The example of the US Democrats (and pretty much every single western mainstream party which is supposedly left-of-center) doesn’t show a Modern Liberalism that matches what you claim is the modern one.
I think you’re confusing Left-wing Liberalism with “Modern”.
Left-wing Liberalism is basically Social Democracy - trying for Equality of Opportunity rather than trying for Equality of Outcomes like Socialism, totally accepting of private ownership and favoring mechanisms like Public Education and Progressive Taxation rather than more Autoritarian ones to try and make for a more equal world.
Right-wing Liberalism is Neoliberalism - basically “the Power Of Money should be above the Power Of The State”, only it’s all wrapped up as “the State should not own anything and should not interfere in the Free Market”. A nation where Money sits above the State in the power hierarchy can’t a Democracy even with a vote and elected representatives since what those elected representatives control - the State - sits below what Money controls, and such power structure is actually known as an Oligarchy.
(If I remember correctly there is actually an MIT study for the US that shows that it is in fact and Oligarchy and has been so for more than a decade)
In the modern days Right-wing Liberalism has been dominant in the West, something you can see even in Scandinavia which were maybe some of the last western nations were social-democracy was still dominant (until maybe a decade ago).
All this to say that in practice the present day (hence, “modern”) Liberalism in pretty much all of the West is the right-wing take on Liberalism - Free Market Liberalism, aka Neoliberalism.
“modern” doesn’t mean present day. “Contemporary” means present day. “modern” is either a grand social movement (modernism - break from tradition, urbanization, industrialization, technologically infused, experimental) or it’s a time period (1500 - ?1970s?)
Modern Liberalism is not “present day liberalism” it’s a form of liberalism that emerges in industrial societies, as opposed to, say Jeffersonian liberalism which was entirely about the freedom to buy, sell, breed, rape, and kill people you owned for the purpose of getting rich from cash cropping farms you owned on land you got by genociding subhuman natives.
Indeed under that use of “Modern” you are correct and Liberalism in the first half of the 20th century was as that poster described.
However “Modern” is also often used as short for “Modern Day” which is an expression for things from the recent past and present day rather than the formal “Modern” classification in History, and what you described as “Modern” Liberalism does not match the “Modern day” practice of Liberalism.
Since I don’t quite see the point of talking about Liberalism from more than half a century ago in the context of a post which is literally about what Liberalis believe (Present tense, hence about Present Day Liberalism), I assumed the previous poster meant Modern in the sense of “Modern day” as that version of Liberalism was the one that made the most sense to talk about in that context.
If the previous poster meant “Modern” in the “Modern day” sense as I claim, then they’re ignorant (which is the point I was making), if however them meant it as the Historical classification of Modern as you say, then they were either being deceitful (by talking about Historical Liberalism whilst trying to pass it for present day one) or illogical (since talking about history in a context which is about present day Liberal beliefs and praxis makes no sense unless one provides the links in the chain between the talked about historical one and the present day one, which they did not provide).
Please tell me where the Right To Private Property in the Wikipedia definition ends and the Freedom one starts.
Specifically, were do the rights of Land Ownership stop and the Freedom of all human beings to access and use the very surface of the planet they live in starts.
Because without that contradition in the very definition of Liberalism in Wikipedia solved, you don’t actually have a concrete workable political ideology with actual policies.
I think that if you honestly look at it with a logical and analytical eye you’ll find that the various different modern political ideologies which claim to be liberal differ mainly in how they chose to handle the conflict between Right To Private Property and Freedom.
Ahh I think we may have a misunderstanding. Im not saying it’s a good ideology, what I am saying is that it is a very well defined ideology that has been around for hundreds of years. People have written tomes of text on the concept over the centuries and the Wikipedia article distills that. I haven’t read all the tomes, but the article does line up with what I have read on the topic.
I think almost all political ideologies have flaws, some significantly bigger than others. For every one you might believe is best, there will always be someone who disagrees with you, either on the overarching ideology, the finer details or even the feasibility of implementation.
That said you mention a contradiction in the definition but I’m not sure where you’re reading that. It highlights right to property sure, but it is pretty specific about the freedoms it espouses:
political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion.
None of those even loosely equate to the freedom of all human beings to access and use the very surface of the planet they live on.
For what it’s worth I think you’re right that the right to private property is at loggerheads with what you define as freedom and liberalism doesn’t deal with that issue. Instead its stuck within the basic capitalist structure present in most western countries.
Modern liberalism only pushes for a social safety net within that capitalist structure with a goal of using increased government regulation and operation of critical infrastructure for the benefit of the people. The structure’s flaws remain and could be argued are inherent and easily warped to benefit some individuals over others. But the same can be said about potentially all other societal structures.
As I wrote in another post, Liberalism is like the Bible in that it’s vague, self-contradictory and contains a little something to please everybody.
It’s like the 17th century version of a paper published by a Think Tank funded by ultra-rich people that’s meant to be used to deceive public opinion into supporting something that when implemented in practice mainly benefits said ultra-rich people.
IMHO it makes no sense talking about Liberal policies (which is what the OP is doing) alongside talking about the vague and self-contradictory ideals of Liberalism from over a century ago since those ideals are way too vague to even form a political ideology (something I illustrated by pointing out that both Social Democracy and Neoliberalism fit within those Liberal principles by balancing differently two contraditory principles of Liberalism), much less guide policy making.
Those are some fair points and you’re right it’s a vague idea. Liberal is an adjective that’s applied across the political spectrum so it requires people to be specific about what they mean. The term liberal can be contradictory but classical and social liberalisms are two very different things and need to be treated as such.
Most of Lemmy (OP included in this case) tend to refer to social, centre/centre left liberals when they talk about liberals. Here in Aus, and in a lot of other places it more refers to the classical centre right/right laissez-faire RWNJ definition of liberal.
