Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives

Message board

* FAQ    * Search   * Register   * Login 



This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.
Author Message Previous topic | Next topic
BobSaget
Metal newbie

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 34
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 11:23 pm 
 

Semantics.. These liberals you speak of are a far cry from anything pertaining to liberal orthodoxy. The political integrity has been downtrodden, reduced to punditry and crap.

We should speak of politics in a historical context, rather persist in nuance and repetition regarding each etymological usage. :lol:

Top
 Profile  
DBettino
Metalhead

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 2151
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:10 am 
 

Fuck you and your :lol:.

I want to go back to the issue of a possible liberal bias in academia. I think this is an interesting article.

http://dsadevil.blogspot.com/2005/03/no ... demia.html

And also this one:

http://sciencepolitics.blogspot.com/200 ... beral.html

In this blog article, there is a liberal response which is also quite engaging, but I think it is flawed in that it asserts that varying academic fields attract either liberals or conservatives. If that is true, I think it goes against liberal dictum.

Top
 Profile  
NeglectedField
Onwards to Camulodunum!

Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 6:19 am
Posts: 1390
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 8:29 am 
 

DBettino wrote:
And as far as being a 'stubborn conservative', if I have no idea what a liberal is how can you expect me to be a conservative? Truly, I don't know what I am, I have no political affiliations, and I don't vote. My interests aren't being represented by anyone. I am intrigued by the 'Far Right', but, outside of those purile Neo-Nazi groups, I've seen no evidence of it in American culture. I'm certainly stubborn, though, and proud of it.


That's because a lot of people, typically the 'left' have a digital as opposed to analogical view on politics and love to label people. I've been called a Tory before yet I am as ambivalent as anyone. Mind, elements of the 'right' like to do this as well, with things like Red Watch, but universally I hate it.

By the way, I'm a real nerd and love to split hairs, I hate people using the term 'Far Right' which for me means total free-marketers, people from Ron Paul to Margaret Thatcher and Pinochet. Nazi style authoritarianism inevitably involves economic controls and restrictions. The false left-right dichotomy is the only one that "leftbrals" as I think I'll call them for convenience's sake, seem willing to use as a framework. At least if they are going to use that dumb shit, they should relinquish the "liberal" and "conservative" labels, labels that depend entirely on some sort of reference regarding given issues, rather than overall worldviews.

I like that Why is Academia Liberal article. It explains the liberal predominance in academia without resorting to conspiracy theories. Unfortunately liberals again love to smugly tar people as conspiracy theorists, which is a dumb, irrelevant strawman. The predominance of liberal discourse has historical, non-deliberate roots, it's not some conspiracy, but railing against it doesn't necessarily mean we think as much. And oh it's always "oh, so I guess you're a homophobic creationist huh? HATE CRIIIIIME!"

I think this part is key,
"The Common Assumption usually pans out and passes unnoticed -- except for those who don't share it, to whom it is an overt fact of professional life. Yet usually even they remain quiet in the face of the Common Assumption. There is no joy in breaking up fellow feeling, and the awkward pause that accompanies the moment when someone comes out of the conservative closet marks a quarantine that only the institutionally secure are willing to endure."
_________________
The solitary one waits for grace...

Top
 Profile  
BobSaget
Metal newbie

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 34
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 8:40 am 
 

gosh, I love polarized, black and white, dichotomy-politics. you're either with us, or you're not!

if we're going to agree, or at least assume the American intellectual community is predominated by liberals, can we assume that American media is overwhelmingly predominated by neoconservatives, and persons that attribute at least a conservative/republican epithet to themselves?

Top
 Profile  
NeglectedField
Onwards to Camulodunum!

Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 6:19 am
Posts: 1390
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 8:55 am 
 

Actually, polarised, black and white, dichotomy-politics is what I'm trying to get away from (or at least think of it as limiting), and I never made any statement rallying for people to either side with or oppose me. If I did, feel free to refer to it. As for "neoconservatives" in the media, just remember I'm English. I'm not interested in American political issues, I'm interested in British ones. Of course, we've had yes-men like Tony Blair but in academic circles, it's fashionable to hate him. I hate him too, but for different reasons.

