It's basically just "classical liberalism and neoliberalism", and whether politically illiterate Americans use that word that way doesn't matter very much from an analytical standpoint, because in political science, history, philosophy, and even just popular discourse in most other countries, the term "liberal" mainly has that meaning.
willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.
relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
Similar:
tolerant,
unprejudiced,
unbigoted,
broad-minded,
open-minded,
enlightened,
forbearing,
permissive,
free,
free and easy,
easygoing,
laissez-faire,
libertarian,
latitudinarian,
unbiased,
impartial,
nonpartisan,
indulgent,
lenient,
lax,
soft
noun
a supporter of policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare.
"she dissented from the decision, joined by the court's liberals"
a supporter of a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
Opposite:
narrow-minded,
bigoted,
You are free to argue with dictionaries, but if your enemy is liberalism as defined by civil rights, democracy, and welfare then you are the enemy of all people, in my eyes.
If one is trying to define liberalism against feudalism, that definition is fine, but it's just redditor sophomorism to act like a dictionary is a replacement for an actual historical or academic definition of a political tendency.
Take it up with oxford, Words mean what the majority believes they currently mean. Anything else is just some shit somebody made up. This discussion is about the current meaning of Liberalism in today's political context.
My point is that you are misusing the dictionary as a replacement for actually knowing about a subject. People still call John Locke a liberal, and they do it because fields have definitions that aren't colloquial.
This discussion is about the current meaning of Liberalism in today's political context.
Look anywhere outside of America and it readily refers to sniveling market-fetishists. In America it only implicitly does because everyone is a market fetishist.
Dictionaries do not exhaustively discuss topics and the scope of meanings of terms, they give you a colloquially-oriented summary of what they mean to help you, for example, parse a conversation that uses the word in passing.
John Locke being a liberal isn't an "alternative fact", you're just a troglodyte.
I read a dictionary entry and maybe skimmed a Wikipedia article and thus am an expert and qualified to discuss things I’m wholly ignorant of.
I. NO INVESTIGATION, NO RIGHT TO SPEAK
Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Isn't that too harsh? Not in the least. When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and its past history, and know nothing of its essentials, whatever you say about it will undoubtedly be nonsense. Talking nonsense solves no problems, as everyone knows, so why is it unjust to deprive you of the right to speak? Quite a few comrades always keep their eyes shut and talk nonsense, and for a Communist that is disgraceful. How can a Communist keep his eyes shut and talk nonsense?
It won' t do!
It won't do!
You must investigate!
You must not talk nonsense!
Please. I’m begging you. Go to your local community/junior college, find a class in Philosophy and enroll in it. Take a class in political science. Engage in these subjects deeper than surface level. Actually try to internalize and understand these subjects. It will improve your life in many ways.
Philosophy absolutely has the ability to examine and propose better definitions when definitions (like the ones you linked) do not capture the phenomenon. Losurdo read more books than you've seen by liberals in order to write his "Liberalism" book. He understood the phenomenon deeper and further than its dictionary use.
How do you capture such a thing in your world view? Because he found flaws in definitions and worked deeper, he just did nothing because it wasnt the Oxford definition?
From where I'm sitting, and I'm trying to paint a picture for you to understand the topic through my eyes, I see a small subsection of society, a bubble so to speak, attempting to shame a much larger more commonplace section of society with absurd misconstruments and twisted definitions which do not reflect reality. The bubble is shaming what would likely be their only allies to achieve reforms in their favor, and in general one of the only sources of good in society and politics. It feels like I watched somebody train an AI on r/the_donald and then asked the AI to write communism pamphlets. My views are only further cemented when those "who understood the phenomenon further than its dictionary use" resort to petty namecalling when I bring up the dictionary definition of the terms they are misusing. It is further cemented when they have to provide their group's own private dictionary separate from society's use of language.
If you have a political stance directly opposing certain choices and beliefs, then use words to define that which people will understand and agree with, do not simply try to rewrite words and history as you see fit. Do you oppose Democracy? Do you oppose Civil Rights? Do you oppose equality and guaranteed standards of living? If you answered no to those questions then you are a Liberal. If you're opposed to unchecked power of political entities or parties, if you're opposed to the abolition of term limits, and if you're opposed to economic disparity and inequality, then what you oppose is not Liberalism, what you oppose is fascism, authoritarianism, plutocracy, and capitalism.
