- Joined
- Apr 23, 2005
- Messages
- 3,032
- Reaction score
- 1,767
well the difference is that the left is the establishment now.
A Classical Liberal & A Progressive Marxist Debate
- Thread starter TheStruggle
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 41,443
- Reaction score
- 0
- Joined
- May 20, 2016
- Messages
- 34,432
- Reaction score
- 15,874
No, he's not.
I'm a bona fide Sanders supporter who hates Clinton, and the media collusion shit is senseless.
Your commentary on public policy in this thread is absolutely atrocious. Almost frighteningly so.
First off, your a communist, any opinion you hold should be taken with a grain of salt.
The media was feeding her questions. People lost their jobs over it. Or did you conveniently suppress that from your memory like the millions of people who have died, or currently suffer because of communism?
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2012
- Messages
- 34,003
- Reaction score
- 12,324
Couldn't make it through the first page of this thread.
Someone spoil it for me:
Has anyone, in their own words, been able to concisely define "cultural marxism" or even "classical liberal"?
As far as I can tell, a "cultural marxist" is someone who champions the seemingly-inevitable homogenization that would likely allow for true economic communism to flourish.
And a "classical liberal" is just someone who likes to call themselves liberals to excuse themselves out of their relentless "criticisms" of progressive liberalism.
Someone spoil it for me:
Has anyone, in their own words, been able to concisely define "cultural marxism" or even "classical liberal"?
As far as I can tell, a "cultural marxist" is someone who champions the seemingly-inevitable homogenization that would likely allow for true economic communism to flourish.
And a "classical liberal" is just someone who likes to call themselves liberals to excuse themselves out of their relentless "criticisms" of progressive liberalism.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2017
- Messages
- 37,165
- Reaction score
- 25,335
If I may intrude in this interesting discussion, I think I may be able to bring some clarity to the terms 'cultural Marxist' and 'classical liberal'. This necessarily requires more space than posts should take up, for which I apologize in advance. I would be very interested in any thoughtful replies/refutations.
(1) A 'classical liberal' is someone who holds roughly the politics of people who called themselves 'liberals' in the 19th Century. These men were for separation of church and state (and were generally secular), for free expression -- against censorship of newspapers and laws against blasphemy, for example -- against protective tariffs and generally in favor of the free market. They represented an extension of the Enlightenment. John Stuart Mill is the 'classical' example. Thomas Babbington Macaulay is another example (and well worth reading, by the way, if you have never heard of him). They were not necessarily consistent democrats in the sense of always wanting a universal franchise or the abolition of monarchy. From the Marxist point of view, they represented the rising bourgeoisie, asserting itself against the entrenched landlord class.
Some conservatives today, especially Americans, are uncomfortable with the word 'conservative' because, in the American context, it implies (1) a patriotism shading into aggressive nationalism -- or used to do, before 2003 and subsequent failure in Iraq and Afghanistan ; (2) a strong committment to traditional (Christian) religion; and a general committment to traditional cultural values, some of which are seen by today's generation as outmoded or worse, oppressive -- plus a kind of belligerent egregious stupidity.
Those calling themselves 'classical liberals' tend to be, in my opinion, libertarians-light, but shy away from some of the logical conclusions of consistent libertarianism, such as wanting to auction off the National Parks and open the borders.
They are part of the trend of secularization of American society. Culturally, they have a lot of overlap with leftists of their generation, with respect to being in favor of equal rights for women, racial equality before the law, a general distrust of militarism, and an appreciation of sex and drugs and rock'n'roll.
'Classical liberal' is a actually a pretty good definition of what they believe, if you know what classical liberalism is in the first place.
(Some of these people may, on the other hand, think it means having the general world outlook of FDR and JFK -- a nostalgia for these men and the political views that both Democrats and Republicans shared during those years has in fact been growing on the Right, as they watch the distintegration of American society. But since FDR especially remains anathema on the Right, they are hesitant about saying this.)
(2) 'Cultural Marxism' is a term of abuse by people on the Right for the radical Left, whom they (rightly) see as despising the traditional working class, while, at the same time, sharing the goals of the traditional (working-class-oriented) Left, of a great expansion in state power to curb or abolish privately-held wealth. They imagine that clever radical Leftists read the works of Antionio Gramsci, and/or the works of a group of sort-of Marxists loosely grouped in what is called 'the Frankfurt School', and decided to make a 'long march through the institutions', capturing the ideological levers of power within bourgeois society [ the 'intelligentsia' -- teachers, journalists, lawyers, etc] in order to transform it from within, without a proletarian revolution. Some of the more paranoid people on the Right actually believe that this development was the result of a KGB plot.