Fox for example has a conservative bias but it's unfortunately made up of strawmen like Bill O'Reilly, so bad example. Fox's leanings are so overt though, I don't think that really needs elucidating. Liberal predominance in academia though, is a lot more subtle, as outlined in the Why is Academia Liberal? article, if you actually bothered to read it.
_________________
The solitary one waits for grace...

Top
 Profile  
BobSaget
Metal newbie

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 34
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 9:13 am 
 

reading now.

it's ok to be biased and chauvinistic, so long as it isn't in the context of covertness? beautiful rationale, neglectedfield.

suggesting that liberals are part of a conspiracy to breach and undermine academia sounds so ridiculous and paranoid.

perhaps their academic ubiquity is an exemplary of intelligence on the center-left wing. never mind, I'm sure they advertently mobilized to spite the right by impeding intellectual provocation.

Top
 Profile  
NeglectedField
Onwards to Camulodunum!

Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 6:19 am
Posts: 1390
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 9:34 am 
 

BobSaget wrote:
it's ok to be biased and chauvinistic, so long as it isn't in the context of covertness? beautiful rationale, neglectedfield


I never said that. I just think that if Fox's chauvinism and bias are made a big deal out of, then liberal academic bias should be as well.

BobSaget wrote:
suggesting that liberals are part of a conspiracy to breach and undermine academia sounds so ridiculous and paranoid.


If you read my previous post I fucking mentioned that I don't liberal discourse's predominance to be a conspiracy, but that it is through the course of event as outlined in the article BUT that doesn't mean that we can't criticise that very predominance as restricting. Stop taking my words out of context.

BobSaget wrote:
perhaps their academic ubiquity is an exemplary of intelligence on the center-left wing. never mind, I'm sure they advertently mobilized to spite the right by impeding intellectual provocation.


Claiming intelligence doesn't make it so. That's an empty assertion.

I digress. What I mean by "right-wing" academic observations are things like observations made on sensitive issues like race, or social differences between multicultural and monocultural societies, where it is suggested that the former is more detrimental, for example. And so on. People who have espoused such views have been subject to expulsions from academic circles without any kind of enquiry into their views. When people censor other people as such, it's an assumption of one's own infallibility, that John Stuart Mill outlined in On Liberty.
_________________
The solitary one waits for grace...

Top
 Profile  
Mors_Gloria
See? Marge was right!! ^

Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 8:07 am
Posts: 1053
Location: Greece
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 9:39 am 
 

Ok, I'm 100% sure now. Liberalism is a political characterization that has become a political epithet sadly. So, it's definition depends on the one that defines the word. For an anarchist (like me, Saget and Noobbot) liberalism means capitalism. For a nationalist (like Neglected) liberalism means political correctness.

Thanks for the help, guys. That debate was actually very helpful :)
_________________
Panopticon at Flag Burner, Torch Bearer wrote:
Tonight all flags must burn in place of steeples. Autonomy must return to the hands of the people!


http://www.metalfighters.com/

Top
 Profile  
NeglectedField
Onwards to Camulodunum!

Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 6:19 am
Posts: 1390
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 9:47 am 
 

I only say "liberalism" as a word that has lost it's original meaning. I think it's original definition is the same as your definition, but it has been hijacked. Political correctness opposes open discourse, and open discourse I would have thought was central to liberalism. Classic liberalism, anyway.

Also, I'm not sure I would call myself a Nationalist with a capital N. I approach forms of collective populism with much caution. Nationalism tends to scapegoat certain enemies like some kind of foreign influence, though for me if there's anything even approaching an adversary it's just discourses that are opposed to it (like multiculturalism), but even then I am open to their views.
_________________
The solitary one waits for grace...

Top
 Profile  
BobSaget
Metal newbie

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 34
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:13 am 
 

NeglectedField wrote:
BobSaget wrote:
it's ok to be biased and chauvinistic, so long as it isn't in the context of covertness? beautiful rationale, neglectedfield


I never said that. I just think that if Fox's chauvinism and bias are made a big deal out of, then liberal academic bias should be as well.


I can agree with that.

I finished "Why Is Academia Liberal?", and enjoyed it.

But much of what he said regarding parochialism and myopia in liberal academics and elites can apply unconditionally to their rightist counterparts.

