Yes. Liberalism was historically progressive insofar as it represented the suppression of feudal aristocracy and the rise of the bourgeois capitalist class. But it is historically regressive insofar as it represents the suppression of the proletariat, the suppression of anti-imperialism, and the entrenchment of the bourgeois capitalist class. It is simultaneously possible to recognize liberalism as historically progressive and revolutionary, but currently reactionary and counter-revolutionary. Just like it is possible to see abolitionists in the United States as historically progressive for being against slavery, but to recognize a lot of them as racists by modern standards (for example, many abolitionists were against slavery, but in favor of segregation).
Simply making an appeal to the common etymological roots of "liberty" and "liberalism" is lazy. Liberalism as it stands is the class dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, and the global domination of the imperial core. Read Domenico Losurdo's Liberalism: A Counter history.
Also, liberals have long since abandoned cherishing the legacy of things like the French Revolution.
It's a subvertion of that abortion of a meme "communism has never been tried", you've probably seen it.
I think the post means to say liberalition comes from fighting the oppressors, bit I also don't find it perfectly coherent. It might be saying that true liberty is to [redacted] the oppressing class, but it's definitely not liberalism.
Yeah on one hand it looks as if it's trying to say liberty causes oppression and social unrest, and on the other hand it might also be saying social unrest is wrongly justified by promises of liberty? Neither really makes sense to me
Edit: or maybe it's saying oppressors cover up atrocities by talking liberty? But the 'oppressors' are also smiling while their group is getting killed by the ones they oppressed? Idk, whatever
Edit 2: maybe the point is that liberty is where the oppressed can kill their oppressors under the same principle of liberty the oppressors used while oppressing them which makes some kind of grim justice?
You've overthinking and not in the right direction so I'll try to help out as best I can. As before, I don't think the posted meme expresses itself well.
None of the people saying "Liberty" here came to power for an extended period. They lead actions against oppressive groups, slavers, settlers etc. They don't need this violence justified by the precedent or the framwork of their oppressors, not least because they were left with no other choice but violent action.
What does 'liberty' refer to in this case? Surely not the general concept of freedom, is there a specific political system called liberty?
Edit: I think it was supposed to be liberalism?
Yes. Liberalism was historically progressive insofar as it represented the suppression of feudal aristocracy and the rise of the bourgeois capitalist class. But it is historically regressive insofar as it represents the suppression of the proletariat, the suppression of anti-imperialism, and the entrenchment of the bourgeois capitalist class. It is simultaneously possible to recognize liberalism as historically progressive and revolutionary, but currently reactionary and counter-revolutionary. Just like it is possible to see abolitionists in the United States as historically progressive for being against slavery, but to recognize a lot of them as racists by modern standards (for example, many abolitionists were against slavery, but in favor of segregation).
Simply making an appeal to the common etymological roots of "liberty" and "liberalism" is lazy. Liberalism as it stands is the class dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, and the global domination of the imperial core. Read Domenico Losurdo's Liberalism: A Counter history.
Also, liberals have long since abandoned cherishing the legacy of things like the French Revolution.
It's a subvertion of that abortion of a meme "communism has never been tried", you've probably seen it.
I think the post means to say liberalition comes from fighting the oppressors, bit I also don't find it perfectly coherent. It might be saying that true liberty is to [redacted] the oppressing class, but it's definitely not liberalism.
Yeah on one hand it looks as if it's trying to say liberty causes oppression and social unrest, and on the other hand it might also be saying social unrest is wrongly justified by promises of liberty? Neither really makes sense to me
Edit: or maybe it's saying oppressors cover up atrocities by talking liberty? But the 'oppressors' are also smiling while their group is getting killed by the ones they oppressed? Idk, whatever
Edit 2: maybe the point is that liberty is where the oppressed can kill their oppressors under the same principle of liberty the oppressors used while oppressing them which makes some kind of grim justice?
You've overthinking and not in the right direction so I'll try to help out as best I can. As before, I don't think the posted meme expresses itself well.
None of the people saying "Liberty" here came to power for an extended period. They lead actions against oppressive groups, slavers, settlers etc. They don't need this violence justified by the precedent or the framwork of their oppressors, not least because they were left with no other choice but violent action.
Liberty is when people stop challenging the status quo and just SHUT UP ABOUT ALL THE OPPRESSION SO I CAN GRILL IN PEACE DAMMIT!