Maybe this is facile but it's been bugging me.
I was thinking about this, and the modern liberal is fundamentally not liberal.
Like, yeah, ok, it's a dogshit ideology that destroyed the world, more than once.
But there was a time when it was radical, at least compared to Feudalism.
Now? I don't even think most liberals are anti monarchy. Like they literally aren't. If you ask them point blank, should all royalty be abolished, or was the French Revolution worth doing, they're gonna flat out say no.
The modern liberal essentially believes in two things. The absolute inviolability of the power and legitimacy of Western hegemony and institutions. And that things remain basically the same, and cannot change for any reason, because change is bad unless you can be sure it'll make things better.
That describes Conservatism. These people are conservative, fundamentally.
Conservatives that speak woke, maybe. But they believe all the same shit. Hierarchy, domination, and sadism, just mediated by the market and culture instead of whatever "conservatives" believe.
And actual conservatives are just proto, or outright, fascist at this point. They're completely untethered from the conservative tradition.
Right underneath our noses, liberalism died. Good riddance maybe but, there are, legitimately, none left.
For 97% of my life liberal was the ideology you openly identified yourself with to put yourself on the side against the Republicans and their views against LGBTQ+ Rights, War-making in the Middle East(we did NOT call it imperialism), and general racism, there was nothing else.
Rush Limbaugh was the radio host who helped popularize "liberal" as a bad word among conservatives in the US, it was a bad word because if you identified with it you were considered weak, un-masculine, unpragmatic, against American Values, and likely a removed (that was another one popularized by Rush Limbaugh.)
Most people who call themselves liberals today, specifically older folks are not liberal, it's how they've been categorized as a result of not being introduced to leftist tendencies by theory but through popular media discussion of dense philosophical works. It's our jobs as leftists if we are a People's movement to engage with people who would be allies if given the chance.
And it's why everyone needs to **read theory. **
what are you talking about? this whole site is populated by liberals. everyone but me of course.
Plenty of liberals during the French Revolution, particularly the liberal nobles, were in favor of a constitutional monarchy. Sure, some radlibs made it into power for a while, but after Robespierre lost it and got guillotined himself, they cracked down hard on the liberal left, to say nothing of the Enragés. Bonaparte's rise to power was not the end of the liberal bourgeois revolution, but its fulfillment - efficient meritocracy (relative to the Ancien Régime), free trade, an economy kept afloat by the spoils of war, and the poor kept in their place. Utterly liberal.
You got a point there. I guess I'm thinking of liberal in like the Thomas Paine kind of sense, and not what many of them were actually like.
But even in the American tradition, there's been a severe hollowing out.
If it hadn't been for radlibs like Thomas Paine, the US could very well have been a monarchy.
None left :pray-against:
Blue MAGA can siphon my sphincter. These people do not want any progress - just a status quo back.
I can't remember when he said it, but back on one of the podcasts before the Caucauses, Vergil said something along these very lines and to paraphrase
"If you just keep making the most practical, sensible option, then that just makes you conservative."
As absurd as it is, I called myself a "classical liberal" for a long time before I knew anything about politics, to make that very distinction, though I couldn't express it at all at that point
Robespierre needs come back and show the reactionaries what liberalism is REALLY about
Good riddance maybe but, there are, legitimately, none left.
Except for me, I'm the only real liberal on this sub.
But like, kind of unironically? Like my views are more grounded in liberal thought than anything Marx said, it's just that when I apply those principles to the modern day I come away with "Death to America." Like how tf is the CIA consistent with actual liberal principles?
The only "actual liberal principles" are free trade and efficiency, everything they say about liberty has been bullshit from the beginning.
For the bourgoisie and petit bourgoisie? Yes. The whole mess started because the crown was bankrupt. Liberal nobles tried to win some tax reforms, but the old nobility dug their heels in hard on defending their tax exemptions. Other liberal goals, like removing internal trade barriers were also shut out. Eventually, they forced the issue and the King had to call the Estates General to raise some funds, and the liberals used that as a platform for their other grievances. They didn't really care about the existence of noble privileges, they just felt that the wrong people had them. They wanted a smarter monarchy.