While it is true that Michel Foucault, Michael Hardt, Antonio Negri, Francis Fukuyama are by no means emphasized in liberal erudition, I'm sure Leon Trotsky, Mikhail Bakunin, Emma Goldman, Rosa Luxemburg, Gustave de Molinari, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Petor Kropotkin, and et cetera are at any given time emphasized in conservative erudition. It's a 2 way street, and the author conveniently omits that.

Quote:
American Enterprise Institute's magazine published a survey of voter
registration among humanities and social-science faculty members several years
ago. More than nine out of 10 professors belonged to the Democratic or Green
party, an imbalance that contradicted many liberal academics' protestations that
diversity and pluralism abound in higher education


Where is this statistic being held? Surely not Harvard, huh. I wonder what the statistics of economic pedagogues are, of correlating with conservatism and the right, or the monopoly that the latter might have in media, television, what have you. Yet again another important omission.

An extended source comes from no other then.. surprise, surprise, David Horowitz! A proclaimed charlatan, moreover a man with more antipathy for the left, than an evangelical has of satan. His objectivity is apocryphal at least. Given the flimsy and unsubstantiated sources and claims, the article is by no means irrefutable.

Certainly well written, though!


While this article comfortably suggests that liberals are the puppet masters
and one's dictating tenure and professorship, this can be said the other way around, too.

Rightist Alan Dershowitz used racism as a pretext to Norman Finkelstein's expulsion, moreover smearing him in further as to deny him tenure elsewhere.

This of course isn't unprecedented..

Top
 Profile  
NeglectedField
Onwards to Camulodunum!

Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 6:19 am
Posts: 1390
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:20 am 
 

For me it's not the fact that it is left-liberal that is the predominating discourse but the fact that one predominates to begin with, that there is any bias, because I love no holds barred political debate. I agree with that gist of the (indeed not entirely irrefutable) article.

I don't think it would be any better if say, the Christian Right was the predominate discourse, in fact, that would be worse, but my outlook is neither Christian Right or left-liberal, I think it's sad that discourse in America seems to be so strongly based around that polarity.

If I had to describe my current views, i.e. affix a restricting label to myself, it would be "Darwinian Right tempered by social responsibility".
_________________
The solitary one waits for grace...

Top
 Profile  
BobSaget
Metal newbie

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 34
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:35 am 
 

Quote:
For me it's not the fact that it is left-liberal that is the predominating discourse but the fact that one predominates to begin with, that there is any bias, because I love no holds barred political debate.


That is the best thing I have heard you say thus far, and agree whole-heartedly. :)

Top
 Profile  
paskogen
Metal newbie

Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:35 am
Posts: 59
PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 2:35 am 
 

I don't understand the notion that liberals are pro-liberty and personal freedom when they are no more so than conservatives. Libertarians and liberals are quite far apart on the political spectrum.
_________________
mpawluk wrote:
OzzyApu wrote:
So if you'll be fucking chicks with Manowar condoms, does that really mean that Manowar is fucking your chick?

Manowar is fucking your chick regardless of the condoms.

Top
 Profile  
EOS
Metal newbie

Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 7:25 pm
Posts: 56
PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:27 am 
 

BobSaget wrote:
gosh, I love polarized, black and white, dichotomy-politics. you're either with us, or you're not!

if we're going to agree, or at least assume the American intellectual community is predominated by liberals, can we assume that American media is overwhelmingly predominated by neoconservatives, and persons that attribute at least a conservative/republican epithet to themselves?

I believe that is the case. Generally expressed, both academia and media are dominated by statists. The intellectual community is predominately "liberal"/welfarist whilst the media is predominately "conservative"/corporatist. (This has been shown by studies--not just anecdotal evidence--but I don't care to search for them now. The studies themselves probably have their own biases too, though.)

Top
 Profile  
Noobbot
Mors_Gloria + Thesaurus

Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 4:48 pm
Posts: 426
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:31 pm 
 

EOS wrote:
BobSaget wrote:
gosh, I love polarized, black and white, dichotomy-politics. you're either with us, or you're not!

if we're going to agree, or at least assume the American intellectual community is predominated by liberals, can we assume that American media is overwhelmingly predominated by neoconservatives, and persons that attribute at least a conservative/republican epithet to themselves?

