Liberalism as a political ideology holds the capitalist free market, positive rights of the individual & representative democracy as its three main pillars.
"Leftism" is harder to pin down. I think we care a lot more about opposing material and social inequality and increasing material well being for everyone. We tend to be very anti-capitalist, our biggest intersection with the liberals is on most cases of positive rights of the individual except of course, when we're talking about the equal right of a vagrant and a banker to freeze to death under a bridge, and be more ambivalent on representative democracy mainly as a matter of tactics rather than principle.
I disagree with your interpretation. Liberalism is actually primarily concerned with negative rights for an individual. Like, the banker and the vagrant both get to sleep under a bridge because they have a "right" to sleep without being harassed by the government, not because the society they live in is considered responsible for providing everyone a bridge to sleep under. Contrast that with the idea of housing as a positive right; the government and society at large would be considered responsible for not just ensuring people under bridges aren't harassed, but instead for developing and providing real housing for all. Access to housing would not be determined by ability to pay under a positive right to housing.
For another example, the liberal conception of trans rights is that anyone is allowed to transition and others may not interfere with that right. In practice, this means that only people who can afford to transition get to, though. Compare that to the positive conception of trans rights which would guarantee gender affirming care itself as essential care and consider it a right that must be provided to everyone, whether they can afford it or not.
The U.S. Constitution and ammendments, a classical liberal document if ever there were one, is a good example of this. These documents don't focus on stating what the government must provide to it's citizens, they're mostly concerned with what the government cannot take away. Rights are considered inherent to the individual who holds them, and there is a duty for the government to protect those rights so other people may choose to use them or not: accumulation and use of property, voting, speech, worship, so on and so forth, these are rights the government is prohibited from interfering with, not things that must be institutionally provided by the government.
That doesn't mean that liberalism hasn't incorporated positive rights over the years, but that's where there is the greatest friction between Liberals today. "conservatives" Liberals tend to want to stick to a negative rights scheme, while more "liberal" Liberals tend to think there are some or even many things that should be provided by a government. An example here is the expansion of school/education over time. A basic standard of education has been deemed something the government MUST provide citizens with, even if that means compelling parents to send their kids to school. Kids CANNOT (de jure) be excluded from the public education system, which is why there is schooling even in juvenile detention, and even the most disruptive or anti-social children must have some kind of school of last resort they are permitted to attend and cannot be "expelled" from. That's only a right in the US up through High school, though. "liberal" Liberals may argue for higher education being included under the umbrella of positive rights, while "conservative" Liberals as a rule tend to exclude it (and many other reforms that would expand positive rights).
This is also where there is the greatest contradictions in Liberal beliefs, as positive rights increasingly interfere with the whole commitment to capitalism thing. Many people find themselves becoming socialists specifically because some positive right seems so self-evidently necessary that when presented with the choice of that right or capitalism, they choose that right: housing, food and water, medical care, universal education, lots of different things might be the trigger issue, but once you are willing to give up on capitalism to ensure one of those things it is a lot easier to give up on it for other similar matters too. Liberals on the other hand will refuse to give up capitalism. "conservative" Liberals may just end up saying that thing isn't a positive right at all, while "liberal" Liberals will try to find solutions to problems that still enshrine private property and accumulation of wealth within a capitalist system. These halfway measures and compromises are of course insufficient and doomed to fail, and any progress made is often later stripped under pressure from capital. Think retirement benefits, labor rights, food aid and other subsidy programs for essential goods.
Leftists avoid these contradictions by giving up our commitment capitalism and private property entirely. We identify those institutions as the reason positive rights currently are not able to be effectively provided, and are thus committed to fighting that power instead of compromising with it. I think anti-capitalism is basically a necessary condition for anyone to be considered a leftist, however, there are reactionary anti-capitalists too. So in general leftists tend to be concerned about egalitarian and universal approaches to positive rights, as opposed to reactionaries who might advocate for entrenched systems of hierarchy based on class or social group along with the elimination of capitalism.
Capitalism mainly.
Liberalism as a political ideology holds the capitalist free market, positive rights of the individual & representative democracy as its three main pillars.
