Okay, you clearly associate different meanings to those terms than the scientific community (at least in my field and locality)
What we have is obviously a mixture of hegemonial systems.
If you describe for example the system of Germany as a capitalist, you are emphasizing the power of money, if you describe it as parliamentarian, you emphazise the power of the Parliament and so on and so forth, in reality it is obviously a mixture of those (and more).
A pure capitalist society would only rule by money, nothing else, a pure theocracy only by faith, a pure democracy only by vote and so on and so forth.
Those idealtypes are theoretical of course, it is hard to imagine a society in which control is 100% only derived from one thing in reality, so we mostly describe societies by the most prevalent one.
That capitalism is not necessaraly tied to the rule of law for example you can see in real time in modern america, where people with enough money are not really bound by the law anymore.
(An inherent trend of primarily capitalist societies as accumulation is inherently needed but also brings accumulation of power)
You again mix up state forms and degree of control.
A liberal society IS THE LITERAL DEFINITION of the opposite of an authoritarian society.
Your mistake is believing the bourgeois when they tell you a liberal society is achieved with free markets, when capitalism and free markets are the very thing making societies more and more authoritarian over time as money accumulates.
Again: Liberal/authoritarian in the scientific meaning has nothing to do with free markets, even if capitalists try to make you believe that for multiple decades so much.
It seems like they succeeded in such a way, that you think “liberal policy=capitalism and free markets” to a point where you therefore dont like liberal policy and make statements like:
i disagree with is the assumtion that liberal societies are maximally anti-authoritarian,
Which is litarrally like the Orwellian “war is peace” indoctrination.
Again: liberal and authoritarian are antonyms. The very definition of the two is that they are opposite ends of a spectrum.
Again: this spectrum describes the AMOUNT of power/force/control exerted on the people.
It DOESNT make a statement on HOW that power is exerted.
It is really funny to me that you tell me I had “smuggled in believes”, when you ate the bourgeois lie, that liberal=free markets and private property
More liberal means less power enforced over the PEOPLE not for MARKETS
and as we see since over 100 years, original capitalism like Adam Smith describes (so free competition, but no monopolies, or buying political influence) tend to get more and more authoritarian in critical points (where you can live, what you do on your free time, how much free time you have, how much you can influence policy).
While in other points they get more liberal (who you can love, what your religion is, how you look)
Facism (entaglement of state and corporations, monopolies, no free competition but domination), on the other hand will be authoritarian in the ways capitalism is, but also in points where (Smithsonian) capitalism isn’t, because money is not the most important thing anymore but direct control via law and force is.
As I said, you can see it live in the US, the policy of trump (Iran war, trade war, prosecution of people of color) is stupid for an economic point of view, but it gives him direct control over the people, which is becoming more important in the us society than money alone.
A clear sign that capitalism is turning into facism.
the orwellian accusation is really funny when you’re the one insisting on a definition that makes capitalist coercion disappear by fiat.
liberalism as a historical political philosophy emerges specifically in the context of defending private property and individual rights to that. i don’t see how you can just declare that liberalism is distinct from capitalism when it was the political philosophy which capitalism relies on
you just said capitalism makes societies more authoritarian over time and then concluded that has no bearing on whether a liberal,capitalist society is authoritarian. that’s the contradiction at the heart of your framework, not mine.
Haha look up the French revolution my girl,
Yes private property was more free than direct rule by the king, that’s why liberal people at the time fought for that, but people who are liberal minded still want more freedoms, that’s why a liberal today would likely fight for anarchism or socialism, as it gives more freedom (less control) than private property.
You just believed the bourgeois when they told you society is most liberal when markets are most free.
A lie so easy to see through.
You can’t say “a liberal capitalist society is athoritharian”
Its like saying “a cold cup of water is hot”, at makes absolutely no sense.
Either it is hot or it is cold (compared to something else)
Either it is liberal, or authoritarian (compared to something else).
And yes, capitalist societies systematically tend to be more and more authoritarian as time goes on to the point where they become facism, we agree on that. But becoming more and more authoritarian LITERALLY means becoming less and less liberal.
i don’t think bringing up the french revolution helps your point. bourgeois liberals fought for property rights against feudal authority, which was more freedom for them and less for everyone without property. calling that “more liberal” just means more freedom for property owners. the definition was always class specific.
we live in a authoritarian liberal dictatorship of capital
Okay, I was so perplexed that you seem to associate liberal with free markets so hard that I looked up definitions in different languages.
As it seems in America liberal really applies to markets not people (which is such a wild 'murica moment for me)
While in Europe the term means people.
In Germany for example we have “liberal” vs “autoritär” which means individual freedoms vs no individual freedoms (practical ones, not theoretical one, not that you are allowed to live in a house for example, but that you actually have the means to do so)
This has nothing to do with markets.
In the american spectrum people for some stupid Orwellian reason rebranded that term to apply to freedom of markets.
The Germans then needed a different term for that weird philosophy, which is “libertär”, because it has nothing to to with the original meaning of “liberal”.
So I think this is a language barrier issue, Americans redefining terms so they uphold their hyper capitalistic view on society.
Me talking that language as a foreigner didn’t get that you use our term (derived from the original french “libéral”) and just rebranded it for capitalistic propaganda.
