Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

What does "liberal" mean to you?

Brainaddict said:
Classic liberalism isn't particularly concerned with economics imo. Which explains why so many lefties hate it. It certainly leaves space for right-wing economics but it's not the same thing.

many liberals would favour a mixed economy - welfare state etc.
 
Das Uberdog said:
liberal - New Liberalism, Health Insurance, stuff like that. Nice people. Well-intentioned. Social Democrats. A little-bit Fabian,


This is the way I look at it. i have friends who are happy to consider themselves liberal because this is what it means to them.

Reformists rather than revolutionaries. Hearts in the right place but lacking the necessary political analysis or having a surfeit of naivity or optimism.
 
bluestreak said:
This is the way I look at it. i have friends who are happy to consider themselves liberal because this is what it means to them.

Reformists rather than revolutionaries. Hearts in the right place but lacking the necessary political analysis or having a surfeit of naivity or optimism.

sorry, but whilst i'm not a liberal, that seems pretty arrogant. You might disagree with liberalism, but it has a long and respected tradition in political philosophy and is certainly not lacking in analysis. I'd say
lacking the necessary political analysis or having a surfeit of naivity or optimism.
could be applied to several strands of thought - anarchism among them - more comfortably than liberalism
 
Dubversion said:
many liberals would favour a mixed economy - welfare state etc.
Yes, you're right I suppose. In practice that's what most liberals have opted for, claiming that it is a good balance of individual freedoms with the social good. Their idea of the 'social good' is also very individualistic though, which is why the welfare state delivers straight from the state to individuals.

I do think that it is possible to also be a liberal socialist or a liberal neo-liberal though - you just have to regard the individual rights in a slightly different way (having a strong economic aspect for the former or zero economic aspect for the latter). With liberalism not being an explicitly economic philosophy it leaves room for both, as well as the middle ground that most liberals choose.
 
chilango said:
so..the people using the term "liberal" hate the fact that their own brand of politics isn't being all that succesful?
I think it has something to do with it, plus the idea of individual freedom doesn't fit in with a lot of their ideologies.
 
Dubversion said:
but it's not. you can't just make up your own meanings for a word.
Yes I can! That's the whole point of this thread!

For some people, liberal is someone who supports civil liberties etc, for others, it can be used to describe somebody they consider weak, or it can be used to describe someone who is economically to the right, and so on and so on...

Liberalism has many meanings and I find it a tad hypocritical that you tell me I can't make up meanings for a word because they don't match your definition!
 
CyberRose said:
Yes I can! That's the whole point of this thread!

For some people, liberal is someone who supports civil liberties etc, for others, it can be used to describe somebody they consider weak, or it can be used to describe someone who is economically to the right.

Liberalism has many meanings and I find it a tad hypocritical that you tell me I can't make up meanings for a word because they don't match your definition!

i think you've completely missed the fucking point. People use liberal on urban in various ways - as an insult, a pisstake etc. but if you're going to say liberals believe something, as a serious point, you can't just make up what that belief is.

Which you're doing. It does not - by any measure - mean someone who is economically to the right. Neo-Liberal, yes.

Your definition of liberal is provably wrong. Simple as that.
 
Brainaddict said:
With liberalism not being an explicitly economic philosophy it leaves room for both, as well as the middle ground that most liberals choose.
Let me rephrase that. I don't think they chose the middle ground - they were pushed into it by economic and social forces beyond their control and so learnt to justify it to themselves :p
 
The problem with trying to define liberalism is that in the 250ish year history of the word it has had numerous meanings.

It first became widely used (in the west) at a time when most countries were still run by kings (or in Britains case, Kings + the aristocracy). It's emphasis on individual freedom and rights was pretty radical at the time when many people were still considered the property of the local landowner.

Since then the word has been adopted for all kinds of different ideas, and there are big differences between being socially liberal or economically liberal or 'liberal' meaning just kind of open minded, maaan.

