A) In th broadest (political) sense:
- What is the definition?
- Who is a liberal: Marx, Proudhon, Bakunin, Mises, de Jasay, Chomsky, Stirner, Spencer, rothbard, Krugman, Locke, Smith, Burke, Hume, rousseau. Do all these people have a claim to liberalism in the broadest definition of the word? Who is definatly NOT a liberal?
- What political philosophies are a branch of liberalism? Progressivism, Socialism, Anarchism, etc?
My intuition tells me Fascism and Nazism are not, but why?
B) In the practicle sense of the word:
- What does it mean?
- Who should it refer to and why?
- When (at what time in history) do we (if we do) switch the use of the word and meaning and why?
C) What is the relationship of Conservatism (in Western Countries) to liberalism? How much of an overlap is there (maybe via a venn diagram)
I ask these obvious questions, just because I feel it needs a bit of clarification and I think it could be somewhat suprisingly controversial. Please if you decide to give an answer, try to give a source.
I will never consider socialists a part of liberalism the same way I think there is no "classical liberalism" only liberalism, otherwise I would like "libertarian socialists" to call themselves "classical libertarians".
Remember, all that "liberal" means is in favor of new things, and all that "conservative" means is in favor of old things. If I am conservative in my viewpoint then my viewpoint remains as it was before the new viewpoints arrived or gained popularity.
Everyone you named above it for large changes in society, by this logic both Marx and Rothbard are extremely liberal and are put on the far side of the left on the right and left spectrum.
This is part of why it is that the right/left spectrum is so damn pointless and should be replaced with a two axis graph each axis representing economic and social issues. This spectrum would actually give you a general idea as to WHAT THEIR ACTUAL POLICIES WERE.
Seriously if I were to appear on a political scale (I don't know if that's possible for an anarchist) then I would either appear as far left as you can go, or only slightly to the left because the laissez faire economic policy I promote is considered enough of a rightist idea to balance it all out.
Furthermore what might be liberal in one point and time or nation would probably be conservative in another. For instance Adam Smith, had he lived about 3 decades later would have probably been fairly conservative. Conservatives in China are pretty much old style militant and ultra national Marxists. I'm sure that a liberal in Iran would (or at least could) probably be fairly libertarian.
This is a good deal of the reason why it is so sad that a modern day American liberal when you disagree with him will assume that you're an idiot conservative, and a conservative will assume that you're a dumbass panzy liberal.
Hope that helped.
Dondoolee:What is the definition?
Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom"[1]) is the belief in the importance of individual liberty.
Let's beak down that definition:
Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true
OK, so what is truth?
Truth can have a variety of meanings, from the state of being the case, being in accord with a particular fact or reality, being in accord with the body of real things, events, actuality, or fidelity to an original or to a standard.
So, in it's most basic sense, Liberalism posits that it is objectively true that freedom of the individual is important.
Now there are many ways to approach the interpretation of "freedom" and "individual". This is why under the umbrella of Liberalism, sects as diverse as Libertarianism, to Communism, to National Socialism can be classified together.
From the egoist perspective, it is a fixed idea, that is, it implies an truth, of which the desires of the individual are subservient. Further, Liberalism is faith in man's capability of determining truth, replacing a deity as giver of oughts, or laws of behavior.
But can it, and should it be broken down IE a practicle use for the term? And how is it applied today? If one values "individual liberty" strictly off of consequentialist terms wouldn't that still count as a liberal and not as a truther? And I think this is why someone like de Jasay and Mises are liberals and not Liberals.
I think all political terms in this sense today have more and less been rendered absolutely useless via semantic fiat.
No one seems to know exactly what a liberal is or what a conservative is. Don't even get me started on anarchists.
People generally think anarcho-leftists are the only one that exist and this is why I shy away from announcing that I'm an AnCap and more often refer to myself as a classical liberal.
People get the wrong ideas when they hear anarchy/anarchist.