Although this is not a complete fantasy, it really doesn't do justice to Gramsci or the Frankfurt School. In any case, the process they have (correctly) identified within the US would have occured without Gramsci or Adorno et al. (And as for Mr Adorno in particular -- the main effect of reading his works is to put you to sleep.)
Even by the 1960s, the radical Left had largely written off the traditional working class, that section of society which 'classical Marxists' looked to to bear the weight of transforming capitalist society. In the Third World they looked to guerilla warfare -- loosely 'based' on the peasantry and appealing to anti-imperialist nationalism, but in fact centred on a free-floating armed band to seize power and transform society from the top, a la China or Cuba. People who imitated them in the advanced countries became military auxiliaries of the Third World revolutionaries -- the Weathermen and the Bader-Meinhoff Gang are examples.
Those of the New Left who didn't want to risk their lives this way, but who also didn't believe that the working class of their own country could become revolutionary, puttered around in various community organizing or anti--war activities for a few years, and then went out and got good jobs as members of the intelligentsia. They, and those they influenced later, are the 'cultural Marxists' that conservatives refer to today. Whereas the New Left of the 1960s simply did not believe that their own (white) working class could become revolutionary, their contemporary descendants actively despise this group.
Although these people share things in common with Marxists, they really do not want to see the state nationalize all industry, indepdently of the fact that they have deep contempt for ordinary working people. The grotesque failures of socialist economies, from China to Russia to Cuba to Venezuela today are all too obvious. Not to mention that most of them are, or look forward to being, well-paid employees of the government or big corporations, and have absolutely no interest in equality of incomes. They are closer to being social democrats -- wanting government health care, free college tuition -- really, like Bernie Sanders (who is more of an Old Leftist in fact), they are New Dealers in their economics. Their 'socialism' is socialism for the middle class.
========================================================================================================
From a Marxist -- or at least a historical materialist -- viewpoint, the developments in the US are a reflection of the fact that it is rapidly (in historic terms) sliding down from the unquestioned world dominance it has had since 1945. All Americans have taken the overwhelming military/economic supremacy of their country for granted -- it's not even a 'belief', it's far more fundamental and below the level of consciousness than beliefs are. This is now changing, with China moving into Top Gun position. America is not a European social democracy, and the effects of the unbridled free market are destroying the American working class. The social democratic reforms desired by the radical Left will not be possible because there will be no material basis for them, and in any case, the economy of the future will increasingly favor people in the second and above standard deviations of IQ.
Thus the United States is going to see a lot of craziness and political turmoil -- the Trump phenomenon, and similar developments on the Left (the SJW insanity) are just the beginnings, the tremors that presage the earthquake.
The future is not predictable. In particular, the future effects of the AI revolution are murky. The concept of 'America' is already dead -- what we have is a single state -- the USA -- inhabited by increasingly-divergent tribal groups -- rather like the old Yugoslavia.
The most important thing we can do is to try to prevent a big war.
Leadership of humanity is going to pass to China during this century. Hopefully, China will democratize and liberalize, but the process is inevitable, whatever happens in that country. As the US descends towards whatever fate is in store for it, we must hope that it does not, like a blinded wounded giant, engage is some death-spasm using its nuclear arsenal. For the sake of the people living in the US, we have to hope that the Chinese -- who are not terribly sentimental people -- don't decide that they can't take the chance of this happening, and decide to get the advantage of the First Strike. Their Japanese cousins have shown how to do it.
So we must hope that the American leadership, whether they are Leftists or Rightists or whatever, will study the British retreat from empire, and will submit to 'graceful degradation', and peacefully yield leadership of the world to that nation which is preparing to claim it.
Please note: in making this analysis and the predictions and recommendations that flow from it, I am emphatically NOT saying this is a good thing. In fact, I'm heartbroken. America, with all its terrible flaws and crimes -- inevitable, in any human enterprise -- was the light of the world for more than a century, a beacon for liberal democracy, and steadily improving.