I believe that is the case. Generally expressed, both academia and media are dominated by statists. The intellectual community is predominately "liberal"/welfarist whilst the media is predominately "conservative"/corporatist. (This has been shown by studies--not just anecdotal evidence--but I don't care to search for them now. The studies themselves probably have their own biases too, though.)


That would seem correct. Both are sides of the same demon, but people seem to think they must choose one or the other.

Top
 Profile  
Peregrin
Cricket Bat of Longinus

Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 3:09 am
Posts: 1888
Location: Denmark
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:48 pm 
 

EOS wrote:
Generally expressed, both academia and media are dominated by statists.


Not surprising... when was the last time Anarchism was popular in the United States? :P
_________________
Very funny, Scotty. Now beam back my pants.

Top
 Profile  
Noobbot
Mors_Gloria + Thesaurus

Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 4:48 pm
Posts: 426
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 6:20 pm 
 

Peregrin wrote:
EOS wrote:
Generally expressed, both academia and media are dominated by statists.


Not surprising... when was the last time Anarchism was popular in the United States? :P


When was the last time it was popular in the world? It wasn't. The biggest 'groups' that prescribe to that philosophy are the punk and metal scenes, and even then, most within those scenes are statists.

Top
 Profile  
juicebitch
Juice Bitch

Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:57 am
Posts: 1568
PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 5:28 am 
 

Mors_Gloria wrote:
I have this question for a lot of time now. When I am talking with conservatives or nationalists from the US I often see the term "liberalism" being lumped within the general "leftist" spectrum. How can this happen? From what I know liberalism is a capitalist (aka "right-wing") ideology. What has capitalism has to do with "leftism"?


There are two branches of liberalism
Classical Liberalism and Modern Liberalism

Classical liberalism is what you would associate with the "capitalist", laissez-faire free market idea as championed by the likes of Adam Smith and Ricardo. It is to do with lack of restraint on the individual (called NEGATIVE freedom).

Modern liberalism is what you would associate with the modern welfare state, as developed by the Brits during the postwar period. It is about helping individuals achieving self-fulfillment through the use of government intervention (POSTIVE freedom).

The left-right spectrum that Liberalism is lumped into is not so much to do with capitalism, but to do with its view on human nature. Leftist views tend to have a more optimistic view of humans, i.e. we are "good", rational, capable of making independent, well informed decisions etc. The right wing has a more pessimistic, negative view of human nature - humans are intellectually, psychologically and morally limited.

All modern (western) ideology owe a lot to Liberalism in one way or another.

Hope this helps! ;-)

Top
 Profile  
PriestofSadWings
Bishop of Dark Spaces

Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 653
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:52 pm 
 

Here are my political views. I am very much a liberal in the social sense. In other words, I'm pro-abortion rights, pro-gay marriage, etc, etc, etc. I also lean a little to the left in terms of economics - I'm for capitalism, but I'm also for restrictions on companies in certain areas - child labor is bad and a minimum wage is good. I also think that the government should provide some measure of help to the poor and disadvantaged.

My question is - am I a liberal?
_________________
The_Beast_In_Black wrote:
In the interests of fairness, Japan is not allowed in any ridiculousness contests.

Top
 Profile  
juicebitch
Juice Bitch

Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:57 am
Posts: 1568
PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 6:37 pm 
 

PriestofSadWings wrote:
Here are my political views. I am very much a liberal in the social sense. In other words, I'm pro-abortion rights, pro-gay marriage, etc, etc, etc. I also lean a little to the left in terms of economics - I'm for capitalism, but I'm also for restrictions on companies in certain areas - child labor is bad and a minimum wage is good. I also think that the government should provide some measure of help to the poor and disadvantaged.

My question is - am I a liberal?


Modern liberal.

Top
 Profile  
Frapator
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:52 pm
Posts: 3
Location: Greece
PostPosted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:12 am 
 

Mors_Gloria wrote:
I have this question for a lot of time now. When I am talking with conservatives or nationalists from the US I often see the term "liberalism" being lumped within the general "leftist" spectrum. How can this happen? From what I know liberalism is a capitalist (aka "right-wing") ideology. What has capitalism has to do with "leftism"?


