Milton Friedman once said that the “society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither”. He was right.
Aspects of liberalism go against the grain of human nature. It requires you to defend your opponents’ right to speak, even when you know they are wrong. You must be willing to question your deepest beliefs.
You must accept the victory of your enemies at the ballot box, even if you think they will bring the country to ruin.
- See something from conservatives
- Post it on Hexbear
- Complain about libs
Milton Friedman said he was a classical liberal and the article is written at least nominally from the perspective of a "classical liberal" and does say that the "Trumpian right" poses an even more dangerous threat than the "illiberal left".
"Classical liberals" in the modern era are neoliberals and can safely be considered as conservative even if they aren't a fucked up american conservative. Don't buy into the american political rhetoric that "conservative" and "liberal" are the polar opposites. In fact, the use of "classical" here is precisely to distinguish it from that twisted american notion of "liberal" which more closely represents social-democrat. Whereas is any other country, a liberal would be understood as an opponent of social a democratic policies.
I understand that Friedman can be considered a conservative and that some older conservatives used the term "classical liberal" for themselves. So then are you saying that neo-liberalism is the fighting organization, fascism? That doesn't sound right since MAGA is easily distinguished from neo-liberalism and in fact demonizes them. They're at least two different wings of fascism, right? Or is that to say the theory allows space for more than just two wings of fascism: moderate and fighting? Would neolibs be a different third wing of fascism? If you were to divide fascism into just those two wings, it seems neo-liberalism would fall under the moderate social democracy wing, just a really paltry social democracy in comparison to more left-leaning social democrats. I'm a noob, so this is a genuine question.
You are to earnestly trying to categorize these groups as coherent ideologies that both understand themselves and their relation to each other. None of these groups are "wings" of other groups. Instead consider the primary class constituency of each groups and their material interests. For whatever ideology those groups profess will bend to those interests. MAGA would be petite bourgeoisie, while neo liberal is grande/haute bourgeoisie, and social Democrats, generally, are skilled labor.
The whole "social democracy is the moderate wing of fascism" was just rhetorical polemics, and shouldn't be earnestly taken as theory. It connotes that because social democrats invest in the bourgeois electoral system, they will support it in a time of crisis. Capitalism in crisis will often resort to fascism therefore, social demorats, while having nothing ideologically, in common with fascists will end up supporting them.
Hmm that's not actually how I was thinking. But this makes a lot of sense. Thanks for working through all of this with me.
I think my point is there are no "wings" of fascism. Just many different ideologies that will become fascist under certain conditions. Fascism isn't so much a coherent ideology but a set of behviours.
Am I wrong to think that Lenin was saying The Economist represented social democracy in Bourgeois Philanthropists and Revolutionary Social-Democracy?
The Economist, a journal that speaks for the British millionaires, is pursuing a very instructive line in relation to the war. Representatives of advanced capital in the oldest and richest capitalist country, are shedding tears over the war and incessantly voicing a wish for peace. Those Social-Democrats who, together with the opportunists and Kautsky, think that a socialist programme consists in the propaganda of peace, will find proof of their error if they read The Economist. Their programme is not socialist, but bourgeois-pacifist.
And if I am not mistaken, Stalin was also talking about "Bourgeois-Democratic “Pacifism”" when he wrote the line I put in the title from Concerning the International Situation.
Yeah you are. He is telling "Social-Democrats" and "Opportunists" to read what "Advanced [british] capital" are saying in The Economist. He's saying Social Democrats are wrong because they are taking the same line as the hautiest bourgeoisie.
Lenin here is taking the same line as Marx in treating The Economist as the ultimate Mouth of Capital.
SOMETHING HAS gone very wrong with Western liberalism.
If they're not being haunted by a spectre, I don't want to hear about it.
Economist is far from socdems tbh, unless there is something else behind paywall
It's a defense of classical liberalism:
Classical liberals must rediscover their fighting spirit. They should take on the bullies and cancellers. Liberalism is still the best engine for equitable progress. Liberals must have the courage to say so.
Not recommending it, but it's not a paywall. You just have to create an account to read the article.
That sentence stood out to me as well. Sounds more like a description of neo-liberalism.
Classical liberalism is a history of a bunch of angry middle and upper income commoners deciding to kill the king.
Why did libs have to stop being cool? :deeper-sadness:
Did not realize my first fucking post was a re-post. :milhouse:
this is so funny because it's just about extreme identity politics / cancel culture stuff, not even about class politics vs liberalism. fucking lol crybabies.
