Are you a Marxist

[butchersapron]

I've just had a look at my copy of Keywords by Raymond Williams (something I haven't done for a while, so thanks), and actually his entry under "liberal" is well worth reading. It contains more history and etymology than my post on another thread that was linked to earlier. I wish it was online somewhere because it's very useful.

I have suggested this to two sheds to at least two times now - including linking to an actual copy of the book. Yet here we are again.

 

[two sheds]

Well, you haven't said which dictionary that's from (is it a US dictionary, for example? That makes a difference). But let's say it's the OED for the sake of argument. Are we saying that the OED is outside of civil society and neutral from the ongoing manufacture of consent? That it is an institution with no interests in shoring up the elite? I don't think we can assume that definition one is necessarily what and only what the general population understands by "liberal". I don't think we can assume that st all.

I think people are perfectly capable of, and indeed do, use words with a variety of meanings in a variety of circumstances. People tend to be quite adept at dealing with the catholic nature of meaning in our language. People are aware of context.

I'm not aware I ever said that. (Though actually I'm sure most people are perfectly capable of working out that western parliamentary democracy is far from being free from bloodstains).



No, economically liberal, in the instance I'm referring to. But the correspondant just said "liberal". You'd need to tell me whether this is a subset of your "politically liberal" or not. I'm not convinced. I'm imagining quite a mess of venn by now, and I don't think it's up to me to draw it.

No, actually it isn't. It's a subset of your "socially liberal".

I've just had a look at my copy of Keywords by Raymond Williams (something I haven't done for a while, so thanks), and actually his entry under "liberal" is well worth reading. It contains more history and etymology than my post on another thread that was linked to earlier. I wish it was online somewhere because it's very useful.

Ta - will reply and check the link but i think I found a summary of the summary of liberalism from Heywood:

Political ideologies – key themes - Andrew Heywood
andrewheywood.co.uk/resources/Politicalideologies.doc

Liberalism has undoubtedly been the most powerful ideological force shaping the Western political tradition. Indeed, some portray liberalism as the ideology of the industrialised West, and identify it with Western civilisation in general. Liberalism was the product of the breakdown of feudalism and the growth, in its place, of a market or capitalist society. Early liberalism certainly reflected the aspirations of a rising industrial middle class, and liberalism and capitalism have been closely linked (some have argued intrinsically linked) ever since. In its earliest form, liberalism was a political doctrine. It attacked absolutism and feudal privilege, instead advocating constitutional and, later, representative government. In the nineteenth century, classical liberalism, in the form of economic liberalism, extolled the virtues of laissez-faire capitalism and condemned all forms of government intervention. From the late nineteenth century onwards, however, a form of social liberalism emerged, characteristic of modern liberalism, which looked more favourably upon welfare reform and economic intervention. So-called 'end of ideology' theorists such as Francis Fukuyama (1992) argued that the twentieth century had culminated with the final, worldwide triumph of liberalism. This supposedly reflected the collapse of all viable alternatives to market capitalism as the basis of economic organisation and to liberal democracy as the basis of political organisation.



The attraction of liberalism is its unrelenting commitment to individual freedom, reasoned debate and the balance within diversity. Indeed, it has become fashionable to portray liberalism not simply as an ideology but as a 'meta-ideology', that is, as a body of rules that lays down the grounds upon which political and ideological debate can take place. This reflects the belief that liberalism gives priority to 'the right' over 'the good'. In other words, liberalism strives to establish the conditions in which people and groups can pursue the good life as each defines it, but it does not prescribe or try to promote any particular notion of what is good. Criticisms of liberalism nevertheless come from various directions. Marxists have argued that, in defending capitalism, liberalism attempts to legitimise unequal class power and so constitutes a form of bourgeois ideology. Radical feminists point to the linkage between liberalism and patriarchy, which is rooted in the tendency to construe the individual on the basis of an essentially male model of self-sufficiency, thereby encouraging women to be 'like men'. Communitarians condemn liberalism for failing to provide a moral basis for social order and collective endeavour, arguing that the liberal society is a recipe for unrestrained egoism and greed, and so is ultimately self-defeating.

Which does give a different definition for social liberalism. Fair play I'll go off and think about it and try to reformulate the point I'm trying to make.

 

[danny la rouge]

Another example is that I consider there to be a racist element to liberal anti racism, and top-down multiculturalism is an illustration of that - representing 'communities' as homogeneous masses. Once these things are examined they reveal a whole lot of other political ideas.

