Hello, comrades. I was wondering why we allowed “liberal” to become a dirty word? A “liberal” is someone favorable to progress or reform, and also someone in favor of individual rights and liberties.
I understand American fake liberals largely discredited the word, but in Lemmygrad forums, I see true liberalism every day: people discuss progressive ideas all the time, and are very tolerant of each other. Why do we allow American fake liberals to ruin the experience for us all? The word “liberal” should once again ring positive, while fake liberals should be called “faux liberals” which they are, don’t you agree?
The liberal ideology was a product of the shifting class structure with the advent of industrialisation. The emerging capitalist class wanted to wrest itself free from the tyranny of the feudal and monarchist structures that were dominant at those times. At that point, liberalism was a revolutionary force towards restructuring of classes, but now that capitalism is the dominant ideology it is a reactionary force.
Progressivism is not an inherent part of liberalism. Progressivism as we see in mainstream discourse is a product of the combination of oppressed minorities having fought to secure rights for themselves and some sections of the ruling class trying to capitalise on their momentum to gain an upper hand their inter-bourgeoisie conflicts.
On what basis are you calling it true liberalism? Progenitors of the liberal ideology were very adamant that it was their right to own slaves.
Tolerance can be and has been engendered without liberalism. Women has much better rights in the USSR compared to the United States at the same despite patriarchy still being dominant. More women were educated and working.
I believe the use of the term “liberal” is highly dependent on which country or region you’re coming from. Where I live (Yugoslavia), the liberals didn’t advocate owning slaves and those that call themselves “liberals” today are very different from, say, those calling themselves “liberals” in the US. In some places, liberalism evolved and can no longer be described using the same ideological framework from over a century ago.
I think we need some way to distinguish between American style liberals and those who are really progressive even by today’s standards, but who also describe themselves as liberals. Please note that the “mainstream discourse” is different in different parts of the world.
I think you’re just fundamentally misunderstanding what liberalism is in regards to socialism. Liberalism is an ideology that is the product of bourgeois control of society; it is at odds with socialists because socialists desire a proletarian controlled society. You’re describing at best social Democrats, liberals who “really aren’t that bad guys”!
Liberalism isn’t some undefinable and regional term for Marxists like it is for, well, liberals, because we have a real definition for what it is. It is idealistic, creates a dictatorship of capital,and preserves the monstrous status quo. The status quo is bad and kills people and their souls, there are no good liberal politicians period.
I understand. If you insist on this definition, then it is a problem, I agree.
Like who?
Lol, how is there anything at all positive about the Ex-Yu liberals? Liberal politicians in the ex-Yu countries just simp out really hard for the West, they’re all pro-EU, pro-Western, supporting US imperialism - basically looking to sell out their country to the West. Why would you support those people?
There were two types of communists in ex-YU. One group advocated the Soviet style, less liberal ideas, following the Soviet lead. The other, Tito style, described themselves as more liberal.