Define 'Liberalism'...
Cosmo
Posts: 12,225
This is a positive effort. I don't want people with negative feelings or views of the term, 'Liberalism' express their opposition (because we all probably get the gist of that). I just want to know how you define 'Liberalism'... in your own words... no looking it up on Wikipedia or Merriam-Webster... YOUR views on Liberalism. What does it mean to you?
Thanx in advance.
Thanx in advance.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Hail, Hail!!!
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
take me away to "classical liberalism" land.
unfortunately neo-liberalism (which so many today probably don't even realize they subscribe to, and which wikipedia does one hell of a job of obfuscating to the point of making it almost sound reasonable, sold on the notion that it is "classical" liberalism -- which it is not!) , is just the "other team", set to "oppose" neo-conservatism (though all our school books tell us the goal is for them to either get along and solve everything, or perpetually cancel each other out and do nothing) in a perpetual battle (or constant behind the scene cooperation), pre-fabricated and tailor made by a ruling elite in order to further their agenda through the tool of hegelian dialectic, and blind, unsubstantiated party fanaticism. Imho, both neoconservatism and neoliberalism are just trash bin buzzwords for elite-controlled party-loyal cronyism oriented purposely (by those in charge, not by the members of "the party") towards global synarchism. And that is an idea which SUCKS FAT DONKEY DICK.
True classical liberalism, on the other hand, which i already mentioned wikipedia wrongly attempts to insinuate neoliberalism is, supports society by letting people support themselves, and leaving them (and the markets) to be free. Milton Friedman was part of a brief true revival of classical liberalism, though his critics often try to deride him as something different which he was not (interested folks should check out either version of his old and very long TV series, Free To Choose).
Neoliberalism is most clearly understood as an economic "ism", while social liberalism is something which i am quite sure that most members of this message board proudly consider themselves, but do themselves (and everyone else) a great two fold disservice, first by denigrating their "social liberal" ethics by coping to collectivist thought (which was vehemently denounced by their true classical liberal forerunners, particularly, the great John Stuart Mill) which they were deliberately baited with accepting by an all to eager elite, and second by then being suckered straight in to tacit philosophic agreeance with neoliberal economic policy itself. These people (a large devout section within this message board) are then more rightly thought of as social democrats, or accidental statists.
To illustrate just how NOT the same classical liberalism and neoliberalism are, lets look at a few key (ie. NOT minor) points of discrepancy between the two (and, cosmo, i am going to use the neoliberalism wikipedia entry for source on this) :
1. "Fiscal policy discipline"
Namely, neoliberalism (where on the wikipedia webpage this is stated as idea 1 in a list of 10, that is supposedly representative of neoliberalism) fails to achieve this, just like neoconservatism, NEVER!
Classical liberalism (much like classical conservatism!) actually implements high level policy to support its claims of fiscal discipline -- like having a gold standard, or eliminating monopolies, removing barriers to entry, having a gold standard, or having a gold standard . Though neoliberals love to say "of course, i'm a fiscal conservative", the representatives of this ideology fail consistently to show even the most inadvertent modicum of fiscal policy discipline. Again, Keynes was a neo
2. "Tax Reform"
"broadening the tax base" is code for increasing net taxes to the government, and "moderate tax rates" is code for "NOT low". This is neoliberalism at work. Classical liberalism was spurned to revival in the 70's with folks like Friedman in part because of increased tax rates. Further, an income tax itself is somewhat anathema to classical liberalism which would often uphold such a concept as an infringement of personal (property) rights. Its truest interpretation certainly views the broad collectivist (ie. welfare state) use (and politically philosophic implications) of an income tax itself as abhorrent (or at least subject to wanton abuse and misuse). Such taxes are only even needed to support a monetary-interventionist (ie. fiat central bank) Keynesian neoliberal welfare state, and would not be of necessity (since such activities could not even be undertaken by a monetarily -- and constitutionally -- restrained government) in a classic liberal government.
3. "Interest rates that are market determined"
This one doesn't even fucking make sense. Admittedly Keynesian neoliberal monitary policy is supposed to be interest rate MARKET determinate? B-U-L-L S-H-I-T. The Federal Reserve "sets" interest rates. Only in the most severe (and historically speaking, always manipulated) crisis does the Federal Reserve not maintain the luxury of "setting" the interest rate (and then only for the shortest of times, like a week or a month). Classical liberal economic policy frowns strongly upon such government intervention (outright control) in the market. And fiat currency is anathema to classical liberalism in general.