LvMIenthusiast: People get the wrong ideas when they hear anarchy/anarchist.
Really? When I talk to most people and they here that I'm an anarchist they either think that (in order of commonality)
1. I'm insane
2. I'm a crazy rebel who wants guns in the street and a war of man against man.
3. That I'm not so much left per se as I think that humans are perfect and infallable
4. That I'm a communist
A little while back in my European History course the teacher gave a handout describing the political spectrum and it had things like liberal, conservative, socialist and so on and anarchy at the very top of the page.
It read: "A society in which there is no government, law, or social order"
As he talked (he didn't even mention anarchism) I took my pencil and shaded out the last two parts of that.
Dondoolee:If one values "individual liberty" strictly off of consequentialist terms wouldn't that still count as a liberal and not as a truther?
As I interpret it, no Ideology, no fixed ideas, no Liberalism. Instead, Egoism.
Dondoolee:But can it, and should it be broken down IE a practicle use for the term? And how is it applied today?
I think it should be. It is an ideology, which is defined as:
An ideology is a set of aims and ideas that directs one's goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare worldview), as in common sense (see Ideology in everyday society below) and several philosophical tendencies (see Political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society (a 'received consciousness' or product of socialization). The main purpose behind an ideology is to offer change in society, and adherence to a set of ideals where conformity already exists, through a normative thought process
This last bit is important. Here is the definition of Normative:
In philosophy, normative statements affirm how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, which actions are right or wrong. Normative is usually contrasted with positive (i.e. descriptive, explanatory, or constative) when describing types of theories, beliefs, or propositions. Positive statements are factual statements that attempt to describe reality.
This implies that by definition, Liberalism, as an ideology, espouses a fixed idea, or a ought.
Jackson LaRose: Dondoolee:If one values "individual liberty" strictly off of consequentialist terms wouldn't that still count as a liberal and not as a truther? As I interpret it, no Ideology, no fixed ideas, no Liberalism. Instead, Egoism.
See, I think it could be a quality of one person. Example: I have the qualities of a man, a lover of Stravinsky, Homer, etc.
If some one wished to catagorize liking Stravinsky, Homer, and good American rye whiskey together and call it Xism, I would be sort of an Xist by default, as I like the consequences of that catagory.
If I think individual "rights", open markets, individualism etc would serve me best I suppose I would be a liberal, right?
So I suppose liberalism could just be a social disposition or philosophy etc and not neccasarily an ideology?
Egoism can mean three things
Ethical Egoism - A normative ethical position
Psychological/descriptivist Egoism - A doctrine that maintains that people always act in their self interest
Rational Egoism - The belief that it is rational to act in ones self interest
All of those are fixed ideas.
Sorry, as I honestly do not wish to sound impolite
but egoism =/= liberalism
I would really kind of like to stay on topic on this thread.
Grunch,
Liberalism used to mean a form of negative rights: freedom to do with your property/person as you wish. Now (in the US) it's taken on a form of positive rights: freedom to get stuff and TAKE stuff from others.
Dondoolee: Sorry, as I honestly do not wish to sound impolite but egoism =/= liberalism
Who said otherwise?
To keep this on topic:
Dondoolee:So I suppose liberalism could just be a social disposition or philosophy etc and not neccasarily an ideology?
Philosophy is generally just a way of evaluating a system of beliefs, liberalism is an ideology as its a set of beliefs that are actively strived for.
So than if would I be an Ideological Xist than since I like Stravinsky, Homer, and rye?
Dondoolee:So than if would I be an Ideological Xist than since I like Stravinsky, Homer, and rye?
Sure, if you hold that their spreading would be beneficial.
1) beneficial for me or some other reason?
2) So in order for me to hold an ideology I have to want it spread?
If I wanted to date Mary Sue and wanted a romantic relationship with her, and than actively asked her out to the sock hop, there by spreading my beliefs that we should date, would I be a "Mary Sue relationship Idealogue"?