That has gone. Human advance will have to find other paths.
(1) A 'classical liberal' is someone who holds roughly the politics of people who called themselves 'liberals' in the 19th Century. These men were for separation of church and state (and were generally secular), for free expression -- against censorship of newspapers and laws against blasphemy, for example -- against protective tariffs and generally in favor of the free market. They represented an extension of the Enlightenment. John Stuart Mill is the 'classical' example. Thomas Babbington Macaulay is another example (and well worth reading, by the way, if you have never heard of him). They were not necessarily consistent democrats in the sense of always wanting a universal franchise or the abolition of monarchy. From the Marxist point of view, they represented the rising bourgeoisie, asserting itself against the entrenched landlord class.
Some conservatives today, especially Americans, are uncomfortable with the word 'conservative' because, in the American context, it implies (1) a patriotism shading into aggressive nationalism -- or used to do, before 2003 and subsequent failure in Iraq and Afghanistan ; (2) a strong committment to traditional (Christian) religion; and a general committment to traditional cultural values, some of which are seen by today's generation as outmoded or worse, oppressive -- plus a kind of belligerent egregious stupidity.
Those calling themselves 'classical liberals' tend to be, in my opinion, libertarians-light, but shy away from some of the logical conclusions of consistent libertarianism, such as wanting to auction off the National Parks and open the borders.
They are part of the trend of secularization of American society. Culturally, they have a lot of overlap with leftists of their generation, with respect to being in favor of equal rights for women, racial equality before the law, a general distrust of militarism, and an appreciation of sex and drugs and rock'n'roll.
'Classical liberal' is a actually a pretty good definition of what they believe, if you know what classical liberalism is in the first place.
(Some of these people may, on the other hand, think it means having the general world outlook of FDR and JFK -- a nostalgia for these men and the political views that both Democrats and Republicans shared during those years has in fact been growing on the Right, as they watch the distintegration of American society. But since FDR especially remains anathema on the Right, they are hesitant about saying this.)
(2) 'Cultural Marxism' is a term of abuse by people on the Right for the radical Left, whom they (rightly) see as despising the traditional working class, while, at the same time, sharing the goals of the traditional (working-class-oriented) Left, of a great expansion in state power to curb or abolish privately-held wealth. They imagine that clever radical Leftists read the works of Antionio Gramsci, and/or the works of a group of sort-of Marxists loosely grouped in what is called 'the Frankfurt School', and decided to make a 'long march through the institutions', capturing the ideological levers of power within bourgeois society [ the 'intelligentsia' -- teachers, journalists, lawyers, etc] in order to transform it from within, without a proletarian revolution. Some of the more paranoid people on the Right actually believe that this development was the result of a KGB plot.
Although this is not a complete fantasy, it really doesn't do justice to Gramsci or the Frankfurt School. In any case, the process they have (correctly) identified within the US would have occured without Gramsci or Adorno et al. (And as for Mr Adorno in particular -- the main effect of reading his works is to put you to sleep.)
Even by the 1960s, the radical Left had largely written off the traditional working class, that section of society which 'classical Marxists' looked to to bear the weight of transforming capitalist society. In the Third World they looked to guerilla warfare -- loosely 'based' on the peasantry and appealing to anti-imperialist nationalism, but in fact centred on a free-floating armed band to seize power and transform society from the top, a la China or Cuba. People who imitated them in the advanced countries became military auxiliaries of the Third World revolutionaries -- the Weathermen and the Bader-Meinhoff Gang are examples.
Those of the New Left who didn't want to risk their lives this way, but who also didn't believe that the working class of their own country could become revolutionary, puttered around in various community organizing or anti--war activities for a few years, and then went out and got good jobs as members of the intelligentsia. They, and those they influenced later, are the 'cultural Marxists' that conservatives refer to today. Whereas the New Left of the 1960s simply did not believe that their own (white) working class could become revolutionary, their contemporary descendants actively despise this group.
Although these people share things in common with Marxists, they really do not want to see the state nationalize all industry, indepdently of the fact that they have deep contempt for ordinary working people. The grotesque failures of socialist economies, from China to Russia to Cuba to Venezuela today are all too obvious. Not to mention that most of them are, or look forward to being, well-paid employees of the government or big corporations, and have absolutely no interest in equality of incomes. They are closer to being social democrats -- wanting government health care, free college tuition -- really, like Bernie Sanders (who is more of an Old Leftist in fact), they are New Dealers in their economics. Their 'socialism' is socialism for the middle class.