4. "Trade Liberalisation"
This is another great buzz (ie. code) word. Trade liberalisation (as understood by neoliberalism) is simply trans-national corporatism (ie. globalization, ie. economic fascism). The subservience of national sovereignty to trans-national authority is NOT EVEN A KNOWN QUANTITY to classical liberalism. Yet it is at the deadly crux of neoliberalism.
5. "Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment"
This simply means allowing more foreign (or multi-national) corporations to buy up domestic ownership, thus further debasing national autonomy. Though not necessarily a bad thing, and not much considered by classical liberalism (which was still too busy fighting the scourges of mercantilism to think about such things), such policy -- when applied as part of another agenda -- is in danger of being detrimental to the longterm sustainablity of a nation state. Loss of domestic production (GDP) through a mass foreign sell off of equity is potentially a destabilizing force.
6. "Privatization of state enterprises"
This is where it gets good. Classical liberalism, if we are to take Adam Smith's account, has no problem with (and in deed, readily and happily agrees to) allowing the government the privelage of running an enterprise, if such an enterprise is better suited, by its nature, to public ownership. In Smith's view, this included such things as utilities and infrastructure, which, due to economies of scale, would be cost ineffective for the consumer if competition were to deliver them. In neoliberal economic policy, the privatization of such enterprises is often done in order to simply further enrichment by cronyism. Instead of holding utilities in public ownership for the common good (classical liberalism), utilities are sold off in exclusive licenses (made so by deliberately exclusive regulatory barriers to entry) to a small handful of local providers, which are mostly elite owned mega corporations that are then free to charge higher prices than warranted, given their regulatory "protection" from competition (neoliberalism).
7. "Deregulation"
See #6, and add that while classical liberalism had no problem with prudent government regulation to prevent specific cases of consumer harm (such as banning monopolies), it was woe for want to allow such massive control of industry in the hands of federal regulation as is now the case with almost everything under presumably neoliberal philosophic conditions. Neoliberal "deregulation" includes provisions for still allowing "prudent" (laughable these days, is it not?) oversight of financial institutions, while classical liberal ideology holds the very concept of such a banking system as absurd in the first place.
8. "Legal security for property rights"
Another HUGE area of discrepancy, which warrants more space than hereto afforded. Classic liberalism was concerned with the exhaustive protection of personal liberty and freedoms, of which property rights were (and still are) a major component. Neoliberal ideology, on the other hand, holds collective rights largely supreme (again, something violently opposed by true classical liberals), thus opening the door for "eminent domain" laws (ie. utter contempt of individual personal property rights) and the outright destruction of personal property rights. Further, the very concept of fiat currency, and thus government controlled interest rates, stands as the most immediate and pernicious threat to personal property rights, whereas, lacking a stable medium of exchange (a gold standard), personal property is perpetually taken by the state, and the wealth of a nation is forever siphoned off in to the pockets of whomsoever the powers that be choose. Such ideas are offensive to the very nature of classical liberal values, and are the very halmark of neoliberalism.
And yet, neoliberalism allegedly stands for neo-classical liberalism,
which is no more or less a joke than neoconservatism, really.
Two tailor made "isms for idiots", brought to you by a neo-feudalist \ synarchist ruling elite oligarchy and its ever active politcal machine.
Happy thought?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
really think about that last line...
I know I was supposed to define it in my own words... but I've got work to do!
This boys done his homework!
You've pretty much nailed both of the definitions in my opinion.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I can't read this without picturing my college friends with lips glued to a bong, trust fund receipts on the table behind them, and a whole bunch of dreadlocks and che posters everywhere... and then I laugh
But that's not half as amusing as the image I have of someone jacking off to Judge Judy, Trust fund receipts on the table behind them, and a whole bunch of bow ties, and Perry Mason and Peter North posters everywhere
actually that's not exactly true. neo liberalism has been championed primarily by the right, as has neo-conservatism. i think the neo-con term is being misused, because i bush's admin is more accurately described as neo-liberal. and neo-liberalism started with Reagan/Thatcher....still the typical massive gov't spending-so its accurately labeled liberal, but instead of the traditional spending on social programs it went to the private high-tech industry, hence the neo. there is still massive government spending, but it has been shifted so that it no longer benefits the majority directly-social programs and things like that, and has been put into the private sector.