I'm hardly surprised that the rich persued their own interests, but I'm not sure that's the same thing as "everything they say about liberty has been bullshit from the beginning." I guess it's a question of who counts as "they." I have no doubt that many people fighting in that revolution (and others) genuinely believed in liberty. And I doubt that every liberal theorist was lying through their teeth about what they believed.
If being a liberal means expecting the bourgeoisie to work against their class interests than yeah liberalism is ridiculous.
Being a liberal is about pursuing the bourgoisie's best interest. Liberalism is the ideology of the bourgoisie.
Liberal is one of those words that means so many different things to different people that it's not very useful as a descriptor. The way you're defining it is in a pejoractive sense to where basically nobody would identify with it as defined.
The author I most agree with is Henry George, who's ideas were very much opposed to and by bourgeois interests, because he believed the state should capture the revenue from the natural resources they controlled. Many early labor movements in the US were composed of people who subscribed to the same ideology. But this ideology was firmly rooted in liberal principles and the language of individual rights - his argument was that natural resources rightfully belong to everyone, and that private ownership is only acceptable if everyone else recieves compensation in exchange.
Now you can say that that's such an obscure strain that it poses no threat to the bourgeoisie and you'd be right, which is why I come here and break bread with y'all. But I believe that, technically speaking, I'd still be classified as a liberal.
Take for example, prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh of Iran. This was a man who stood against bourgeoisie interests to the extent that he nationalized the oil industry and was overthrown by the CIA. Yet he never described himself as a socialist, he had no ties to the USSR, and the other policies he supported were consistent with liberal principles. What does that make him? Is he a socialist simply because he opposed the interest of the bourgeoisie, even though he never described himself as such?
I believe, if you believe that people of all nations should be entitled to their own resources and should have the right to popular sovereignty (without a CIA coup whenever they step out of line), and if you possess a realistic view of the world, then you believe that the status quo is fundamentally wrong and you support radical change against the interests of the bourgeoisie. I also believe that believing the above doesn't automatically mean you're a socialist.
The word "liberal" becomes pejorative because the interests of the bourgeoisie are in opposition to the majority of the human race. In the present moment, liberalism is a threat to the survival of humanity.
You're right that Henry George was a liberal thinker. He's not one that's popular one among the bourgeoisie proper. Although Georgism leaves the capitalist system intact, even the blandest Georgist reforms are too much for them. They dig their heels in the way they always do today - the same way the nobility of the Ancien Régime did. They're only ever willing to entertain those reforms when violent revolution is already underway. But Georgism and other reformist schools of thought do serve the interests of the bourgeoisie, just by existing. They act as a sort of relief valve for discontent. People who are unsatisfied with the current status quo are directed toward effective inaction - stonewalled reforms - when they could otherwise be doing something substantial to advance their cause. The powers that be are only ever willing to entertain those reforms when violent overthrow is already underway.
I don't think I said that everybody opposed to the bourgeoisie is a socialist. People like Mossadegh who lead national liberation movements are not always socialists, but they frequently deserve support from socialists in their mutual struggle against imperialist powers. I'm not sure how this came up.
People who are unsatisfied with the current status quo are directed toward effective inaction - stonewalled reforms - when they could otherwise be doing something substantial to advance their cause.
Tactics are not inherently tied to the results they aim to achieve. Liberalism doesn't mean reformism - there is such a thing as a liberal revolution, for example, against a monarchy. I agree that seeking reform is often a fruitless endeavor, those in power in the US are not going to give up power simply because people ask nicely. I believe in a diversity of tactics, and I wouldn't be here if I didn't.
I don’t think I said that everybody opposed to the bourgeoisie is a socialist. People like Mossadegh who lead national liberation movements are not always socialists, but they frequently deserve support from socialists in their mutual struggle against imperialist powers. I’m not sure how this came up.
It came up because you said, "Being a liberal is about pursuing the bourgoisie’s best interest. Liberalism is the ideology of the bourgoisie," and I wanted to refute that by providing a counterexample of a liberal clearly opposed to the bourgeoisie's best interest. The way I interpreted your claim was definitional, but maybe I misinterpreted and what you meant is that it is generally or often the case that the principles of liberalism align with the best interest of the bourgeoisie - not that they necessarily do by definition.