Very important point. I'd go further than saying liberal "anti racism" had a racist element: I'd say it was inherently racist. It not only categorises people by race, it also treats people differently according to race.

For me there is nothing egalitarian about liberal anti racism.

 

[danny la rouge]

I think the demonisation of the word 'liberal' without making clear that you mean 'politically liberal' is counterproductive

But I don't.

Out of interest, do you think David Cameron was being politically liberal when he introduced equal marriage?

 

[danny la rouge]

I have suggested this to two sheds to at least two times now - including linking to an actual copy of the book. Yet here we are again.

I just downloaded than onto my phone so I could pick up and paste the entire entry under "liberal" into the thread, but my phone freaked out.

Anyway, it's a relatively short entry and is worth reading in its entirety.

 

[danny la rouge]

Very important point. I'd go further than saying liberal "anti racism" had a racist element: I'd say it was inherently racist. It not only categorises people by race, it also treats people differently according to race.

For me there is nothing egalitarian about liberal anti racism.

Kenan Malik, as ever, had something worth reading on this theme the other day: AGAINST THE CULTURAL TURN

 

[DotCommunist]

Liberal has, at first sight, so clear a political meaning that some of its further associations are puzzling. Yet the political meaning is comparatively modern, and much of the interesting history of the word is earlier. It began in a specific social distinction, to refer to a class of free men as distinct from others who were not free. It came into English in C14, from fw liberal, oF,liberalis, L, rw liber, L – free man. In its use in liberal arts – ‘artis liberalis’ (1375) – it was predominantly a class term: the skills and pursuits appropriate, as we should now say, to men of independent means and assured social, as distinct from other skills and pursuits (cf. MECHANICAL) appropriate to a lower class. But there was a significant development of a further sense, in which the pursuits had their own independence: ‘Liberal Sciencis … fre scyencis, as gramer, arte, fisike, astronomye, and otheris’ (1422). Yet as with any term which distinguishes some freemen from others, a tension remained. The cultivated ideal of the liberal arts was matched by the sense ofliberal as generous (‘in giffynge liberal’, 1387), but at the same time this was flanked by the negative sense of ‘unrestrained’. Liberty, though having an early general sense of freedom, had a strong sense from C15 of formal permission or privilege; this survives in the naval phrase liberty boat and, though often not noticed as such, in the conservative phrase liberties of the subject, where liberty has no modern sense but the old sense of certain rights granted within an unquestionable subjection to a particular sovereignty. The other word for such a formal right was licence, and the play of feeling, towards the sense of ‘unrestrained’, can be clearly seen in the development, from C16, oflicentious. Liberal, as well as being widely used in the stock phrase lyberal arbytre (C15) — free will, was close to licentious in such uses as Shakespeare’s



Who hath indeed most like a liberall villaine

Confest the vile encounters they have had.

(Much Ado About Nothing, IV, i)

A weaker but related form of this sense is clear in the development, from 1C18, of the sense of ‘not rigorous’, which could be taken either as ‘not harsh’ or as ‘not disciplined’.

The affirmation of liberal, in a social context quite different from that of a special class of free men, came mainly in 1C18 and eC19, following the strong general sense of Liberty from mC17. It was used in the sense of ‘open-minded’, and thence of ‘unorthodox’, from 1C18: ‘liberal opinions’ (Gibbon, 1781). The adjective is very clear in a political sense in an example from 1801: ‘the extinction of every vestige of freedom, and of every liberal idea with which they are associated’. This led to the formation of the noun as a political term, proudly and even defiantly announced in the periodical title,The Liberal (1822). But, as often since, this term for an unorthodox political opinion was given, by its enemies, a foreign flavour. There was talk of the ‘Ultras’ and ‘Liberals’ of Paris in 1820, and some early uses were in a foreign form: Liberales (Southey, 1816); Liberaux(Scott, 1826). The term was applied in this sense as a nickname to advanced Whigs and Radicals by their opponents; it was then consciously adopted and within a generation was powerful and in its turn orthodox.


pt1

 

[DotCommunist]

Liberality, which since C14 had carried the sense of generosity, and later of open-mindedness, was joined by political Liberalism from eC19. Libertarian in 1C18 indicated a believer in free will as againstdeterminism (cf. DETERMINE), but from 1C19 acquired social and political senses, sometimes close to liberal.It is especially common in mC20 in libertarian socialism, which is not liberalism but a form ofSOCIALISM (q.v.) opposed to centralized andBUREAUCRATIC (q.v.) controls.