That's because liberals are not so conservative as nationalists. Both liberals and nationalists (and Democrats and Republicans) are conservatives. Liberalism is a right-wing/capitalist ideology. It has nothing to do with the Left. It's just that nationalists are more conservatives than liberals.

Top
 Profile  
juicebitch
Juice Bitch

Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:57 am
Posts: 1568
PostPosted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 9:04 am 
 

Frapator wrote:
Mors_Gloria wrote:
I have this question for a lot of time now. When I am talking with conservatives or nationalists from the US I often see the term "liberalism" being lumped within the general "leftist" spectrum. How can this happen? From what I know liberalism is a capitalist (aka "right-wing") ideology. What has capitalism has to do with "leftism"?


That's because liberals are not so conservative as nationalists. Both liberals and nationalists (and Democrats and Republicans) are conservatives. Liberalism is a right-wing/capitalist ideology. It has nothing to do with the Left. It's just that nationalists are more conservatives than liberals.


Sorry, thats completely wrong.
Read the post I wrote above.

Top
 Profile  
Frapator
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:52 pm
Posts: 3
Location: Greece
PostPosted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 1:36 pm 
 

thejuicebitch wrote:
Frapator wrote:
Mors_Gloria wrote:
I have this question for a lot of time now. When I am talking with conservatives or nationalists from the US I often see the term "liberalism" being lumped within the general "leftist" spectrum. How can this happen? From what I know liberalism is a capitalist (aka "right-wing") ideology. What has capitalism has to do with "leftism"?


That's because liberals are not so conservative as nationalists. Both liberals and nationalists (and Democrats and Republicans) are conservatives. Liberalism is a right-wing/capitalist ideology. It has nothing to do with the Left. It's just that nationalists are more conservatives than liberals.


Sorry, thats completely wrong.
Read the post I wrote above.


I agree that liberals are mostly optimistic about the human nature and the society and that they expect from a state to help the poor and that separates them from the nationalists, but liberalism isn't an ideology that wants the change of the modern politico-economical system. What I want to say is that liberals do not want to change the way decisions are made in a country (parliament) nowadays, neither they want the change of the modern economical system (capitalism). Both liberals and nationalists want the way decisions are made in a state (representative democracy) and the way the goods are produced (capitalist economy) to remain the same. That's why I believe that liberalism is a right-wing ideology, and that's what they have in common with the nationalists. If you live in the USA, where the conservative ideas about the wickedness of the human nature dominate, or in an islamic state somewhere in the Middle East, where there's no democracy at all, liberal ideas will sound leftist. But, if you live in a country where 300 politicians decide for about 10.000.000 citizens (such as in Greece), and where the boss of a business takes a very bigger salary than his workers (although he's working less), these ideas will sound conservative. And as far as I know liberalism isn't only about optimism for the human nature and society.
Correct me if I am wrong.


Last edited by Frapator on Tue Apr 29, 2008 9:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
CrimsonMorningStar
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 7:36 am
Posts: 9
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 5:03 pm 
 

Our founding fathers were true Liberals.

Liberals these days are pretty much Marxist-Lite.

Top
 Profile  
juicebitch
Juice Bitch

Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:57 am
Posts: 1568
PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:39 pm 
 

CrimsonMorningStar wrote:
Our founding fathers were true Liberals.

Liberals these days are pretty much Marxist-Lite.


First line true.
Second line not.
Most of us are liberals in one way or another.

Top
 Profile  
Resident_Hazard
Possessed by Starscream's Ghost

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 2:33 pm
Posts: 2678
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:41 pm 
 

thejuicebitch wrote:
CrimsonMorningStar wrote:
Our founding fathers were true Liberals.

Liberals these days are pretty much Marxist-Lite.


First line true.
Second line not.
Most of us are liberals in one way or another.


By that logic, most of us are conservatives in one way or another as well.
_________________
Game dev company I co-founded: From Nothing Game Studios

Top
 Profile  
juicebitch
Juice Bitch

Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:57 am
Posts: 1568
PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:47 pm 
 

Frapator wrote:
thejuicebitch wrote:
Frapator wrote:
Mors_Gloria wrote:
I have this question for a lot of time now. When I am talking with conservatives or nationalists from the US I often see the term "liberalism" being lumped within the general "leftist" spectrum. How can this happen? From what I know liberalism is a capitalist (aka "right-wing") ideology. What has capitalism has to do with "leftism"?