The example of the US Democrats (and pretty much every single western mainstream party which is supposedly left-of-center) doesn’t show a Modern Liberalism that matches what you claim is the modern one.
I think you’re confusing Left-wing Liberalism with “Modern”.
Left-wing Liberalism is basically Social Democracy - trying for Equality of Opportunity rather than trying for Equality of Outcomes like Socialism, totally accepting of private ownership and favoring mechanisms like Public Education and Progressive Taxation rather than more Autoritarian ones to try and make for a more equal world.
Right-wing Liberalism is Neoliberalism - basically “the Power Of Money should be above the Power Of The State”, only it’s all wrapped up as “the State should not own anything and should not interfere in the Free Market”. A nation where Money sits above the State in the power hierarchy can’t a Democracy even with a vote and elected representatives since what those elected representatives control - the State - sits below what Money controls, and such power structure is actually known as an Oligarchy.
(If I remember correctly there is actually an MIT study for the US that shows that it is in fact and Oligarchy and has been so for more than a decade)
In the modern days Right-wing Liberalism has been dominant in the West, something you can see even in Scandinavia which were maybe some of the last western nations were social-democracy was still dominant (until maybe a decade ago).
All this to say that in practice the present day (hence, “modern”) Liberalism in pretty much all of the West is the right-wing take on Liberalism - Free Market Liberalism, aka Neoliberalism.
“modern” doesn’t mean present day. “Contemporary” means present day. “modern” is either a grand social movement (modernism - break from tradition, urbanization, industrialization, technologically infused, experimental) or it’s a time period (1500 - ?1970s?)
Modern Liberalism is not “present day liberalism” it’s a form of liberalism that emerges in industrial societies, as opposed to, say Jeffersonian liberalism which was entirely about the freedom to buy, sell, breed, rape, and kill people you owned for the purpose of getting rich from cash cropping farms you owned on land you got by genociding subhuman natives.
Indeed under that use of “Modern” you are correct and Liberalism in the first half of the 20th century was as that poster described.
However “Modern” is also often used as short for “Modern Day” which is an expression for things from the recent past and present day rather than the formal “Modern” classification in History, and what you described as “Modern” Liberalism does not match the “Modern day” practice of Liberalism.
Since I don’t quite see the point of talking about Liberalism from more than half a century ago in the context of a post which is literally about what Liberalis believe (Present tense, hence about Present Day Liberalism), I assumed the previous poster meant Modern in the sense of “Modern day” as that version of Liberalism was the one that made the most sense to talk about in that context.
If the previous poster meant “Modern” in the “Modern day” sense as I claim, then they’re ignorant (which is the point I was making), if however them meant it as the Historical classification of Modern as you say, then they were either being deceitful (by talking about Historical Liberalism whilst trying to pass it for present day one) or illogical (since talking about history in a context which is about present day Liberal beliefs and praxis makes no sense unless one provides the links in the chain between the talked about historical one and the present day one, which they did not provide).
The meme and Wikipedia both disagree with you
Please tell me where the Right To Private Property in the Wikipedia definition ends and the Freedom one starts.
Specifically, were do the rights of Land Ownership stop and the Freedom of all human beings to access and use the very surface of the planet they live in starts.
Because without that contradition in the very definition of Liberalism in Wikipedia solved, you don’t actually have a concrete workable political ideology with actual policies.
I think that if you honestly look at it with a logical and analytical eye you’ll find that the various different modern political ideologies which claim to be liberal differ mainly in how they chose to handle the conflict between Right To Private Property and Freedom.
Ahh I think we may have a misunderstanding. Im not saying it’s a good ideology, what I am saying is that it is a very well defined ideology that has been around for hundreds of years. People have written tomes of text on the concept over the centuries and the Wikipedia article distills that. I haven’t read all the tomes, but the article does line up with what I have read on the topic.
I think almost all political ideologies have flaws, some significantly bigger than others. For every one you might believe is best, there will always be someone who disagrees with you, either on the overarching ideology, the finer details or even the feasibility of implementation.
That said you mention a contradiction in the definition but I’m not sure where you’re reading that. It highlights right to property sure, but it is pretty specific about the freedoms it espouses:
For what it’s worth I think you’re right that the right to private property is at loggerheads with what you define as freedom and liberalism doesn’t deal with that issue. Instead its stuck within the basic capitalist structure present in most western countries.
Modern liberalism only pushes for a social safety net within that capitalist structure with a goal of using increased government regulation and operation of critical infrastructure for the benefit of the people. The structure’s flaws remain and could be argued are inherent and easily warped to benefit some individuals over others. But the same can be said about potentially all other societal structures.
As I wrote in another post, Liberalism is like the Bible in that it’s vague, self-contradictory and contains a little something to please everybody.
It’s like the 17th century version of a paper published by a Think Tank funded by ultra-rich people that’s meant to be used to deceive public opinion into supporting something that when implemented in practice mainly benefits said ultra-rich people.
IMHO it makes no sense talking about Liberal policies (which is what the OP is doing) alongside talking about the vague and self-contradictory ideals of Liberalism from over a century ago since those ideals are way too vague to even form a political ideology (something I illustrated by pointing out that both Social Democracy and Neoliberalism fit within those Liberal principles by balancing differently two contraditory principles of Liberalism), much less guide policy making.
Those are some fair points and you’re right it’s a vague idea. Liberal is an adjective that’s applied across the political spectrum so it requires people to be specific about what they mean. The term liberal can be contradictory but classical and social liberalisms are two very different things and need to be treated as such.
Most of Lemmy (OP included in this case) tend to refer to social, centre/centre left liberals when they talk about liberals. Here in Aus, and in a lot of other places it more refers to the classical centre right/right laissez-faire RWNJ definition of liberal.