What is Liberalism to you?

Well said. I was trying to straighten out his history in another thread but now I know it is a lost cause.

 

CDS, I quite agree, though on the topic of libertarian socialism, I would be inclined to say that it differes from classical socialism in that the focus is not so much on the state as the 'whole' or the 'community' and people work for the community rather than for themselves. It is not perfect but I just feel that people should work for each other rather than themselves.

 

Thanks for the extra info on it Stefan.

 

Sorry if I said anything offensive


There is a lot of difference between European and U.S. liberalism. If you live here you'll see that it is very different.

Again Sorry

 

Stef – Would you not say that the concept of people being happy to work for the good of their community is idealistic and impractical? Those who choose to work for the benefit of their fellow citizens are usually among those in the worst paid sectors, public health, mental health, education etc. We currently have a situation in Britain where we are desperate for plumbers and have universities turning out post grads in Media Studies by the gross. You can’t ‘make’ people become plumbers, but as they now often earn three times what a doctor earns, people are retraining. All these Media graduates are just another pointless anomaly of a stupid system. How many TV presenters and hack reporters do we need? How many media jobs are there anyway? If the universities reduced the number of Media course places we’d have fewer people wasting time to have a degree they can’t use? This is market forces in action, but, it’s still producing too many useless people the rest of us will have to support until they take their degree and get a job stacking shelves?

This is nothing new though. Thirty years ago teachers were working as dustmen (refuse collectors) as it paid much better than teaching, and the universities were churning out graduates of Social Studies. You couldn’t throw a brick down a High Street without hitting a ‘kin Social Worker. And what was the outcome? A nation listening to bleeding-heart do-gooders that knew f’all about real life but told everyone else how to live their lives.

I see a socialist society as a society where you have the freedom to choose what you want to do, but the number of openings are determined by the need for such jobs. If you want to be a mechanic and no garages are hiring, you go do something else till a vacancy comes up. If you want to earn more you work more and/or improve your position or switch to another job you can do that pays more. In tandem with this a society must have a social conscience and look after those who are not able, less able or less fortunate. It must look after its young, old and infirm, and, it must concentrate on its native citizens. If you’re drowning and you want me in my boat to help you, there’s no point if you climb in only to result in us both being in the water.

I see accountability of our elected leaders to the electorate diminishing at an alarming rate. Manifestos are now nothing more than meaningless lies to pull votes and look good in the media. And what do the media dwell on? We’ve got patients lying on hospital trolleys in corridors for 6 hours and they launch into some saga about some politician shagging a tart or another one having smoked a joint 30 years ago – it’s crap isn’t it.

In this country society has a social conscience, a good one. Unfortunately it also has a farcical democracy staffed by political posers without one.

No.9

 

VYACHESLAV,

Just out of curiosity, do you mind letting us know how old you are?

 

Ha ha ha!
Yeah... try and surprise us.

 

No.9: yup, idealistic and impractical as hell, I think this is the one thing Plato definatly got right, all this talk of what society should be like is simply laying down a set of ideals, we will never achieve them but they are something to be striven for. I agree that it is rediculous that the sectors of work aimed at helping others are the worst paid though it is something I have to face on a day to day basis (my mother and father are both social workers - elderly and mentally ill respectivly) and frankly I don't think I could ever go into their profession as it is both maligned and relied upon by many with an enormous workload and no thanks. If you want another example, we are going to war with Iraq, the bulk of the population and the government are demanding measures against terrorism etc yet the forces and the police are having a recruiting crisis. I do think your comment about socialworkers is moderatly unfair as most of them arent do-gooders and their job does not involve telling people how to live their lives, you are thinking about councellors. Frankly I think we can place the blame for most of these problems on the fact that now rather than learning to cope with problems or relieing on family and friends people immediatly demand compensation and councelling thus putting the onus (and often the blame) onto others. Pathetic.

Politics is a laugh as well, everyone in the country knows that politicians tell the truth less often than the statue on Nelsons column and the lions put together, yet no one will do anything about it. The media is a farce, at the worst a puppet of the government and at the best an irrelivant rag. As someone said 'I stopped buying newspapers when i realised that the ink spoiled the chips' (for the americans on here, fish and chips used to be wrapped in newspaper). What a joke our nation is becoming.

