TL;Dr putting “neo” or “classical” in front of “liberal” is nothing more than pointless gesturing. It’s “emperor’s new economic model”, really.
Liberalism is basically the individualistic economic model. Think Reagen, think Thatcher. The whole word “liberalism” is basically all flowery and sounds nice, but in fact it’s slightly right from centre. It’s a problem of the overton window in the US, or goal post moving, that makes it seem like a lefty ideology, when in fact it is in effect the economic philosophy that defines the US, the UK and Europe today.
At the same time, “social democrats” (which I used to be) is like saying *I put a socialist hat on my liberalism", when in most cases social democrats will vote for exactly the same things liberals vote for, with the added benefit of seeming like they’re being a bit of a collectivist. In the end it’s all about optics.
Republicans notoriously “hate” liberalism, calling the democrats liberals. Here’s the kicker though: there is no “conservative” economic model beyond liberalism, at least not nowadays. The only real difference there is that some actually want right-wing libertarianism, while others would be fine to return to a more nationalistic social policy, with the added benifit of access to international markets, because that’s where they can get their petroleum, uranium, blood diamonds, wage slaves, classic slavery, etc.
In essence liberalism is all about pandering to corporations by harping on about small businesses, but also privatising welfare with “new public management”. The idea there was to to “decentralise government”, when really it is about shoehorning a fuckton of private companies and consultants into the tax system, making public services super expensive and eventually privatising (amongst other things) the health sector, once it is sufficiently expensive enough.
Liberalist social policies may seem more left leaning, but actually adheres to republican concepts. Note; republican proper, speaking of right to vote, citizenry, congressional government, etc - ya know, creating a republic. But the republican party is everything but republican, in that they are nationalists with classical liberal economic model. Before when they were the democrats (party flip in the 50s) they fronted things like taking away voting rights from felons, justifying poverty by way of “pull yourself up by your bootstrap” and trickle-down economics. They shake their fists against democrats and call them “filthy liberals” to move the overton window further from the left. The democrats and republicans, at least the majority, are in essence following samy political economical values and vote for the same economic policies.
It’s all a big dog and pony show, establishment politics in effect. They act all though and call names on camera, then go to a back room, soften their voice and it’s back to business as usual. Fill laws with holes, cut ribbons at ceremonies, yada yada yada.
Do not fall for the okie doke. Black people in the US did, now there’s “black republicans” and the words “power to the people” has all but evaporated. It’s pretty much what you get when the constituency accepts outrage and reactionary politics. You can claim you’re doing something different, but in essence both the dems and the pubs want the same thing, except the pubs are even worse bootlicking, spineless shills than the dems. It also allows the dems more favourable optics so they can pander to the lefties, but make no mistake: economically speaking they want exactly the same things, with few qualifications.
It should also be stated that philosophically there is no real conflict between collectivism and individualism. It’s a bunch of hooey invented by political zealots and romantics a couple of hundred years ago who waxed poetic about concepts they couldn’t understand at the time in fervent hatred against monarchy. Monarchies was seen as the old collectivists, as nationalism was seen as collectivistic. That’s why today we are in the situation we’re in, because American liberalists in particular masturbate furiously in the idolization of the “founding fathers”, because they too were a bunch of masturbatory liberals who made fancy speeches and had paintings made of themselves.
Again, optics, dog and pony show, bread and circus, a bunch of anti-democratic nonsense to keep people busy thinking there is any real difference, when in fact there is none. The same people who talk smack against liberalism, immigration, missuse of public spending, subsidies, “the deficit” (which doesn’t matter in a fiat currency run country, it really doesn’t - it’s just more distractionary politics), etc, either don’t understand what they’re talking about or are just playing their part in the outrage machinery, because they all benifit from liberal economic philosophy and policies. They hold stock, they go to galas, they smile for the camera, they are in effect aristocratic in nature.
I just have two thoughts to share. The article in question is about EU, not the US. And you should probably sit back from the screen for awhile man, it sounds like you’re really deep into this and that’s not healthy.
