this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2023
596 points (81.0% liked)
Memes
45731 readers
548 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, those are socialist economics.
To-may-to to-mah-to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism
Yeah that's the scam. Not actually liberal
It appears you havent read your own link there.
I don't know if I can be clearer than it is. It's very obvious that capitalism is not compatible with liberalism. Conservative capitalists try to use terms like "economic liberalism" with results showing the opposite
and when we click on "economic freedom":
The commenter suggesting you should read your own links was right...
Thinking is also allowed. Is capitalism producing that freedom? No, it's stifling it. It's just a buzzword for them
Oh thats what you meant lol. I thought you meant "Not actually liberal" in the sense that the label of the political ideology I put forth for them is wrong, you meant they aren't actually for freedom which is the literal meaning of the word.
Ah ok
And I do mean the political ideology where liberalism means the things included in liberalism.
It's just that the later rightwing/capitalist highjackings of the word aren't true.
Liberalism has always included a free market economy though? That's what Marx was mainly against, a free economy where the means of production are owned by those with the means to purchase them on the free market. He was a "liberal" in the 19th century sense in that he was in favour of a free press and abolishment of the monarchy but he saw private ownership of land/factories etc as problematic because of the serfdom it leads to. These ideas (edit: democracy, freedom of expression etc.) however are now really mainstream and when people talk about "liberals" they mean those who are in favour of a free market economy. Free as in "i am free to buy what I want regardless of my birth" not free as in "I am entitled to basic human necessities required to live a free life even if I can't afford them" is what most people mean when they talk about liberal ideology.
And that's the issue. The latter, of being free to even have the the possibility for economic freedom, is liberalism in it's essence. And that's not happening in capitalism. Under capitalism only the rich are free, so liberalism happens outside of capitalism.
No it isn't. That's just not what people mean when they talk about "liberalism". Liberalism's core idea is around a free (liberal) market. Just like how socialism's core idea is around a collectivization of the means of production. You cant be a capitalist socialist and you cant be an anticapitalist liberal. It doesn't make sense.
Tying liberalism to the market is an afterthought. Its core is in social freedom.
Only the rich are free in capitalism
If it is its not mine. This is what people talk about when they talk about liberalism. If you want to use the word differently you should clarify that from the start b
People should read up on liberalism and stick to it instead of capitalist newspeak
And we who know better can always correct the misuse
If people "read up on liberalism" they'd be reading the definition of it which includes free market capitalism, because this is what textbooks on the matter will associate with liberalism. Not your definition of it which is shared by almost no one.
Even the Wikipedia article is 95% social freedom. And any critical person could see that when it mentions the additional economic liberalism is not possible under capitalism
Easy test: Does everyone have the possibility to be economically (or otherwise) free in capitalism? No. Therefore liberalism is impossible with capitalism