That's because liberals are not so conservative as nationalists. Both liberals and nationalists (and Democrats and Republicans) are conservatives. Liberalism is a right-wing/capitalist ideology. It has nothing to do with the Left. It's just that nationalists are more conservatives than liberals.


Sorry, thats completely wrong.
Read the post I wrote above.


I agree that liberals are mostly optimistic about the human nature and the society and that they expect from a state to help the poor and that separates them from the nationalists, but liberalism isn't an ideology that wants the change of the modern politico-economical system. What I want to say is that liberals do not want to change the way decisions are made in a country (parliament) nowadays, neither they want the change of the modern economical system (capitalism). Both liberals and nationalists want the way decisions are made in a state (representative democracy) and the way the goods are produced (capitalist economy) to remain the same. That's why I believe that liberalism is a right-wing ideology, and that's what they have in common with the nationalists. If you live in the USA, where the conservative ideas about the wickedness of the human nature dominate, or in an islamic state somewhere in the Middle East, where there's no democracy at all, liberal ideas will sound leftist. But, if you live in a country where 300 politicians decide for about 10.000.000 citizens (such as in Greece), and where the boss of a business takes a very bigger salary than his workers (although he's working less), these ideas will sound conservative. And as far as I know liberalism isn't only about optimism for the human nature and society.
Correct me if I am wrong.


I think you're confusing liberalism with conservatism. ?? Although I kind of understand what u mean about the boss and all the workers. That's actually a damn good question...needa think about this ;-). Y'know, all the ideologies share similar characteristics with one another.

About the reform of Parliament and whatnot...Liberals in the UK, for example, are still pushing for parliamentary reform, so no, they are not satisfied.

Liberalism DOES have in common with nationalism, but so does conservatism and socialism.

Top
 Profile  
gomorro
Too Slow to Owl

Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:54 pm
Posts: 907
Location: Peru
PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 7:04 pm 
 

I think it depends in the ethic, moral of each one, and and the susceptibility that people have with the inviroment

Top
 Profile  
Frapator
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:52 pm
Posts: 3
Location: Greece
PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 9:00 pm 
 

thejuicebitch wrote:
Liberalism DOES have in common with nationalism, but so does conservatism and socialism.


What does conservatism has in common with socialism?

Top
 Profile  
juicebitch
Juice Bitch

Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:57 am
Posts: 1568
PostPosted: Fri May 02, 2008 12:05 pm 
 

Frapator wrote:
thejuicebitch wrote:
Liberalism DOES have in common with nationalism, but so does conservatism and socialism.


What does conservatism has in common with socialism?


Sorry, I meant "as well as with".

Top
 Profile  
punishments
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 4:01 am
Posts: 7
PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2008 8:42 pm 
 

Mors_Gloria wrote:
I have this question for a lot of time now. When I am talking with conservatives or nationalists from the US I often see the term "liberalism" being lumped within the general "leftist" spectrum. How can this happen? From what I know liberalism is a capitalist (aka "right-wing") ideology. What has capitalism has to do with "leftism"?
The best source of information is probably the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Liberalism, from which I quote the complete relevant passage (sans in-line references):
Quote:
What has come to be known as 'new', 'revisionist', 'welfare state', or perhaps best, 'social justice', liberalism challenges this intimate connection between personal liberty and a private property based market order. Three factors help explain the rise of this revisionist theory. First, the new liberalism arose in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, a period in which the ability of a free market to sustain what Lord Beveridge called a 'prosperous equilibrium' was being questioned. Believing that a private property based market tended to be unstable, or could, as Keynes argued, get stuck in an equilibrium with high unemployment, new liberals came to doubt that it was an adequate foundation for a stable, free society. Here the second factor comes into play: just as the new liberals were losing faith in the market, their faith in government as a means of supervising economic life was increasing. This was partly due to the experiences of the First World War, in which government attempts at economic planning seemed to succeed; more importantly, this reevaluation of the state was spurred by the democratization of western states, and the conviction that, for the first time, elected officials could truly be, in J.A. Hobson's phrase 'representatives of the community'. As D.G. Ritchie proclaimed:
Quote:
be it observed that arguments used against 'government' action, where the government is entirely or mainly in the hands of a ruling class or caste, exercising wisely or unwisely a paternal or grandmotherly authority — such arguments lose their force just in proportion as the government becomes more and more genuinely the government of the people by the people themselves.
The third factor underlying the development of the new liberalism was probably the most fundamental: a growing conviction that, so far from being 'the guardian of every other right', property rights generated an unjust inequality of power that led to a less-than-equal liberty (typically, 'positive liberty') for the working class. This theme is central to what is usually called 'liberalism' in American politics, combining a strong endorsement of civil and personal liberties with, at best, an indifference, and often enough an antipathy, to private ownership. The seeds of this newer liberalism can be found in Mill's On Liberty. Although Mill insisted that the 'so-called doctrine of Free Trade' rested on 'equally solid' grounds as did the 'principle of individual liberty', he nevertheless insisted that the justifications of personal and economic liberty were distinct. And in his Principles of Political Economy Mill consistently emphasized that it is an open question whether personal liberty can flourish without private property, a view that Rawls was to reassert over a century later.

