Anytime I see anyone use the word “lib” or “liberal” used the way these people do, I can’t help but think of Alex Jones. Not really the guy you want your behavior to remind people of, I think.
Pretty sure a lot of them are an ancap psyop to divide the left over ideological purity tests and campism, while making leftism as a whole look bad from the outside…
same, only because the conservatives use “lib as insult too” see the common denominator. but they add “shitlib” as alternative. by in far US, has never been liberal in anyway, political or otherwise outside of a very small nich groups.
It’s the outside-the-US meaning that anarchists would typically use, and the US-centric definition is effectively a subset of the general definition when viewed from a leftist perspective, as they’re both capitalist with minimal regulation, just in the US it’s got the added connotations of being less homophobic and racist etc. then the centre of the Overton window, whereas classic liberalism isn’t incompatible with racism and homophobia etc…
I’m not sure this is only about regional variations (I wrote about before) where in North America liberal refers to modern liberalism whereas for the rest of the world it typically refers to classical liberalism.
Regardless of their thoughts on classical liberalism, there’s still the concept that “protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual” ought “to be the central problem of politics” or rank high up there, and that concept has a name: liberalism.
Acting like there’s some fault in insisting freedom of the individual matters or that it has do with anything else is a shitty take on their part.
Capitalism emerged in Britain, the Netherlands, and most of today’s high-income countries long before democracy.
Even in the recent past, capitalism has coexisted with undemocratic rule, as in Chile from 1973 to 1990, Brazil from 1964 to 1985, and Japan until 1945. Contemporary China has a variant of capitalism with a high level of state intervention, but its system of government is not a democracy by our definition. In many countries today, however, capitalism and democracy coexist, each system influencing how the other works.
Moreover, modern liberalism advocates market regulation.
Liberal democratic governments may play a major role directing economic development even with less left-leaning liberals.
These differences even among democracies are part of the explanation for governments’ differing roles in the capitalist economy. The Japanese and South Korean governments play a central role in setting the direction of the economy. But the amount of tax collected (both locally and nationally) is low compared with some rich countries in northern Europe, where it is almost half of GDP. In Sweden and Denmark, the tax system is used to reduce income inequality to a far greater extent than in Japan and South Korea.
Isn’t liberalism the idea of “protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual” only best achievable through capitalism? As such capitalism can exist without liberalism, but not the other way around
the US-centric definition is effectively a subset of the general definition
Are you sure about that? Can you cite a real world comparative example with specifics (attitudes, views, perspective, key historical points relevant to this conversation)? No meaningless generalities.
It’s the outside-the-US meaning that anarchists would typically use … when viewed from a leftist perspective, as they’re both capitalist with minimal regulation
If that’s the case, are you saying that a liberal in Moldova, Oman and the US are all the same and “capitalist with minimal regulation” is all that they are?
And the points above are just the tip of the iceberg, the kindergarten-level stuff.
So here is another question, so when you say liberals in Oman and the US are a subset of the same thing, do anarchists have the final call of defining who qualifies as a liberal in Oman (or any other country)? Does self identification as liberal play any role or not? This is not a gotcha per se., well, maybe a little bit, I am referring to something specific :), but I am genuinely curious what you have to say on this.
I will say it again, this really is fascinating. There is a certain abstract beauty to the whole obsession with “libs” among American internet “leftists”.
So here is another question, so when you say liberals in Oman and the US are a subset of the same thing
The thing I’ve noticed about the most vocal leftists here is that they all subscribe to the “spheres of influence” idea, where countries essentially belong to the great power whose sphere they exist in. Such countries (and the people within them) don’t have any agency or rights except as afforded by their great power masters. As such, Oman doesn’t matter or even really exist.
Liberalism is a really broad family of conflicting political and moral philosophies, and it’s really just the capitalist with minimal regulation bit that’s consistently there in all the branches. Most of the time, people are only dealing with different branches of liberalism, and depending on the local politics, there might only be one major political party in a country calling themselves the liberals.
Generally, leftists will talk about liberals and liberalism a lot because they’re living under some branch of liberalism, and they disagree to some extent with every branch of liberalism. Socialism, Communism and Anarchism are not Liberalism (and if you want to upset tankies and say it’s distinct from communism or upset other leftists and say it’s leftist Marxism-Leninism is not liberalism, too). Fascism and Conservatism are also not liberalism, but they’re not leftist, either, and to confuse things, lots of political parties calling themselves conservative around the world only want things that fit a definition of liberalism.
I mentioned anarchism and what anarchists think in the previous post because you replied to a post with a screenshot where an anarchist mentioned libs and seemed to think it was ambiguous what he meant, when it’s deducible from the fact that he’s an anarchist.
Why can’t you provide real world examples if we are supposed to take you at your word. This should be extremely easy.
Note that I said: “attitudes, views, perspective, key historical points relevant to this conversation, no meaningless generalities.”
and it’s really just the capitalist with minimal regulation bit that’s consistently there in all the branches.
I do not find the last piece convincing because of certain real world examples (I’ve lived there for multiple years and speak the local language). Keep in mind that I don’t mean this a straightforward way, based on your reply, there may be things that you’ haven’t considered.
Capitalism (not necessarily American-style oligarchy, or American style capitalism themed polemics and propaganda) is supported by almost everyone outside of tiny niches; it’s definitely not only supported liberals, so the capitalist identification is meaningless.
Not that “capitalist with minimal regulation” is going to be helpful in the first place.
You couldn’t even answer the kindergarten-level question:
a liberal in Moldova, Oman and the US are all the same and “capitalist with minimal regulation” is all that they are?
