You say liberalism is dominant in capitalism, you say it has a wide set of mechanisms that serve it, you say everyone in a capitalist country absorb them. You do not elaborate on what those specific mechanisms are, you just say there are mechanisms. This is not a definition of liberal. This is you telling someone liberalism exists in, and is important to, capitalism.
I did not give an extensive definition because the self-description of liberalism, by liberals, is at odds with the historical actions of liberalism. It could be distracting and take a while to get the point across.
For example, liberalism self-defined with maximizing individual liberty while it also advocated for the “freedom” of corporations to work you as many hours as it could while shitting down your unionizing effort with violence. Liberalism also self-defined as favoring democracy and everyone having a say, but implemented this in a racist and sexist way that placed capital in charge while also colonizing others and depriving them of self-determination.
The common thread is really just that it is the dominant ideology of capitalism, its function is to extoll the virtues of capitalism and tying it to an illusion of liberation and self-determination while actually working against both of those things, as under capitalism, capital works against both struggles. The person that liberals have you read as foundational to liberalism, John Locke, worked to support an American settler colony and its slavery rules and explicitly supported child labor. Then, as today, there is a difference between how political figures present themselves and what their advocacy actually entails.
Now you have given a definition for liberalism. You could have done this in the previous reply, or could have just told the person no. Instead you gave a vague non-answer.
I actually have no given a definition of liberalism outside of the core I did originally. I have only listed a few self-claimed qualities and their inconsistency.
I also gave a rationale for why I went in this direction. Notice the complete lack of engagement with it.
Oh no, you did, you laid out the basic tenets of it’s individualism, and how that has served capitalism. The last post you just said it served capitalism without elaborating on aspects of its individualistic ideas. You didn’t get into depth, but you mentioned the very surface level concepts.
For example, liberalism self-defined with maximizing individual liberty while it also advocated for the “freedom” of corporations
I didn’t speak about individualism at all, actually.
Uh… what? I said you brought up how it held individualism as important, but the pitfalls of that in how it serves capitalism. This is a copy/paste of a line in your reply. How do you now deny this, when you said that?
You say liberalism is dominant in capitalism, you say it has a wide set of mechanisms that serve it, you say everyone in a capitalist country absorb them. You do not elaborate on what those specific mechanisms are, you just say there are mechanisms. This is not a definition of liberal. This is you telling someone liberalism exists in, and is important to, capitalism.
I did not give an extensive definition because the self-description of liberalism, by liberals, is at odds with the historical actions of liberalism. It could be distracting and take a while to get the point across.
For example, liberalism self-defined with maximizing individual liberty while it also advocated for the “freedom” of corporations to work you as many hours as it could while shitting down your unionizing effort with violence. Liberalism also self-defined as favoring democracy and everyone having a say, but implemented this in a racist and sexist way that placed capital in charge while also colonizing others and depriving them of self-determination.
The common thread is really just that it is the dominant ideology of capitalism, its function is to extoll the virtues of capitalism and tying it to an illusion of liberation and self-determination while actually working against both of those things, as under capitalism, capital works against both struggles. The person that liberals have you read as foundational to liberalism, John Locke, worked to support an American settler colony and its slavery rules and explicitly supported child labor. Then, as today, there is a difference between how political figures present themselves and what their advocacy actually entails.
Now you have given a definition for liberalism. You could have done this in the previous reply, or could have just told the person no. Instead you gave a vague non-answer.
I actually have no given a definition of liberalism outside of the core I did originally. I have only listed a few self-claimed qualities and their inconsistency.
I also gave a rationale for why I went in this direction. Notice the complete lack of engagement with it.
Oh no, you did, you laid out the basic tenets of it’s individualism, and how that has served capitalism. The last post you just said it served capitalism without elaborating on aspects of its individualistic ideas. You didn’t get into depth, but you mentioned the very surface level concepts.
I didn’t speak about individualism at all, actually.
It’s not clear to me what your point is. Did you read my longer response to you? Do you have anything to say about it?
Uh… what? I said you brought up how it held individualism as important, but the pitfalls of that in how it serves capitalism. This is a copy/paste of a line in your reply. How do you now deny this, when you said that?
Yes, I know what I said. I don’t conflate a mention of individual liberty tp be the same as discussing individualism itself.
So do you have any point to make? Any response to the bulk of what I said?