========================================================================================================
From a Marxist -- or at least a historical materialist -- viewpoint, the developments in the US are a reflection of the fact that it is rapidly (in historic terms) sliding down from the unquestioned world dominance it has had since 1945. All Americans have taken the overwhelming military/economic supremacy of their country for granted -- it's not even a 'belief', it's far more fundamental and below the level of consciousness than beliefs are. This is now changing, with China moving into Top Gun position. America is not a European social democracy, and the effects of the unbridled free market are destroying the American working class. The social democratic reforms desired by the radical Left will not be possible because there will be no material basis for them, and in any case, the economy of the future will increasingly favor people in the second and above standard deviations of IQ.
Thus the United States is going to see a lot of craziness and political turmoil -- the Trump phenomenon, and similar developments on the Left (the SJW insanity) are just the beginnings, the tremors that presage the earthquake.
The future is not predictable. In particular, the future effects of the AI revolution are murky. The concept of 'America' is already dead -- what we have is a single state -- the USA -- inhabited by increasingly-divergent tribal groups -- rather like the old Yugoslavia.
The most important thing we can do is to try to prevent a big war.
Leadership of humanity is going to pass to China during this century. Hopefully, China will democratize and liberalize, but the process is inevitable, whatever happens in that country. As the US descends towards whatever fate is in store for it, we must hope that it does not, like a blinded wounded giant, engage is some death-spasm using its nuclear arsenal. For the sake of the people living in the US, we have to hope that the Chinese -- who are not terribly sentimental people -- don't decide that they can't take the chance of this happening, and decide to get the advantage of the First Strike. Their Japanese cousins have shown how to do it.
So we must hope that the American leadership, whether they are Leftists or Rightists or whatever, will study the British retreat from empire, and will submit to 'graceful degradation', and peacefully yield leadership of the world to that nation which is preparing to claim it.
Please note: in making this analysis and the predictions and recommendations that flow from it, I am emphatically NOT saying this is a good thing. In fact, I'm heartbroken. America, with all its terrible flaws and crimes -- inevitable, in any human enterprise -- was the light of the world for more than a century, a beacon for liberal democracy, and steadily improving.
That has gone. Human advance will have to find other paths.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2011
- Messages
- 35,945
- Reaction score
- 4,933
Who are you?
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2007
- Messages
- 24,699
- Reaction score
- 5,307
Post more please.
Well, I'm probably really out of place here, not being into martial arts, and probably being several decades older than the average participant. But I do know a little bit about both left wing and right wing politics, so I thought I might contribute something useful to this debate.
I'd be interested in other peoples' thoughts on these issues.
I'd be interested in other peoples' thoughts on these issues.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2007
- Messages
- 24,699
- Reaction score
- 5,307
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2005
- Messages
- 31,936
- Reaction score
- 34,268
Welcome to the board. You'll find that the War Room is generally a bit older than the rest of the forum and if you can wade through some of the venom and team spirts in here there's worthwhile reading and discussion to be had.
I would be very interested in this. The future is not predictable, and I doubt China can avoid big internal conflicts and changes.
About all I've read on China recently is Tyler Cowan's rather negative appraisal of their economic situation -- I don't doubt they'll
have some serious ups and downs -- that's the nature of capitalism, and especially of the world economy today -- but in the long
term, they're a nation of over a billion, they're intelligent, they are not caught up in self-hatred and sentimentality toward other tribal groups,
and they seem to take the long view (their leadership, I mean). In the long term -- over the next century or two -- I dont think this will be a bad
thing for humanity, but in the short run, over the next few decades, it may be a different story.
Thank you for your welcome. I'm pretty immune to online venom and mob behavior. Sticks and stones, etc.
Roman Catholic theology has a useful category: the 'invincibly ignorant'. It really means people who are innocent, not having had
an opportunity to reject Christ, but it can be applied to on line debate folks. When I run into them, I just ignore them, usually.
What I like are people who actually bring something to the table -- they have facts and figures, links, book titles, etc to back up their arguments.
