What does "liberal" mean to you?

[N_igma]

ok, I'll bite, what about Live Aid made it a liberal campaign?.

Cos it changed the world maaaaaaaaaaan! WOO HOO!

 

[chilango]

so...right....am I a liberal?

kinda libertarian (i know what that means)
left inclined (but not socialist or social democrat / more libertarian communist really)
radical
I dunno if i-m a reformist or a revolutionary (cos whilst I know that radical social change won-t happen through representative democracy, i don-t think it will happen through a revolution either)

no i don-t mind being a liberal, if i am one, but if i-m not then what am i?

 

[bluestreak]

sleater; Because it combated a famine caused by poor political planning and targetted starvation by putting much of the aid into the hands of those who were responsible.

Well intentioned but lacking genuine political analysis of the situation meant that the bastards who caused it actually profitted massively because of Sir Bob and his bleeding hearts.

 

[bluestreak]

wtf is wrong with my spelling today?

FFS, this keyboard is getting it all wrong.

 

[sleaterkinney]

sleater; Because it combated a famine caused by poor political planning and targetted starvation by putting much of the aid into the hands of those who were responsible.

Well intentioned but lacking genuine political analysis of the situation meant that the bastards who caused it actually profitted massively because of Sir Bob and his bleeding hearts.

What about that is specific to liberalism?

 

[bluestreak]

Liberalism believes in charity rather than change - reform rather than revolution. IYSWIM.

 

[N_igma]

Liberalism believes in charity rather than change - reform rather than revolution. IYSWIM.

Classic Liberalism that is.

ETA: Then again I'm inclined to agree with Sleater, it had fuck all to do with Liberalism, more a gimmick to make it look as though "we" cared.

 

[Brainaddict]

Liberalism believes in ...reform rather than revolution. IYSWIM.

There are some good reasons for that, to do with respect for people's rights. It's one of the areas where I show myself to be more liberal than many people on here.

 

[Dubversion]

Its not my fault you're not very good at explaining what you mean

a comedian too?

 

[Idaho]

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

Personally I see revolutionary politics to be the niaive and optimistic side of the fence. Seeing as every revolution so far has been a violent and spectacular failure.

 

[CyberRose]

a comedian too?

I try

 

[sleaterkinney]

Liberalism believes in charity rather than change - reform rather than revolution. IYSWIM.

But given the lack of sucessful revolutions is that a bad thing?.

 

[bluestreak]

Classic Liberalism that is.

ETA: Then again I'm inclined to agree with Sleater, it had fuck all to do with Liberalism, more a gimmick to make it look as though "we" cared.

I disagree, I think many many people involved in Live Aid, and those who gave money genuinely did care. The images coming out of Ethipoia were horrifying, the speeches given on stage were often heartfelt and honest.


BA, I understand that, but I don't think you protect the rights of the exploited through respecting the rights of their exploiters, IYSWIM.

 

[Idaho]

The reform rather than revolution can be taken from two different sides.

The ruling class could offer reforms to prevent revolution, or the working class can campaign for reforms instead of offering revolution. The former is the American style Liberal and the latter then British style liberal democrat or democratic socialist.

 

[Brainaddict]

BA, I understand that, but I don't think you protect the rights of the exploited through respecting the rights of their exploiters, IYSWIM.

S'not really that simple though, because the world just isn't as simple as the exploiters versus the exploited - but that's kind of a whole other debate for another thread.

 

[kyser_soze]

Surely tho, bluey, it's possible to have 'adequate' political analysis, and still not be a revo? I mean I pretty much get the whole Marx/capital/bastards thing, but I'm not calling for a revolution because I also believe that the revolutionary mindset is not especially conducive to building a better world.

 

[N_igma]

I disagree, I think many many people involved in Live Aid, and those who gave money genuinely did care. The images coming out of Ethipoia were horrifying, the speeches given on stage were often heartfelt and honest.

But now you're attaching human feelings to political ideologies which is wrong. Being liberal doesn't equate to being nice and being kind, even look at Mill, probably the most influential liberal there was. He was a nationalist, didn't want the illiterate to vote and endorsed a plural voting system whereby the rich and well off got more votes than those who weren't. How "liberal" is that?

 

[bluestreak]

But given the lack of sucessful revolutions is that a bad thing?.

That does, of course, depend on your viewpoint. As Idaho points out, revolutions tend to be bloody and messy.

Reform is pretty much failing innit - it's become a byword for attacks on the poor, increased profits. The urge to charity has led even our own government to have begun implementing plans whereby welfare is controlled by charity rather than government.

Liberalism is good at maintaining a pressure on the social elites, a constant demand on them not to overstep their mark, but it accepts the existence of the basic social pyramid, it sets an acceptable amount of exploitation. It works around compromise between haves and have nots rather than confrontation, and while that is worthy, it generally works within the law. Radicalism influences liberalism, and thus drives it, rather than the other way round. IMO.

I don't hate liberals. I think they're good people, they're just naive. They think that change will come from within if we're all just nice to each other and demand it reasonably. I think that's a good first step, but basically fruitless.

 

[bluestreak]

S'not really that simple though, because the world just isn't as simple as the exploiters versus the exploited - but that's kind of a whole other debate for another thread.

Of course, we're always having to oversimplify really though.

 

[bluestreak]

Surely tho, bluey, it's possible to have 'adequate' political analysis, and still not be a revo? I mean I pretty much get the whole Marx/capital/bastards thing, but I'm not calling for a revolution because I also believe that the revolutionary mindset is not especially conducive to building a better world.

