Liberalism itself, in that it upholds capitalism, is “authoritarian.” Not sure what you’re getting at, ideologies all vary in quantity of holders and historic importance, I see no reason to pretend monarchists are equally as relevant to the right as liberals.
Well that’s certainly a take. But I’m not talking about just monarchists, lots of other groups than monarchists that don’t subscribe to ideas of liberalism. It’s just not capitalism = liberalism.
And the point was just that this is directed at liberals for some reason when it could be directed at all the groups that do the same thing. That’s all.
Most authoritarian conservative right-wing movements gaining popularity right now are far away from the values that make up liberalism. There’s no shortage of those. In Europe they’re likely going to sweep most of the continent, if the recent polls hold true.
Those are subsections of liberalism, I think you’re trying too hard to wishcast an ideal form of liberalism and cut out all of the other significant forms of it. Liberalism was used to justify colonialism, the slave trade, and continues to be used to justify imperialism.
I think you’re using a much wider definition for liberalism than is common or at least what I’m familiar with. And it’s a big tent to begin with. Many of those movements are against most of what are typically considered core values of liberalism, so that’s why they’re often not included, as a subsection or otherwise.
I’m using the common, historically relevant definition, the ideology supportive of individualism and private property rights. We can go more into its origins and how its changed over the years, but that’s liberalism at its core.
Their definitions don’t include the parties I was thinking about, that are doing the “alt-right” wave right now for example. So for that reason I think we’re working from different definitions.
The “alt-right” is still working on the foundations of liberalism. Fascism and liberalism aren’t really categorically different ideologies, but the same ideology in different conditions, with different class character, ie fascism is capitalism in crisis and comes from the petite bourgeoisie, while liberalism is capitalism when it’s doing better and nornally comes from the bourgeoisie proper.
Liberalism itself, in that it upholds capitalism, is “authoritarian.” Not sure what you’re getting at, ideologies all vary in quantity of holders and historic importance, I see no reason to pretend monarchists are equally as relevant to the right as liberals.
Well that’s certainly a take. But I’m not talking about just monarchists, lots of other groups than monarchists that don’t subscribe to ideas of liberalism. It’s just not capitalism = liberalism.
And the point was just that this is directed at liberals for some reason when it could be directed at all the groups that do the same thing. That’s all.
Can you name an example with any actual significance that complains about communism but isn’t liberal?
Most authoritarian conservative right-wing movements gaining popularity right now are far away from the values that make up liberalism. There’s no shortage of those. In Europe they’re likely going to sweep most of the continent, if the recent polls hold true.
Those are subsections of liberalism, I think you’re trying too hard to wishcast an ideal form of liberalism and cut out all of the other significant forms of it. Liberalism was used to justify colonialism, the slave trade, and continues to be used to justify imperialism.
I think you’re using a much wider definition for liberalism than is common or at least what I’m familiar with. And it’s a big tent to begin with. Many of those movements are against most of what are typically considered core values of liberalism, so that’s why they’re often not included, as a subsection or otherwise.
I’m using the common, historically relevant definition, the ideology supportive of individualism and private property rights. We can go more into its origins and how its changed over the years, but that’s liberalism at its core.
I’m using basically what’s
here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_parties_by_country
And the subsets too get a wider view
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism#Parties_and_organisations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism#Classical_liberal_parties_worldwide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_liberalism
Etc.
Their definitions don’t include the parties I was thinking about, that are doing the “alt-right” wave right now for example. So for that reason I think we’re working from different definitions.
The “alt-right” is still working on the foundations of liberalism. Fascism and liberalism aren’t really categorically different ideologies, but the same ideology in different conditions, with different class character, ie fascism is capitalism in crisis and comes from the petite bourgeoisie, while liberalism is capitalism when it’s doing better and nornally comes from the bourgeoisie proper.