What's the point of 21st century socialism inspired liberalism?

[Kuya]

Does it have any goals? Has it accomplished any of these goals? Does a coherent and international movement exist to implement these goals?

I've been asking myself if 21st century liberalism even really has a global programme. It doesn't really seem like liberalism in the Enlightment. That it, it doesn't really feel like a meaningful battle between two substantially different conceptions of the world, and how power distributions should work. You had classical liberalism advocating individuality, reasons and capitalism. But what are we advocating? Who are we fighting? I don't want to idealize the early liberal movement, but it sure does feel like today's liberalism is aimless.

Which could be due to the fact that there isn't anything subsantial left to fight for. Blacks aren't seen as sub-human. Women have advanced greatly in terms of gender/sex conflict. Many places in the world have democracy. Capitalism isn't perfect, but it's certainly more liberating than what existed before. We have constitutional and international human rights, at least in some places. Gays are progressing in terms of their rights. Science has advanced continously. What exactly do we have left to fight for? Are we just looking for a reason to complain and be contrarian?

What is today's liberalism advocating? Has it made its message coherent? Has it shown any results? What is it lacking?

Too many questions, so let's start with an argument. So many things have been accomplished in terms of bettering the human condition and emancipating humankind from the shackles of oppresive ideology and nature. Not much is left to accomplish, so today's liberalism has little left to fight for. There isn't any real ideological battle over what the nature of society should be or what the nature of the human condition is. We are all essentially liberals. Those of us in the West that is. Most of us agree with the values of individuality and democracy. So perhaps conservatives should be excused in seeing liberals as shrill children trying to rebel against their parents because they are attempting to carve out an identity. It is difficult for liberals to do this, because there is little else to believe in that is better than what we have accomplished so far. This is the reason we have ridiculous ideas such as postmodernism floating around.

[Blarg]

I think ur wrong

[Conrad]

Does it have any goals? Has it accomplished any of these goals? Does a coherent and international movement exist to implement these goals?

I've been asking myself if 21st century liberalism even really has a global programme. It doesn't really seem like liberalism in the Enlightment. That it, it doesn't really feel like a meaningful battle between two substantially different conceptions of the world, and how power distributions should work. You had classical liberalism advocating individuality, reasons and capitalism. But what are we advocating? Who are we fighting? I don't want to idealize the early liberal movement, but it sure does feel like today's liberalism is aimless.

Which could be due to the fact that there isn't anything subsantial left to fight for. Blacks aren't seen as sub-human. Women have advanced greatly in terms of gender/sex conflict. Many places in the world have democracy. Capitalism isn't perfect, but it's certainly more liberating than what existed before. We have constitutional and international human rights, at least in some places. Gays are progressing in terms of their rights. Science has advanced continously. What exactly do we have left to fight for? Are we just looking for a reason to complain and be contrarian?

What is today's liberalism advocating? Has it made its message coherent? Has it shown any results? What is it lacking?

Too many questions, so let's start with an argument. So many things have been accomplished in terms of bettering the human condition and emancipating humankind from the shackles of oppresive ideology and nature. Not much is left to accomplish, so today's liberalism has little left to fight for. There isn't any real ideological battle over what the nature of society should be or what the nature of the human condition is. We are all essentially liberals. Those of us in the West that is. Most of us agree with the values of individuality and democracy. So perhaps conservatives should be excused in seeing liberals as shrill children trying to rebel against their parents because they are attempting to carve out an identity. It is difficult for liberals to do this, because there is little else to believe in that is better than what we have accomplished so far. This is the reason we have ridiculous ideas such as postmodernism floating around.

lol

[Kuya]

Get to work skirkle.

[Blarg]

Everything I ever needed to know about Liberalism I learned form Swampdonkey

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j1...ialist_550.gif

[Conrad]

something something busy something delicious something

[Shiroikage]

oh kuya

[Kuya]

Well, when you aren't busy being delicious, try to reply seriously, skirkle. I am interested in seeing how you handle that.

[Conrad]

I will read it sometime tomorrow, but I make no guarantees due to my schedule of deliciousness.

[Alleya]

The purpose of liberalism today is to stand in the way of progress by parroting alarmist buzzwords every time something challenges accepted liberal ideology. See: rampant accusations of nazism every time someone suggests an evolutionary basis for any human behavior. See: radical feminism blaming the rise in self-esteem among women and young girls on acceptance of patriarchy rather than the real progress of their own movement.

You pointed out the general betterment of the world, and that's exactly the problem for liberalism. As the world balances out, the need for extremism diminishes. Take America as a prime example: even though the political parties serve their interests by playing to radical elements, the vast majority of americans, when you ask them, identify as moderates. Their left or right leaning is usually determined by their views on social or economic issues, and not necessarily issues core to the ideology of liberalism or conservatism. A populace as contented as the US has no real need for radical change, as appetizing as the promise of it is. Everyone wants to see things get better, but maintaining the status quo is more important to them once they look over that precipice. The question quickly becomes whether we really need change, and if the change that inevitably comes is really worth the cost. The view of most people is that we need to work to right inequities, but extremists are unwilling to compromise in a way the benefits the most people. They will settle for nothing less than the fulfillment of their ideology--hence, their power as well as their influence is diminished greatly. We have no need for radical ideas any more because we've already experienced radical change.

