4 ms·

such concepts are not static across a population, nor through time. beyond the author(s) and early adherents, the population itself has a separate conception of

such concepts are not static across a population, nor through time. beyond the author(s) and early adherents, the population itself has a separate conception of such ideas that can be markedly different from the initial conception, and that also changes through time. it's certainly useful to understand this sort of history, but trying to stake a definition in time and defy the dynamism of these concepts is inherently political (e.g., originalism). sometimes that can be done deftly and sometimes hamfistedly. in any case, the concepts can be relevant and meaningful and still not be useful as identity markers in any meaningful and relevant way. identification principally with a single school of thought is simply a mistake of rationality, and how we get unthinking tribalist extremism. it happens with any -ism: libertarianism, socialism, nihilism, capitalism, etc. the world works as a non-linear composition of all of these ideas and much more. not a single one can be considered "correct" in any meaningful sense.

vinceguidry 6y ago
They retain meaning across populations and through time. That's the whole point of philosophy. People's opinions on the matters change, but that doesn't change the matters. Liberalism didn't change because people are using the term incorrectly and don't understand how to use it properly. Like a market, eventually the political landscape returns to rationality. At the end of the day, Trump is a classic fascist, and his supporters are supporting fascism. They don't get to rewrite the meanings of the words because they don't like the connotations. Many through history have used his playbook, and it all follows the same general arc.
- clairity 6y ago
  yah, that's a political (and politicized) assertion. you also don't get to define terms only to your convenience, without consideration for the long arc of history and the breadth of the world's imagination. > "At the end of the day, Trump is a classic fascist, and his supporters are supporting fascism." impulsive statements like this reveal the limitations of that kind of rigid thinking. trump isn't a fascist, he's a self-centrist. he's one of the simplest human beings to understand because of this. politicized projections such as yours are overfitted at best, and completely unfitted in most cases, as in this case.
  - vinceguidry 6y ago
    > he's a self-centrist Those are the very same thing. A fascist does not care about anything other than personal power. All philosophies and ideology are superfluous. Fascists run on the very basic political premise of "you like me, elect me and let me run things because you like me and you'll like what I want to do." That's the core message, anything else is pointless to understanding. That's what fascism is. I'm not misunderstanding Trumpism, I'm giving it the same name everybody else who understands political history and theory gives it. Everything people like about Trump, are the same things that cause people to put fascists in power. Have a look at this explainer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1M6CXhUS-x8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1M6CXhUS-x8 Fascism isn't some long slow slide down to Nazi Germany that Americans seem to think of when they consider the term. The Nazis are the most visible and publicly know version of fascism, but countless others throughout history, in Europe, Latin America, Africa, have managed to subvert the mechanisms of their republics using the tactics of populism to put themselves in power, unaccountable to any sort of checks.
    - nl 6y ago
      > A fascist does not care about anything other than personal power This isn't a widely accepted definition of fascism. There are plenty of left-wing dictators who fit this definition and weren't fascists.
      - vinceguidry 6y ago
        If they're a leftist, then they're interested in devolving power to the people. Hitler at one point ran on a leftist platform, his party was called a socialist one after all. His, tactics, however, were those of fascist demagoguery. Fascists can use whatever political posture they want or switch around their posture to suit them, because what they derive power and influence is, isn't adherence to any creed. This is what makes them so dangerous.
        vinceguidry 6y ago
        I don't know who is downvoting every single one of my posts in this thread but they really would be better served engaging. Check my karma, I got plenty to lose :-)
- nl 6y ago
  > Liberalism didn't change because people are using the term incorrectly and don't understand how to use it properly. Well... Actually it has changed. Classical Liberalism[1] is primarily an economic belief system that advocates small, non-interventionist government. It evolved into Right-libertarianism in the 20th and 21st century. "In the late 19th century, classical liberalism developed into neo-classical liberalism, which argued for government to be as small as possible to allow the exercise of individual freedom. In its most extreme form, neo-classical liberalism advocated social Darwinism. Right-libertarianism is a modern form of neo-classical liberalism." This odd positioning is most visible in Australia, where the conservative party is called "The Liberal party" after the mid-20th century view on this. This is a long way from any modern understanding of Liberalism particularly within the US: "Social liberalism, also known as left liberalism in Germany, modern liberalism in the United States[4] and new liberalism in the United Kingdom, is a political philosophy and variety of liberalism that endorses a regulated market economy and the expansion of civil and political rights.... In the United States, the term social liberalism may sometimes refer to progressive stances on sociocultural issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage as opposed to social conservatism."[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism
  - vinceguidry 6y ago
    Don't you "well actually" me!! :-) All classical liberals are liberals, but not all liberals are classic liberals. Ditto for social liberals. When I defined liberalism, I outlined a core platform. There are many many many movements within liberalism that all share the same core platform. They have to. You cannot have classical liberalism in a country that's not committed to the core liberal platform. A free market just doesn't work in a world where there's no equality of the law, no liberty, and no consent of the governed. If even one of these is missing, you really can't have classic liberalism either. A regime will invariably put their fingers on the scales of commerce. Ditto for every single other political philosophy under the liberal banner. All of these things rest upon a belief in the population of those three bedrock principles.
    - 6y ago