Of course, I like it most when these people have views which are totally correct, i.e. agree with mine, but I also get
a lot of value when a really smart and knowledgable political opponent engages with me, because I learn something: my own weaknesses, for one thing, and new arguments I had better learn to take on. And sometimes in response to a good argument, I even change my mind.
I suppose there is a parallel in martial arts: if you only take on opponents you can easily defeat, your own technique begins to degrade.
I should also say that my self-description above is an ideal, an aspiration, not, probably, the total reality.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2013
- Messages
- 22,061
- Reaction score
- 11,981
This debate at Mythcon I think is a good example of the difference in liberalism today. You have 'liberals' who actually base their ideals on the idea of liberty and freedom, and then you have 'liberals' who have adopted the Marxist aka Progressive ideals of 'Equality' and collectivism.
This will not be the full transcript of the debate, links to the full transcript is below and the full video you can watch on your own.
Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad) vs Thomas Smith (Channel Atheism)
This first excerpt, I think, does a great job setting the tone for the rest of the debate.
Thomas: “You’re not a liberal. The liberal stance is that systemic discrimination is a problem. That’s one big part of it.”
Carl: “That’s not the liberal stance, that’s the Marxist stance.”
Thomas: “Unbelievable…”
Right off the bat, it’s clear that Thomas and Carl have incredibly different views on what “liberal” means, and for now, I’m absolutely open to Thomas’ viewpoint, even though I am a fan of Carl’s and agree with his.
Thomas: “Intersectionality is literally the thing that makes [feminism] more individualistic.”
Carl: “That is absolutely absurd, and I can’t believe you just said that.”
Thomas: “Do you want to let me tell you why that argument is true? Intersectionality makes us more individual. Instead of being ‘men vs. women’, instead of being ‘black vs. white’, intersectionality allows us to say ‘men have different experiences than women. Black people have different experiences than white people. Black women have different experiences than white women. Poor white women have different experiences than black women. That’s intersectionality. Intersectionality let’s you break down identities in more dynamic ways.”
Carl: “Are you even listening to yourself? You are collectivizing all of these people, and you’re saying that’s individualism? It’s not. It’s the antithesis of individualism.”
Thomas: “It’s literally the opposite of what you just said. It’s allowing people’s identity to be multifaceted. It’s allowing socioeconomic status to be part of it, it’s allowing race to be a part of it, it’s allowing gender to be part of it.”
Carl: “Again, you’re categorizing them into classes, Thomas.”
Thomas: “Yea.”
Carl: “That’s collectivism. That’s not individualism.”
Thomas: “What I’m saying is that intersectionality is what gets us that more intricate level of identity.”
Carl: “Of control, yes! But individualism is that people should be free. Do you not get how all of this is completely antithetical to the concept of liberty? Let’s get down to the principle, you are not for freedom. You are for equality of outcome rather than liberty. That is the fundamental issue of our time, and you should probably know that.”
Thomas seems to think that because he groups people into an infinite number of categories, that he is granting them individuality, not realizing that it is the act of categorizing people into the permutation of group that he sees as meaningful that is stripping them of their individuality.
Thomas: “If we’re going to talk about how to make society better, we — “
Carl: “We’re not. We’re going to talk about how to make society free!”
Carl: “Racial discrimination is bad no matter who it is happening to. It’s not a defensible position.”
Thomas: “The status quo discriminates. I’m in favor of making things more equal.”
Carl: “Ok, I’m not. I’m in favor of making things more free.”
Thomas: “Freedom entails discrimination. Freedom allows White Men to control everything.”
Carl: “Oh my god. ”
It seems that Thomas disapproves of freedom because “it allows White Men to control everything.”
Liberal means supporting change, conservative means wanting to keep things the same. There is no other consistent part of those definitions. There was a time when lassix-faire capitalism was liberal and the establishment were the aristocratic landowning class. So being a liberal then and being a liberal now were too very different things. Calling "classical liberals" liberals is the same thing as calling monarchists(real monarchists not the ones who want to have a living museum in the UK) classical conservatives.
Classical liberalism like cultural marxism are made up bs terms trying to make a far right wing political climate seem far more reasonable because conservatives are just what liberals used to be.
If liberals get everything they want they become conservatives eventually(because they'll want to conserve the society they created) and that is what happened to corporations.