Apparently in American English “egalitarian” or “liberty” is what comes closest to the German meaning of “liberal” or the original French “libéral”
So my bad I guess…
Or american redefining of concepts…
Okay, you clearly associate different meanings to those terms than the scientific community (at least in my field and locality)
What we have is obviously a mixture of hegemonial systems. If you describe for example the system of Germany as a capitalist, you are emphasizing the power of money, if you describe it as parliamentarian, you emphazise the power of the Parliament and so on and so forth, in reality it is obviously a mixture of those (and more).
A pure capitalist society would only rule by money, nothing else, a pure theocracy only by faith, a pure democracy only by vote and so on and so forth. Those idealtypes are theoretical of course, it is hard to imagine a society in which control is 100% only derived from one thing in reality, so we mostly describe societies by the most prevalent one.
That capitalism is not necessaraly tied to the rule of law for example you can see in real time in modern america, where people with enough money are not really bound by the law anymore. (An inherent trend of primarily capitalist societies as accumulation is inherently needed but also brings accumulation of power)
You again mix up state forms and degree of control.
A liberal society IS THE LITERAL DEFINITION of the opposite of an authoritarian society.
Your mistake is believing the bourgeois when they tell you a liberal society is achieved with free markets, when capitalism and free markets are the very thing making societies more and more authoritarian over time as money accumulates.
Again: Liberal/authoritarian in the scientific meaning has nothing to do with free markets, even if capitalists try to make you believe that for multiple decades so much.
It seems like they succeeded in such a way, that you think “liberal policy=capitalism and free markets” to a point where you therefore dont like liberal policy and make statements like:
Which is litarrally like the Orwellian “war is peace” indoctrination.
Again: liberal and authoritarian are antonyms. The very definition of the two is that they are opposite ends of a spectrum.
Again: this spectrum describes the AMOUNT of power/force/control exerted on the people.
It DOESNT make a statement on HOW that power is exerted.
It is really funny to me that you tell me I had “smuggled in believes”, when you ate the bourgeois lie, that liberal=free markets and private property
More liberal means less power enforced over the PEOPLE not for MARKETS
and as we see since over 100 years, original capitalism like Adam Smith describes (so free competition, but no monopolies, or buying political influence) tend to get more and more authoritarian in critical points (where you can live, what you do on your free time, how much free time you have, how much you can influence policy). While in other points they get more liberal (who you can love, what your religion is, how you look)
Facism (entaglement of state and corporations, monopolies, no free competition but domination), on the other hand will be authoritarian in the ways capitalism is, but also in points where (Smithsonian) capitalism isn’t, because money is not the most important thing anymore but direct control via law and force is.
As I said, you can see it live in the US, the policy of trump (Iran war, trade war, prosecution of people of color) is stupid for an economic point of view, but it gives him direct control over the people, which is becoming more important in the us society than money alone. A clear sign that capitalism is turning into facism.
the orwellian accusation is really funny when you’re the one insisting on a definition that makes capitalist coercion disappear by fiat.
liberalism as a historical political philosophy emerges specifically in the context of defending private property and individual rights to that. i don’t see how you can just declare that liberalism is distinct from capitalism when it was the political philosophy which capitalism relies on
you just said capitalism makes societies more authoritarian over time and then concluded that has no bearing on whether a liberal,capitalist society is authoritarian. that’s the contradiction at the heart of your framework, not mine.
Haha look up the French revolution my girl, Yes private property was more free than direct rule by the king, that’s why liberal people at the time fought for that, but people who are liberal minded still want more freedoms, that’s why a liberal today would likely fight for anarchism or socialism, as it gives more freedom (less control) than private property.
You just believed the bourgeois when they told you society is most liberal when markets are most free. A lie so easy to see through.
You can’t say “a liberal capitalist society is athoritharian” Its like saying “a cold cup of water is hot”, at makes absolutely no sense.
Either it is hot or it is cold (compared to something else) Either it is liberal, or authoritarian (compared to something else).
And yes, capitalist societies systematically tend to be more and more authoritarian as time goes on to the point where they become facism, we agree on that. But becoming more and more authoritarian LITERALLY means becoming less and less liberal.
i don’t think bringing up the french revolution helps your point. bourgeois liberals fought for property rights against feudal authority, which was more freedom for them and less for everyone without property. calling that “more liberal” just means more freedom for property owners. the definition was always class specific.
we live in a authoritarian liberal dictatorship of capital
Yeah, read my last comment.
Its a language barrier issue.
English “liberal” is totally different from the original French “libéral” or the German “liberal”. Which is quite confusing.
In English “liberty” or “egalitarian” comes closest to the original meaning of liberal
Okay, I was so perplexed that you seem to associate liberal with free markets so hard that I looked up definitions in different languages.
As it seems in America liberal really applies to markets not people (which is such a wild 'murica moment for me) While in Europe the term means people.
In Germany for example we have “liberal” vs “autoritär” which means individual freedoms vs no individual freedoms (practical ones, not theoretical one, not that you are allowed to live in a house for example, but that you actually have the means to do so)
This has nothing to do with markets.
In the american spectrum people for some stupid Orwellian reason rebranded that term to apply to freedom of markets.
The Germans then needed a different term for that weird philosophy, which is “libertär”, because it has nothing to to with the original meaning of “liberal”.
So I think this is a language barrier issue, Americans redefining terms so they uphold their hyper capitalistic view on society.
Me talking that language as a foreigner didn’t get that you use our term (derived from the original french “libéral”) and just rebranded it for capitalistic propaganda.
Apparently in American English “egalitarian” or “liberty” is what comes closest to the German meaning of “liberal” or the original French “libéral”
So my bad I guess… Or american redefining of concepts…
let’s agree to blame the br*tish
I can live with that