You must log in or register to comment.

Tequila_Wolf wrote

I think that there are elements of liberalism in leftism. Especially orthodox marxist's use of electoral processes to make change. It makes them look absolutely foolish to me.

Sometimes I'll incorrectly consider leftists liberals for that reason. For me political action is about destroying authority (anarchism), not about creating an inherently-failing socialism (leftism). But people around here have a lot to say about what they mean when they say 'leftist', because most of us have engaged post-left critique.

Most of the time, I hate liberalism more than anything and Marxism next, because they are framed for themselves as on the side of good but end up being the left wing of capitalism/colonialism/civilisation. It's tough not to be coopted to those structures, but I wish people would try harder to pick politics that aren't inherently coopted already. Especially so since neoliberalism and the information age. Liberalism and leftism are different but both have that problem.


Twoeyes wrote

Liberals are capitalists. Liberalism is the ideology of the progressive right - open markets for more trade. Maximise identity categories for creation of new markets.


CaptainACAB wrote

They're both sub-categories of "humanist" to me. The values that overlap between them are those of an egalitarian humanism. They are not the same because leftists are not capitalists and liberals are not socialists. I consider what the US calls "progressives" and "conservatives" a subset of liberal (because they both espouse the values conjured up by enlightenment-era liberals and make no attempt to refute any of them); leftists do this too, but the concept of private property is too integral to liberal ideology and economics, so I consider them separate.

Both are pro-civ humanist collectivists, so I choose to lump them together into that category instead of just using them interchangeably.


cyberrose wrote

What's your definition of both terms?

For me liberalism is about the individual and it's freedom but mediated through the state and thus some kind of collective. This means capitalism and nationalism is part of liberalism and builds a complex. Leftism (not sure what that means; here "the left" exists but no such thing as leftism) on the other hand is, for me, a broad term gathering different types of collectivisms. The focus for me is not solely on the individual but on some dialectic between individual and collective. This means there are forms of leftisms where the collective dictates what the individual should do but this does not have to be the case; there may also be collectives which aim to extend individual freedom through the freedom of the collective. So for me it does not have to be hierarchical by definition and is neither bound to economics or state or nation. Also the theoretical foundation took different parts and originated in a critique of liberalism. Not sure why one may want to use them inter-changeable.


moonlune wrote (edited )

They're like apples and pears. They don't come from the same tree, but u can swap one for the other in most recipes and end up with similar results.

Seriously though, I'd consider everyone who feels represented in mainstream politics to be liberals (both left-wing and right-wing). Leftists have ideals incompatible with the world's current organization.


PeterPanarchy wrote

Leftism and liberalism are both born of Enlightenment values but liberalism can refer to free market capitalism while leftism always refers to a controlled economy.