It’s the outside-the-US meaning that anarchists would typically use, and the US-centric definition is effectively a subset of the general definition when viewed from a leftist perspective, as they’re both capitalist with minimal regulation, just in the US it’s got the added connotations of being less homophobic and racist etc. then the centre of the Overton window, whereas classic liberalism isn’t incompatible with racism and homophobia etc…
I’m not sure this is only about regional variations (I wrote about before) where in North America liberal refers to modern liberalism whereas for the rest of the world it typically refers to classical liberalism.
Regardless of their thoughts on classical liberalism, there’s still the concept that “protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual” ought “to be the central problem of politics” or rank high up there, and that concept has a name: liberalism.
Acting like there’s some fault in insisting freedom of the individual matters or that it has do with anything else is a shitty take on their part.
Capitalism emerged in Britain, the Netherlands, and most of today’s high-income countries long before democracy.
Even in the recent past, capitalism has coexisted with undemocratic rule, as in Chile from 1973 to 1990, Brazil from 1964 to 1985, and Japan until 1945. Contemporary China has a variant of capitalism with a high level of state intervention, but its system of government is not a democracy by our definition. In many countries today, however, capitalism and democracy coexist, each system influencing how the other works.
Moreover, modern liberalism advocates market regulation.
Liberal democratic governments may play a major role directing economic development even with less left-leaning liberals.
These differences even among democracies are part of the explanation for governments’ differing roles in the capitalist economy. The Japanese and South Korean governments play a central role in setting the direction of the economy. But the amount of tax collected (both locally and nationally) is low compared with some rich countries in northern Europe, where it is almost half of GDP. In Sweden and Denmark, the tax system is used to reduce income inequality to a far greater extent than in Japan and South Korea.
the US-centric definition is effectively a subset of the general definition
Are you sure about that? Can you cite a real world comparative example with specifics (attitudes, views, perspective, key historical points relevant to this conversation)? No meaningless generalities.
It’s the outside-the-US meaning that anarchists would typically use … when viewed from a leftist perspective, as they’re both capitalist with minimal regulation
If that’s the case, are you saying that a liberal in Moldova, Oman and the US are all the same and “capitalist with minimal regulation” is all that they are?
And the points above are just the tip of the iceberg, the kindergarten-level stuff.
So here is another question, so when you say liberals in Oman and the US are a subset of the same thing, do anarchists have the final call of defining who qualifies as a liberal in Oman (or any other country)? Does self identification as liberal play any role or not? This is not a gotcha per se., well, maybe a little bit, I am referring to something specific :), but I am genuinely curious what you have to say on this.
I will say it again, this really is fascinating. There is a certain abstract beauty to the whole obsession with “libs” among American internet “leftists”.
Liberalism is a really broad family of conflicting political and moral philosophies, and it’s really just the capitalist with minimal regulation bit that’s consistently there in all the branches. Most of the time, people are only dealing with different branches of liberalism, and depending on the local politics, there might only be one major political party in a country calling themselves the liberals.
Generally, leftists will talk about liberals and liberalism a lot because they’re living under some branch of liberalism, and they disagree to some extent with every branch of liberalism. Socialism, Communism and Anarchism are not Liberalism (and if you want to upset tankies and say it’s distinct from communism or upset other leftists and say it’s leftist Marxism-Leninism is not liberalism, too). Fascism and Conservatism are also not liberalism, but they’re not leftist, either, and to confuse things, lots of political parties calling themselves conservative around the world only want things that fit a definition of liberalism.
I mentioned anarchism and what anarchists think in the previous post because you replied to a post with a screenshot where an anarchist mentioned libs and seemed to think it was ambiguous what he meant, when it’s deducible from the fact that he’s an anarchist.
So here is another question, so when you say liberals in Oman and the US are a subset of the same thing
The thing I’ve noticed about the most vocal leftists here is that they all subscribe to the “spheres of influence” idea, where countries essentially belong to the great power whose sphere they exist in. Such countries (and the people within them) don’t have any agency or rights except as afforded by their great power masters. As such, Oman doesn’t matter or even really exist.
It’s the outside-the-US meaning that anarchists would typically use, and the US-centric definition is effectively a subset of the general definition when viewed from a leftist perspective, as they’re both capitalist with minimal regulation, just in the US it’s got the added connotations of being less homophobic and racist etc. then the centre of the Overton window, whereas classic liberalism isn’t incompatible with racism and homophobia etc…
I’m not sure this is only about regional variations (I wrote about before) where in North America liberal refers to modern liberalism whereas for the rest of the world it typically refers to classical liberalism. Regardless of their thoughts on classical liberalism, there’s still the concept that “protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual” ought “to be the central problem of politics” or rank high up there, and that concept has a name: liberalism. Acting like there’s some fault in insisting freedom of the individual matters or that it has do with anything else is a shitty take on their part.
To address your other points, neither capitalism nor liberalism is essential to each other, and capitalism is older than liberal democracy.
Moreover, modern liberalism advocates market regulation.
Liberal democratic governments may play a major role directing economic development even with less left-leaning liberals.
Mhmm.
I sense embrace-extend-extinguish.
Are you sure about that? Can you cite a real world comparative example with specifics (attitudes, views, perspective, key historical points relevant to this conversation)? No meaningless generalities.
If that’s the case, are you saying that a liberal in Moldova, Oman and the US are all the same and “capitalist with minimal regulation” is all that they are?
And the points above are just the tip of the iceberg, the kindergarten-level stuff.
So here is another question, so when you say liberals in Oman and the US are a subset of the same thing, do anarchists have the final call of defining who qualifies as a liberal in Oman (or any other country)? Does self identification as liberal play any role or not? This is not a gotcha per se., well, maybe a little bit, I am referring to something specific :), but I am genuinely curious what you have to say on this.
I will say it again, this really is fascinating. There is a certain abstract beauty to the whole obsession with “libs” among American internet “leftists”.
Liberalism is a really broad family of conflicting political and moral philosophies, and it’s really just the capitalist with minimal regulation bit that’s consistently there in all the branches. Most of the time, people are only dealing with different branches of liberalism, and depending on the local politics, there might only be one major political party in a country calling themselves the liberals.
Generally, leftists will talk about liberals and liberalism a lot because they’re living under some branch of liberalism, and they disagree to some extent with every branch of liberalism. Socialism, Communism and Anarchism are not Liberalism (and if you want to upset tankies and say it’s distinct from communism or upset other leftists and say it’s leftist Marxism-Leninism is not liberalism, too). Fascism and Conservatism are also not liberalism, but they’re not leftist, either, and to confuse things, lots of political parties calling themselves conservative around the world only want things that fit a definition of liberalism.
I mentioned anarchism and what anarchists think in the previous post because you replied to a post with a screenshot where an anarchist mentioned libs and seemed to think it was ambiguous what he meant, when it’s deducible from the fact that he’s an anarchist.
The thing I’ve noticed about the most vocal leftists here is that they all subscribe to the “spheres of influence” idea, where countries essentially belong to the great power whose sphere they exist in. Such countries (and the people within them) don’t have any agency or rights except as afforded by their great power masters. As such, Oman doesn’t matter or even really exist.