Dieser Bereich kann Inhalte enthalten, die nicht für alle Nutzer geeignet sind. Dazu können unter anderem Texte, Medien oder Diskussionen gehören, die als beleidigend, extremistisch, gewaltbezogen oder anderweitig belastend empfunden werden. Wenn du solche Inhalte nicht sehen möchtest, nutze bitte die jeweiligen Filter- und Meldeoptionen der Plattform oder meide entsprechende Threads/Communities.
Liberals, or the left?
It’s economic liberalism vs social liberalism. It’s the fucked up political language of the US. They mean what the rest of the world would call left. But unfortunately due to our misuse of the term it allowed neoliberals to come in, take over, and work against the people.
🤡
In the rest of the world there are middle of the road Catholic parties you can get behind half of this at least. The U.S. is unusually cruel.
It wasn’t misuse of terminology that led to neoliberalism, but the crisis of profitability in the 60s:
Liberalism itself has always supported private property, because it originated as the ideological justification for the replacement of feudalism with capitalism.
The problem is that the Right To Private Property in Liberalism clashes with the Freedom part.
In simple terms, if people own limited resources such as for example Land and have the right to do whatever they want with it, that reduces the Freedom of everybody else (since they can’t go into that Land much less do what they want with it). If landowners have unlimited “right to private property” then the more Land is owned, the less Freedom there is (since you can’t just make more Land for use by everybody else).
(And there are further practical considerations that need to take in account in actual policy making anchored on Liberalism due to real world having things like Negative Externalities and Tragedy Of The Commons situations - if you let individuals do whatever they want with what they own, in aggregate they can destroy the very things required for the survival of everybody)
So that inherent contradiction creates a lot of room for interpretation and actual Liberal political teories with actual policies have to chose their own balance between the Right To Private Property and Freedom in their interpretation of Liberalism.
From what I’ve seen Neoliberals are Liberals which chose a balance between the two were Right To Private Property is VASTLY more important than Freedom, whilst at the other end of the scale Social Democrats have Freedom be as much or maybe even more important as Right To Private Property.
I agree. But again, social vs economic liberalism. Economic liberalism 100% is all for private property, and private property is theft. Yes. But the socially liberal crowd, while not traditional leftist. Are much more open to limits on that. They really need to adopt another moniker, unfortunately. Go back to progressive even.
But the socially liberal crowd 100% believes all that.They just need to ditch all the economic liberals and stop letting them run the party.
The Economic Liberals are all also Social Liberals because being for gender, race, sexual-orientation (and so on) Equality does not impact the only form of descrimination they defend: wealth discrimination.
Further, very few of the supposed modern day Social Liberals are not just Economic Liberals wearing a different mask: you can tell it because whilst they loudly criticize gender, race and sexual-orientation discrimination they literally NEVER even mention Wealth Discrimination, much less criticize it - it makes very little sense for one to be for Freedom of human beings in society and rage about how for example people’s treatment at the hands of the Justice System differs depending on their race and yet be totally silent about how people’s treatement at the hands of the Justice System differs depending on their wealth, especially as the latter is vastly more prevalent than the former - surelly any difference in the way Justice treats people is unfairly reducing the Freedom of those discriminated against and the principle of harm reduction dictates one goes after the thing with the biggest impact first or at least more intenselly that those things with more restriced impacts, hence outside countries were the other kinds are trully gigantic and with massive outcomes (Israel, Apartheid South Africa and so on) they should be raging even more against wealth discrimination than against other kinds of discrimination.
As I see it, the only real Social Liberals are Social Democrats, and those are mostly gone in the present day, when even the supposedly “Thinking Left” who claim to be Social Democrats loudly parrot Identity Politics whilst clearly refraining from talking about wealth discrimination and even when they talk about the latter, its much less often than the former even though the dimensions and consequences of the latter in pretty much all Western Democracies are far more massive than the former, to the point that average life expectancy for the poor is decades less than for the rich.
Defending wealth discrimination means defending the systems of racial bias/discrimination that wealth is built on. Schumer doesn’t care about Palestinians, blacks, or Mexicans. Pelosi either. They tolerate them, and don’t actively persecuted them. That’s way different than supporting and fighting for equality.
Can some social liberals be economic liberals? Sure if they’re uneducated. Are social liberals dedicated to economic liberalism, generally no. It’s just what they’re familiar with. But most of them support limits on and taxing wealth, universal healthcare, public housing and food etc. Things any actual economic liberal would abhor as it interferes with the markets.
Nah, actual leftists would be much more extreme.
There are a couple modified versions in the comments here. Check those out for what actual leftists want.