That’s just pure ideology based in propaganda. Liberalism is inherently pro-capitalism, and you are deluding yourself if you don’t understand that. You can’t separate politics and economics, that’s why marxists use the term “political economy”.
If the idea that people should have the freedom to control their own lives is inherently capitalist, you’ve just convinced me that capitalism is inherently good.
The right to private property is also the core foundation of being able to own property of any kind without being (a) the king or (b) granted a title of nobility by the king.
The distinction between personal and private property arose a few hundred years later.
Your continued conflation of personal liberty and capitalism is the core of your confusion. Fix that flaw in your understanding, and you might be able to reckon with the reality of political economy without these propaganda fairtales obscuring the truth.
No, I pretty clearly said one can be anticapitalist and liberal. I am not conflating the two in any way. One is about accumulating capital, the other is about not having to live life the way your king says you must.
Ownership of productive property for accumulation of profit is the economic outcome of liberal ideals about the protection of all private property rights. I don’t understand how liberalism can be anti-capitalist in practice. Capitalist accumulation means that the political power of capital overtakes any other. This is the historical reality. This is why liberal ideals have allowed the creation corporate personhood and free speech has resulted in no functional constraint of money in politics. This is how the process always plays out. If you are anti-capitalist, that is incompatible with the liberal ideals of absolute private property rights. That is a contradiction that many anti-capitalists highlight extensively.
Your continued conflation of personal liberty and capitalism is the core of your confusion.
Liberal ideals don’t inherently protect private property rights, as the difference between private and personal property was not yet established.
Liberal ideals protect the idea that you can own property as well, because before that everything (including your life) technically belonged to the king.
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property, and equality before the law.
You are free to have a personal definition of the word “liberal” that differs from the widely accepted academic definition. It’s just not helpful in discussion to assume everyone else uses that definition.
You can be anticapitalist and liberal at the same time
No, that doesn’t even “check out” on the NATOpedia article. Even that article is explicit that liberalism is fundamentally a pro-capitalist ideology with private property as a core aspect. But it is fun watching you did a hole for yourself, step into it, then declare victory.
And how is the OP meme referencing anything “tankies” say, other than that the person speaking in the OP image is someone you would call a “tankie”? See that little hammer and sickle next to her name? You really are deeply confused, aren’t you.
It actually specifies property in general. Now, I know tankies like to see that and append “private” in front, but Liberalism has been around for hundreds of years longer than marxism, and prior to liberalism, property was handed out by the king, and owning property meant you were a noble.
The idea that non-nobility can own anything, including personal property, is a liberal idea.
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property, and equality before the law.
Left out a VERY important part of that definition there, bucko.
You fundamentally cannot be a proponent of liberalism without fundamentally supporting capitalism. It’s literally part of the definition of liberalism.
Correct. Prior to the concept of liberalism, all property was owned by the king and nobility. Liberalism includes the idea that non-nobles can own property. It also predates the distinction between private and personal property by a good 200 years.
People aren’t digging your comment because
I think you haven’t distinguished between liberal social values of upholding personal liberty and free and fair elections, with the liberal economic value private ownership of capital. The former makes sense and non-negotiable. The latter is becoming obsolete overtime.
Yes but you’re always looking at the world through some lens, some ideology. If it’s not a scientific one, it’s still a lens. There’s no escaping subjectivity
You can be anticapitalist and liberal at the same time, you just need to believe that people should have the right to live as they’d like.
Technically correct, but this combination of beliefs only appears in people who have no political education or class consciousness.
Yeah, that’s like saying you live in a forest fire, but believe folks can decide to not just spontaneously combust
One describes the level of control authorities have over your life, the other is an economic system.
I know that conflating the two would really make tankie arguments much simpler, but unfortunately they are separate dimensions of politics.
That’s just pure ideology based in propaganda. Liberalism is inherently pro-capitalism, and you are deluding yourself if you don’t understand that. You can’t separate politics and economics, that’s why marxists use the term “political economy”.
If the idea that people should have the freedom to control their own lives is inherently capitalist, you’ve just convinced me that capitalism is inherently good.
You’re missing the part of the definition of liberalism that upholds the right to private property, which is the core foundation of capitalism.