In the established party-political sense, Liberal is now clear enough. But liberal as a term of political discourse is complex. It has been under regular and heavy attack from conservative positions, where the senses of lack of restraint and lack of discipline have been brought to bear, and also the sense of a (weak and sentimental) generosity. The sense of a lack of rigour has also been drawn on in intellectual disputes. Against this kind of attack, liberal has often been a group term for PROGRESSIVE or RADICAL (qq.v.) opinions, and is still clear in this sense, notably in USA. Butliberal as a pejorative term has also been widely used by socialists and especially Marxists. This use shares the conservative sense of lack of rigour and of weak and sentimental beliefs. Thus far it is interpreted byliberals as a familiar complaint, and there is a special edge in their reply to socialists, that they are concerned with political freedom and that socialists are not. But this masks the most serious sense of the socialist use, which is the historically accurate observation thatliberalism is a doctrine based on INDIVIDUALIST (q.v.) theories of man and society and is thus in fundamental conflict not only with SOCIALIST (q.v.) but with most strictly SOCIAL (q.v.) theories. The further observation, that liberalism is the highest form of thought developed within BOURGEOIS (q.v.) society and in terms of CAPITALISM (q.v.), is also relevant, for when liberal is not being used as a loose swear-word, it is to this mixture of liberating and limiting ideas that it is intended to refer. Liberalism is then a doctrine of certain necessary kinds of freedom but also, and essentially, a doctrine of possessive individualism.

pt2

post length ennit. Thats the entry in the Keywords book

 

[danny la rouge]

Thanks DotCommunist

 

[ManchesterBeth]

The hatred on urban against 'liberals' again. Sorry, it periodically annoys me when the definition in general usage is the one I've given.

It strikes me as having a bit of a cult edge to it and the repeated 'fucking liberals' likely to put people off who see themselves as social liberals and wouldn't necessarily know what political liberalism stands for.

I think it obscures thought - as in the political definition in the Oxford is: "favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform."

I'd agree with the individual liberty bit of that, don't like the 'free trade' that we've got at the moment, and moderate reform isn't enough. But working from there you've at least got common ground to discuss with people why it's not enough, rather than just using liberal as an insult. I don't like contempt as a form of discussion (aimed at myself too when I've lost it in political arguments).

But that just shows me up as the fucking liberal I am

Yh but liberalism and liberty arose to reflect the changing centralised state, it doesn't literally mean individual liberty. No liberal believes this. if they did then they would have to see the individual in its social totality, which would fuck up shit for them.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

well true, but the people doing the actual killing weren't liberal? They were illiberal.

You could equally say that it was the left's fault because we weren't able to persuade the mainstream to intervene.

Are u mystic or materialist?

 

[ManchesterBeth]

I've clearly said how I feel about both social and political liberalism. The generally accepted definition of liberal in broader society would be a social liberal. If you say someone is 'liberal' in their views (social as opposed political 'a Liberal') then you generally mean they are against homophobia, sexism, racism ...

It's you (and seemingly Marxists in general which is why I think the point is relevant) who have co-opted it to mean politically liberal and that is the only definition you'll allow. And politically liberal seems to be redefined to mean 'is not in favour of violent revolution' (which as an aside I also don't think is the same thing at all).

You're confirming what I said before about there being a 'cult' edge to this. As soon as it's questioned the fundamentalists seem to start frothing at the mouth. Disagree and you'll end up with your testicles being electrocuted or Damned into the seventh layer of Hell.

No being socially liberal does not mean that you can't be homophobic or racist (or ableist for that matter.) These are complex structures that you can't just extricate yourself from by having the right ideas.

This is mystical guff.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

These are complex structures that you can't just extricate yourself from by having the right ideas.

Not sure what you mean by that. twosheds didn't say being socially liberal means you can't be homophobic or racist. He said that being socially liberal would generally mean you are opposed to homophobia and racism. It's quite possible both to be opposed to homophobia or racism and display certain homophobic or racist attitudes yourself.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

Not sure what you mean by that. twosheds didn't say being socially liberal means you can't be homophobic or racist. He said that being socially liberal would generally mean you are opposed to homophobia and racism. It's quite possible both to be opposed to homophobia or racism and display certain homophobic or racist attitudes yourself.

