Hermit Philosopher
Selflessly here for you
No. Where I studied, liberalism is for a small weaker state that intervenes as little as possible - without leaving its citizens to fend entirely for themselves obviously, for that would be anarchism.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Liberal vs. Leftist?
- Thread starter Deo Vindice
- Start date
No. Where I studied, liberalism is for a small weaker state that intervenes as little as possible - without leaving its citizens to fend entirely for themselves obviously, for that would be anarchism.
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
Most Anarchists I know are strongly opposed to leave the weak and needy to fend for themselves.
For practical purposes, I don't think there's a wrong or right in these political designations. What a Brit means by liberal, left or right, is different from what a Dane or American means by the same terms. It gets confusing.
Likewise, the "real center" differs from country to country, too, and to make things even more confusing, the center, in any given country, shifts over time. For example, what was considered mainstream Republican Right, here in the US, in the 1950s, would qualify as the radical Left today.
Likewise, the "real center" differs from country to country, too, and to make things even more confusing, the center, in any given country, shifts over time. For example, what was considered mainstream Republican Right, here in the US, in the 1950s, would qualify as the radical Left today.
Hermit Philosopher
Selflessly here for you
Yes. But they don’t want a state doing the “looking after”. They look after each other; like in a commune (nothing to do with communism btw) or a parish. No state.
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
Indeed! Ironically, however, so do a lot of political conservatives.
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
On the flip side, the first openly Socialist presidential candidate in US elections ran on a platform of 8 hour workdays and women's suffrage.
Hermit Philosopher
Selflessly here for you
Honestly, that’s not ironic where I studied. It makes perfect sense.
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
It's ironic because they frequently see no issue with the state intruding into people's private lives in other areas.
Hermit Philosopher
Selflessly here for you
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
I think it's easy to be confused since both labels are commonly used to mean "Someone I hate because they have a different opinion to me".
In reality, nobody can be defined by any singular label and the use of any of them are usually just divisive and disruptive, often intentionally.
That's why I prefer a state 'of, by and for' the people, to paraphrase Lincoln; state as co-op.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Traditionally, through most of history, "liberal" has meant a political view that government should be accountable to the people and not interfere too much in people's lives, that there should be a free press, religious toleration and that a free market should be allowed to operate. This is what it meant, more or less, from the end of the c.17th until the end of the c.19th. Classical liberalism - Wikipedia
There then emerged something called social liberalism: Social liberalism - Wikipedia which started to repudiate laissez-faire economics and advocate more intervention and market regulation.
Today's US political scene is rather peculiar in that it is dominated by culture wars. Liberals from a culture point of view retain the bias towards tolerance of various minority groupings (race, sex, sexual orientation, culture and so forth), which is opposed by cultural conservatives, who want to preserve the primacy of old WASP establishment values.
There is very little in liberalism, in any country, that owes anything to the thinking of Karl Marx, or to real socialism.
Your term "leftist" seems to have little historical significance, apart from being a pejorative label attached by the Right to people whose views they dislike.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Liberals believe in a free market economy. Economically they generally lean to the right. On social issues they tend to lean to the left, in that they believe in tolerance and equality of opportunity.
Socialists and Social Democrats generally believe in a managed economy, where the state has an important role in regulating markets and protecting the powerless from abuse and exploitation by the powerful.
Secret Chief
Very strong language
According to some denizens of twitter, the Labour party is practically far right (now).
Altfish
Veteran Member
It is nearer my politics than Corbyn's party ever was.According to some denizens of twitter, the Labour party is practically far right (now).
But I still feel totally disenfranchised.
To the same extent that "conservative" means fascist-lite.
The US Overton window has shifted the politically accessible positions to the right of center so everything that is left of conservative is far left. But when looking at political science as a whole, liberal isn't left at all. It's center to center right.
Fascinating. My identification falls almost exactly where I land on the political compass.
Liberals tend to be more moderate than leftist. Liberals also support capitalism, while leftists tend to be more socialistic in their perspective.
I see liberalism as a kind of "safety valve" for capitalists. Liberals support organized labor and social programs to reduce the suffering of the masses, who then won't be tempted by far-left, revolutionary rhetoric.
It's ironic how conservatives and capitalists always lambaste liberals, yet the liberals are the ones who saved their bacon.
Liberals saved America and other countries from both the fascists and the communists, while the conservatives saved Grenada.
The compass system is extremely flawed, as pointed out by @Kooky, but it still can be useful for talking in general terms about overarching trends.
Kind of like BMI (but that's another thread.)
Secret Chief
Very strong language
What would it take to change that?