiterate; a farce that distorts political economy into delusion.
For its flaws, it sure does more service than you let on. ML folks like to make a big stink about it, same with liberals. It exposes authoritarianism and right and right-leaning ideologies for what they are.
What do tool do you prefer to visualize political ideologies?
Honestly I don’t care for kids memes from the internet about a compass. Just because there are kids creating memes, it doesn’t make it incorrect. What is more illiterate is conflating things that don’t have anything in common just because “that’s how it always is” just because that’s how it works in your country.
Also there’s actually a third very popular axis that tends to be conflated with the rest based on random thoughts, and that’s progresivism vs conservativism. People also like to say stuff like “all liberals are automatically progressive” (and vice versa) in the same way as the original post did.
Capitalism is very tied into Liberalism, private property ownership and free markets are Liberal ideas. You’d have to bend them quite out of shape to arrive at socialist liberalism.
The fact is that some individual rights have to be sacrificed for the collective good, and that includes private ownership over productive assets.
You have to oppress oppressors, you have to resist violence with violence. You have to take things away from people who took things away from those they exploited.
We have a major political party which is liberal, progressive and socialist. We also have a major political party which is liberal, progressive and capitalist. We also have a semi-major political party which is liberal, conservative and capitalist. And we also have major socalist conservative authoritarian party. No bending out of shape was necessary.
Socialism as in giving people social security is different from socialism as in socialist economy.
One is “social” “democracy”, the other is the inalienable human right to food, health, housing, education, work, rest etc. through an economy owned/controlled by the working people. An economy where the parasites as a class have not only been liquidated, but are actively suppressed from reemerging.
But if being bad is bad how can you justify being bad to bad people to stop them from being bad? This is why nobody takes leftists seriously, 100+ years of communist and anarchist philosophy and you still haven’t figured out that basic contradiction