That isn't an attitude exclusive to liberals. Religious people and conservatives can have same ideas.

The whole social liberal term is just nonsense, it can't be defined in any meaningful way without excluding so much.

DC's a social liberal then? What horseshit. He's a liberal and that's all that matters.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That isn't an attitude exclusive to liberals. Religious people and conservatives can have same ideas.

The whole social liberal term is just nonsense, it can't be defined in any meaningful way without excluding so much.

I don't think I agree with you on that. Just because something may be hard to define precisely, that doesn't leave it without meaning. If someone described themselves as 'socially liberal', that would tell me something about their likely attitudes towards a variety of things.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

I don't think I agree with you on that. Just because something may be hard to define precisely, that doesn't leave it without meaning. If someone described themselves as 'socially liberal', that would tell me something about their likely attitudes towards a variety of things.

No it wouldn't.

Cameron would be a social liberal for all intents and purposes. All that says is that political and social liberalism are interrelated they are not distinct.

 

[two sheds]

Very important point. I'd go further than saying liberal "anti racism" had a racist element: I'd say it was inherently racist. It not only categorises people by race, it also treats people differently according to race.

For me there is nothing egalitarian about liberal anti racism.

Yes I'd agree. But again you're talking about political liberalism, and also social liberalism given Heywood's definition above.

But that's not the point I'm making. The term 'liberal' to people who are not particularly interested in politics (or economics) means someone who loosely spoken respect people irrespective of their sex, sexual orientation or race. As opposed to 'conservative' who might not necessarily agree.

I know what you mean by the statement you made and to some extent I agree. But to someone who's not interested in politics, saying that liberals are racist looks like saying that black is white. Chomsky somewhere said (I can't remember exact words) that you can't get across complex ideas which go against the generally accepted beliefs in society using just a sound byte - it needs a detailed explanation.

 

[two sheds]

But I don't.

but you just did (unless we're talking at cross purposes) when you said 'liberal anti racism'. On urban, the only meaning allowed for 'liberal' is 'politically liberal'. Again, I see that as the stuff of cults.

Out of interest, do you think David Cameron was being politically liberal when he introduced equal marriage?

no if it weren't Cameron I'd say it shows liberal values in the sense I'm talking about liberal values. In Cameron's case it's more likely that he wanted to be seen as having liberal values or quite likely to annoy the illiberal tories.

P.S. I may not be getting to read things suggested because I'm clicking the Alerts and I think that means I'm missing posts. I'll go back and check through afterwards and read links.

 

[danny la rouge]

but you just did (unless we're talking at cross purposes) when you said 'liberal anti racism'.

I wasnt clear enough: when I denigrate liberalism I don't mean just 'politically liberal'; I mean liberalism as an entirety.

Look at what we've just said about liberal anti racism. I think the policies of multiculturalism are racist. If we're defining those as liberal, then I'm against liberalism.

However were I speaking to a 'civilian' I'd be careful to use language that wouldn't be misunderstood. I'd say egalitarian if I meant egalitarian, I'd say diversity if I meant diversity. And so on.

if it weren't Cameron I'd say it shows liberal values in the sense I'm talking about liberal values. In Cameron's case it's more likely that he wanted to be seen as having liberal values or quite likely to annoy the illiberal tories.

I think he really and actually supports same sex marriage. It's part of his value system.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think he really and actually supports same sex marriage. It's part of his value system.

Perhaps. And if so, perhaps that is at least partly a socially liberal position.

These voting patterns, I think, illustrate rather well the idea of socially liberal political attitudes. Huge majorities among Labour and LibDems for equalisation of gay rights. Between even splits and huge majorities against among Tories. Crude measures, but sometimes crude measures are the best way to demonstrate something - and the differences are stark and consistent.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

Perhaps. And if so, perhaps that is at least partly a socially liberal position.

These voting patterns, I think, illustrate rather well the idea of socially liberal political attitudes. Huge majorities among Labour and LibDems for equalisation of gay rights. Between even splits and huge majorities against among Tories. Crude measures, but sometimes crude measures are the best way to demonstrate something - and the differences are stark and consistent.

Yeah but where's the difference? What makes someone a social liberal and a political liberal? It's the same fucking liberalism. They are both predicated on property right. You can't be a social liberal and a commie, anarchist, or whatever lol.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yeah but where's the difference? What makes someone a social liberal and a political liberal? It's the same fucking liberalism. They are both predicated on property right. You can't be a social liberal and a commie, anarchist, or whatever lol.