[quannum]

I disagree with your assessment of "liberalism"; I think that those who call themselves Liberals (i.e., Modern Liberals) are nothing other than Socialists... Classical Liberalism, on the otherhand, is the antithesis of Soacialism... In fact, I think it is fair to say that, at least as for as Form or Government is concerned, Conservative are actually the "conservators" of Classical Liberalism".

[Kuya]

The problem is just like you say; the rights are already there, for the most part, and the majority of voters don't think they're going anywhere. They don't see any reason to stand behind the guys that got them the rights anymore if they don't want to because there's no sense that they'll ever have to fight for them again. So liberalism becomes less defined the more of its goals it accomplishes.

Of course, there's so much left undone that no one in the political realm wants to touch. Marijuana is still illegal. Prostitution is criminalized in most states. Health care is still a for-profit industry. There's still no solid immigration policy, or government spending policy. Big business still trumps John Q. in the realm of forming policy. However as years have gone by, political parties have become so incredibly polarized that they care more about keeping numbers in Congress than actually taking risks to make changes. No one wants to stick their neck out to say something unpopular. That's why Democrats are turning against Obama in droves as his approval rating drops. No one wants to do what's right, they want to do what's easy.

There's not going to be another big liberal movement by the current generation in power. Conservatives have successfully turned enough people against the word itself that Democrats in Congress want to appear as centrist or conservative as possible. Maybe the next wave to come in will sit down and actually work at moving the country forward. However, keep in mind the Greatest Generation was in power for roughly 40 years, from the early 50s until Bill Clinton took office. The Boomers have been in for 20, so it could be another two decades before Generation X/Y moves in to power, and who knows where we'll be value-wise by then.

Two things:

1. Is your second paragraph your definition of 21st century liberalism? That is, am i understand that it has no defined principles (no new ones anyway), but rather it is defined by the individual issues it advocates for?

2. Your third paragraph is proposing that to accomplish what you layed out in paragraph two, we need to just wait for the older generation to die? If this is the case, can you define the concepts that differentiate the older generation and this new one? What makes them different or the same? What makes you think that the new generation will accomplish what you layed out in paragraph two? What are their ideals and explain how they lead to what you specified.

[Cadsuane]

I think I already posted this in another thread.



This is really central to your question, Kuya.

[Egon]

This is a good thread for me to just stand aside and giggle.

I don't think I've been so excited about an up coming election in my life.

[Cadsuane]

This is a good thread for me to just stand aside and giggle.

I don't think I've been so excited about an up coming election in my life.

Get the fuck out.

[Alleya]

Thanks for proving my point egon.

[Kuya]

The purpose of liberalism today is to stand in the way of progress by parroting alarmist buzzwords every time something challenges accepted liberal ideology. See: rampant accusations of nazism every time someone suggests an evolutionary basis for any human behavior. See: radical feminism blaming the rise in self-esteem among women and young girls on acceptance of patriarchy rather than the real progress of their own movement.

You pointed out the general betterment of the world, and that's exactly the problem for liberalism. As the world balances out, the need for extremism diminishes. Take America as a prime example: even though the political parties serve their interests by playing to radical elements, the vast majority of americans, when you ask them, identify as moderates. Their left or right leaning is usually determined by their views on social or economic issues, and not necessarily issues core to the ideology of liberalism or conservatism. A populace as contented as the US has no real need for radical change, as appetizing as the promise of it is. Everyone wants to see things get better, but maintaining the status quo is more important to them once they look over that precipice. The question quickly becomes whether we really need change, and if the change that inevitably comes is really worth the cost. The view of most people is that we need to work to right inequities, but extremists are unwilling to compromise in a way the benefits the most people. They will settle for nothing less than the fulfillment of their ideology--hence, their power as well as their influence is diminished greatly. We have no need for radical ideas any more because we've already experienced radical change.

Just to clarify:

What is accepted liberal ideology and do you think this is an extreme ideology?

[#686578]

I think the point is sex

[#686578]

If that isnt the point then it's pretty shitty

[Kuya]

I disagree with your assessment of "liberalism"; I think that those who call themselves Liberals (i.e., Modern Liberals) are nothing other than Socialists... Classical Liberalism, on the otherhand, is the antithesis of Soacialism... In fact, I think it is fair to say that, at least as for as Form or Government is concerned, Conservative are actually the "conservators" of Classical Liberalism".

Socialists and modern liberals are two very different groups. Socialists, generally argue for State ownership of the means of production, while liberals influenced by socialism are associated to the welfare State. The State as the means by which one accomplishes certain social goals. Modern liberals or liberals influenced by socialism usually reject complete State ownership of the means of production.