(Source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liber ... bBetOldNew.)
N.B. This is a philosophical treatment of your question. It does not tie these doctrinal considerations to any geopolitical entity, such as the U.S. Its value lies in its display of the evolution of political liberalism. It also draws some useful distinctions that some people in this thread are missing.

Top
 Profile  
punishments
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 4:01 am
Posts: 7
PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2008 8:53 pm 
 

Frapator wrote:
What does conservatism has in common with socialism?
Not all strains of conservatism have anything in common with socialism. (American variants, in particular, have no such connection.) The basic origin of such ideas is the aristocratic tradition of "noblesse oblige" (obligation of the nobles). One prominent contemporary representative of such a view is Roger Scruton. In his 1984 book The Meaning of Conservatism, he makes an extended conservative case for, among other things, trade unions, public medicine, welfare, etc. This is old-school "blue-blooded" conservatism, in the tradition of Edmund Burke: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/burke/

The Canadian tradition of so-called Red Toryism (particularly under the defunct pre-Mulroney Progressive Conservative government) is another example of such conservatism. In fact, I had a teacher who was such a conservative, and he baldly accused Marxians of appropriating noblesse oblige under their own banner.

Top
 Profile  
Necoroth
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 10:51 pm
Posts: 13
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Sun May 11, 2008 11:51 am 
 

Scorpio wrote:
Mors_Gloria wrote:
I have this question for a lot of time now. When I am talking with conservatives or nationalists from the US I often see the term "liberalism" being lumped within the general "leftist" spectrum. How can this happen? From what I know liberalism is a capitalist (aka "right-wing") ideology. What has capitalism has to do with "leftism"?


In America, the term 'liberalism' is used to refer to the big government welfare state, whereas in parts of Europe it is used to refer to classical liberalism. In the US, classical liberalism is known primarily as libertarianism.


Huh? I concider myself Libertarian, because I believe in little government intervention, and more rights! In America Libertarians are on the total opposite side of teh spectrum as Liberals. So how are they the same in Europe? I'm not very familiar with European Politics.

Top
 Profile  
punishments
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 4:01 am
Posts: 7
PostPosted: Sun May 11, 2008 3:52 pm 
 

Necoroth wrote:
Huh? I concider myself Libertarian, because I believe in little government intervention, and more rights! In America Libertarians are on the total opposite side of teh spectrum as Liberals. So how are they the same in Europe? I'm not very familiar with European Politics.
It's more a matter of history than geography. Classical liberalism, i.e. from Adam Smith to early Friedrich Hayek, is what we know today as (American) libertarianism. For a good discussion of the philosophical (though not the geopolitical) history, see my post a couple of posts back, in which I quote an extended passage from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. That passage, and the article itself, explains this point in much greater depth.

Top
 Profile  
Visionary
Veteran

Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 3:57 pm
Posts: 2635
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Mon May 12, 2008 2:21 am 
 

Mors_Gloria wrote:
I have this question for a lot of time now. When I am talking with conservatives or nationalists from the US I often see the term "liberalism" being lumped within the general "leftist" spectrum. How can this happen? From what I know liberalism is a capitalist (aka "right-wing") ideology. What has capitalism has to do with "leftism"?


