the common ground assumption only holds if you think human rights and equality are achievable within capitalism. from my perspective this is the core disagreement.
liberals believe the system can be reformed to deliver those things, leftists generally think the system structurally prevents it. that’s a fundamental disagreement about what the problem is.
Pro-capitalist stances in some strains of liberalism
pro-capitalist isn’t a strain of liberalism, it’s the foundation. liberalism as a political philosophy emerged to defend private property and individual rights against feudal authority.
you can’t separate the human rights framework from the property rights framework it was built on.
‘rule of law’ under capitalism is the law of property. it protects the existing distribution of wealth and power. leftists who want to upend that distribution are not going to see that as ‘common ground’
Maybe we’re working with different understanding of liberals then, but to my mind, ideals like equality before the law and freedom of association certainly put them closer to us than conservatives or fascists. Social liberal policies like worker protections, universal healthcare and social security measures shouldn’t be needed, but they are at least attempts to counteract the worst tendencies of unbridled capitalism.
Out of the dominant political movements, liberalism presents the best environment to work towards replacing the system. At least they won’t lock us up in labour camps for being black, being gay or being a little too critical of the regime. As allies go, I think we could do far worse, so I’d rather save my vitriol for the shared enemy until we’re in a position to fix this shit.
‘at least they won’t lock us up’ is a selective reading of history. liberals have done exactly that if threatened. the liberal state locked people up for being black and being too critical of the regime before trump. it was democrats that were raiding gay bars and opposing gay rights until the movement got big enough that they rebranded and wrapped themselves in the flag.
the ‘best environment to work in’ assumption only holds if the goal is incremental reform within the system rather than replacing it, which goes back to the core disagreement.
a system that presents the best environment for working toward its own replacement is a contradiction in terms. it presents that environment precisely until you get close enough to actually threaten it.
also all of the things you credit the social liberals for were concessions extracted by organized labor through strike, occupations and political pressure that the liberals were actively resisting until they had no choice.
crediting liberalism for them is like crediting the landlord for not raising rent after a rent strike.
the common ground assumption only holds if you think human rights and equality are achievable within capitalism. from my perspective this is the core disagreement.
liberals believe the system can be reformed to deliver those things, leftists generally think the system structurally prevents it. that’s a fundamental disagreement about what the problem is.
pro-capitalist isn’t a strain of liberalism, it’s the foundation. liberalism as a political philosophy emerged to defend private property and individual rights against feudal authority.
you can’t separate the human rights framework from the property rights framework it was built on.
‘rule of law’ under capitalism is the law of property. it protects the existing distribution of wealth and power. leftists who want to upend that distribution are not going to see that as ‘common ground’
Maybe we’re working with different understanding of liberals then, but to my mind, ideals like equality before the law and freedom of association certainly put them closer to us than conservatives or fascists. Social liberal policies like worker protections, universal healthcare and social security measures shouldn’t be needed, but they are at least attempts to counteract the worst tendencies of unbridled capitalism.
Out of the dominant political movements, liberalism presents the best environment to work towards replacing the system. At least they won’t lock us up in labour camps for being black, being gay or being a little too critical of the regime. As allies go, I think we could do far worse, so I’d rather save my vitriol for the shared enemy until we’re in a position to fix this shit.
‘at least they won’t lock us up’ is a selective reading of history. liberals have done exactly that if threatened. the liberal state locked people up for being black and being too critical of the regime before trump. it was democrats that were raiding gay bars and opposing gay rights until the movement got big enough that they rebranded and wrapped themselves in the flag.
the ‘best environment to work in’ assumption only holds if the goal is incremental reform within the system rather than replacing it, which goes back to the core disagreement.
a system that presents the best environment for working toward its own replacement is a contradiction in terms. it presents that environment precisely until you get close enough to actually threaten it.
also all of the things you credit the social liberals for were concessions extracted by organized labor through strike, occupations and political pressure that the liberals were actively resisting until they had no choice.
crediting liberalism for them is like crediting the landlord for not raising rent after a rent strike.