Socialism: Liberalism Held to its own Standards

[@ZahnZee]

Chapters 00:00 Introduction 07:56 Core Liberal Principles 11:31 Economic Inequality Under Liberalism 15:06 Contradictions of Liberalism 19:14 Shared Roots of Liberalism and Socialism 24:10 Thinkers Who Bridged the Gap 32:56 Socialism: Equality Beyond Politics 37:19 Economic Democracy as True Freedom 42:17 Redefining Freedom 47:37 Historic Socialist Experiments 53:58 Modern Social Democratic Movements 57:52 Lessons from History 1:02:02 Critiques of the Liberal-Socialist Link 1:05:23 Defending the Continuity 1:08:50 The Future of Liberal-Socialist Ideas 1:12:55 Conclusion

[@DrAnarchy69]

THANK YOU for doing this! So many people are unwilling to reckon with the fact that liberalism was an antecedent to socialism. We can’t behave like liberalism isn’t a central ideological predecessor to liberalism. I became an Anarchist initially because I saw it as an ideology that could fulfill all the promises that liberalism (specifically social democracy) made

[@ZahnZee]

There's a thread to be poked at and unravelled. I'm never going to pretend they are the same idea - their conceptions of history are very different, but more similar than between liberalism and fascism (which dosnt have a coherent theory of history)

[@Synodalian]

Based on this, would you consider socialism to still be a school of thought _within_ liberalism? There seem to be many resemblances in it to communitarian ideas which today fall under the umbrella of "postliberalism", but so far that label has been completely appropriated by reactionaries. I do wonder in contrast whether a _progressive_ postliberalism is possible, because my assumption until now has been that liberalism revolves around individualism, while postliberalism aims to incorporate but also _transcend_ this frame of freedom.

[@ZahnZee]

I think Socialism exists because Liberalism held onto it's abortive self - If Liberalism followed through on it's own ideas, it would recognise in itself the contradictions Capitalism entailed for its's own stated goals and if it course corrected of it's own, the conditions that necessitate socialism disappear in that moment. I do warn liberals against the fetishization of the individual; where the concept of the "person" is held to such a standard that it's not actually representative of any actual lived experience of any actual individual. They abstract it to such a degree that its now external to any sense of identification, or identity; thus run the risk of sacrificing the individual on the altar of individualityᵀᴹ

[@Synodalian]

@@ZahnZee That's an interesting frame, because that would mean that the truest form of liberalism _is_ the kind of political system that fulfills its otherwise abstract values, and is thus the final stage of political thought (alluding of course to Hegel's end of history). I suppose then that "postliberalism" being a reactionary label _would_ fit perfectly because in attempting to move _away_ from the fundamental value of liberty that liberalism embodies, one could only move _backwards._ But yes, that would mean we would have an uphill battle to work with in striving to take back the liberal tradition from the abstractions of methodological individualism.

[@ZahnZee]

I do want to avoid suggesting that it's liberalism all the way down. To take a Marxist approach, the social, cultural, political, ect., conditions that lead to liberalism, were due to the resolution of contradictions in a feudal mode of production as it transitioned to a capitalist one. Liberalism is the set of ideological preconceptions that sit in the superstructure to reinforce and reproduce capitalism. Capitalism contains within it contradictions that cast an ideological shadow onto liberalism; where liberals have to essentially pretend these inconsistencies don't exist. It's only through processing and resolving these contradictions that society can progress into its next stage (whatever that is) - I think socialism makes sense an emergent response to liberalisms abandoning resolving its contradictions. Socilaims forces that interaction and will disappear when that contradictions are internalised and resolved.

[@Synodalian]

@@ZahnZee I stand corrected then. Liberalism in itself is less concrete than _socialism_ as a concept.

[@Cecilia-ky3uw]

Well I haven't watched the video, but I'll make up a quick thesis based on my assumptions on what your general point is: Liberalism specifically is based in individual rights and thus wants a watchman state where otherwise people's individual rights are respected and infringed not, liberalism never said to give a fuck about economic inequality much- there is no contradiction. IF the video goes into the coconut island or some similar sort of coercive argument, that's why we have mixed markets and free markets are naturally not prone to monopolies as actors come and go, a lot of monopoly or oligopoly power is based specifically in the government. edit: skipped to 15- you could always.... have them all be state provided. That aside, the de facto inequalities are, of course, unfortunate, but the overwhelmation of the legal system happens with either system- after all, it isn't just the lawyers, the judges are also rather overwhelmed, and all judges are state employed, so it really isn't an inherent issue, rather that the supply of legal experts itself is comparatively low to the demand, if they were more similar, Lawyers would likely be more accessible and de facto equality more or less achieved. (tbh I don't know when or whether I'll watch the full video, but if anyone wants to have a chat, let's go)

[@ZahnZee]

I'm just going to disregard any thesis formed people people who admit to not watching the video....

[@Cecilia-ky3uw]

@@ZahnZee Up to you mein freund, up to you. Although then I'd ask, for a quick, wasn't the essence of this hour-long video primarily about inequalities stemming from economic inequality? I don't believe I need to watch an hour to conclude a video about socialism and liberalism will most likely be about economic inequality.

[@ZahnZee]

What's the point in reading an essay when the abstract summarizes the thesis....

[@Cecilia-ky3uw]

@@ZahnZee Pardon?

[@bremcurt9514]

@@Cecilia-ky3uw I've never seen someone more obviously using fancy words in order to seem more convincing.