The academic definition technically makes sense.
I’m pretty sure even Euros understand the colloquial, North American sense of liberal, because it shows up in their older songs: the 1979 Logical Song by Supertramp from UK contains the lyrics
I said, now, watch what you say, they’ll be calling you a radical
A liberal, oh, fanatical, criminal
The ones in denial about this just have their heads so far up their ass that they can’t tolerate liberalism (academically, the doctrine that favors personal freedom by pursuing individual rights, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property, equality before the law) having anything to do with leftism (political ideologies that support pursue social equality & egalitarianism in opposition to social hierarchy).
The usual 2-axis political map consists of left–right axis (degree of social equality) & libertarian–authoritarian axis (degree of personal freedom): left & libertarian are possible.
If a leftist says they oppose liberalism, and liberalism is on the libertarian side of the libertarian–authoritarian axis, then where does that place them on the libertarian–authoritarian axis?
Modern day liberals are often on the libertarian right section of that graph that favors capitalism. Most leftists are on the libertarian left that favors socialism. Happy to help.
Edit: More often than not, american liberal politicians are riding the libertarian/authoritarian line on the capitalist side too. Thats why they always increase the police and military budgets.
Modern day liberals are often on the libertarian right section of that graph that favors capitalism.
So, you’re going to ignore the liberal & progressive factions whose caucuses had often been dominating the modern liberal party since Obama?
Disagreeing with you about private property & a mixed-market economy doesn’t mean they’re any less left for pursuing policies that favor social equality & egalitarianism (the definition of leftism), eg, civil rights, labor rights, environmental justice, social justice, market regulations, social safety net programs.
Your narrowminded, exclusionary, incorrect view of leftism denies their conformance to scholarly definitions.
The scholarly definition of liberalism is neither left nor right: it opposes authoritarianism by standing for personal freedom.
Do the leftists here hostile to liberalism oppose the scholarly definition of it, too?
Where does that place them on the libertarian–authoritarian axis?
Nah the instant I saw this post I just fucking knew the comments would be full of these fucking clowns. Just block the divisive trolls as soon as you see them and things will get much better
Even if you use the academic version it makes sense. Liberalism is the default ideology in the USA. The majority of the population at any point will be Liberals.
No, “liberals” “in the USA” = everyone on the left in America, which is wrong and bad because it ignores all of the anti-capitalist people and silences them by labeling them with an explicitly pro-capitalist Ideology. The left is (at the very least) liberals and socialists and some kinds of anarchists, there is a lot they have in common they can work on but calling them all “liberals” distorts reality in a consequential way.
Oh bullshit, there are and have been American anarchists and socialists who have worked with and sometimes worked against American liberals going back to at least the early 20th century. Like, just to grab the most obvious example, Frances Perkins was a member of the freakin Socialist Party of America for years before she joined FDRs cabinet as labor secretary and did a bunch of the New Deal stuff liberals pat themselves on the back for now.
No it is because there are more nations than what comprises the West. Your definition would not make any sense in one of the dozens of authoritarian nations that are still trying to determine IF human rights exist.
The POV you are advocating suggests every society faces the same struggles and questions and that isn’t true.
Given how much historical evil can be tied to Eurocentrism it us important to stomp it out when you see it.
I don’t disagree, but I think it’s pretty clear Lawrence is using the American colloquial definition of liberal rather than the academic definition.
The academic definition technically makes sense. I’m pretty sure even Euros understand the colloquial, North American sense of liberal, because it shows up in their older songs: the 1979 Logical Song by Supertramp from UK contains the lyrics
The ones in denial about this just have their heads so far up their ass that they can’t tolerate liberalism (academically, the doctrine that favors personal freedom by pursuing individual rights, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property, equality before the law) having anything to do with leftism (political ideologies that support pursue social equality & egalitarianism in opposition to social hierarchy). The usual 2-axis political map consists of left–right axis (degree of social equality) & libertarian–authoritarian axis (degree of personal freedom): left & libertarian are possible.
If a leftist says they oppose liberalism, and liberalism is on the libertarian side of the libertarian–authoritarian axis, then where does that place them on the libertarian–authoritarian axis?
Modern day liberals are often on the libertarian right section of that graph that favors capitalism. Most leftists are on the libertarian left that favors socialism. Happy to help.
Edit: More often than not, american liberal politicians are riding the libertarian/authoritarian line on the capitalist side too. Thats why they always increase the police and military budgets.
So, you’re going to ignore the liberal & progressive factions whose caucuses had often been dominating the modern liberal party since Obama?
Disagreeing with you about private property & a mixed-market economy doesn’t mean they’re any less left for pursuing policies that favor social equality & egalitarianism (the definition of leftism), eg, civil rights, labor rights, environmental justice, social justice, market regulations, social safety net programs.
Your narrowminded, exclusionary, incorrect view of leftism denies their conformance to scholarly definitions.
The scholarly definition of liberalism is neither left nor right: it opposes authoritarianism by standing for personal freedom. Do the leftists here hostile to liberalism oppose the scholarly definition of it, too? Where does that place them on the libertarian–authoritarian axis?
Sure, just keep shifting the goal poat, that works well everytime and definitely makes you look rational
They’ve previously defended that Biden kept Mexicans in cages, you can ignore them.
Nah the instant I saw this post I just fucking knew the comments would be full of these fucking clowns. Just block the divisive trolls as soon as you see them and things will get much better
Even if you use the academic version it makes sense. Liberalism is the default ideology in the USA. The majority of the population at any point will be Liberals.
“the American colloquial definition” is the American colloquial term for propaganda
Left leaning liberalism = liberals in the USA. It ignores the right leaning liberals and is flawed.
No, “liberals” “in the USA” = everyone on the left in America, which is wrong and bad because it ignores all of the anti-capitalist people and silences them by labeling them with an explicitly pro-capitalist Ideology. The left is (at the very least) liberals and socialists and some kinds of anarchists, there is a lot they have in common they can work on but calling them all “liberals” distorts reality in a consequential way.
e; Scpelling is hard sometimes
“The left is (at the very least) liberals and socialists and some kinds of anarchists,”
This is a VERY Eurocentric perspective. What constitutes progressive/left views changes culture to culture.
Oh bullshit, there are and have been American anarchists and socialists who have worked with and sometimes worked against American liberals going back to at least the early 20th century. Like, just to grab the most obvious example, Frances Perkins was a member of the freakin Socialist Party of America for years before she joined FDRs cabinet as labor secretary and did a bunch of the New Deal stuff liberals pat themselves on the back for now.
No it is because there are more nations than what comprises the West. Your definition would not make any sense in one of the dozens of authoritarian nations that are still trying to determine IF human rights exist.
The POV you are advocating suggests every society faces the same struggles and questions and that isn’t true.
Given how much historical evil can be tied to Eurocentrism it us important to stomp it out when you see it.