Yeah, but as long as you concede that the world isn't going to be changed by asking nicely then fair dos.

 

[bluestreak]

But now you're attaching human feelings to political ideologies which is wrong. Being liberal doesn't equate to being nice and being kind, even look at Mill, probably the most influential liberal there was. He was a nationalist, didn't want the illiterate to vote and endorsed a plural voting system whereby the rich and well off got more votes than those who weren't. How "liberal" is that?

We've already established that there are different definitions. Mills was indeed a liberal, but his brand of liberalism was a different beast to, say Blair's neoliberalism, or indeed fluffy Social Democrat liberalism of the type that I find so frustrating.

 

[Brainaddict]

Of course, we're always having to oversimplify really though.

I don't regard it as a necessary evil when it results in 'counter-revolutionaries' being strung up from lampposts - I just see it as evil I'm afraid. Simplification is fine for theoretical arguments - in real politics it can easily end in simple brutality.

 

[sleaterkinney]

That does, of course, depend on your viewpoint. As Idaho points out, revolutions tend to be bloody and messy.

Reform is pretty much failing innit - it's become a byword for attacks on the poor, increased profits. The urge to charity has led even our own government to have begun implementing plans whereby welfare is controlled by charity rather than government.

Again, why do you assign those reforms to liberalism?, They are more neo-liberalism.

Liberalism is good at maintaining a pressure on the social elites, a constant demand on them not to overstep their mark, but it accepts the existence of the basic social pyramid, it sets an acceptable amount of exploitation. It works around compromise between haves and have nots rather than confrontation, and while that is worthy, it generally works within the law. Radicalism influences liberalism, and thus drives it, rather than the other way round. IMO.

Does it accept it though?, plenty of the reforms have been to do with making people more equal in terms of citizenship, not less.

I don't hate liberals. I think they're good people, they're just naive. They think that change will come from within if we're all just nice to each other and demand it reasonably. I think that's a good first step, but basically fruitless.

Where as you think people will rise up and then everybody will be nice to each other?

 

[bluestreak]

I don't regard it as a necessary evil when it results in 'counter-revolutionaries' being strung up from lampposts - I just see it as evil I'm afraid. Simplification is fine for theoretical arguments - in real politics it can easily end in simple brutality.

Fair enough.

But inaction is itself a position. People are dying now through neoliberal economic issues that writing letters and voting replacement neolib figureheads and charity isn't stopping that either. It's already brutal out there.

Anyhoo, with rather naive and simplistic piece of political analysis, I'm off home.

 

[bluestreak]

Oh, and sleater.

1. Do you think liberalism is providing an effective opposition to neoliberalism.

2. Yes, it does accept it. Unless you can show me otherwise.

3. No, I agree. I don't think revolution will cause everyone to be nice to everyone. I just think that revolution offers a solution that is more honest than liberalism - the true change will only come through violence or the threat thereof, otherwise liberals will continue to negotiate with the bosses for the scraps and the sops.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Oh, and sleater.

1. Do you think liberalism is providing an effective opposition to neoliberalism.

2. Yes, it does accept it. Unless you can show me otherwise.

3. No, I agree. I don't think revolution will cause everyone to be nice to everyone. I just think that revolution offers a solution that is more honest than liberalism - the true change will only come through violence or the threat thereof, otherwise liberals will continue to negotiate with the bosses for the scraps and the sops.

1. No, partly because our lives in the west haven't been affected by it.

2. If it does accept it then why does it seek to reform anything?

3. I don't have any time for political violence in a democratic soceity. And if there was violence the nice guys wouldn't win anyway..

 

[Blagsta]

Aren't you confusing liberal with neo-liberal though? I don't think there's any contradiction in being a liberal socialist for example.

No. You're getting confused between being socially liberal and Liberal.

 

[kabbes]

I think that Blagsta's definition back on page 1 was one of the best. And that's coming from someone who is one, definitively. Politically, I place personal freedoms above economics in terms of importance. Other positions derive from that.

I don't believe in unfettered capitalism -- far from it. Capitalism acts to curb many, many freedoms. But I do believe that the market is fundamentally the best pricing/incentivisation mechanism that we have, even if it is deeply flawed.

 

[Idaho]

That does, of course, depend on your viewpoint. As Idaho points out, revolutions tend to be bloody and messy.

Reform is pretty much failing innit - it's become a byword for attacks on the poor, increased profits. The urge to charity has led even our own government to have begun implementing plans whereby welfare is controlled by charity rather than government.

Liberalism is good at maintaining a pressure on the social elites, a constant demand on them not to overstep their mark, but it accepts the existence of the basic social pyramid, it sets an acceptable amount of exploitation. It works around compromise between haves and have nots rather than confrontation, and while that is worthy, it generally works within the law. Radicalism influences liberalism, and thus drives it, rather than the other way round. IMO.

I don't hate liberals. I think they're good people, they're just naive. They think that change will come from within if we're all just nice to each other and demand it reasonably. I think that's a good first step, but basically fruitless.

I think that liberalism/reformism is not a niaive position, but a deeply practical and pragmatic one. The human race has not shown any evidence that it is either willing or capable of having anything other than a social pyramid.

Also liberalism has been a measurable success. We live longer and have more money than ever before.

 

[Brainaddict]

hmm, maybe I was more describing the US usage. I read too much american political stuff goddamnit.