Don’t say “so to speak” in a forum comment, you’re not Eugen Dühring. How do these definitions not fit reality? In Liberalism, Losurdo (referenced above by commiewithoutorgans) goes through history and explains what liberalism actually is, i.e. herrenvolk liberty. The currently recognized originators of liberalism were supporters of slavery, and now liberals are supporters of imperialism.
Liberals are not allies in reforms, both because reforms will never be enough, liberals as supporters of the status quo eventually becoming enemies regardless, but also because even in these “reforms” they are cowardly. US liberals can’t even stop an active genocide being perpetrated by their government, and a vast majority of those liberals in government actively support it.
Liberals oppose democracy for enemy nations (and under the guise of “promoting democracy” depose the elected/popular leaders of these nations), they oppose real democracy (rule of the majority) in any nation, they absolutely oppose real equality by upholding the privileges of landlords and capitalists, and they oppose guaranteed standards of living. Newsom, the liberal (recognized by the majority as such!) governor of California, has been in favor of the state’s use of violence to clear homeless encampments; every “liberal” US president has kept migrants in concentration camps at the border despite immigration being largely a result of US imperialism as well as refusing to provide guaranteed housing to the unhoused population. If you think they are not liberals, then you are “a small subsection of society, a bubble so to speak.” Is it fair to say that it’s the people that wear this label who’ve rewritten words and history to paint themselves as simply “supporters of liberty”?
And I am absolutely not opposed to the abolition of term limits. Talk about opposition to democracy, term limits are a check on democracy itself, telling the population they cannot vote for someone again. Term limits for the US presidency were introduced after the repeated elections of the overwhelmingly popular FDR.
Lastly, liberals are supporters of capitalism; half of the dictionary definitions available include “support for a free market” as a fundamental aspect of liberalism.
All successful labor movements and mass organizations in the past have included teaching others how things work, handing out pamphlets, etc.
And so we can choose to act towards restoring definitions to words with important meanings, so that we become capable of discussing the things they signify again.
If we don't use words as they mean, but instead use unorthodox terminology, then we allow the significance of such words to be lost, with no standardized alternatives in common use - i.e., no alternatives that are any more clear than the original word.
There is a war on language. It's primarily a subset of the class war. We can surrender, or fight what is probably the simplest fight of our life: We can use words as they were meant to be used.
Yeah, I'm glad you're slowly starting to comprehend the conversation. I'm informing you that making up definitions for words is wrong and is the source of confusion when you try and fail to converse with others.
Lol I'm sure Prolewiki is an unbiased source that the majority of people would agree with on the definitions of words. /s
It's basically just "classical liberalism and neoliberalism", and whether politically illiterate Americans use that word that way doesn't matter very much from an analytical standpoint, because in political science, history, philosophy, and even just popular discourse in most other countries, the term "liberal" mainly has that meaning.
Oxford Dictionary:
lib·er·al
/ˈlib(ə)rəl/
adjective
willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.
relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise. Similar: tolerant, unprejudiced, unbigoted, broad-minded, open-minded, enlightened, forbearing, permissive, free, free and easy, easygoing, laissez-faire, libertarian, latitudinarian, unbiased, impartial, nonpartisan, indulgent, lenient, lax, soft
noun
a supporter of policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare. "she dissented from the decision, joined by the court's liberals"
a supporter of a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
Opposite: narrow-minded, bigoted,
You are free to argue with dictionaries, but if your enemy is liberalism as defined by civil rights, democracy, and welfare then you are the enemy of all people, in my eyes.
If one is trying to define liberalism against feudalism, that definition is fine, but it's just redditor sophomorism to act like a dictionary is a replacement for an actual historical or academic definition of a political tendency.
Take it up with oxford, Words mean what the majority believes they currently mean. Anything else is just some shit somebody made up. This discussion is about the current meaning of Liberalism in today's political context.
My point is that you are misusing the dictionary as a replacement for actually knowing about a subject. People still call John Locke a liberal, and they do it because fields have definitions that aren't colloquial.
Look anywhere outside of America and it readily refers to sniveling market-fetishists. In America it only implicitly does because everyone is a market fetishist.
How dare I "missuse" dictionaries to "define words" which contradict your "alternative facts."
and FYI, Oxford is British.
Dictionaries do not exhaustively discuss topics and the scope of meanings of terms, they give you a colloquially-oriented summary of what they mean to help you, for example, parse a conversation that uses the word in passing.
John Locke being a liberal isn't an "alternative fact", you're just a troglodyte.