My guy, the EU is liberalistic economic alliance. They want to become the US 2.0. It’s a slow moving coup of the various European nations sovereignty to streamline liberal policies across the board.
In my country we’re losing collectivistic policies and public services because the EU is slowly shoehorning in more and more liberal policies. We have a “labour party” and a “conservative party” where I’m from, who are exactly the same economically speaking, but the latter shuts up when the former stands by the concepts of liberalism, only to vote for the exact same thing at the end of the day.
Liberalism is the vehicle of capitalism.
And yes, I am taking a break from “the screen”, when I’m not working with code and servers, but that doesn’t mean I should commit intellectual suicide.
Like not even an upvote for all that. Just a false empathy. Thanks.
Yes, I almost always edit my comments after writing them. In any case, though I wrote in frustration there are obviously good reasons why I was frustrated, which can be found in the text, which you dismissed with fake pathos and bad faith.
Man I’m sorry. I didn’t realize upvoting was important to… anyone.
If I upvote your comments will you feel better? I definitely don’t want you to have fake pathos and faith bags. Looking at your tiny amount of Internet points I guess I can see why it upsets you.
It’s not a question about points, it’s more like you read the frustration, and you could have thought “geez, dudes straight up not having a good time” and just leaving it at that. But instead, you feeder to dismissal via false patios, and now instead of leaving it be, you continue with bad faith.
And why do you continue to harp on about it? Is there some reason why you continue to defend your dismissal? Do you get anything from that? Think about it…
I have never seen somebody whine about upvotes this badly before.
Man like at least reddit gave you karma…
You literally got praise like in the human lexicological sense and instead you prefer the fake points? They’re right, you really do need a break from the screen.
Who is continuing to belabour the upvote comment, while ignoring everything else? It began with your lexicological “praise” and ended in a dismissal with fake pathos.
I should have said “just an upvote”, but it’s so besides the point.
This is why debates suck, because they are glorified popularity contests, where the points are more or less subconscious.
You defend not only the method indirectly at which I was dismissed, but you also continue to say “get off the screen” while typing into your screen.
Hypocrisy is not a good look.
Now, I ask again, please just leave it, if not, make some arguments against the points I was making instead of relying on an ad hominem.
I mean, I don’t disagree with what you wrote at all, but this tantrum over not getting an upvote is ridiculous when the person literally did thank you.
I am rethinking my priorities, always. You could read some of my other comments and see that I was having a bad day. But I’ll you what: I don’t take kindly to fake pathos.
It’s in effect just being condescending, and that’s just throwing more gasoline on the fire. I’ve seen it used a lot lately. Like beginning a sentence with “u good?” and then just dismissing points or ideas that was the intent.
It’s particularly nefarious here on Lemmy, because people go into two paragraphs with fake pathos and it is honestly infuriating.
“You’ll catch more bees with honey” rings true, but please don’t think people are stupid.
As it stands there’s not a single rebuttal to what I see as a severe political issue. It’s not just derisive, but it helps nothing.
People might just retreat deeper into their holes, and if that was the intent, that’s what I call bad faith. In effect that helps no one.
So please don’t play armchair psychiatrist. You have your vices too. We all crave some form of validation. Being ignorant of that means you probably need to recheck your priorities.
So you decided that because someone didn’t upvote your comment even though they thanked you, they were displaying fAlSe PaThOs? And then went on several turgid self-important rants about how everyone is just acting in bad faith?
We all crave validation but holy shit are you something else
…aren’t we done with this yet? Still not satisfied with trying to crawl into my brain, or is this all performative? Did that one point mean anything? Is it such a great cudgel to wield?
TL;Dr putting “neo” or “classical” in front of “liberal” is nothing more than pointless gesturing. It’s “emperor’s new economic model”, really.
Liberalism is basically the individualistic economic model. Think Reagen, think Thatcher. The whole word “liberalism” is basically all flowery and sounds nice, but in fact it’s slightly right from centre. It’s a problem of the overton window in the US, or goal post moving, that makes it seem like a lefty ideology, when in fact it is in effect the economic philosophy that defines the US, the UK and Europe today.
