Maybe I’m just old, but I still don’t fully understand the difference. To me they’re synonymous, or at least overlapping such that liberal is a type of leftist.
Its not that you’re old or the meanings have changed - here’s Phil Ochs in 1966:
“In every political community there are varying shades of political opinion. One of the shadiest of these is the liberals. An outspoken group on many subjects. Ten degrees to the left of center in good times. Ten degrees to the right of center if it affects them personally”
Classic Liberalism overlaps with modern Libertarianism in quite a lot of ways. The emphasis is on personal freedom and restrictions on the power of the State. So, progressive in 19th Century terms, and theoretically anti-oppression (although in practise mainly for the white middle/upper class who benefited from free trade and markets).
This developed into Neo-Liberalism from the 70s/80s-ish, which goes fully all in on free markets and unregulated capitalism, and on essentially running a country centered around economic growth ideologies and private industry at the expense of, say, public services etc. Neo-Liberalism is the dominant ideology in the West, to the point where ‘left-wing’ parties like the UK’s Labour or the USA’s Democrats don’t challenge it.
From a 20/21st Century leftist PoV, the big problems with Liberalism are things like unregulated markets increasing wealth inequality, and things like opposition or indifference to welfare and public services, and a lack of reform/change from the state tackling systematic -isms etc.
So the kind of ‘Archetypal Liberal’ is someone who is ostensibly against oppression and injustice, but unwilling to address these issues in a meaningful way. Pro-status-quo, sometimes NIMBYs, very often white middle class. Wants more social justice, just not at the expense of the housing market.
are things like unregulated markets increasing wealth inequality
But one would think they don’t increase it really.
It’s cronyism coupled with regulations (as in patents and IP law) which increases it in case of big fish.
It’s also literal crimes not being prosecuted, like actual fraud (or selling not what you advertise, or pressing out competition by non-market means, or not paying your employees, or bribing officials, or …).
I don’t see this being connected with market regulations. Actually in case of IP and cronyism market regulations are present on the side of “the big fish” here.
Liberal has always meant generally what most Western countries would currently describe as centrist, basically mainstream Democrats. Leftists are, broadly, socialists and communists.
Liberals are generally pro-capitalism. A Leftist might be pro-markets, but only in non-capitalist forms like worker-owned co-ops. Liberals believe in private property, i.e. resources that an individual can own in order to extract profit from use by others. Leftists reject private property, though generally believe in personal property, i.e. resources that an individual uses themselves.
It has become common lately on the right to use the terms interchangeably, but Liberal is center-right. It only looks like the Left when compared to far-right ideologies.
Most liberals fight for their freedom. E.g. trump supporters who were worried that the left wants to ban Christmas, probably identify with at least some “liberal” Agenda. Most of the left might not be communists but have a focus on freedom on the social scale. Enabling everyone to have a good life and most freedoms but limit some freedoms to protect the system from abuse. E.g. you are free to start your business but your business has to have safety measures to protect the worker. Less freedom for you, and even your workers, but a better life for the workers too. A extrem liberal might hold the position that you should regulate businesses as a poor work environment would lead to people working somewhere else and the business failing to produce the product and through that regulate the market better than with laws that might have loopholes.
In other words, there is a fundamental difference. They might support the same ideas once in a while but their motivation is different. Usually the leftist actively believes the market won’t regulate itself and therefore fails to produce the regulation. As leftist think is a flawed idea, saying that they believe in said flawed idea, is kinda insulting to them
Maybe I’m just old, but I still don’t fully understand the difference. To me they’re synonymous, or at least overlapping such that liberal is a type of leftist.
What do these words mean now?
Its not that you’re old or the meanings have changed - here’s Phil Ochs in 1966:
“In every political community there are varying shades of political opinion. One of the shadiest of these is the liberals. An outspoken group on many subjects. Ten degrees to the left of center in good times. Ten degrees to the right of center if it affects them personally”
Classic Liberalism overlaps with modern Libertarianism in quite a lot of ways. The emphasis is on personal freedom and restrictions on the power of the State. So, progressive in 19th Century terms, and theoretically anti-oppression (although in practise mainly for the white middle/upper class who benefited from free trade and markets).
This developed into Neo-Liberalism from the 70s/80s-ish, which goes fully all in on free markets and unregulated capitalism, and on essentially running a country centered around economic growth ideologies and private industry at the expense of, say, public services etc. Neo-Liberalism is the dominant ideology in the West, to the point where ‘left-wing’ parties like the UK’s Labour or the USA’s Democrats don’t challenge it.
From a 20/21st Century leftist PoV, the big problems with Liberalism are things like unregulated markets increasing wealth inequality, and things like opposition or indifference to welfare and public services, and a lack of reform/change from the state tackling systematic -isms etc.
So the kind of ‘Archetypal Liberal’ is someone who is ostensibly against oppression and injustice, but unwilling to address these issues in a meaningful way. Pro-status-quo, sometimes NIMBYs, very often white middle class. Wants more social justice, just not at the expense of the housing market.
(Sorry for the essay, i got a lil carried away)
But one would think they don’t increase it really.
It’s cronyism coupled with regulations (as in patents and IP law) which increases it in case of big fish.
It’s also literal crimes not being prosecuted, like actual fraud (or selling not what you advertise, or pressing out competition by non-market means, or not paying your employees, or bribing officials, or …).
I don’t see this being connected with market regulations. Actually in case of IP and cronyism market regulations are present on the side of “the big fish” here.
Big thanks to everybody helping me get with the times in this thread.
I suppose I need to put some thought into what I am politically. I don’t support capitalism, that’s for damn sure.
deleted by creator
Liberal has always meant generally what most Western countries would currently describe as centrist, basically mainstream Democrats. Leftists are, broadly, socialists and communists.
Liberals are generally pro-capitalism. A Leftist might be pro-markets, but only in non-capitalist forms like worker-owned co-ops. Liberals believe in private property, i.e. resources that an individual can own in order to extract profit from use by others. Leftists reject private property, though generally believe in personal property, i.e. resources that an individual uses themselves.
It has become common lately on the right to use the terms interchangeably, but Liberal is center-right. It only looks like the Left when compared to far-right ideologies.
Mainstream Democrats are not ‘centrist’ from the PoV of most western countries. They are far-right. Republicans are ultra-extreme-far-right.
Most liberals fight for their freedom. E.g. trump supporters who were worried that the left wants to ban Christmas, probably identify with at least some “liberal” Agenda. Most of the left might not be communists but have a focus on freedom on the social scale. Enabling everyone to have a good life and most freedoms but limit some freedoms to protect the system from abuse. E.g. you are free to start your business but your business has to have safety measures to protect the worker. Less freedom for you, and even your workers, but a better life for the workers too. A extrem liberal might hold the position that you should regulate businesses as a poor work environment would lead to people working somewhere else and the business failing to produce the product and through that regulate the market better than with laws that might have loopholes.
In other words, there is a fundamental difference. They might support the same ideas once in a while but their motivation is different. Usually the leftist actively believes the market won’t regulate itself and therefore fails to produce the regulation. As leftist think is a flawed idea, saying that they believe in said flawed idea, is kinda insulting to them