Classical liberalism

[Holy_Seduction]

They don't stop THERE -- they're not above direct union-busting.

'They' being?

 

[SimonDoom]

“Liberal,” “libertarian,” and “social democrat” are labels. Meanings have shifted historically and varied by country. Conflating them flattens important political and class differences.

A Marxist reply locates these terms in their class roots and political content -- who they defend, what social order they seek to preserve or transform, and what tactics they use.

These differences matter because labels conceal class content. For workers and socialists, the crucial question is: does the tendency defend the capitalist property relations and the capitalist state, or does it aim to organize the working class for its independent political emancipation?

Whether in the US “liberal Democrats” or European liberal parties, they often as a layer defend the interests of privileged social strata and colludes with austerity, privatization and nationalist scapegoating. This shows how a self-described “liberal” press and parties can function to shift debate to the right and manage class antagonisms.

Lenin’s critique of Economism makes a related point re: putting narrow trade-union or reformist tactics at the center prevents a genuinely political and revolutionary education of the working class. Today, the ruling class relies on "liberal" or social-democratic reformist constrains to thwart the political independence of workers and to subordinate their struggle to bourgeois institutions.

Determining the 'meaning' of these words requires knowing not only their history but also their class roots as set forth in Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky. The method of historical materialism is essential to knowing how class interests are reflected. Then one must analyze practice, not labels. Program, alliances, social base and state role -- those are the essentials.

Learn the history and class roots: read Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky to grasp the method of historical materialism. Engels’ essay above is essential on how ideas reflect class interests. Who benefits from this politics? Does it strengthen capitalist rule, or working-class independence? Those are the questions to ask.

Without that, the labels mean to obfuscate and conceal class intent.

I would agree that this is how a Marxist would look at it, but some of us completely reject Marx as a useful way of looking at things. I think of Marx as interesting and insightful, but as wrong about almost everything.

Class analysis, in my opinion, falls apart upon close scrutiny and even the most rudimentary attempt at being empirical. The fundamental reality is that people are people. Class analysis is a smoke screen. Marxism is a pretext for one group of people telling another what to do under the pretext "Your consciousness is false. We know what's good for you." That's the way of all despotisms. We see this in real experience: Marxist governments are always despotic. Marxism is fundamentally illiberal. It will always fail and always result in tyranny and injustice.

 

[Wilson23]

'They' being?

The plutocracy. I prefer that term to "oligarchy."

 

[Wilson23]

I would agree that this is how a Marxist would look at it, but some of us completely reject Marx as a useful way of looking at things. I think of Marx as interesting and insightful, but as wrong about almost everything.

What Marx was RIGHT about:
1. Different social classes often have conflicting interests.
2. A society's economic system will shape EVERYTHING ELSE about it including its religion.
3. The principal driver of change in human history is technological change affecting the means of production.
4. Changing the means of production changes the social and political order.

All these things are true, but they do not IMPLY everything Marx thought they do.

 

[SimonDoom]

What Marx was RIGHT about:
1. Different social classes often have conflicting interests.
2. A society's economic system will shape EVERYTHING ELSE about it including its religion.
3. The principal driver of change in human history is technological change affecting the means of production.
4. Changing the means of production changes the social and political order.

All these things are true, but they do not IMPLY everything Marx thought they do.

I think there's some truth to this, but that the deeper truth lies with methodological individualism: understanding and analyzing people as individuals, and understanding that in important ways all individuals, regardless of classes, are fundamentally the same, and are motivated by the same things. A political system based on this idea is likely to be a much more empirically sound and more just system than a system that treats people as members of groups, however those groups are defined.

 

[Wilson23]

I think there's some truth to this, but that the deeper truth lies with methodological individualism: understanding and analyzing people as individuals, and understanding that in important ways all individuals, regardless of classes, are fundamentally the same, and are motivated by the same things.

But, they're not. People of different NATIONAL CULTURES are hardly beings of the same species, and the same applies to social classes.

