That lack of nuance is not helpful. There are plenty of liberals that would like a more balanced economy.
Edit: I’m tired of everyone’s “that’s not socialism.” You have to get people behind it. That requires taking steps. You aren’t going to bitch at reasonable people online to wake up one day and we’ve made the full conversion.
Sure but I don’t think we are just going to flip a switch tomorrow and the country will be socialist. You have to start somewhere and get support. When we show people how good it is for the working class, they will push with us.
You’re partially correct. You can’t get there via the existing Capitalist system, you have to build up dual power via organizing. The Capitalist system will dangle treats like Carrots but never allow the system itself to change from within.
A balanced economy is not socialism. Socialism means the democratic control over the economy by the workers. To have democratic control over the economy, workers must control the means of production. You cannot “balance” that with capitalism.
Liberals are not leftists if we define the status quo as capitalism and leftism as the progressive opposition to the status quo
(and those are the definitions I and probably any honest socialist uphold)
Cannot tell if this is meant sarcastically? Probably?
Just in case you are serious:
Often debated because neither is well defined and liberal is used by different people to mean totally different things. As I would use the term, liberals are in favor of liberating markets and nothing else. Leftists are people who are in favor of progressive and emancipatory politics. So for me, liberals are definitely no leftists.
Ah OK, really depends where you live. In Germany, for example, the liberal party is notoriously anti-left and usually allies with the main conservative, right-wing party. When it was founded after WW2 many Nazis joined it.
And it also depends what you mean by left vs right wing. In the US, the democrat party may be considered left leaning? But in comparison to many European left wing parties, it might be more of a centrist or even right-wing party. None of these terms can be really pin pointed down to an exact meaning and they are usually relative to other positions surrounding them. For me, defining liberal as market liberal seems like the most sensible definition, but then you might consider the US american Republican party to be liberal as well? Confusing!
And what is extremist left wing? Some people even consider human rights and medical care for everyone to be extremist left. Again, these terms always go in relation to other position like described via the overton window.
They are, or rather were. For most of the world, especially in Europe, liberalism means/meant socially liberal, i.e. left wing - based on personal freedom from imposition of others’ values on their personal and social lives. However, in America liberal has (relatively recently, as in 2000’s) become synonymous with neoliberal ideology, which is absolutely not left wing in any traditional sense, focusing on ‘small government’ and freedom of the markets—I guess because pronouncing two extra syllables is too much effort? Idk.
With the internet this peculiar usage has recently (as in the last 5-10 years) started leaking out of America and is being used in this confusing and ambiguous manner.
To be fair though, the Overton window has shifted so far right now that liberal (i.e. left of the nominal centre) shares much of the same space as neoliberal. See New Labour, and the current Labour government.
Edit: Deleted a paragraph that in retrospect was unnecessarily negative.
For most of the world, especially in Europe, liberalism means/meant socially liberal, i.e. left wing
Wuh? In most of continental Europe, liberalism typically means classical liberalism, a right-wing ideology about laissez faire economy. The US has always been the odd one out in using it to mean socially liberal (see also the last paragraph here).
Huh! My perception has always been the opposite, but that Wikipedia article appears soundly sourced. Don’t I feel silly?!
It appears I have been shown who is the boss.
Anyhow, I hope it’s agreed that the general point I had that there’s historically two different uses of that term and it’s not unreasonable to be confused about them still stands.
This isn’t really true, even with being extremely vague.
Liberalism, as described by Locke, was primarily concerned with individual liberty (as mentioned), but included in those liberties was the right to private property. In fact, he was among the first to describe it as a ‘natural law’.
US liberals co-opt the label with emphasis on the social liberties, and neo-liberals co-opt the label with emphasis on the personal property.
Leftist politics, being primarily oriented along a materialist axis, is concerned with both social and economic liberation and identifies systems of oppression in both governance and capital owners. Referring to ‘liberals’ as ‘leftist’ ignores the central ideological focus of leftist politics to begin with.
Aren’t liberals leftists though?
No. Leftism is primarily defined by support for a socialist economy. There is not a single liberal on the planet that would support socialism.
That lack of nuance is not helpful. There are plenty of liberals that would like a more balanced economy.
Edit: I’m tired of everyone’s “that’s not socialism.” You have to get people behind it. That requires taking steps. You aren’t going to bitch at reasonable people online to wake up one day and we’ve made the full conversion.
