12 ms·

The Meaning of Liberalism (1938)

40 points by johntfella 3y ago

juliangamble 3y ago
> Therefore, it came about that the liberal movement of our time has been cast largely in the mold of economic liberalism which makes its parallelism to the Jacksonian era more obvious, although none the less real, than its parallel to the Jeffersonian liberalism. This is what happened in Australia. The political party named "The Liberal Party" are conservatives traditionally interested in economic liberalism. Kind of the opposite of the meaning in the US - although this article points to a period in time when the meaning was changing.
- gumby 3y ago
  Australia's use of the term is common around the world. It's the US that's the odd man out.
  - runarberg 3y ago
    In my (West Coast US) circles the word ‘Liberal Democrat’ is taken to mean an economically right wing but socially left wing. To my immigrant ears I’ve always taken it to be a right wing term. Democrats also come in the conservative flavor, where they are not only economically right wing but also crony capitalists. Joe Manchin is an example of a conservative democrat while Gavin Newsom is an example of a liberal democrat (Joe Biden is somewhere between them). In my circles we consider both liberal democrats and conservative democrats to be bad (though conservative democrats are significantly worse; and any kind of republicans are infinitely worse). We also have progressive democrats which we—most of the time—consider good.
  - kome 3y ago
    exactly. liberalism is right wing. but just to confuse the waters, i would say that Americans liberals are indeed right wing, by global standards.
    - medo-bear 3y ago
      [flagged]
    - simonh 3y ago
      The old meaning of liberal in the US has been superseded by neoliberal. I the UK we went from Whighs (economically liberal) versus Tories (land owning coservative), then Liberals versus Tories, then Labour (socialist) versus Conservatives/Tories (economically liberal). I suppose the transition of liberalism into establishments party was part of the process of business becoming the establishment.
      - albelfio 3y ago
        Time brings regulation. Liberalism is maybe a reaction to that trend.
        flagrant_taco 3y ago
        Power brings regulation. Time doesn't really have anything to do with it as far as I can tell, other than the fact that we seem to be quick to create rules and slow to remove them.
    - twelvechairs 3y ago
      Liberalism is right wing economically and left wing socially. At least in the 19th and early 20th century sense. Today it depends where you are
      - edgyquant 3y ago
        No Liberalism takes no stance on social issues as the liberal idea is that isn’t something the government should regulate, full stop.
        zajio1am 3y ago
        One of the foundational text of liberalism, 'On Liberty' from J. S. Mill, is pretty clear that the threat to individual liberty is not just from the government, but from the society itself: Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant - society collectively, over the separate individuals who compose it - its means of tyrannising are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own.
leetcodesucks 3y ago
Liberalism is dressed up as good in the same way the communist fight against the triad of oppression is dressed up as good. Both processes openly aim to remove the properties of gender, race and class from the population. What is left are sexless nationless unprotected atomized individuals at the mercy of the state (controlled by a small group of men who control global finance) - and these people are unmotivated unloved nameless slaves basically
dmwilcox 3y ago
I had to keep reminding myself this was written in the 1930s (because of already mentioned confusion around the word "liberal" in the US). But it's a sort of sweet story tracing the liberal ideals of Jefferson and company through to Old Hickery (Jackson) and his rural populism and why the progressive movements can be seen as an outgrowth of that original liberalism. Would read again.
giorgosts 3y ago
"But our acceptance of those property rights is subject to the important qualification that the interests of men and of society come first and that warns us both the misunderstanding and the hostility of conservatives." That's how socialism is defined, that the interests of society come first.
- Avshalom 3y ago
  that is not how socialism is defined.
  - gehwartzen 3y ago
    I mean in most economic theory ultimately the interests align with those who owns the means of production. In capitalism that is the individual (ideally) and in socialism it’s society (ideally) so not sure what’s wrong with GPs definition. The interest of those who own comes first in either case; that seems self evident.
    - giorgosts 3y ago
      In capitalism the capital has a life and a mind of its own, independently from the people who own it or serve it as professionals. It wants to grow and accumulate. Only a mixture of capitalism with socialist policies can be beneficial to man, if you go with absolutes it brings misfortune to most people.
- inglor_cz 3y ago
  Nope. Socialism is collective ownership of means of production, sorry. Words have meanings.
  - oceanplexian 3y ago
    Words do have meanings and “collective ownership of the means of production” is the oldest con in the book. It’s the ownership of the means of production by the State, backed up by violence if you choose not to participate. You can’t go to the socialist stock market and sell 5 shares of your “ownership”. You can’t transact it. If you don’t like the product, you can’t choose to buy a different one.
improv 3y ago
>The liberal insists on a bill of rights which will rigidly protect the individual and the minority against encroachments by the government and those elected to exercise power. >But the liberal does not stop here. He insists that the government shall also have and exercise power to see that the rights of the individual and of minorities are not encroached upon by private economic power.
- jasfi 3y ago
  It should be about rights, and defending people's rights. Not sure what happened if I look at my own country, and a few countries I've lived in. There seems to be more of a herd mentality. Stick to the herd if you want to be safe.
thrq 3y ago
No matter what they say every group's goal is grabbing the power

40 points by johntfella 3y ago

> Therefore, it came about that the liberal movement of our time has been cast largely in the mold of economic liberalism which makes its parallelism to the Jacksonian era more obvious, although none the less real, than its parallel to the Jeffersonian liberalism. This is what happened in Australia. The political party named "The Liberal Party" are conservatives traditionally interested in economic liberalism. Kind of the opposite of the meaning in the US - although this article points to a period in time when the meaning was changing.

gumby 3y ago
Australia's use of the term is common around the world. It's the US that's the odd man out.
- runarberg 3y ago
  In my (West Coast US) circles the word ‘Liberal Democrat’ is taken to mean an economically right wing but socially left wing. To my immigrant ears I’ve always taken it to be a right wing term. Democrats also come in the conservative flavor, where they are not only economically right wing but also crony capitalists. Joe Manchin is an example of a conservative democrat while Gavin Newsom is an example of a liberal democrat (Joe Biden is somewhere between them). In my circles we consider both liberal democrats and conservative democrats to be bad (though conservative democrats are significantly worse; and any kind of republicans are infinitely worse). We also have progressive democrats which we—most of the time—consider good.
- kome 3y ago
  exactly. liberalism is right wing. but just to confuse the waters, i would say that Americans liberals are indeed right wing, by global standards.
  - medo-bear 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - simonh 3y ago
    The old meaning of liberal in the US has been superseded by neoliberal. I the UK we went from Whighs (economically liberal) versus Tories (land owning coservative), then Liberals versus Tories, then Labour (socialist) versus Conservatives/Tories (economically liberal). I suppose the transition of liberalism into establishments party was part of the process of business becoming the establishment.
    - albelfio 3y ago
      Time brings regulation. Liberalism is maybe a reaction to that trend.
      - flagrant_taco 3y ago
        Power brings regulation. Time doesn't really have anything to do with it as far as I can tell, other than the fact that we seem to be quick to create rules and slow to remove them.
  - twelvechairs 3y ago
    Liberalism is right wing economically and left wing socially. At least in the 19th and early 20th century sense. Today it depends where you are
    - edgyquant 3y ago
      No Liberalism takes no stance on social issues as the liberal idea is that isn’t something the government should regulate, full stop.
      - zajio1am 3y ago
        One of the foundational text of liberalism, 'On Liberty' from J. S. Mill, is pretty clear that the threat to individual liberty is not just from the government, but from the society itself: Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant - society collectively, over the separate individuals who compose it - its means of tyrannising are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own.

leetcodesucks 3y ago

Liberalism is dressed up as good in the same way the communist fight against the triad of oppression is dressed up as good. Both processes openly aim to remove the properties of gender, race and class from the population. What is left are sexless nationless unprotected atomized individuals at the mercy of the state (controlled by a small group of men who control global finance) - and these people are unmotivated unloved nameless slaves basically

dmwilcox 3y ago

I had to keep reminding myself this was written in the 1930s (because of already mentioned confusion around the word "liberal" in the US). But it's a sort of sweet story tracing the liberal ideals of Jefferson and company through to Old Hickery (Jackson) and his rural populism and why the progressive movements can be seen as an outgrowth of that original liberalism. Would read again.

giorgosts 3y ago

"But our acceptance of those property rights is subject to the important qualification that the interests of men and of society come first and that warns us both the misunderstanding and the hostility of conservatives." That's how socialism is defined, that the interests of society come first.

Avshalom 3y ago
that is not how socialism is defined.
- gehwartzen 3y ago
  I mean in most economic theory ultimately the interests align with those who owns the means of production. In capitalism that is the individual (ideally) and in socialism it’s society (ideally) so not sure what’s wrong with GPs definition. The interest of those who own comes first in either case; that seems self evident.
  - giorgosts 3y ago
    In capitalism the capital has a life and a mind of its own, independently from the people who own it or serve it as professionals. It wants to grow and accumulate. Only a mixture of capitalism with socialist policies can be beneficial to man, if you go with absolutes it brings misfortune to most people.
inglor_cz 3y ago
Nope. Socialism is collective ownership of means of production, sorry. Words have meanings.
- oceanplexian 3y ago
  Words do have meanings and “collective ownership of the means of production” is the oldest con in the book. It’s the ownership of the means of production by the State, backed up by violence if you choose not to participate. You can’t go to the socialist stock market and sell 5 shares of your “ownership”. You can’t transact it. If you don’t like the product, you can’t choose to buy a different one.

improv 3y ago

>The liberal insists on a bill of rights which will rigidly protect the individual and the minority against encroachments by the government and those elected to exercise power. >But the liberal does not stop here. He insists that the government shall also have and exercise power to see that the rights of the individual and of minorities are not encroached upon by private economic power.

jasfi 3y ago
It should be about rights, and defending people's rights. Not sure what happened if I look at my own country, and a few countries I've lived in. There seems to be more of a herd mentality. Stick to the herd if you want to be safe.

thrq 3y ago

No matter what they say every group's goal is grabbing the power