The historical shortcomings of liberalism don’t mean that socialists should throw liberalism out wholesale. On the contrary: socialism needs liberalism.
Many liberals would agree with Ludwig von Mises that the core commitment of liberalism is to private property, and obviously socialists can have no truck with that. My response is that if liberalism really can be boiled down to little more than a fetish for property, it isn’t an inspiring credo worth allying with.
but it can be boiled down to it, brother.
The goal of socialists should be to hold a mirror up to liberals and say that they cannot achieve their goals unless they’re willing to extend liberal principles about equality and freedom from domination to the economy.
I like holding mirrors, we can hold them for another 100 years at least
The liberals that drop the private property bit are 99% of the time anarchists, which is still, at least this strain (i.e. Chomskyites, etc.), an underdeveloped political ideology.
but it can be boiled down to it, brother.
I like holding mirrors, we can hold them for another 100 years at least
Liberals when socialists hold up a mirror to them:
I poisoned my brain and now it’s broken
Also define what the “Right” is mate, cause it’s usually just liberalism
There are differences of course inside the right as subset of libs, but the unifying factor is private property, which grinds his gear probably.
lol this asshole thinks liberals care about achieving their stated “goals” but their real goal is maintenance of private property
The liberals that drop the private property bit are 99% of the time anarchists, which is still, at least this strain (i.e. Chomskyites, etc.), an underdeveloped political ideology.