“More balanced” I.E. “we can compromise with it”
“More balanced” means Capitalism with safety nets, right? That’s not Socialism.
Sure but I don’t think we are just going to flip a switch tomorrow and the country will be socialist. You have to start somewhere and get support. When we show people how good it is for the working class, they will push with us.
You’re partially correct. You can’t get there via the existing Capitalist system, you have to build up dual power via organizing. The Capitalist system will dangle treats like Carrots but never allow the system itself to change from within.
A balanced economy is not socialism. Socialism means the democratic control over the economy by the workers. To have democratic control over the economy, workers must control the means of production. You cannot “balance” that with capitalism.
Liberals are not leftists if we define the status quo as capitalism and leftism as the progressive opposition to the status quo
(and those are the definitions I and probably any honest socialist uphold)
Cannot tell if this is meant sarcastically? Probably?
Just in case you are serious:
Often debated because neither is well defined and liberal is used by different people to mean totally different things. As I would use the term, liberals are in favor of liberating markets and nothing else. Leftists are people who are in favor of progressive and emancipatory politics. So for me, liberals are definitely no leftists.
It was serious, in my head both were just terms for left wing further left than central left but not like extremist left wing.
Ah OK, really depends where you live. In Germany, for example, the liberal party is notoriously anti-left and usually allies with the main conservative, right-wing party. When it was founded after WW2 many Nazis joined it.
And it also depends what you mean by left vs right wing. In the US, the democrat party may be considered left leaning? But in comparison to many European left wing parties, it might be more of a centrist or even right-wing party. None of these terms can be really pin pointed down to an exact meaning and they are usually relative to other positions surrounding them. For me, defining liberal as market liberal seems like the most sensible definition, but then you might consider the US american Republican party to be liberal as well? Confusing!
And what is extremist left wing? Some people even consider human rights and medical care for everyone to be extremist left. Again, these terms always go in relation to other position like described via the overton window.
They are, or rather were. For most of the world, especially in Europe, liberalism means/meant socially liberal, i.e. left wing - based on personal freedom from imposition of others’ values on their personal and social lives. However, in America liberal has (relatively recently, as in 2000’s) become synonymous with neoliberal ideology, which is absolutely not left wing in any traditional sense, focusing on ‘small government’ and freedom of the markets—I guess because pronouncing two extra syllables is too much effort? Idk.
With the internet this peculiar usage has recently (as in the last 5-10 years) started leaking out of America and is being used in this confusing and ambiguous manner.
To be fair though, the Overton window has shifted so far right now that liberal (i.e. left of the nominal centre) shares much of the same space as neoliberal. See New Labour, and the current Labour government.
Edit: Deleted a paragraph that in retrospect was unnecessarily negative.
Wuh? In most of continental Europe, liberalism typically means classical liberalism, a right-wing ideology about laissez faire economy. The US has always been the odd one out in using it to mean socially liberal (see also the last paragraph here).
Huh! My perception has always been the opposite, but that Wikipedia article appears soundly sourced. Don’t I feel silly?!
It appears I have been shown who is the boss.
Anyhow, I hope it’s agreed that the general point I had that there’s historically two different uses of that term and it’s not unreasonable to be confused about them still stands.
I’ll leave my comment up as-is for context.
This isn’t really true, even with being extremely vague.
Liberalism, as described by Locke, was primarily concerned with individual liberty (as mentioned), but included in those liberties was the right to private property. In fact, he was among the first to describe it as a ‘natural law’.
US liberals co-opt the label with emphasis on the social liberties, and neo-liberals co-opt the label with emphasis on the personal property.
Leftist politics, being primarily oriented along a materialist axis, is concerned with both social and economic liberation and identifies systems of oppression in both governance and capital owners. Referring to ‘liberals’ as ‘leftist’ ignores the central ideological focus of leftist politics to begin with.
Ah thanks I think that clears it up for me.
Nope, Liberals seek to maintain Capitalism, Leftists seek to move beyond it.
maybe in the purest sense of the word. Personally I find the label “left” to be pretty pointless anyway.
Draw an equal triangle. Label each point ‘left’, ‘right’ and ‘liberal’.
The concepts are in perfect tension over: public policy, private interest, and state authority.