You say that’s not a thing; That there’s only one liberal… Then you break down two different camps of liberals?
You see how that might be confused, right?
You say that’s not a thing; That there’s only one liberal… Then you break down two different camps of liberals?
You see how that might be confused, right?
frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
Yes, absolutely. Liberalism is a political philosophy and it is inherently contradictory. Liberals, therefore, as people have to cope with this contradiction and the evidence we have is that liberals cope with it by leaning heavily into one side of the contradiction and psychologically downplaying the other. Hence we get two camps.
However, the naming scheme we have today is deliberately confusing. It obfuscates instead of clarifies.
To say one set of liberals are liberals and the other set of liberals are conservatives is a corruption of language so severe that it reduces the language to utter nonsense.
For example, the liberals who we call liberals have zero idea that private property is the seat power in liberalism, while simultaneously being anti-communist in large part because it abolishes private property. But if you tell a liberal that they have no idea what you’re talking about and instead talk about “democracy”.
The liberals who we call conservatives are abundantly clear about the role of private property and they’re position on it. They openly state the private property is how liberty is achieved. But tell them that private property as a regime is a minoritarian dictatorship that flies in the face of the values of liberty and justice and they have no idea what you’re talking about and instead talk about the moral failings of the poor and how only the potential for liberty and justice matter and that we can’t use authoritarian government to ensure liberty and justice when it means limits on private property owners.
Not a single one of these people believe in the return to aristocracy under a monarchy. They both understand that private property and markets are the foundations of their society and that these things are in opposition to the tyranny of kings and nobles.
But they refuse to acknowledge that they have this common ground. That’s why Ds and Rs in Congress and in the Whitehouse have like 80% overlap in actual actions and yet the voters think the two parties are living in different universes. When GWB’s government identified a bunch of countries to invade, and then those invasions get carried out by GWB and by Obama and by DJT no one talks about the continuity. They are totally lost in their ability to analyze because they don’t see the 80% overlap, they only see the 20% difference and think “we are fundamentally different, you and I”.
That’s why we’re in the mess we’re in. Because liberalism is the only social form from which fascism has ever emerged. And communism is the only social form that has ever defeated and sought to fully destroy fascism. It was the USSR that marched all the way into and out of Berlin and purged every Nazi they could find during their administration of East Germany. It was the US and the Vatican that helped 10k Nazis escape justice and planted them all over the Americas. It was the US that insisted on putting Nazi officers in charge of NATO. It was West Germany under the administration of the Allies that allowed former Nazis to hold office mere weeks after the war.
Liberals are confused, because Liberalism is contradictory and those contradictions are now overwhelming the social system.
People cope with that by making up artificial categories and reusing the language to make it fit. It’s like a No True Scotsman fallacy. Socially liberal, economically liberal, classically liberal. It’s all an attempt to cope with the fact that Liberalism says “universal liberty” and at the same time “private property defended by all potential forms of violence, both from the government and from the owning class”.