"Leftism" is harder to pin down. I think we care a lot more about opposing material and social inequality and increasing material well being for everyone. We tend to be very anti-capitalist, our biggest intersection with the liberals is on most cases of positive rights of the individual except of course, when we're talking about the equal right of a vagrant and a banker to freeze to death under a bridge, and be more ambivalent on representative democracy mainly as a matter of tactics rather than principle.
My briefs internet search mentioned that distinction, of capitalism. Thanks for the response I appreciate it.
I disagree with your interpretation. Liberalism is actually primarily concerned with negative rights for an individual. Like, the banker and the vagrant both get to sleep under a bridge because they have a "right" to sleep without being harassed by the government, not because the society they live in is considered responsible for providing everyone a bridge to sleep under. Contrast that with the idea of housing as a positive right; the government and society at large would be considered responsible for not just ensuring people under bridges aren't harassed, but instead for developing and providing real housing for all. Access to housing would not be determined by ability to pay under a positive right to housing.
For another example, the liberal conception of trans rights is that anyone is allowed to transition and others may not interfere with that right. In practice, this means that only people who can afford to transition get to, though. Compare that to the positive conception of trans rights which would guarantee gender affirming care itself as essential care and consider it a right that must be provided to everyone, whether they can afford it or not.
The U.S. Constitution and ammendments, a classical liberal document if ever there were one, is a good example of this. These documents don't focus on stating what the government must provide to it's citizens, they're mostly concerned with what the government cannot take away. Rights are considered inherent to the individual who holds them, and there is a duty for the government to protect those rights so other people may choose to use them or not: accumulation and use of property, voting, speech, worship, so on and so forth, these are rights the government is prohibited from interfering with, not things that must be institutionally provided by the government.
That doesn't mean that liberalism hasn't incorporated positive rights over the years, but that's where there is the greatest friction between Liberals today. "conservatives" Liberals tend to want to stick to a negative rights scheme, while more "liberal" Liberals tend to think there are some or even many things that should be provided by a government. An example here is the expansion of school/education over time. A basic standard of education has been deemed something the government MUST provide citizens with, even if that means compelling parents to send their kids to school. Kids CANNOT (de jure) be excluded from the public education system, which is why there is schooling even in juvenile detention, and even the most disruptive or anti-social children must have some kind of school of last resort they are permitted to attend and cannot be "expelled" from. That's only a right in the US up through High school, though. "liberal" Liberals may argue for higher education being included under the umbrella of positive rights, while "conservative" Liberals as a rule tend to exclude it (and many other reforms that would expand positive rights).
This is also where there is the greatest contradictions in Liberal beliefs, as positive rights increasingly interfere with the whole commitment to capitalism thing. Many people find themselves becoming socialists specifically because some positive right seems so self-evidently necessary that when presented with the choice of that right or capitalism, they choose that right: housing, food and water, medical care, universal education, lots of different things might be the trigger issue, but once you are willing to give up on capitalism to ensure one of those things it is a lot easier to give up on it for other similar matters too. Liberals on the other hand will refuse to give up capitalism. "conservative" Liberals may just end up saying that thing isn't a positive right at all, while "liberal" Liberals will try to find solutions to problems that still enshrine private property and accumulation of wealth within a capitalist system. These halfway measures and compromises are of course insufficient and doomed to fail, and any progress made is often later stripped under pressure from capital. Think retirement benefits, labor rights, food aid and other subsidy programs for essential goods.
Leftists avoid these contradictions by giving up our commitment capitalism and private property entirely. We identify those institutions as the reason positive rights currently are not able to be effectively provided, and are thus committed to fighting that power instead of compromising with it. I think anti-capitalism is basically a necessary condition for anyone to be considered a leftist, however, there are reactionary anti-capitalists too. So in general leftists tend to be concerned about egalitarian and universal approaches to positive rights, as opposed to reactionaries who might advocate for entrenched systems of hierarchy based on class or social group along with the elimination of capitalism.
@DiltoGeggins@hexbear.net tagging you because you're the one who initially asked the question!