Are you a Marxist

[Pickman's model]

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.

Strange then that a tory-led coalition brought in gay marriage

 

[Raheem]

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.

I get what you are saying, but I can't help but wonder if this is an academic framework better-suited to the study of political and social history, rather than the analysis of contemporary politics. Questions like "Is the Obama administration socially liberal?" or "Is Theresa May an economic liberal?" may have valid answers, but why is it not more useful to ask questions about how their policies have supported capital, reduced social inequality or whatever it happens to be?

 

[brogdale]

I get what you are saying, but I can't help but wonder if this is an academic framework better-suited to the study of political and social history, rather than the analysis of contemporary politics. Questions like "Is the Obama administration socially liberal?" or "Is Theresa May an economic liberal?" may have valid answers, but why is it not more useful to ask questions about how their policies have supported capital, reduced social inequality or whatever it happens to be?

Personally, I'd say that understanding liberalism as an ideology is essential to analysing the role of the contemporary, consolidator state in the context of neoliberal hegemony.

 

[redsquirrel]

Really? So being against sexism, homophobia and racism (let alone the continuing rape of the earth's resources) is some "shitty liberal-left mash up"?

I thought socialists, communists and anarchists were against such things, but clearly not in you world.

And that's it, liberalism is reduced to "being against sexism, homophobia and racism", rather than being the very engine by which these prejudices are propagated in our society.

Liberalism is an ideology that is attacking our communities, forcing people's living standards down, it is the liberal EU that is currently attacking immigrants, it is liberalism that is pushing for cuts to welfare the results of which fall proportionally more on women. Liberalism is sexist, liberalism is racist, liberalism is homophobic and liberalism is taking from the poor to give to the rich. That is why socialists/communists/anarchists should oppose liberalism and the type of bullshit 'alliance' proposed by the Green Party and other liberals.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

Why would they challenge the property question ?

Because liberalism is not a set of yes or no propositions or even a method of syllogistic reasoning. It's social ideas of liberty directly coincide with and legitimise capital accumulation. Separating the two seems foolish to me.

Look, indulge me here for a minute. I believe in the abolition of the family and production tied to the family unit. This is clearly illiberal. It challenges the foundations of capitalist economics and so liberalism as an extension. Yet, according to you I'm socially liberal because I'm an anti-racist, against LGBT discrimination, tolerant of others opinions and lifestyles etc.

So most times when people say they're liberal really that's what they mean.

Now, if it's simply a case of oh well most communists/anarchists appear to be socially liberal in these current conditions, obviously fuck that. You're just making everything elastic.

 

[phildwyer]

Yes I am.

 

[Pickman's model]

((((Marx))))

 

[ManchesterBeth]

Yes I am.

Are you high?

 

[brogdale]

Yes I am.

Jesus, can't you cut out the opaque, obfuscatory, overly-academic restricted codes and just say what you mean clearly?

 

[timeforanother]

So liberalism is reduced to having the values of capitalism, whatever they may be.

It might have been helpful when the first socialists were trying to show the differences, but language has changed.

As a label, that isn't useful except as a point of disagreement here.

Me, I'm looking forward to having an arguement about how they sneaked in a right winger as our delegate to conference, when we sent a motion locally supportin the left leaning leadership.

 

[brogdale]

So liberalism is reduced to having the values of capitalism, whatever they may be.

It might have been helpful when the first socialists were trying to show the differences, but language has changed.

As a label, that isn't useful except as a point of disagreement here.

Me, I'm looking forward to having an arguement about how they sneaked in a right winger as our delegate to conference, when we sent a motion locally supportin the left leaning leadership.

Capitalism has no values.
Liberalism has a number of key tenets that facilitate capitalist growth and accumulation.

 

[timeforanother]

Capitalism has no values.
Liberalism has a number of key tenets that facilitate capitalist growth and accumulation.

A lot of the discussion wasn't about the political liberalism of property rights and free trade. The label without clarification isn't useful.

What about left wing libertarian anarch types? The libertarian part is from liberal.

 

[butchersapron]

A lot of the discussion wasn't about the political liberalism of property rights and free trade. The label without clarification isn't useful.

What about left wing libertarian anarch types? The libertarian part is from liberal.

It's from liberty.

What about that type? Who do you mean by that type actually?

 

[timeforanother]

It's from liberty.

What about that type? Who do you mean by that type actually?