Cause capitalism in a liberal sense means do what the fuck you want with minimal government intervention. Capitalism was quite unregulated and pushed Marx towards the other extreme believing the government should have control over everything and without private property then people would not have a desire to gain material goods and Communism would emerge.
_________________
taleskiss on Kiss wrote:
They influenced MOST of the metal bands of our days, and they are not part of this site? This is unacceptable!!!
I would like to know why is that???
Because they are not considered metal? This is not fare!!!

Top
 Profile  
heavymetalninja
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 12:12 pm
Posts: 27
PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 10:07 am 
 

Liberalism is completely different from libertarianism.

Both of them do wish to gain liberty or freedom for people. However, libertarianism deals in real liberty as i would call it, i.e. a reduction in laws and regulations to a safe point.
Liberalism is the philosophy of believing in liberty but believing that poverty, injustice, class etc is more of a threat than actually making laws and taking some liberties away. For this reason liberalism advocates state intervention both socially and economically, taxation and wealth distribution to try and eradicate a lack of liberty. Not as evil as socialism in taking money from those who work but getting that way in order to try and preserve some liberty.
Personally im a thatcherite conservative but i do have some quite strong libertarian ideas but not liberal, as i completely disagree with any large social intervention by a government or a large amount of taxation or large amount of welfare state

Top
 Profile  
DrSeuss
Metal newbie

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:23 pm
Posts: 261
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Wed May 28, 2008 9:18 pm 
 

Leftism here in the US, is the Democratic party, which is more or less focused more on social reform and socialist ideologys unlike our conservatives which lean more towards free market and "laissez faire" government control on economics.

I find it funny how nation's in Europe are slowly moving away from socialism and closed market, and that is known as progression, yet here in the US, the liberalism associated with it here is known as progression, yet they're for moving towards socialism.

heh, I consider myself pretty moderate, seeing as I like some things in both, but hate things in both also. I'm economically conservative (american), yet I like a lot of liberal ideology.
_________________
Resident_Hazard wrote:
As a side thought, I never equated pot with extreme music since pot makes one mellow and extreme music is better suited to DOING THE DEW AND BEING EXXXTREME. *sips Mountain Dew* RRRRAARRRHGGGGHHGGH!!!!

Top
 Profile  
punishments
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 4:01 am
Posts: 7
PostPosted: Sat May 31, 2008 2:59 am 
 

heavymetalninja wrote:
Liberalism is completely different from libertarianism.
False. Despite the many flavours of libertarianism, from minarchism to anarcho-capitalism (and maybe even to the arch-cranky Neo-Tech/Zonpower), they are all roughly identifiable with classical liberalism. Read the excerpt I provided, earlier in this thread, from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Top
 Profile  
Midnight_Frost
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 6:10 pm
Posts: 20
Location: Brazil
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 7:02 pm 
 

Vrede wrote:
The chairman of the German liberal party "FDP" is gay, now if THAT isn't liberal....


Liberalism is the degeneration of the moral values, conservatives and liberals only shares the economic support of free-markert, in moral subjects that the differences do exist.

Liberals usually supports abortion, legalization of drugs, atheism, euthanasia...

Conservatives are totally against these measures.

Top
 Profile  
Midnight_Frost
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 6:10 pm
Posts: 20
Location: Brazil
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 7:11 pm 
 

punishments wrote:
heavymetalninja wrote:
Liberalism is completely different from libertarianism.
False. Despite the many flavours of libertarianism, from minarchism to anarcho-capitalism (and maybe even to the arch-cranky Neo-Tech/Zonpower), they are all roughly identifiable with classical liberalism. Read the excerpt I provided, earlier in this thread, from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.


I don't know if I agree..

Libertarianists usually are theorically embased by the neoclassical line of economical thought (Vienna School), this way of thought denies some of the classic liberal assertions, such as the labor theory of value (the neoclassicals defends the marginalist theory of value).

There are some differences.. I don't know if is right to equal Libertarianism and Liberalism.

Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies. Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MutantClannfear and 15 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

 
Jump to:  

Back to the Encyclopaedia Metallum


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group