Dondoolee:1) beneficial for me or some other reason?
You wouldn't do it if it wasn't beneficial for yourself.
Dondoolee:2) So in order for me to hold an ideology I have to want it spread?
Pretty much, ideas with "vigour"
Dondoolee:If I wanted to date Mary Sue and wanted a romantic relationship with her, and than actively asked her out to the sock hop, there by spreading my beliefs that we should date, would I be a "Mary Sue relationship Idealogue"?
Generally its held to be a tool of social change, do you think that is social change?
It is a tool of social change. It effects my social environment; for better if she says yes, for worse if she says no. It could also impact the environment of others.
Dondoolee:It is a tool of social change. It effects my social environment; for better if she says yes, for worse if she says no. It could also impact the environment of others.
This shouldn't be considered ideology, because you don't think the girl ought to dance with you, or should dance with you because you have a right to dance with her, you merely want to dance with her. The appeal to justice doesn't exist.
All of the other examples you posted are the same thing. If you enjoy or desire something, you have made it your own, you haven't allowed it to control what you ought to be doing.
I could be called a liberal person because I want to be left alone by the state. I become a Liberal, when I say that I deserve to have the state leave me alone, because they are wrong, and I am right. It is the pretense of justification, the ought, that separates Ideology from desire, or will.
Angurse:You wouldn't do it if it wasn't beneficial for yourself.
That is a very good point. Everyone in the end, acts in their own self-interest, no matter how pious or self-abasing they seems to be.
But the ideologue is blinded by their righteousness to believe their self-desire is now the Right thing to do. The egoist (or agnostic, since the only thing on the web are non-Stirnerite definitions of the word "egoist") does not hold such pretension, merely acts according to their will, with no presupposed notion of righteousness.
So its an ideology. You think she should dance with you because it will benefit you, her (possibly) and society (possibly) it will definitely be a change from the status quo.
Angurse:So its an ideology.
No.
Angurse:ou think she should dance with you
No. That is an unnecessary justification to want to dance with the girl. You simply want to dance with her.
Angurse:it will benefit you, her (possibly) and society (possibly) it will definitely be a change from the status quo.
This is all possible, but unnecessary considerations to act.
I think we should agree to only destroy one thread with our rants. We both (I think) have our definitions posted on this thread, and our reasoning for them. Let's let that be enough here.
Jackson LaRose:Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom"[1]) is the belief in the importance of individual liberty.
If that is the definition of liberalism then everyone from Marx, Mill and Rothbard would be liberals. Liberalism, in its classical terms, must include private property to allow it to have any explanatory value in regards to liberty.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Laughing Man: Jackson LaRose:Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom"[1]) is the belief in the importance of individual liberty. If that is the definition of liberalism then everyone from Marx, Mill and Rothbard would be liberals. Liberalism, in its classical terms, must include private property to allow it to have any explanatory value in regards to liberty.
They are all liberal, in the classic sense when applied broadly and historicly.
Socialism was considerd liberalism, the left-Hegelians were liberals, if you read for 1800's lit, for example, The Brothers Kazamov; Dostoevsky would call Prodhoun, Bakunin, and Kropotkin liberals. I think the roots of liberalism shows a lot of overlap of all ideas, just look at the liberal French revolution.
Laughing Man:If that is the definition of liberalism then everyone from Marx, Mill and Rothbard would be liberals. Liberalism, in its classical terms, must include private property to allow it to have any explanatory value in regards to liberty.
I posit in that it's broadest possible sense, all liberal ideologies say "Man (or some grouping thereof) should be free."
The definitions of "man" and "free" are interpreted differently by each sect.
Jackson LaRose: Laughing Man:If that is the definition of liberalism then everyone from Marx, Mill and Rothbard would be liberals. Liberalism, in its classical terms, must include private property to allow it to have any explanatory value in regards to liberty. I posit in that it's broadest possible sense, all liberal ideologies say "Man (or some grouping thereof) should be free." The definitions of "man" and "free" are interpreted differently by each sect.