...essentially all just words which contribute to the grand delusion that persuades us to accept the system of rotating elective dictatorship that's sold to us as democracy.
Hey, I haven't started the trust fund yet... no kids. But the rest... I'll plead the 5th.
I certainly have to agree with you here, Byrnz.
Commy,
i'm not sure where you are getting the notion that "liberalism" equates with "massive government spending".
This is far and away from the TRADITIONAL understanding of the term.
Classical liberalism (ie. how the term was FIRST used) is concerned largely with individual liberty over tyranny. It eschewed the ideas of collectivism as a false hope (in deed, the 20th century saw the clash of classical liberal economic policy with communism itself) and was not "corrupted" to incorporate the tenants of socialist ideology until almost a half century later (or over 150 years, counting from its development as a political theory), starting during the great depression.
So again, i'm not sure i get your repetition of the assumption that liberalism encompasses massive government spending. Reviewing the history of liberalism, we see that it started out as a POLITICAL philosophy, which (as i said before) was largely concerned with individual LIBERTY (thus the term, liberalism). This was an ism that was focused by and large on personal freedom from tyranny, in an age where tyrants were the norm, and individual freedom (so much taken for granted, today) was a novel (dangerous, and contentious) idea.
From the beginnings of liberalism in political philosophy, dealing with personal freedoms, sprung economic liberalism, which dealt with free markets and the facilitation of uninhibited trade.
While often lambasted for allowing the over-accumulation of wealth by the rich, due to its predominantly llaissez faire attitude towards trade, i would have to argue that this was far less a failing of liberalism as a political theory than as a consequence of failures in applied government in the real world.
Specifically, i would argue that the woes attributed to classical economic liberalism were instead a result of corrupted and manipulated government which misused and abused the "natural rights" championed by liberals themselves for the benefit of their ("their" being the corrupt elected elite and their cronies) own corporate advantage. In other words, liberalism did not fail as an economic theory, instead it was governments, and the often uneducated and more often swindled and cheated voting public themselves, that failed. When corporations were admitted the same natural rights procured for people by liberals, the end was already in sight.
To clarify the relationship between classical economic liberalism and "massive government spending" it is enough to recognize that classical liberalism was very much at odds with government hoarding of gold (still very much in use as "money" at the time) and spending "notes" (bills of credit, or fiat, or paper money, now the norm in life).
People like Hume, and later Jefferson himself, were STRONGLY opposed to such policies of government spending, not because of the social issues involved (welfare spending), but simply because it was BAD ECONOMIC POLICY to allow deeply indebted governments, and the highly inflationary conditions that persist in such government.
Liberalism did not become associated with "welfare state" until the neo-feudal elite has succeeded in rigging, and bringing down the international economy in the early 1900s in order to further its objectives of consolidation of power and wealth, and of ensnaring the world in the clutches of its bankster mega con job (ie. fiat central banking practice). When this occured (this = engineered collapse), society was so panicked and starved worldwide that it gave up on some of its long cherished ideals, and allowed a manipulated variant of that liberal ideology to reign supreme, foisted upon them from the outside by "the insiders" in order to revert the political process back towards a pre-liberalized power structure, where the common man would once again be subservient to the elite (this time by economic tyranny, not classical tyranny).
Anyhow.
Please elaborate on how you see the relationship between liberalism and massive government spending, because to me (at least, when understanding liberalism as it BEGAN and not as how it DEVOLVED) this is an incongruous statement.
Thanks!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Life is wonderful, and I refuse to allow politics and politicians to drag me down.
Fuck 'em!
todays liberalism has been championed primarily by the democrats, yeah? and they claim to represent the working class, the poor, the less fortunate. and republicans/conservatism represents the weatlhy, forget the poor...the poor can take care of themselves....
liberalism has had its moments...pre-carter and through carter policies were implemented that actually benefited the less fortunate..and that required spending obviously. and it was massive. and that was liberalism, the government actually giving a shit about those its had stepped on to create its empire in the first place, taking care of the casualties.
then came reagan and neo-liberalism- he shifted almost $1 trillion AWAY from social programs and put it into the private sector...still the massive spending, but the benefactors had changed. the rich got richer. and the numbers reflect that shift....the poor have actually been getting poorer.
you're using a definition of liberalism that i would equate to todays' true conservatism. not george bush republican conservatism, but the the tea baggers and ron paulers and whats his name with euro pacific peter shciff conservatism. the definitions have been/are changing.