At the same time, “social democrats” (which I used to be) is like saying *I put a socialist hat on my liberalism", when in most cases social democrats will vote for exactly the same things liberals vote for, with the added benefit of seeming like they’re being a bit of a collectivist. In the end it’s all about optics.
Republicans notoriously “hate” liberalism, calling the democrats liberals. Here’s the kicker though: there is no “conservative” economic model beyond liberalism, at least not nowadays. The only real difference there is that some actually want right-wing libertarianism, while others would be fine to return to a more nationalistic social policy, with the added benifit of access to international markets, because that’s where they can get their petroleum, uranium, blood diamonds, wage slaves, classic slavery, etc.
In essence liberalism is all about pandering to corporations by harping on about small businesses, but also privatising welfare with “new public management”. The idea there was to to “decentralise government”, when really it is about shoehorning a fuckton of private companies and consultants into the tax system, making public services super expensive and eventually privatising (amongst other things) the health sector, once it is sufficiently expensive enough.
Liberalist social policies may seem more left leaning, but actually adheres to republican concepts. Note; republican proper, speaking of right to vote, citizenry, congressional government, etc - ya know, creating a republic. But the republican party is everything but republican, in that they are nationalists with classical liberal economic model. Before when they were the democrats (party flip in the 50s) they fronted things like taking away voting rights from felons, justifying poverty by way of “pull yourself up by your bootstrap” and trickle-down economics. They shake their fists against democrats and call them “filthy liberals” to move the overton window further from the left. The democrats and republicans, at least the majority, are in essence following samy political economical values and vote for the same economic policies.
It’s all a big dog and pony show, establishment politics in effect. They act all though and call names on camera, then go to a back room, soften their voice and it’s back to business as usual. Fill laws with holes, cut ribbons at ceremonies, yada yada yada.
Do not fall for the okie doke. Black people in the US did, now there’s “black republicans” and the words “power to the people” has all but evaporated. It’s pretty much what you get when the constituency accepts outrage and reactionary politics. You can claim you’re doing something different, but in essence both the dems and the pubs want the same thing, except the pubs are even worse bootlicking, spineless shills than the dems. It also allows the dems more favourable optics so they can pander to the lefties, but make no mistake: economically speaking they want exactly the same things, with few qualifications.
It should also be stated that philosophically there is no real conflict between collectivism and individualism. It’s a bunch of hooey invented by political zealots and romantics a couple of hundred years ago who waxed poetic about concepts they couldn’t understand at the time in fervent hatred against monarchy. Monarchies was seen as the old collectivists, as nationalism was seen as collectivistic. That’s why today we are in the situation we’re in, because American liberalists in particular masturbate furiously in the idolization of the “founding fathers”, because they too were a bunch of masturbatory liberals who made fancy speeches and had paintings made of themselves.
Again, optics, dog and pony show, bread and circus, a bunch of anti-democratic nonsense to keep people busy thinking there is any real difference, when in fact there is none. The same people who talk smack against liberalism, immigration, missuse of public spending, subsidies, “the deficit” (which doesn’t matter in a fiat currency run country, it really doesn’t - it’s just more distractionary politics), etc, either don’t understand what they’re talking about or are just playing their part in the outrage machinery, because they all benifit from liberal economic philosophy and policies. They hold stock, they go to galas, they smile for the camera, they are in effect aristocratic in nature.
Thank you for the write up. I do appreciate it.
I just have two thoughts to share. The article in question is about EU, not the US. And you should probably sit back from the screen for awhile man, it sounds like you’re really deep into this and that’s not healthy.
My guy, the EU is liberalistic economic alliance. They want to become the US 2.0. It’s a slow moving coup of the various European nations sovereignty to streamline liberal policies across the board.
In my country we’re losing collectivistic policies and public services because the EU is slowly shoehorning in more and more liberal policies. We have a “labour party” and a “conservative party” where I’m from, who are exactly the same economically speaking, but the latter shuts up when the former stands by the concepts of liberalism, only to vote for the exact same thing at the end of the day.