Certain aspects of what many would consider 'socially liberal' are not predicated on property rights. In that list above, equalising age of consent, adoption rights, repeal of S28, and the equality act are all examples of things that have nothing to do with property rights.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

Certain aspects of what many would consider 'socially liberal' are not predicated on property rights. In that list above, equalising age of consent, adoption rights, repeal of S28, and the equality act are all examples of things that have nothing to do with property rights.

And once again, these don't arise from liberalism as an ideology or exclusive to it. Who cares what people call themselves ffs. If something's wrong it's wrong. You don't need to soften your politics or do some bullshit transitional demands bollocks. But when most people say they're socially liberal, they mean what they say. this is so paternalistic.

It's not like class or entry into radical politics is based on a crrude historically specific form of the family or the right ideas. It's external constraint. We're not out to persuade people lol.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

And once again, these don't arise from liberalism as an ideology or exclusive to it. .

Of course they don't.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

Certain aspects of what many would consider 'socially liberal' are not predicated on property rights. In that list above, equalising age of consent, adoption rights, repeal of S28, and the equality act are all examples of things that have nothing to do with property rights.

How don't they? Those positions operate within the bounds of property right. How do they exist external to it?

Or put another way. How do they challenge the property question?

 

[ManchesterBeth]

Of course they don't.

So what is the difference between social liberal and liberal then? I can't see it.

Liberalism with a human face is still liberalism.

 

[Athos]

I can't say for sure whether TERF use of Marxism is valid or not. I know TERFs are wrong, but maybe their position follows logically from Marxism?

I'd be very surprised if ny TERF argument was an inevitable result of anything Marx said, or of his ways of thinking/analysis. If TERFs are claiming to base their position on Marxism, I'd like to see some examples.

 

[Raheem]

I'm not sure how helpful it is to think of liberalism as a political ideology in the way it once was. In the 19th century, it was a major reform movement, but it's not so well-defined anymore. It has become a diffuse set of values that you find everywhere and anywhere. As has been pointed out above, to most people "liberal" is just a synonym for "permissive". Or else, a term used by the American right to describe everyone else. Calling market capitalism "liberal" (even though plenty of people do it) seems to me to play to right-wing mythology, the idea that accumulation of wealth is the natural result of not prohibiting people from making use of their talents and taking opportunities (whereas the reality is that it is everywhere supported by prohibiting behaviour that might prevent it). Maybe someone can point out where I'm wrong, but I think it would be less confusing to talk about "market capitalism", "anti-discrimination" and so on, rather than various sub-types of liberalism.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

How don't they? Those positions operate within the bounds of property right. How do they exist external to it?

Or put another way. How do they challenge the property question?

Why would they challenge the property question ?

 

[brogdale]

I'm not sure how helpful it is to think of liberalism as a political ideology in the way it once was. In the 19th century, it was a major reform movement, but it's not so well-defined anymore. It has become a diffuse set of values that you find everywhere and anywhere. As has been pointed out above, to most people "liberal" is just a synonym for "permissive". Or else, a term used by the American right to describe everyone else. Calling market capitalism "liberal" (even though plenty of people do it) seems to me to play to right-wing mythology, the idea that accumulation of wealth is the natural result of not prohibiting people from making use of their talents and taking opportunities (whereas the reality is that it is everywhere supported by prohibiting behaviour that might prevent it). Maybe someone can point out where I'm wrong, but I think it would be less confusing to talk about "market capitalism", "anti-discrimination" and so on, rather than various sub-types of liberalism.

Confusion does appear to reign wrt liberalism. I think one of the problems presented by two sheds posting is a conflation of both general & 'academic' usage, and European & Atlanticist interpretations.
AIUI the phrase 'socially liberal' is essentially of US coinage and in that context refers (usually in derogatory terms) to those with 'progressive' or 'permissive' views/mores, and has little to do with any accepted ideological definitions.
A great deal of confusion can arise when such usage is carelessly conflated with social liberalism, which is a defined ideological sub-set of tenets that hold the usual liberal core views of the individual, freedom, reason, (formal) justice and toleration, but see a role for state intervention in the workings of the market to secure positive freedom. Such an ideological position is usually contrasted with classical (or economic) liberalism that idealises the free-market and sees negative freedom as an essential pre-condition for capitalism.

All this mostly based on Heywood.