 

[Chernosoth]

Governments generally begin as something cobbled together with any available parts. Repairs are improvised as needed. New parts added later may be upgrades or downgrades. Abstract concepts such as liberty may be a fervent belief of people with some power, but they may also be used as propaganda. The right to anything is as important as any nation decides to make it important. There are nations where individual rights have never been considered. They begin with more group effort for survival and that becomes the national character and government foundation.

 

[SimonDoom]

But, they're not. People of different NATIONAL CULTURES are hardly beings of the same species, and the same applies to social classes.

I don't agree at all with that. I think people are all basically the same, but they act differently because of the different kinds of pressures exerted in different cultures and societies. It doesn't change the fact that we're all basically the same.

 

[Wilson23]

I don't agree at all with that. I think people are all basically the same, but they act differently because of the different kinds of pressures exerted in different cultures and societies. It doesn't change the fact that we're all basically the same.

We have the same DNA. But MINDS of different cultures think differently.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Honestly, these days, when I hear someone argue for free speech, my first question is 'what are you trying to hide?' because 9 times out of 10 they are arguing for an avalanche of lies and disinformation in order to hide their true agenda.

I hope you do not think I m doing that.

 

[MajorRewrite]

I think that many of the best of America’s moments might not fit Simon’s definition of “classical liberalism”: Teddy Roosevelt trust-busting, FDR financial regulation and social safety net, environmental regulation, etc.

Limited government is a meh goal; pragmatism is better.

 

[GuiltyCowboy]

I think that many of the best of America’s moments might not fit Simon’s definition of “classical liberalism”: Teddy Roosevelt trust-busting, FDR financial regulation and social safety net, environmental regulation, etc.

Limited government is a meh goal; pragmatism is better.

The obsession in America today with limiting govt comes really from think tanks co-opting Hayek’s fear of totalitarianism.

At its heart it’s class warfare. The rich have been absolutely trouncing the poor in America for the last 45 years or so; the poor have seen their wealth chopped in half over that period. The ‘limited government’ argument has been a key part of that project.

 

[GuiltyCowboy]

I hope you do not think I m doing that.

Not at all.

 

[SebastianHolt]

In the U.S. "liberalism" more often means SOCIAL liberalism. Welfare state, DEI, minority rights, etc.

we have given too many rights to minorities. DEI is racist

 

[SebastianHolt]

The obsession in America today with limiting govt comes really from think tanks co-opting Hayek’s fear of totalitarianism.

At its heart it’s class warfare. The rich have been absolutely trouncing the poor in America for the last 45 years or so; the poor have seen their wealth chopped in half over that period. The ‘limited government’ argument has been a key part of that project.

Wealth is elastic for the "wealthy" to gain more wealth, we do not need to take it from the poor

 

[GuiltyCowboy]

Wealth is elastic for the "wealthy" to gain more wealth, we do not need to take it from the poor

How you going to get people to work for peanuts unless they’re poor and have no other choice?

 

[SebastianHolt]

How you going to get people to work for peanuts unless they’re poor and have no other choice?

that's why we have illegals

 

[Wilson23]

Wealth is elastic for the "wealthy" to gain more wealth, we do not need to take it from the poor

The business sector in general DOES need to.

 

[SebastianHolt]

The business sector in general DOES need to.

another subject where you failed. Man, you are freaking one stupid boy

 

[Wilson23]

another subject where you failed. Man, you are freaking one stupid boy

You think Walmart could stay in business a week without the poor?

 

[SebastianHolt]

no laws to protect labor unions

who needs a labor union

 

[Wilson23]

who needs a labor union

Anybody who lives on a paycheck.

 

[SebastianHolt]

You think Walmart could stay in business a week without the poor?

son, you are lost. mentally. just lost. people shop at walmart poor and rich

 

[SebastianHolt]

Anybody who lives on a paycheck.

once again no. there are enough laws on the books to protect the worker.

do you live under a rock? cuz that could explain some of your brain damage

 

[SebastianHolt]

They don't stop THERE -- they're not above direct union-busting.

there is no need for a union in todays world