 

There are only two political parties: the Believers and the Non-Believers.
Voting records show that the Non-Believers vastly outnumber the Believers. This is because the people really know the truth: that there is no real difference between the two political parties.
Decisions in government are made by committee, not a democratic process. Here in the USA, the Republicans--supposedly for lower taxes and smaller government--control all three branches of government. Do any halfway educated people actually believe that our taxes are going to be lowered or that our bloated federal government is going to be cut down in size? Of course not. The Liberal-Conservative "debate" only gives the illusion of a democratic process, while the politicians just do whatever they want. Democrats pass legislation which they want to appear "popular." It's all a ruse. For example, during the Vietnam War, it was no secret that China was supplying weapons to the NVA. Today, we would have called them Supporters of Terrorism; but, in 1970, the US Gvmnt decided to befriend the communist Chinese. Of course, sending a democrat (like Johnson) to do the job would have been out of the question, so, they send Nixon--one of the greatest "anti-communist" politicians of all time. "If Nixon thinks it's a good idea to reopen ties with China, then it must be a good idea." Conversely, Clinton passes the pro-business NAFTA legislation (developed by the Repubs in the previous administration) to make it appear as a "popular" political move. It's all crap. I'd like to jump into the debate of what Socialism is, or what state Capitalism is, or representative democracy... but what's the point, really? Right now, the term "Liberalism" simply means anyone who disagrees with the administration. Ridiculous. Meanwhile, there's a "news blackout" on just about everything. people are spoon-fed junk entertainment and sensationalist news stories. Try to find out what's REALLY going on with our economy and you'll have a pretty hard time. Ordinary, hardworking Americans can't afford health insurance--what's going to be done about that? The average wage earner can no longer afford an averagely priced house. Does anyone get to "vote" on our sending billions and billions of dollars to Israel?
Still, the True Believers wander around mumbling about the lesser of two evils: too scared to approach the question of just what kind of a system gives us Al Gore and GW Bush as realistic choices for president. I mean... come on!
Gore or Bush? That's the best they could come up with? And then the Repubs hijack the election at the last minute, anyway--what a joke.
It's all a shameless fraud, and the sooner people wake up and organize to dump this system, the better.


[ 11. March 2003, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: Knight Templar ]

 

I second that.

Best regards/ Daniel

 

and I, erm, third it?

 

Liberalism is a philosophical and political current derived from Ilustration, from the works of John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau and Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron of Brède and of Montesquieu. They had much influence upon the New United States and the revolutionary France of the 1880s and would become the guide for the burgoise revolutions of the early XIX century. Liberalism is about civil liberty and individual liberties (thoughts, religion, press, etc.) which are granted exclusively by a goverment with power-division, a goverment elected by all people by voting. The political liberalism is the frame of economic freedom which favours the development of capitalism and the burgoise class.

Teacher Friedrich has spoken. This is the class I teach to my students at school.

 

I find that pretty correct.

Best regards/ Daniel

PS. You might want to check the spelling of bourgeoisie.

 

You could also say that this was the time when the rising monied class usurped the power from the established aristocracy.
While the Feudal elite had overtly controlled the power of the State, the emerging Bourgeoisie was able to exert political/economic control from behind the scenes. This was accomplished by the facade of liberal democracy, which supposedly gave political power to the people. Economic power still remained with the bourgeois banking system and emerging factory system.
For example: after the American Revolution, the newly founded American banks had little capital to start out with. Who financed them? Where did they get their money? From the Bank of London, of course. By 1900, the most powerful man in the country was JP Morgan. He controlled railroads, banks, and after he bought out Carnegie--steel.
JP Morgan's father owned a bank which was one of the 10 Banks of London. Not "conspiracy theory," this is fact. The most powerful industrialist/banker in America in 1900 was not even American!
Centalized power remains centralized. In fact, it increases in power as it demolishees (and then acquires) weaker industries.

 

How Communistic-sounding.

I smell Vietnam all over again.

 

What do you mean Carl?

Best regards/ Daniel

 

Hi Daniel--I was only giving my two cents worth on knights last posting as I do not agree with his hate-filled posting.

It was the nicest way I could think of at that time to say: I disagree with you knight.

 

Carl, I see no hate in his posting and that I tell you as an history student at university level, it's pretty accurate in my opinion. if it's his use of the word Bourgeoisie I would not worry, it isn't used derogatory here.

Best regards/ Daniel

 

hi Daniel--it goes much deeper than that post in question. Its a combination of postings in other threads too.

Right or wrong, and I might agree with some of his points but, this feels like a broken record--the same tiny part is played again and again and again.

PS--its not meant as an insult to him either.

I dont agree with alot of what Isreal does too--but, if there were individuals and or groups of peoples sneaking across the border of the country you live in--and killing innocent peoples, I think once that has happened--losing friends and relative etc--I can safely think that the vast majority of us here would start feeling as Isreal does.

If the Palestinians want world opinion all on their side--they NEED to quit these Homicide bombings, sniper killings and home invasion murders. Once they did that, I might start having sympathy for them.

I do not condone murder--doesnt matter who does it. Its wrong.

Just mu humble opinion and 2 cents worth,

 

I think that the thread here was what liberalism is for us. I just wrote that in my last post in a very accurate way, I think (thanks, Daniel) and I will not make any more comments.