On top of that there is good evidence it was used very broadly, and back in the 1800's I do not think propertarianism was an indispensible point on the liberal platform.
Now if it is practicle to call a socialist, libertarian, or US conservative a liberal today I don't know. I have a hunch it should just be used for progressives.
Dondoolee: They are all liberal, in the classic sense when applied broadly and historicly. Socialism was considerd liberalism, the left-Hegelians were liberals, if you read for 1800's lit, for example, The Brothers Kazamov; Dostoevsky would call Prodhoun, Bakunin, and Kropotkin liberals. I think the roots of liberalism shows a lot of overlap of all ideas, just look at the liberal French revolution.
Again, what do you consider liberal? It must be so broad to fit all of these people making it a meaningless title.
Jackson LaRose: I posit in that it's broadest possible sense, all liberal ideologies say "Man (or some grouping thereof) should be free."
Then again I say its a meaningless definition. Almost a tautology in nature.
It's not so much what I consider liberal. It is my issue with words like "classic liberalism", as I don't think that "classic liberal" is an entirley accurate statement of the 1800's mentality (not that it doesn't fit under liberalism). What I want to know is exactly what was meant by the use of the word in the 1800's. What was the "philosophy of liberalism" in the broadest sense of the term.
It seems to me to mostly imply "equal rights of man", an antagonistic attitude towards hierarchies, a moral code based upon humanism, and a general rebellion against feudalism, religion, and 1800's conservatism (especially the continental kind). It also seems to imply an "equal" ruling of man be it constitutionalism, republicanism, anarchism, socialism, etc.
And also;did, how, and why did the word evolve? How is fascism and nazism not a branch off of liberalism?
And with those implications should technocratic, beauracratic, elitist, scientism type progressive types fail to be called liberal when considering the older way it seemed to be used (esp in Europe)?
Jackson LaRose:That is a very good point. Everyone in the end, acts in their own self-interest, no matter how pious or self-abasing they seems to be. But the ideologue is blinded by their righteousness to believe their self-desire is now the Right thing to do. The egoist (or agnostic, since the only thing on the web are non-Stirnerite definitions of the word "egoist") does not hold such pretension, merely acts according to their will, with no presupposed notion of righteousness.
So, two contradictory statements, ever read 1984? If everyone acts in their own self interest then one's righteousness is just them acting according to their will.
Jackson LaRose:No. That is an unnecessary justification to want to dance with the girl. You simply want to dance with her.
What? That isn't a justification at all. He simply does think she should dance with him. The reasons as to why are the justification.
Jackson LaRose:This is all possible, but unnecessary considerations to act.
It doesn't change anything whether he considers them or not.
Jackson LaRose:I think we should agree to only destroy one thread with our rants. We both (I think) have our definitions posted on this thread, and our reasoning for them. Let's let that be enough here.
OK? You should probably have said that without attacking my definition prior though.
Dondoolee:How is fascism and nazism not a branch off of liberalism?
Fascism is a movement of reactionary conservatism against socialism. It came about in Italy because of Boshevik labor unions
David Boaz gives a short history in Libertarianism: A Primer.
Paraphrasing: The first use of the term was in Spain, early in the 19th century. "Liberales" referred to the Spanish middle class that was opposed to the Serviles (who represented the aristrocracy / Ancien Regime). In Britain, they were the Whigs (liberals) vs the Tories. In the 19th century, the term "liberal" came into wide use (the Whigs became the LIberal Party). The term "classical libreral" didn't emerge in the US until after the label "liberal" was absconded around 1900. Outside the US, the term liberal is still sometimes used to refer to individual rights and the rule of law (South Africa, Iran, China, etc.). In the 1950s, Leonard Read borrowed the term libertarian from the philosophers and it has been the label of choice for many ever since.