Please. I’m begging you. Go to your local community/junior college, find a class in Philosophy and enroll in it. Take a class in political science. Engage in these subjects deeper than surface level. Actually try to internalize and understand these subjects. It will improve your life in many ways.
lmao
deleted by creator
Philosophy absolutely has the ability to examine and propose better definitions when definitions (like the ones you linked) do not capture the phenomenon. Losurdo read more books than you've seen by liberals in order to write his "Liberalism" book. He understood the phenomenon deeper and further than its dictionary use.
How do you capture such a thing in your world view? Because he found flaws in definitions and worked deeper, he just did nothing because it wasnt the Oxford definition?
From where I'm sitting, and I'm trying to paint a picture for you to understand the topic through my eyes, I see a small subsection of society, a bubble so to speak, attempting to shame a much larger more commonplace section of society with absurd misconstruments and twisted definitions which do not reflect reality. The bubble is shaming what would likely be their only allies to achieve reforms in their favor, and in general one of the only sources of good in society and politics. It feels like I watched somebody train an AI on r/the_donald and then asked the AI to write communism pamphlets. My views are only further cemented when those "who understood the phenomenon further than its dictionary use" resort to petty namecalling when I bring up the dictionary definition of the terms they are misusing. It is further cemented when they have to provide their group's own private dictionary separate from society's use of language.
If you have a political stance directly opposing certain choices and beliefs, then use words to define that which people will understand and agree with, do not simply try to rewrite words and history as you see fit. Do you oppose Democracy? Do you oppose Civil Rights? Do you oppose equality and guaranteed standards of living? If you answered no to those questions then you are a Liberal. If you're opposed to unchecked power of political entities or parties, if you're opposed to the abolition of term limits, and if you're opposed to economic disparity and inequality, then what you oppose is not Liberalism, what you oppose is fascism, authoritarianism, plutocracy, and capitalism.
Don’t say “so to speak” in a forum comment, you’re not Eugen Dühring. How do these definitions not fit reality? In Liberalism, Losurdo (referenced above by commiewithoutorgans) goes through history and explains what liberalism actually is, i.e. herrenvolk liberty. The currently recognized originators of liberalism were supporters of slavery, and now liberals are supporters of imperialism.
Liberals are not allies in reforms, both because reforms will never be enough, liberals as supporters of the status quo eventually becoming enemies regardless, but also because even in these “reforms” they are cowardly. US liberals can’t even stop an active genocide being perpetrated by their government, and a vast majority of those liberals in government actively support it.
Liberals oppose democracy for enemy nations (and under the guise of “promoting democracy” depose the elected/popular leaders of these nations), they oppose real democracy (rule of the majority) in any nation, they absolutely oppose real equality by upholding the privileges of landlords and capitalists, and they oppose guaranteed standards of living. Newsom, the liberal (recognized by the majority as such!) governor of California, has been in favor of the state’s use of violence to clear homeless encampments; every “liberal” US president has kept migrants in concentration camps at the border despite immigration being largely a result of US imperialism as well as refusing to provide guaranteed housing to the unhoused population. If you think they are not liberals, then you are “a small subsection of society, a bubble so to speak.” Is it fair to say that it’s the people that wear this label who’ve rewritten words and history to paint themselves as simply “supporters of liberty”?
And I am absolutely not opposed to the abolition of term limits. Talk about opposition to democracy, term limits are a check on democracy itself, telling the population they cannot vote for someone again. Term limits for the US presidency were introduced after the repeated elections of the overwhelmingly popular FDR.
Lastly, liberals are supporters of capitalism; half of the dictionary definitions available include “support for a free market” as a fundamental aspect of liberalism.
So to speak, you see, quite understandably so, I can speak however I like, indeed, quite right, shitbag.
Removed by mod
Neither is Oxford, chum.
Removed by mod
I am very much aware of that.
Removed by mod
you are a complete dipshit
Where did he say that the majority of people agree with this definition?
Well, the majority of workers in the US probably did, until the labor movements were crushed in the 60s and 70s
If the majority of people don't agree on the proposed meaning of a word then that isn't what the words mean. In other words, it is wrong.
It's a materialist/Marxist definition, hence the
All successful labor movements and mass organizations in the past have included teaching others how things work, handing out pamphlets, etc.
Yeah, I'm glad you're slowly starting to comprehend the conversation. I'm informing you that making up definitions for words is wrong and is the source of confusion when you try and fail to converse with others.
I'm sorry you don't understand how languages work