Liberalism isn’t intrinsically tied to capitalism or even democracy.
It literally is. Here’s Wikipedia on the topic.
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property, and equality before the law.[1][2] Liberals espouse various and sometimes conflicting views depending on their understanding of these principles but generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion.[3] Liberalism is frequently cited as the dominant ideology of modern history.
Pedantry aside, though, liberals have always (and I mean always) batted for capitalism, and this is reflected in literally every political change liberals have been a notable party in (if you have counterexamples, go ahead). Private property rights are an integral part of liberalism as a political philosophy.
PS: Social democracy is a scam, as seen from the ongoing rise of fascism in Europe.
The performance of governments (failing to) track a philosophy has little bearing on the philosophy.
Is whatever you’re criticizing due to a proposition of the philosophy or due to an act that departs from the philosophy?
Likewise, knowing only liberals who are capitalists, doesn’t imply liberalism is capitalist.
Only knowing about socialists who are tankies/authoritarian, doesn’t imply socialism is authoritarian.
They are general philosophies.
Now you’re just admitting ignorance of socialism, which permits private property & even markets.
Socialism only demands public ownership of the “means of production”.
It doesn’t reject personal property & only extreme varieties demand public ownership of practically everything.
Even so, your objections don’t imply a rejection of the core propositions mentioned before: the core propositions are distinct from & independent of the criticality of property rights or markets.
“Generally supported” in your quote does not mean always or necessarily, only often.
What do we call a philosophy that accepts the core propositions without the elements you object to?
Liberal: your objected elements aren’t essential to the philosophy.
Moreover, changing economic systems wasn’t a historical consideration (no alternative was conceived) at the time, so economic system wasn’t a historical or necessary part of the philosophy, either.
Finally, counterexamples have already been provided: liberal socialism.
So, do you accept the moral proposition that individuals inherently have fundamental rights & liberties independent of legal status, all individuals are categorically equal, authority is legitimate only when it protects those rights & liberties?
If so, then believe it or not, you’re liberal.
If we’re going to drag in the performance of actual governments, though, then liberal democracies in Europe, Canada, East Asia, Australia including those social democracies you dismiss beat most communist states (China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba) in lower economic inequality: check out the detailed view of this world map of gini coefficients.
Counterexamples (liberal socialist philosophies & governments) have already been provided.
Your denial of fact doesn’t make it untrue.
You don’t speak for all socialists.
Is whatever you’re criticizing due to a proposition of the philosophy or due to an act that departs from the philosophy?
Due to a proposition of the philosophy: the sanctity of private property rights. And no, there is no private property under socialism, you’re thinking of personal property. That’s your house, your car, your toothbrush, nobody wants to take those away. Private property is a wider concept, which includes among other things the means of production. You can’t argue that private property is sacred (a fundamental proposition of liberalism) and then seize the privately owned means of production; that’s a contradiction.
Likewise, knowing only liberals who are capitalists, doesn’t imply liberalism is capitalist.
I read your link about liberal socialism, and my takeaway is that these guys range from reformist socialists with a veneer of liberalism (again, they’re out the moment they advocate for seizing the means of production) or liberals with a veneer of reformist socialism (those not advocating for seizing the means of production). I mean the article lists fucking Proudhon for ffs we already know how liberals think about Proudhon’s ideas.
Now you’re just admitting ignorance of socialism, which permits private property & even markets.
See above. Only personal property is permitted under socialism.
Finally, counterexamples have already been provided: liberal socialism.
See above.
If we’re going to drag in the performance of actual governments, though, then liberal democracies in Europe, Canada, East Asia, Australia including those social democracies you dismiss beat most communist states (China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba) in lower economic inequality: check out the detailed view of this world map of gini coefficients.
First, these all liberalized; I don’t consider any of them a success on the socialism front. Second, China at least is fucking big, which does matter. Notably,
One of the lowest ever recorded Gina was for urban China in the late 1970’s, with a figure of around 0.11. Czechoslovakia also recorded a Gini of 0.17 in the 1980’s.
Also again, social democracy in Scandinavia is currently being peeled off by the far right, so it’s not exactly the success you’re painting it as.
It literally is. Here’s Wikipedia on the topic.
Pedantry aside, though, liberals have always (and I mean always) batted for capitalism, and this is reflected in literally every political change liberals have been a notable party in (if you have counterexamples, go ahead). Private property rights are an integral part of liberalism as a political philosophy.
PS: Social democracy is a scam, as seen from the ongoing rise of fascism in Europe.
The performance of governments (failing to) track a philosophy has little bearing on the philosophy. Is whatever you’re criticizing due to a proposition of the philosophy or due to an act that departs from the philosophy?
Likewise, knowing only liberals who are capitalists, doesn’t imply liberalism is capitalist. Only knowing about socialists who are tankies/authoritarian, doesn’t imply socialism is authoritarian. They are general philosophies.
Now you’re just admitting ignorance of socialism, which permits private property & even markets. Socialism only demands public ownership of the “means of production”. It doesn’t reject personal property & only extreme varieties demand public ownership of practically everything.
Even so, your objections don’t imply a rejection of the core propositions mentioned before: the core propositions are distinct from & independent of the criticality of property rights or markets. “Generally supported” in your quote does not mean always or necessarily, only often. What do we call a philosophy that accepts the core propositions without the elements you object to? Liberal: your objected elements aren’t essential to the philosophy.
Moreover, changing economic systems wasn’t a historical consideration (no alternative was conceived) at the time, so economic system wasn’t a historical or necessary part of the philosophy, either.
Finally, counterexamples have already been provided: liberal socialism.
So, do you accept the moral proposition that individuals inherently have fundamental rights & liberties independent of legal status, all individuals are categorically equal, authority is legitimate only when it protects those rights & liberties? If so, then believe it or not, you’re liberal.
If we’re going to drag in the performance of actual governments, though, then liberal democracies in Europe, Canada, East Asia, Australia including those social democracies you dismiss beat most communist states (China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba) in lower economic inequality: check out the detailed view of this world map of gini coefficients.
Only, North Korea achieves low economic inequality, and that state overspends on military instead of lifting people out of poverty, thus allowing famines & food shortages to stunt growth & shorten life expectances by 12 years compared to their South Korean neighbors.
Counterexamples (liberal socialist philosophies & governments) have already been provided. Your denial of fact doesn’t make it untrue. You don’t speak for all socialists.
Due to a proposition of the philosophy: the sanctity of private property rights. And no, there is no private property under socialism, you’re thinking of personal property. That’s your house, your car, your toothbrush, nobody wants to take those away. Private property is a wider concept, which includes among other things the means of production. You can’t argue that private property is sacred (a fundamental proposition of liberalism) and then seize the privately owned means of production; that’s a contradiction.
I read your link about liberal socialism, and my takeaway is that these guys range from reformist socialists with a veneer of liberalism (again, they’re out the moment they advocate for seizing the means of production) or liberals with a veneer of reformist socialism (those not advocating for seizing the means of production). I mean the article lists fucking Proudhon for ffs we already know how liberals think about Proudhon’s ideas.
See above. Only personal property is permitted under socialism.
See above.
First, these all liberalized; I don’t consider any of them a success on the socialism front. Second, China at least is fucking big, which does matter. Notably,
Also again, social democracy in Scandinavia is currently being peeled off by the far right, so it’s not exactly the success you’re painting it as.