You're viewing a single thread.
Near as I can tell, a leftist would do anything to keep a liberal out of power over believing only 75% of the same things as them, and allow the right to take control, but at least they get to keep the moral high ground of not allowing a liberal to do that 25%. Never mind that the right actively opposed everything to leftist wants completely.
Liberals are "the right" and they sure as hell don't believe 75% of the same things as leftists. Leftists in the west also don't really have the power to keep liberals out of power, hence why liberals have consistently been the only ones in power for decades. Liberals on the other hand, absolutely do have the power to keep leftists out, and they will go as far as allying with fascists to murder leftists in their beds.
Liberalism is literally and historically where the left begins. The right is authoritarianism and the left is liberalism to anarchism. Liberals are not leftists but it is a signof a distinct lack of education in political philosophy to claim liberalism as a right wing ideology.
Liberalism is the ideological basis of Capitalism. When Capitalism was a progressive force, ie during the French Revolution, it was considered left wing. Now that Capitalism has become entrenched and turned to Imperialism, the progressive side is undeniably Socialism, while liberalism entrenches the status quo.
Simply saying that liberalism at one point was progressive does not mean history has not had several centuries of shifts and developments since then.
You're being incredibly euro-centric with your claims here.
How so?
Your notion of where the modern divide lies is 100% European and won’t hold true when you consider all nations.
Liberalism is european in origin, as Capitalism first truly took hold there. It isn't the "modern divide" but the notion of Liberalism as a progressive motion or regressive motion.
Capitalism was first instituted by the first Liberal nation- the USA. Europe was mostly mercantilist
Liberalism didn't exist for most of history, so trying to invoke "history" to argue that liberalism has some kind of timeless and eternal claim to being on the left is unconvincing. Yes, liberalism was the left in the eighteenth century, but we're in the twenty first century.
The division of political ideologies into left and right derives from the French Parliament which had the monarchists on the right and the liberals on the left.
Every reference to right and left stems from this so yes in fact Liberalism has always been where the left starts even if liberals are nit leftists because the political left is anti-authoritarian.
The binary has not changed and I promise you any claim ypu make to the contrary is going to be mired in euro-centric beliefs.
The division of political ideologies into left and right derives from the French Parliament which had the monarchists on the right and the liberals on the left.
The names yes, but the basic conflict is much older, Europe itself had the Guelph-Ghibelline conflict.
Perhaps it us my American education in geography, but isn't France still part of Europe?
The Gelph-Ghibelline conflict was about secular monarchism vs religious authority. Im not sure I see the point you're making.
isn't France still part of Europe?
It is, it's the UK that left (the EU, not the continent).
The Gelph-Ghibelline conflict was about secular monarchism vs religious authority. Im not sure I see the point you're making.
That the conflict between feudal lords (French aristocrats / Ghibellines) and urban merchants (Guelph burghers / French Girondists) is much older than the French Revolution. The pope and emperor were the figureheads, but the lords and merchants were the power blocs.
I always try to tell the Marxists this, but they always come up with some dumb rebuttal.
I don't think it's a dumb rebuttal to point out that the vast majority of countries today are no longer Monarchist. Liberalism was left wing when the Bourgeoisie were a progressive force alongside the Proletariat and Peasantry against the Monarchy, now that the Bourgeoisie is in power and the Proletariat is by far the most numerous class, it isn't accurate to label liberalism as left.
Well it also matters to specify what type of liberalism we're referring to right? If we're talking about classical liberalism (a k.a American libertarianism) which was the pervasive thought at the time, then that is obviously right wing. Progressivism (a.k.a American Liberalism) is more centre-left and developed more recently. Neo-liberalism is probably more right leaning than classical liberalism.
Although it probably won't matter to you because they all operate under capitalism.
Bingo to the latter. There are nuances and differences, but at a base level they seek to conserve the present system and tweak it, not fundamentally alter it to its entirety.
You know, if leberals wanted the support of the leftists, they try something called compromises. But the only compromises they're ready to do is with the fascists unfortunately, which the leftists will never support.
So no, the leftists didn't refuse to make compromises. The liberals did, with the left, because they actually accepted all the compromises with the fascists. And act now surprised that fascism is taking over.
Liberals are spoiled children incapable of taking accountability for their actions.
When discussing liberalism in the context of liberalism vs Leftism, they are faily opposite. Liberalism desires Capitalism, perhaps with some tweaks or larger safety nets, while leftists seek to end Capitalism and pursue Socialism of some form. This isn't "75%" of the same views at all, liberalism is fundamentally entirely incompatible with Leftism just like fascism is incompatible with leftism.
Additionally, in the West, Leftists have not been the deciding factor in elections, liberals have, be they more conservative or more progressive liberals.