Progressives or Socialists aren't Marxists. Marxism and Socialism divorced a century ago which is the whole reason Communist Parties exist and why Socialist parties and the Labor Party in the UK which were once Marxist are now Social Democratic. USSR used the Socialist label because Marxists won the battle in Russia and why wouldn't they use the original label?
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2016
- Messages
- 34,002
- Reaction score
- 0
This debate at Mythcon I think is a good example of the difference in liberalism today. You have 'liberals' who actually base their ideals on the idea of liberty and freedom, and then you have 'liberals' who have adopted the Marxist aka Progressive ideals of 'Equality' and collectivism.
This will not be the full transcript of the debate, links to the full transcript is below and the full video you can watch on your own.
Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad) vs Thomas Smith (Channel Atheism)
This first excerpt, I think, does a great job setting the tone for the rest of the debate.
Thomas: “You’re not a liberal. The liberal stance is that systemic discrimination is a problem. That’s one big part of it.”
Carl: “That’s not the liberal stance, that’s the Marxist stance.”
Thomas: “Unbelievable…”
Right off the bat, it’s clear that Thomas and Carl have incredibly different views on what “liberal” means, and for now, I’m absolutely open to Thomas’ viewpoint, even though I am a fan of Carl’s and agree with his.
Thomas: “Intersectionality is literally the thing that makes [feminism] more individualistic.”
Carl: “That is absolutely absurd, and I can’t believe you just said that.”
Thomas: “Do you want to let me tell you why that argument is true? Intersectionality makes us more individual. Instead of being ‘men vs. women’, instead of being ‘black vs. white’, intersectionality allows us to say ‘men have different experiences than women. Black people have different experiences than white people. Black women have different experiences than white women. Poor white women have different experiences than black women. That’s intersectionality. Intersectionality let’s you break down identities in more dynamic ways.”
Carl: “Are you even listening to yourself? You are collectivizing all of these people, and you’re saying that’s individualism? It’s not. It’s the antithesis of individualism.”
Thomas: “It’s literally the opposite of what you just said. It’s allowing people’s identity to be multifaceted. It’s allowing socioeconomic status to be part of it, it’s allowing race to be a part of it, it’s allowing gender to be part of it.”
Carl: “Again, you’re categorizing them into classes, Thomas.”
Thomas: “Yea.”
Carl: “That’s collectivism. That’s not individualism.”
Thomas: “What I’m saying is that intersectionality is what gets us that more intricate level of identity.”
Carl: “Of control, yes! But individualism is that people should be free. Do you not get how all of this is completely antithetical to the concept of liberty? Let’s get down to the principle, you are not for freedom. You are for equality of outcome rather than liberty. That is the fundamental issue of our time, and you should probably know that.”
Thomas seems to think that because he groups people into an infinite number of categories, that he is granting them individuality, not realizing that it is the act of categorizing people into the permutation of group that he sees as meaningful that is stripping them of their individuality.
Thomas: “If we’re going to talk about how to make society better, we — “
Carl: “We’re not. We’re going to talk about how to make society free!”
Carl: “Racial discrimination is bad no matter who it is happening to. It’s not a defensible position.”
Thomas: “The status quo discriminates. I’m in favor of making things more equal.”
Carl: “Ok, I’m not. I’m in favor of making things more free.”
Thomas: “Freedom entails discrimination. Freedom allows White Men to control everything.”
Carl: “Oh my god. ”
It seems that Thomas disapproves of freedom because “it allows White Men to control everything.”
I want to see someone debate that class warfare is perpetrated by the lower and middle class, and not by elites.
I see Bernie's economic class warfare to be very different then the idea of cultural warfare.
The difference being that I do think elites are at war against other economic classes, where as I don't think anyone with power is actively acting against the interests of cultural classes.
There is some truth to the first sentence, but it's much too compressed. Subsequent sentences correct some of this -- as in the sentence that says "If liberals get everything they want they become conservatives". What's wrong with the simple assertion that "liberals want change and conservatives don't" is that it leaves out the values that drive liberals to want change (when they do), and conservatives to oppose change (when they do).
For instance, Hitler brought radical change to Germany. He had opponents among both German 'liberals' and 'conservatives', who preferred the status quo of the Weimar Republic. (By the way, I'm NOT making the argument that 'Hitler was a socialist' or 'Hitler was on the Left'. He certainly stole a lot of the Socialists' clothes in the program of the NSDAP, and implemented a rather successful Keynsian/Bernie Sanders domestic economic program, but it turns things upside down to say he was on the Left.)