Probably all of the definitions of 'liberal' on this thread are correct in some circumstances. And with one word meaning so many different things it's probably on the verge of becoming meaningless, if it hasn't already.
 
OK, so the thread to date...

Liberals are...people we hate (no r-wingers here, but I'm sure they'd agree with the lefties on this)
People with a vague set of notions and values that revolve around individualism and not having ethnics or the poor as neighbours, but still think that threre should be a welfare state.
Social atomists, who consider the individual to be an entity completely separated from other individuals.
Neo-liberals, who are bastards and probably Merkins. Or Gordony Blown (oh that's good... I expect that'll be in the Guadian next week :rolleyes:)

Me...two strands of liberalism...back in the days before Marx they weren't separate, but Marxism, by presenting a new view of the world, split it into economic liberals (who ignored Marx and were probably just bastard expoliters anyway) and social liberals (who only really exist in the middle classes)

Is liberalism the political expression of the administrative/functionary class (middle class to anyone else)? Not wealthy enough to really not give a shit cos poverty still lurks, but not so rough and tough as to engage in actual history and class politics?
 
IMO a liberal is someone who holds that individual rights, such as freedom of speech, are of the greatest importance and sees them as ends in themselves rather than as means to an end.
 
Dubversion said:
sorry, but whilst i'm not a liberal, that seems pretty arrogant. You might disagree with liberalism, but it has a long and respected tradition in political philosophy and is certainly not lacking in analysis. I'd say could be applied to several strands of thought - anarchism among them - more comfortably than liberalism

*shrugs* perhaps. Although, tbf, liberalism has a long and respected tradition in political philosophy amongst liberals really.

See, liberalism ranges from the Victorian reformists who helped push genuine changes through by agreeing with the radicals through to people like those who came up with capaigns live Live Aid, Drop The Debt etc etc. Campaigns that essential expect those who benefit from political systems to reform themselves with no actual threat or benefit to them to do so.
 
Thing is, maybe Dub gets the same almost visceral reaction I do when someone uses phrases like 'lacking the necessary politics', or 'your politics are confused' (Attica phrase) and that's what caused his response...
 
Someone who values equality, liberty and individualism within society.

Then you can get economic liberalism and social liberalism and all sorts of strands which I think are quite distinct to being a liberal.
 
Dubversion said:

Fair enough, tis just my opinion. Liberalism is a tricky thing to pin down, but if you want to reform my opinion you could give me a list of non-liberal political philosophers who admire and respect liberalism beyond seeing it as a first step, and I'll go check them out and report my findings :)
 
Dubversion said:
i think you've completely missed the fucking point. People use liberal on urban in various ways - as an insult, a pisstake etc. but if you're going to say liberals believe something, as a serious point, you can't just make up what that belief is.

Which you're doing. It does not - by any measure - mean someone who is economically to the right. Neo-Liberal, yes.

Your definition of liberal is provably wrong. Simple as that.
The OP asks what "liberal" means to me, ie, my opinion. You can't tell me I don't know what my opinion is! You said it yourself, the word "liberal" is used in various ways, so why is that ok for other people and not for me?

If I told you my opinion of the word "liberal" meant racist xenophobes, you still couldn't tell me I was wrong!

Liberal, to me, means exactly what it says on the tin: Economically liberal and politically liberal, FACT
 
liberal means checks and balances, liberal means making things work, liberal means putting up with shit
 
A lot of these terms all end up contradicting themselves. I mean, neo-liberals will say that free-market trade will provide the best liberty to all but then an social liberal will say that the market itself is a coercive force and denies freedom and liberty. All bollocks at the end of the day.
 
bluestreak said:
See, liberalism ranges from the Victorian reformists who helped push genuine changes through by agreeing with the radicals through to people like those who came up with capaigns live Live Aid, Drop The Debt etc etc. Campaigns that essential expect those who benefit from political systems to reform themselves with no actual threat or benefit to them to do so.
ok, I'll bite, what about Live Aid made it a liberal campaign?.
 
Back
Top Bottom