Like one of my best mates, who only lurked here briefly ages ago.

 

[butchersapron]

Like one of my best mates, who only lurked here briefly ages ago.

That doesn't tell me much does it? What is the content of what you as describe left wing libertarian anarch types? Of your silent mate? Left wing libertarianism actually historically derives from anti-liberal collectivism/communism.

 

[timeforanother]

That doesn't tell me much does it? What is the content of what you describe left wing libertarian anarch types? Left wing libertarianism actually historically derives from anti-liberal collectivism/communism.

The roots of both labels is liberty. I think the syndicalist movements have moments of glory, but seem to get crushed too easily.

 

[timeforanother]

Disclaimer: I'm not a full time historian or political philosopher, I am an engineer.

 

[butchersapron]

The roots of both labels is liberty. I think the syndicalist movements have moments of glory, but seem to get crushed too easily.

The roots of collectivist libertarianism recognise that the individualist understanding of liberty as liberal is a load of nonsense. That's why it's neceassaruly anti-liberal - rather than being a shared branch of the same tree. But who are these people and what is the content of this left wing libertarian anarch types views?

Getting crushed too easily. Damn, why didn't they not do that?

 

[danny la rouge]

Disclaimer: I'm not a full time historian or political philosopher, I am an engineer.

There's only one full time political philosopher on the thread and he's said three words.

 

[butchersapron]

There's only one full time political philosopher on the thread and he's said three words.

Let's keep it that way.

 

[timeforanother]

The roots of collectivist libertarianism recognise that the individualist understanding of liberty as liberal is a load of nonsense. That's why it's neceassaruly anti-liberal - rather than being a shared branch of the same tree. But who are these people and what is the content of this left wing libertarian anarch types views?

Getting crushed too easily. Damn, why didn't they not do that?

I don't think I am disagreeing with you on this, just that the labels need qualifying.

 

[butchersapron]

I don't think I am disagreeing with you on this, just that the labels need qualifying.

What's to agree/disgree on? I just want to know what you mean by left wing libertarian anarch types views.

 

[timeforanother]

What's to agree/disgree on? I just want to know what you mean by left wing libertarian anarch types views.

Have a quizzical look. I don't get or want a prize.

 

[butchersapron]

Have a quizzical look. I don't get or want a prize.

Why say it if it doesn't even mean anything that you can outline?

 

[Athos]

There's only one full time political philosopher on the thread and he's said three words.

Two of which added nothing to the first.

 

[danny la rouge]

Two of which added nothing to the first.

The ontological superfluity: I am therefore I am.

 

[timeforanother]

The ontological superfluity: I am therefore I am.

I'm not. Therefore I don't think.

 

[danny la rouge]

I'm not.

Woah! Mind. Blown.

 

[two sheds]

Ta for the discussions people, I’ve recovered the will to live and read the links and things which were interesting and useful. A few posts “in a bunch” because I’ve been trying to work out why it is I’m not convinced.

its not even commonly understood between americans and brits. Socially is the contextual key here. Theres a good thread on the use of liberal as an insult tbf, lots of definings and discussion with minimal rudeness. Well, in context for an urban thread anyway

Yes interesting thread (I particularly liked the footwear related discussions towards the end). Fridgemagnet actually made a similar point in that thread and it wasn’t satisfactorily answered.

The general attitude is that people want to use it as an insult and they don’t care what the effects of that are, a bit like playground taunting.

Incidentally thanks for your responses to other posts of mine before now. If I’ve not replied it’s because I’ve gone off and thought about what you’ve said.

 

[two sheds]

You've been told before; you're confusing usage from both sides of the Atlantic.

Yes liberal = gay, womens', non-white ... equality is much stronger in the US, but the definitions I gave were from the Oxford English. And accepted that this is an establishment publication but in this particular case it is fulfilling its major purpose of reflecting usage. The opposite in this sense is illiberal, which can obviously come from the left or the right.

I checked and I was wrong - they actually give their definitions in date order rather than accepted use in society. It is still, however, a widespread non-political meaning for someone who would consider themselves ‘liberal’ in their outlook, even in the UK. If your conversation with someone like that starts off saying that fucking liberals like them are responsible for half the world’s political murders it’s not going to be much of a fruitful discussion.

It’s the equivalent of environmentalists preaching at you that you and your lefty friends are actually responsible for killing the whales because you’ve not personally gone out on a boat to ram a Japanese whaler.