At the turn of the century, I guess the Democrats didn't want to be associated with slavery anymore, so they ran off with our name. SOBs.
Laughing Man: Dondoolee:How is fascism and nazism not a branch off of liberalism?Fascism is a movement of reactionary conservatism against socialism. It came about in Italy because of Boshevik labor unions
I disagree, Fascism is socialism with a different face, and modified rhetoric. It is a reaction against Liberalism, just as socialism is a reaction against Liberalism. (Classical Liberalism). The mutual enmity between socialists and fascists is merely product differentiation from two retailers that sell substitutable goods. (forgive the terrible analogy)
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Fascism to me seems to typify the word "reactionary", and a direct rebellion against anything on the "left" (which would include capitalists). It built its principles off of nation building, authoritarianism, and imperialism. The thing is though, it did so off of 1800's "revolutionary" language . They still seem to be a product of 1800's liberal (broad sense) philosophy in that it seems to be the pinacle/ bastard offspring of continental Germanic and Italian "liberal nationalism".
Hence my confusion when drawing a tree and branches of liberalism
nirgrahamUK:I disagree, Fascism is socialism with a different face, and modified rhetoric. It is a reaction against Liberalism, just as socialism is a reaction against Liberalism. (Classical Liberalism). The mutual enmity between socialists and fascists is merely product differentiation from two retailers that sell substitutable goods. (forgive the terrible analogy)
Well I never said fascism wasn't contradictory. That what is really is. It's socialism with a different face but its reactionary against Bolshevik socialism. Paul Gottfried is a good lecturer to listen to concerning the subject of Italian fascism.
Laughing Man: nirgrahamUK:I disagree, Fascism is socialism with a different face, and modified rhetoric. It is a reaction against Liberalism, just as socialism is a reaction against Liberalism. (Classical Liberalism). The mutual enmity between socialists and fascists is merely product differentiation from two retailers that sell substitutable goods. (forgive the terrible analogy) Well I never said fascism wasn't contradictory. That what is really is. It's socialism with a different face but its reactionary against Bolshevik socialism. Paul Gottfried is a good lecturer to listen to concerning the subject of Italian fascism.
I wouldn't call it socialist. It is a syncretic economic doctrine, a type of old-school "Third Way" thing.
This is Mussolini's manifesto, outlying the philosophy:
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm
A small segment from it:
" Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity (11). It is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts
The rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual (12). And if liberty is to he the attribute of living men and not of abstract dummies invented by individualistic liberalism, then Fascism stands for liberty, and for the only liberty worth having, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State (13). The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism, is totalitarian, and the Fascist State - a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values - interprets, develops, and potentates the whole life of a people (14).
No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State (15). Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State (16)."
I think the French Revolution is a good example for what you are trying to say. I think liberalism would even more often than its more theoretical postulates also refer to the generally shared personal preferences of the people deeming themselves liberals. So revolutionary France, with its authoritarian republicanism was to be be thought of as a radically liberal state as long as its authoritarianism was in the service of shaping society towards the preferences commonly held by liberals.
Dondoolee: I wouldn't call it socialist. It is a syncretic economic doctrine, a type of old-school "Third Way" thing.
'Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State' is certainly a socialistic motto. You brought up before the term 'left-Hegelians' well what this is right here is the conservative or rightist faction of Hegelianism which propounds that the full realization of societal advancement, morals and rights is realized through the state apparatus. The state essentially is a representation of the society. It's socialism of the right. Now the difference between this and what left-Hegelians like Marx was trying to do is pronounce that civil or collective interests are the same as private interests. Hegel liked to think there was constant conflict between the two but Communism according to Marx would be the realization that they aren't different. Fascism are destroying the private interests and retaining the collective interests, Marx is merely trying to converge them or at least announcing that they will inevitability converge. In either class, the collective interests retains itself as the highest aim so while they may go about it in a different fashion their end goals are still the same.