vinceguidry 6y ago

They retain meaning across populations and through time. That's the whole point of philosophy. People's opinions on the matters change, but that doesn't change the matters. Liberalism didn't change because people are using the term incorrectly and don't understand how to use it properly. Like a market, eventually the political landscape returns to rationality. At the end of the day, Trump is a classic fascist, and his supporters are supporting fascism. They don't get to rewrite the meanings of the words because they don't like the connotations. Many through history have used his playbook, and it all follows the same general arc.

clairity 6y ago
yah, that's a political (and politicized) assertion. you also don't get to define terms only to your convenience, without consideration for the long arc of history and the breadth of the world's imagination. > "At the end of the day, Trump is a classic fascist, and his supporters are supporting fascism." impulsive statements like this reveal the limitations of that kind of rigid thinking. trump isn't a fascist, he's a self-centrist. he's one of the simplest human beings to understand because of this. politicized projections such as yours are overfitted at best, and completely unfitted in most cases, as in this case.
- vinceguidry 6y ago
  > he's a self-centrist Those are the very same thing. A fascist does not care about anything other than personal power. All philosophies and ideology are superfluous. Fascists run on the very basic political premise of "you like me, elect me and let me run things because you like me and you'll like what I want to do." That's the core message, anything else is pointless to understanding. That's what fascism is. I'm not misunderstanding Trumpism, I'm giving it the same name everybody else who understands political history and theory gives it. Everything people like about Trump, are the same things that cause people to put fascists in power. Have a look at this explainer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1M6CXhUS-x8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1M6CXhUS-x8 Fascism isn't some long slow slide down to Nazi Germany that Americans seem to think of when they consider the term. The Nazis are the most visible and publicly know version of fascism, but countless others throughout history, in Europe, Latin America, Africa, have managed to subvert the mechanisms of their republics using the tactics of populism to put themselves in power, unaccountable to any sort of checks.
  - nl 6y ago
    > A fascist does not care about anything other than personal power This isn't a widely accepted definition of fascism. There are plenty of left-wing dictators who fit this definition and weren't fascists.
    - vinceguidry 6y ago
      If they're a leftist, then they're interested in devolving power to the people. Hitler at one point ran on a leftist platform, his party was called a socialist one after all. His, tactics, however, were those of fascist demagoguery. Fascists can use whatever political posture they want or switch around their posture to suit them, because what they derive power and influence is, isn't adherence to any creed. This is what makes them so dangerous.
      - vinceguidry 6y ago
        I don't know who is downvoting every single one of my posts in this thread but they really would be better served engaging. Check my karma, I got plenty to lose :-)
nl 6y ago
> Liberalism didn't change because people are using the term incorrectly and don't understand how to use it properly. Well... Actually it has changed. Classical Liberalism[1] is primarily an economic belief system that advocates small, non-interventionist government. It evolved into Right-libertarianism in the 20th and 21st century. "In the late 19th century, classical liberalism developed into neo-classical liberalism, which argued for government to be as small as possible to allow the exercise of individual freedom. In its most extreme form, neo-classical liberalism advocated social Darwinism. Right-libertarianism is a modern form of neo-classical liberalism." This odd positioning is most visible in Australia, where the conservative party is called "The Liberal party" after the mid-20th century view on this. This is a long way from any modern understanding of Liberalism particularly within the US: "Social liberalism, also known as left liberalism in Germany, modern liberalism in the United States[4] and new liberalism in the United Kingdom, is a political philosophy and variety of liberalism that endorses a regulated market economy and the expansion of civil and political rights.... In the United States, the term social liberalism may sometimes refer to progressive stances on sociocultural issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage as opposed to social conservatism."[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism
- vinceguidry 6y ago
  Don't you "well actually" me!! :-) All classical liberals are liberals, but not all liberals are classic liberals. Ditto for social liberals. When I defined liberalism, I outlined a core platform. There are many many many movements within liberalism that all share the same core platform. They have to. You cannot have classical liberalism in a country that's not committed to the core liberal platform. A free market just doesn't work in a world where there's no equality of the law, no liberty, and no consent of the governed. If even one of these is missing, you really can't have classic liberalism either. A regime will invariably put their fingers on the scales of commerce. Ditto for every single other political philosophy under the liberal banner. All of these things rest upon a belief in the population of those three bedrock principles.
  - 6y ago