I dont think youre wrong, and your assessment that ideology is created by material human progress is how I think about it too.
But your phrase “monarchies have gone out of existence because of human progress” sort of side steps my point about private property. I would argue the private property question is inherent to liberalism.
As a leftist however, and this isnt a popular opinion for the online left, I think that liberalism appears to people in different ways. For conservatives, who are a type of classical liberal, the private property question is explicitly paramount, and all considerations of human rights, etc., are maybe given lip service and informal recognition. But materially it is deprioritized and in our era getting wiped out, such as “neo-liberalism.”
For modern day liberals however, and this seems to be the category you are in, human rights and freedoms are paramount. As a socialist, I feel affinity with these people and I believe that socialism is the next advancement of human rights over capitalism. I dont think power can be wrested from capitalists without organization of the masses and struggle. But I do think that our projects are the same in that regard. However since this second category of liberal isnt engaging with the private property questions of who owns the means of production, why they own it, how the mop are used to make stuff, and who gets the stuff, then these liberals actually can’t defend human rights and freedoms, because there is no material basis for the defense, its ideological.
I dont think we can change the effect that corporations have over politics, economics, and the lives of basically everyone on the planet without revolution. And by revolution I dont mean a bloody, head-choppy war, I mean fundamental change in social relations, and this process of emancipation will be a fundamental change called socialism.
The corporations are a front for the actual class that is in power. Analysis that leaves out this class component misses a lot. Corporations can not give this to us permanently. We will have to win it, and we will have to defend it with the same zeal that corporations defend the right to own the material basis for human advancement as well as the right to own people’s time in order to sell the produce of that time for more than they paid us.
However I believe that what is in your heart, the desire for freedom and liberation (“liberal” contains the root “liber” as in liberate) is very close to what is in mine. But I also think that when it comes to our theory of change, we are completely different, and I think the liberal theory of change, when it even exists, actually allows corporations free reign to continue their agenda against the masses. We need to build a new fundamental basis for global transformation, and imo part of that is convincing well-meaning and liberation minded liberals like you to come over to a liberatory socialist program and ditch analysis that has no concrete basis in class relations.
I have a lot of philosophical differences with liberalism, but you can see how long-winded I can be. But my primary focus is the advancement human spirit. And i think in that regard we largely agree.
For conservatives, who are a type of classical liberal, the private property question is explicitly paramount, and all considerations of human rights, etc., are maybe given lip service and informal recognition. But materially it is deprioritized and in our era getting wiped out, such as “neo-liberalism.”
See, this is why I think classical liberalism gets a bad name. Conservatives only like to claim they promote classical liberal ideas because it sounds like a cool throwback. When confronted, they play the same authoritarian card they claimed to fight so hard against.
Eh, I feel that a lot of problems are simply blamed on corporations without understanding what the real problem is. I don’t give a shit about the corporations, I just think it leaves a lot of problems unaddressed. For example, everyone loves to rail against Amazon for being a shitty company (which they are), but many of them continue to give Amazon money so they can get free 2 day shipping for some meaningless piece of landfill fodder. This allows them to lobby for harmful policies which in turn gives them more money and so on. If people made a reasonable effort to not give Amazon money unless they adjusted their moral compass, Amazon would be change immediately.
However I believe that what is in your heart, the desire for freedom and liberation
I feel the same way about your ideas too! The current system is bullshit and too few people have too much control of peoples’ lives.
Who tf is down voting you on a week old thread.
I dont think youre wrong, and your assessment that ideology is created by material human progress is how I think about it too.
But your phrase “monarchies have gone out of existence because of human progress” sort of side steps my point about private property. I would argue the private property question is inherent to liberalism.
As a leftist however, and this isnt a popular opinion for the online left, I think that liberalism appears to people in different ways. For conservatives, who are a type of classical liberal, the private property question is explicitly paramount, and all considerations of human rights, etc., are maybe given lip service and informal recognition. But materially it is deprioritized and in our era getting wiped out, such as “neo-liberalism.”
For modern day liberals however, and this seems to be the category you are in, human rights and freedoms are paramount. As a socialist, I feel affinity with these people and I believe that socialism is the next advancement of human rights over capitalism. I dont think power can be wrested from capitalists without organization of the masses and struggle. But I do think that our projects are the same in that regard. However since this second category of liberal isnt engaging with the private property questions of who owns the means of production, why they own it, how the mop are used to make stuff, and who gets the stuff, then these liberals actually can’t defend human rights and freedoms, because there is no material basis for the defense, its ideological.
I dont think we can change the effect that corporations have over politics, economics, and the lives of basically everyone on the planet without revolution. And by revolution I dont mean a bloody, head-choppy war, I mean fundamental change in social relations, and this process of emancipation will be a fundamental change called socialism.
The corporations are a front for the actual class that is in power. Analysis that leaves out this class component misses a lot. Corporations can not give this to us permanently. We will have to win it, and we will have to defend it with the same zeal that corporations defend the right to own the material basis for human advancement as well as the right to own people’s time in order to sell the produce of that time for more than they paid us.
However I believe that what is in your heart, the desire for freedom and liberation (“liberal” contains the root “liber” as in liberate) is very close to what is in mine. But I also think that when it comes to our theory of change, we are completely different, and I think the liberal theory of change, when it even exists, actually allows corporations free reign to continue their agenda against the masses. We need to build a new fundamental basis for global transformation, and imo part of that is convincing well-meaning and liberation minded liberals like you to come over to a liberatory socialist program and ditch analysis that has no concrete basis in class relations.
I have a lot of philosophical differences with liberalism, but you can see how long-winded I can be. But my primary focus is the advancement human spirit. And i think in that regard we largely agree.
Tankies are sensitive to diverse thought.
See, this is why I think classical liberalism gets a bad name. Conservatives only like to claim they promote classical liberal ideas because it sounds like a cool throwback. When confronted, they play the same authoritarian card they claimed to fight so hard against.
Eh, I feel that a lot of problems are simply blamed on corporations without understanding what the real problem is. I don’t give a shit about the corporations, I just think it leaves a lot of problems unaddressed. For example, everyone loves to rail against Amazon for being a shitty company (which they are), but many of them continue to give Amazon money so they can get free 2 day shipping for some meaningless piece of landfill fodder. This allows them to lobby for harmful policies which in turn gives them more money and so on. If people made a reasonable effort to not give Amazon money unless they adjusted their moral compass, Amazon would be change immediately.
I feel the same way about your ideas too! The current system is bullshit and too few people have too much control of peoples’ lives.