The collapse of Communism in Russia and Eastern Europe, and its evisceration in China, was cheered to the echo by conservatives. By liberals ... well, it depends on what you mean by 'liberal'. As FerrisJSO seems to indicate, when he says that "Progressives or Socialists aren't Marxists". (I'm assuming here that he is melding 'liberals', 'progressives', and 'socialists' into one camp.) There was indeed a strain of liberalism -- we might call it Cold War Liberalism, or, as the leaders of the New Left did in the sixties, 'Corporate Liberalism' -- which was strongly opposed to Communism. (There were also some self-styled Marxists who were as well, but not many.)
In practice, the 'liberal' grouping always included people with great sympathy for totalitarian systems, so long as these systems promised equality. This was especially strong in the 1930s. But the fortunes of pro-Soviet 'liberals' (who were then called 'progressives') took a sharp reversal when the Cold War began, and the liberal-left camp divided sharply, with the Cold War Liberals emerging dominant.
In the US, their main political representative was Hubert Humphrey -- almost a Scandanavian Social Democrat in his domestic politics. He was also an author of the Communist Control Act of 1954, which outlawed the Communist Party. (It's still on the books, although so draconian and obviously counter to the whole spirit of the Constitution that it has never been enforced.)
With the exception of Humphrey and a few others, though, most American liberals were pretty good on the question of civil liberties. And most conservatives at that time were not.
But that liberalism is dead now, or at least breathing its last. It has been replaced by 'Progressives or sociaists', who do not really believe in civil liberties for their opponents. You can track this change by watching the ACLU as it shifts from its long-standing free speech fundamentalism towards no-free-speech-for-thoughtcrime. At the moment, it's still officially in favor of free speech, but this won't last, because the organization will have to reflect the views of its 'liberal' (ie. now 'progressive or socialist') base, especially its funding base, who increasingly don't believe in it.
What really defines 'progressives or socialists' nowadays is a deep, quasi-relgious committment to the Blank Slate theory of human behavior, with the consequent committment to Equality of Outcome. It's a quasi-religious belief because it rejects the criterion of rational thought (where the Blank Slate theory is concerned), namely, "I believe X ... but the following evidence could make me change my mind." It's the same mentality that religious enthusiasts have, and will be defended with the same fury as religious people once defended their beliefs.
At the same time, the privileged position of the US since WWII has led to a deep, unthinking assumption among the latest generations of its middle-class citizens: they feel entitled. They have a certain view of the world -- the Blank Slate theory, which says that any desirable human characteristic is purely a function of the environment, and if a certain group doesn't have this desirable characteristic, it's because of an unfair environment. And they react with fury when this view is challenged. Their main world view could be called 'Victimhood'. That's why free speech is disappearing on the very places it should be thriving, our elite campuses where our future ruling class is trained. Our privileged youth feel they have a right not to be exposed to beliefs they don't like.
So, yes, today's "liberals" -- or rather, "progressives or socialists" -- are mainly defined by their hostility to existing institutions in the US, because under these institutions, we don't have equality of outcome. And the Blank Slate theory says that this must be due to unfair arrangements creating Victims. Thus they are at work replacing procedures and institutions that worked, with ones that sound good.
Conservatives don't understand this process and have no effective answer to it. And articulate, thinking conservatives -- as opposed to the conservative base -- are also, by and large, wedded to the free-market world-view. So they cannot propose a reasonable conservative answer to the leftist economic and social program, which would necessarily involve appropriating some elements of the leftist program. This was not a problem for them for a long time, because their base put 'social' conservatism above everything else. But the Culture War has been lost ... and then along came Donald Trump, whose economic program, such as it is, contradicts much of traditional conservative beliefs, but proved very popular with his base. This will slow the internal rot of the US down for a brief time, but not for long.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2007
- Messages
- 9,794
- Reaction score
- 2,625
We're all in deep shit. Dougie Fresh about to mop up this forum
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Messages
- 18,241
- Reaction score
- 12,086
Sure hope so. Things have gotten stagnant on this forum.
Need somebody to shake things up a bit.
Last edited:
