2 ms·

When I am talking about acceptance of the values of equality (3) from liberals, I mean willingness to compromise and understand the benefit of value (3) for soc

by js8 3y ago

When I am talking about acceptance of the values of equality (3) from liberals, I mean willingness to compromise and understand the benefit of value (3) for society. You're talking about acceptance on paper - yeah, you can have all these fringe ideas, and talk about them all you want, as long as they are not actually implemented. Which is nothing more than value (2). And communist countries.. ah what a stupid trope (most of the self-declared "communist" countries were simply right-wing dictatorships). I am pretty sure in e.g. Kerala you can have any beliefs you want. Ideologically, communism is a whole spectrum of ideas between values of (3) and (4), and it doesn't even explicitly reject (2) (although the most famous implementations did that). You're ignoring the fact that any ideology can be abused for power. A good example is Milei in Argentina, who is claiming to be a liberal as a means of becoming an authoritarian dictator. Yet it doesn't devalue liberalism. Taking any of the values (2), (3), (4) to the extreme (in particular, at the expense of (1)) is dangerous and liberalism is not different. It just manifests as a different blind spot, in liberalism (value (2)) taken to extreme, it is a blind spot towards people at the extremes of the social hierarchy. Values (3) or (4) taken to extreme share a blind spot towards individual self-expression.

Jensson 3y ago
> yeah, you can have all these fringe ideas, and talk about them all you want, as long as they are not actually implemented. Every developed nation is full of social programs to help the poor and give people things they need to live a good life. It varies a bit from country to country, but even USA has programs to give schooling to every kid and feed the poor so they don't starve and ensure even the poor get healthcare. So no, I don't accept your argument here, we today do listen a lot to leftist ideas and implemented a ton of them, the evidence for that is everywhere.
- js8 3y ago
  I am not sure what country you're from, but if it's a Western one, it's unlikely that you have recently (in the past 40 years) fully adopted a more leftist proposal or idea compared to what was accepted 40 years back. So things as social programs largely exist as a consequence of value (3) being understood (and fought for) as important, rather than liberals understanding their importance (in fact, they let lot of it slide in the neoliberal era). Although to be fair, dominance of ideological liberalism is probably ending, but it yet has to manifest in practical policies. In practical terms, value of (2) is the most important for the middle class, in contrast with value (3) which is the most important for the working (bottom) class, and value (4) which is the most important for the ruling (top) class. So the decline in the middle class (being teared apart by social inequality) in the US is changing the ideological dominance of (2). It's really just another way of reframing my point about liberalism causing its own demise. That's why, when I am talking about importance of (3) compared to (2), I am not talking about just the bottom of social hierarchy, i.e. giving something to poor people to eat so they don't die (this is actually more based on value (1) than (3)). The value of (3) is also about having a political power (and democracy), and as such the top of the social hierarchy (to which liberalism is oblivious to) needs to be addressed as well. Value of (2) cannot do much about abuse of power by billionaires, for instance. It's simply out of the scope - as far as liberals are concerned, their existence and economic influence is fair and square. And that's why it can lead to fascism. (And we can see in practice, US is not very democratic at the moment, the will of majority of people is ignored in actual policy, but the will of the rich people prevails.) Addendum (rereading my previous comment): Historically, the hubris that lead to suffering you describe under totalitarian communist regimes was ideological ignorance of value (2) (or (4) for that matter) when implementing (3), as in the circumstances of the communist revolutions, the (3) becomes a cultural hegemon. I think the left mostly learned from that, i.e. you can't have (3) without respecting (2), and also revolutions are tricky (meaning attaining anything without respecting (4) can be bloody). Today however, we are in a different situation, (2) has the cultural hegemony, and so the understanding that (3) is important has been lost to some extent, due to the same ideological hubris (but this hubris of liberals also exists towards conservatives, i.e. value (4), showing that it really comes from its ideological hegemony).

by js8 3y ago

Jensson 3y ago

> yeah, you can have all these fringe ideas, and talk about them all you want, as long as they are not actually implemented. Every developed nation is full of social programs to help the poor and give people things they need to live a good life. It varies a bit from country to country, but even USA has programs to give schooling to every kid and feed the poor so they don't starve and ensure even the poor get healthcare. So no, I don't accept your argument here, we today do listen a lot to leftist ideas and implemented a ton of them, the evidence for that is everywhere.

js8 3y ago
I am not sure what country you're from, but if it's a Western one, it's unlikely that you have recently (in the past 40 years) fully adopted a more leftist proposal or idea compared to what was accepted 40 years back. So things as social programs largely exist as a consequence of value (3) being understood (and fought for) as important, rather than liberals understanding their importance (in fact, they let lot of it slide in the neoliberal era). Although to be fair, dominance of ideological liberalism is probably ending, but it yet has to manifest in practical policies. In practical terms, value of (2) is the most important for the middle class, in contrast with value (3) which is the most important for the working (bottom) class, and value (4) which is the most important for the ruling (top) class. So the decline in the middle class (being teared apart by social inequality) in the US is changing the ideological dominance of (2). It's really just another way of reframing my point about liberalism causing its own demise. That's why, when I am talking about importance of (3) compared to (2), I am not talking about just the bottom of social hierarchy, i.e. giving something to poor people to eat so they don't die (this is actually more based on value (1) than (3)). The value of (3) is also about having a political power (and democracy), and as such the top of the social hierarchy (to which liberalism is oblivious to) needs to be addressed as well. Value of (2) cannot do much about abuse of power by billionaires, for instance. It's simply out of the scope - as far as liberals are concerned, their existence and economic influence is fair and square. And that's why it can lead to fascism. (And we can see in practice, US is not very democratic at the moment, the will of majority of people is ignored in actual policy, but the will of the rich people prevails.) Addendum (rereading my previous comment): Historically, the hubris that lead to suffering you describe under totalitarian communist regimes was ideological ignorance of value (2) (or (4) for that matter) when implementing (3), as in the circumstances of the communist revolutions, the (3) becomes a cultural hegemon. I think the left mostly learned from that, i.e. you can't have (3) without respecting (2), and also revolutions are tricky (meaning attaining anything without respecting (4) can be bloody). Today however, we are in a different situation, (2) has the cultural hegemony, and so the understanding that (3) is important has been lost to some extent, due to the same ideological hubris (but this hubris of liberals also exists towards conservatives, i.e. value (4), showing that it really comes from its ideological hegemony).