Liberalism is the vehicle of capitalism.
And yes, I am taking a break from “the screen”, when I’m not working with code and servers, but that doesn’t mean I should commit intellectual suicide.
Like not even an upvote for all that. Just a false empathy. Thanks.
Did you seriously edit your comment to complain that I didn’t upvote? Wat
Yes, I almost always edit my comments after writing them. In any case, though I wrote in frustration there are obviously good reasons why I was frustrated, which can be found in the text, which you dismissed with fake pathos and bad faith.
Go away.
Man I’m sorry. I didn’t realize upvoting was important to… anyone.
If I upvote your comments will you feel better? I definitely don’t want you to have fake pathos and faith bags. Looking at your tiny amount of Internet points I guess I can see why it upsets you.
It’s not a question about points, it’s more like you read the frustration, and you could have thought “geez, dudes straight up not having a good time” and just leaving it at that. But instead, you feeder to dismissal via false patios, and now instead of leaving it be, you continue with bad faith.
And why do you continue to harp on about it? Is there some reason why you continue to defend your dismissal? Do you get anything from that? Think about it…
Alright dude, have a good one. I’m sorry about the upvote you didn’t get 🤣
Alright, bad faith man. Good luck making fun of people and dismissing points. I’m sure that little hit of dopamine you got was worth it.
I have never seen somebody whine about upvotes this badly before.
Man like at least reddit gave you karma…
You literally got praise like in the human lexicological sense and instead you prefer the fake points? They’re right, you really do need a break from the screen.
Who is continuing to belabour the upvote comment, while ignoring everything else? It began with your lexicological “praise” and ended in a dismissal with fake pathos.
I should have said “just an upvote”, but it’s so besides the point.
This is why debates suck, because they are glorified popularity contests, where the points are more or less subconscious.
You defend not only the method indirectly at which I was dismissed, but you also continue to say “get off the screen” while typing into your screen.
Hypocrisy is not a good look.
Now, I ask again, please just leave it, if not, make some arguments against the points I was making instead of relying on an ad hominem.
Youre so caught up in trying to pick fights you didn’t even realize I’m NOT EVEN THE SAME GUY!!
Holy moly man get some help 😂
I didn’t think that, but if the only way you get pleasure is by “owning” people online is by gaslighting yourself, than go off.
But you’re still resorting to ad hominems. That’s when you’re arguing the person and not the points. That is also called a logical fallacy.
I mean, I don’t disagree with what you wrote at all, but this tantrum over not getting an upvote is ridiculous when the person literally did thank you.
You honesly need to rethink your priorities
I am rethinking my priorities, always. You could read some of my other comments and see that I was having a bad day. But I’ll you what: I don’t take kindly to fake pathos.
It’s in effect just being condescending, and that’s just throwing more gasoline on the fire. I’ve seen it used a lot lately. Like beginning a sentence with “u good?” and then just dismissing points or ideas that was the intent.
It’s particularly nefarious here on Lemmy, because people go into two paragraphs with fake pathos and it is honestly infuriating.
“You’ll catch more bees with honey” rings true, but please don’t think people are stupid.
As it stands there’s not a single rebuttal to what I see as a severe political issue. It’s not just derisive, but it helps nothing.
People might just retreat deeper into their holes, and if that was the intent, that’s what I call bad faith. In effect that helps no one.
So please don’t play armchair psychiatrist. You have your vices too. We all crave some form of validation. Being ignorant of that means you probably need to recheck your priorities.
So you decided that because someone didn’t upvote your comment even though they thanked you, they were displaying fAlSe PaThOs? And then went on several turgid self-important rants about how everyone is just acting in bad faith?
We all crave validation but holy shit are you something else
…aren’t we done with this yet? Still not satisfied with trying to crawl into my brain, or is this all performative? Did that one point mean anything? Is it such a great cudgel to wield?
Last word.