23
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2026
23 points (100.0% liked)
Ask Lemmygrad
1231 readers
61 users here now
A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
If liberals think that equality of material wealth is impossible, it follows that they also believe in material inequality in a biological sense. So most liberals, in my opinion, do insist on eternal inequality. How would liberals explain that some people grow up to be scientists while others have jobs considered less noble? To think that a majority of people are born inferior is integral to liberalism.
I would say, believing that some are more deserving and some are less deserving is integral to elitism in general, which includes liberalism but is not limited to it. Liberals appear to take on a more paternal view of those who society deems less deserving, which is still a validation of elitism, but less sneering than the more overt forms. As seen in the mindset of charity*. This enables liberalism to sanitize itself as an ideology that cares, without supporting systemic changes in the power structure that would guarantee assistance and largely eliminate the need for voluntary charity.
*Not to say that the practice of voluntarily helping out someone in need is inherently elitist (far from it), but that elitist power structures co-opt this otherwise communal mindset to pass off social responsibility to the individual and the voluntary; thereby further entrenching the idea that the powerful don't owe anyone anything.