If anarchists believe this to be true, then they should say it openly. But I think everyone understands how stupid that would sound.
Not to be overly uncharitable, but this is why a lot of English speaking (as a first language) self-identifying leftists come off as online roleplayers.
If anything, if what you are saying is true, it only reinforces the notion that the obsession with “liberals” among internet leftists is mostly US-specific shitposting deeply tainted with American provincialism and lack of curiosity.
I find their obsession with the term “libs” fascinating.
It has a very different meaning outside of the US. Which goes to show that their whole “but my global south!!” is fake and performative.
Anytime I see anyone use the word “lib” or “liberal” used the way these people do, I can’t help but think of Alex Jones. Not really the guy you want your behavior to remind people of, I think.
Pretty sure a lot of them are an ancap psyop to divide the left over ideological purity tests and campism, while making leftism as a whole look bad from the outside…
same, only because the conservatives use “lib as insult too” see the common denominator. but they add “shitlib” as alternative. by in far US, has never been liberal in anyway, political or otherwise outside of a very small nich groups.
Shoutout to Tankie or Conservative
It’s the outside-the-US meaning that anarchists would typically use, and the US-centric definition is effectively a subset of the general definition when viewed from a leftist perspective, as they’re both capitalist with minimal regulation, just in the US it’s got the added connotations of being less homophobic and racist etc. then the centre of the Overton window, whereas classic liberalism isn’t incompatible with racism and homophobia etc…
I’m not sure this is only about regional variations (I wrote about before) where in North America liberal refers to modern liberalism whereas for the rest of the world it typically refers to classical liberalism. Regardless of their thoughts on classical liberalism, there’s still the concept that “protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual” ought “to be the central problem of politics” or rank high up there, and that concept has a name: liberalism. Acting like there’s some fault in insisting freedom of the individual matters or that it has do with anything else is a shitty take on their part.
To address your other points, neither capitalism nor liberalism is essential to each other, and capitalism is older than liberal democracy.
Moreover, modern liberalism advocates market regulation.
Liberal democratic governments may play a major role directing economic development even with less left-leaning liberals.
Isn’t liberalism the idea of “protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual” only best achievable through capitalism? As such capitalism can exist without liberalism, but not the other way around
Are you sure about that? Can you cite a real world comparative example with specifics (attitudes, views, perspective, key historical points relevant to this conversation)? No meaningless generalities.
If that’s the case, are you saying that a liberal in Moldova, Oman and the US are all the same and “capitalist with minimal regulation” is all that they are?
And the points above are just the tip of the iceberg, the kindergarten-level stuff.
So here is another question, so when you say liberals in Oman and the US are a subset of the same thing, do anarchists have the final call of defining who qualifies as a liberal in Oman (or any other country)? Does self identification as liberal play any role or not? This is not a gotcha per se., well, maybe a little bit, I am referring to something specific :), but I am genuinely curious what you have to say on this.
I will say it again, this really is fascinating. There is a certain abstract beauty to the whole obsession with “libs” among American internet “leftists”.
The thing I’ve noticed about the most vocal leftists here is that they all subscribe to the “spheres of influence” idea, where countries essentially belong to the great power whose sphere they exist in. Such countries (and the people within them) don’t have any agency or rights except as afforded by their great power masters. As such, Oman doesn’t matter or even really exist.
Liberalism is a really broad family of conflicting political and moral philosophies, and it’s really just the capitalist with minimal regulation bit that’s consistently there in all the branches. Most of the time, people are only dealing with different branches of liberalism, and depending on the local politics, there might only be one major political party in a country calling themselves the liberals.
Generally, leftists will talk about liberals and liberalism a lot because they’re living under some branch of liberalism, and they disagree to some extent with every branch of liberalism. Socialism, Communism and Anarchism are not Liberalism (and if you want to upset tankies and say it’s distinct from communism or upset other leftists and say it’s leftist Marxism-Leninism is not liberalism, too). Fascism and Conservatism are also not liberalism, but they’re not leftist, either, and to confuse things, lots of political parties calling themselves conservative around the world only want things that fit a definition of liberalism.
I mentioned anarchism and what anarchists think in the previous post because you replied to a post with a screenshot where an anarchist mentioned libs and seemed to think it was ambiguous what he meant, when it’s deducible from the fact that he’s an anarchist.
Why can’t you provide real world examples if we are supposed to take you at your word. This should be extremely easy.
Note that I said: “attitudes, views, perspective, key historical points relevant to this conversation, no meaningless generalities.”
I do not find the last piece convincing because of certain real world examples (I’ve lived there for multiple years and speak the local language). Keep in mind that I don’t mean this a straightforward way, based on your reply, there may be things that you’ haven’t considered.
Capitalism (not necessarily American-style oligarchy, or American style capitalism themed polemics and propaganda) is supported by almost everyone outside of tiny niches; it’s definitely not only supported liberals, so the capitalist identification is meaningless.
Not that “capitalist with minimal regulation” is going to be helpful in the first place.
You couldn’t even answer the kindergarten-level question:
If anarchists believe this to be true, then they should say it openly. But I think everyone understands how stupid that would sound.
Not to be overly uncharitable, but this is why a lot of English speaking (as a first language) self-identifying leftists come off as online roleplayers.
If anything, if what you are saying is true, it only reinforces the notion that the obsession with “liberals” among internet leftists is mostly US-specific shitposting deeply tainted with American provincialism and lack of curiosity.
Mhmm.
I sense embrace-extend-extinguish.