There are other ideologies that uphold the right to control your own life that don’t also uphold private property, such as socialism.
The right to private property is also the core foundation of being able to own property of any kind without being (a) the king or (b) granted a title of nobility by the king.
The distinction between personal and private property arose a few hundred years later.
Uh huh.
Don’t forget to pay rent this month.
Rent? What’s that? Some poor people thing?
Very Free. Much Liberty!
Propaganda has burrowed so deep into your thinking. Capital accumulation is inherently oppressive.
I didn’t know that freedom to live your life as you see fit was the accumulation of capital.
Your continued conflation of personal liberty and capitalism is the core of your confusion. Fix that flaw in your understanding, and you might be able to reckon with the reality of political economy without these propaganda fairtales obscuring the truth.
No, I pretty clearly said one can be anticapitalist and liberal. I am not conflating the two in any way. One is about accumulating capital, the other is about not having to live life the way your king says you must.
Ownership of productive property for accumulation of profit is the economic outcome of liberal ideals about the protection of all private property rights. I don’t understand how liberalism can be anti-capitalist in practice. Capitalist accumulation means that the political power of capital overtakes any other. This is the historical reality. This is why liberal ideals have allowed the creation corporate personhood and free speech has resulted in no functional constraint of money in politics. This is how the process always plays out. If you are anti-capitalist, that is incompatible with the liberal ideals of absolute private property rights. That is a contradiction that many anti-capitalists highlight extensively.
Your continued conflation of personal liberty and capitalism is the core of your confusion.
Liberal ideals don’t inherently protect private property rights, as the difference between private and personal property was not yet established.
Liberal ideals protect the idea that you can own property as well, because before that everything (including your life) technically belonged to the king.
This is quite the nothing-burger reply you’ve assembled. What’s the definition of Liberal you’re operating on?
Honestly, I’ve reread your first sentence so many times. I might make a hat with it.
Here ya go.
Great, that’s the same one I follow, but you’re not the one I was asking.
If that is the definition you’re working on, it’s pro-capitalism.
Also, it’s a public forum, dillweed. Didn’t matter you didn’t ask me specifically.
You are free to have a personal definition of the word “liberal” that differs from the widely accepted academic definition. It’s just not helpful in discussion to assume everyone else uses that definition.
Okay.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
Yup. Checks out. Rights of the individual, government through consent, etc…sounda like I’m using the commonly accepted academic definition.
Are you perhaps using the American definition provided by Fox News/tankies, that the meme references?
No, that doesn’t even “check out” on the NATOpedia article. Even that article is explicit that liberalism is fundamentally a pro-capitalist ideology with private property as a core aspect. But it is fun watching you did a hole for yourself, step into it, then declare victory.
And how is the OP meme referencing anything “tankies” say, other than that the person speaking in the OP image is someone you would call a “tankie”? See that little hammer and sickle next to her name? You really are deeply confused, aren’t you.
It actually specifies property in general. Now, I know tankies like to see that and append “private” in front, but Liberalism has been around for hundreds of years longer than marxism, and prior to liberalism, property was handed out by the king, and owning property meant you were a noble.
The idea that non-nobility can own anything, including personal property, is a liberal idea.
Left out a VERY important part of that definition there, bucko.
You fundamentally cannot be a proponent of liberalism without fundamentally supporting capitalism. It’s literally part of the definition of liberalism.
Correct. Prior to the concept of liberalism, all property was owned by the king and nobility. Liberalism includes the idea that non-nobles can own property. It also predates the distinction between private and personal property by a good 200 years.
People aren’t digging your comment because I think you haven’t distinguished between liberal social values of upholding personal liberty and free and fair elections, with the liberal economic value private ownership of capital. The former makes sense and non-negotiable. The latter is becoming obsolete overtime.
I think some of the people who are unhappy with my comment have a vested interest in conflating the two as well, tbh.
C’est la vie.
I see you’ve got into argument with .ml users 😂 not all of them are bad but they are in their own bubble and see everything in material dialectics.
Genuinely, what do you find preferable to examining the world through a scientific lens?
A lens is not the only tool in science.
Yes but you’re always looking at the world through some lens, some ideology. If it’s not a scientific one, it’s still a lens. There’s no escaping subjectivity