Liberalism or socialism?

Page 2 of 4 [ 61 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

21 Dec 2007, 10:35 am

Odin wrote:

But what I've read by him seems to show that he was not against the welfare state and other Left Liberal interventionist things (what he called "piecemeal social engineering", he was just against the notion that economies could be centrally planned and he rejected "utopian social engineering." I consider myself a left-wing Popperian in that I think multi-national corporations are just as much a threat to the open society as idealistic wannabe utopian social engineers

I'd have to read more of what he said in order to get a better picture as "welfare state" has to be defined, as some libertarians have argued for welfare policies such as Friedman's negative income tax. Not only is his position is to accept the traditional forms of intervention while rejecting new forms then he could just be rather similar to Friedrich Hayek. I mostly know about him from his connection with some libertarian economic theorists. Heck, his ideas may have been more in line with ordoliberalism than straight up neoliberalism,

To be honest, I really don't know. I just know that he was a member of the Mont Pelerin society which was set up to combat the "state ascendancy and Marxist or Keynesian planning [that was] sweeping the globe" and then “facilitate an exchange of ideas between like-minded scholars in the hope of strengthening the principles and practice of a free society and to study the workings, virtues, and defects of market-oriented economic systems.” To me that sounds like a right-wing or libertarian think tank, but I could be wrong.

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

21 Dec 2007, 12:15 pm

Odin wrote:

When I read Popper's stuff on Plato and the connection with Fascism in The Open Society I realized "OMG, that sounds like the Neocons!! !"

Popper's ideas on some issues have a few simiarities to aspects of the neoconservative ideology.

However, while the father of neoconservatism may be Irving Krystol (Bill Krystol's father), the grandfather of the movement was Leo Strauss. His views were Machiavellian and Platonist.

_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute

zendell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Nov 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,174
Location: Austin, TX

22 Dec 2007, 1:17 am

Libertarianism and local government is the only way to ensure freedom and protect us from tyranny. Our federal government (in US) is HUGE and making it any bigger will be a disaster.

Asha
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 22 Aug 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 41

22 Dec 2007, 11:10 am

anarchism

It seems most logical as it is beneficial to both the well off and the not well off and gives each person maximum personal freedom and maximum social support.

Phagocyte
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Oct 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,757

22 Dec 2007, 12:30 pm

I'm a somewhat liberal capitalist.

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

22 Dec 2007, 12:59 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Right, another thing you can do is try to see how progressive they are.

In the sociology department, we see almost all the folks in the economics department as being conservative, but we are a collection of Marxists and left anarchists. ;-)

In most colleges and universities, the sociologists are (with the possible exception of the English department) the furthest to the left of any faculty.

Odin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2006
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,475
Location: Moorhead, Minnesota, USA

22 Dec 2007, 2:32 pm

zendell wrote:

Libertarianism and local government is the only way to ensure freedom and protect us from tyranny. Our federal government (in US) is HUGE and making it any bigger will be a disaster.

A typical talking point from Libertarians that don't seem to understand that the Corporatocracy is just as much a thread to liberty as a nanny state. I'd rather have an economy regulated by a democratic government then a corporate aristocracy.

_________________
My Blog: My Autistic Life

Odin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2006
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,475
Location: Moorhead, Minnesota, USA

22 Dec 2007, 2:36 pm

nominalist wrote:

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Right, another thing you can do is try to see how progressive they are.

In the sociology department, we see almost all the folks in the economics department as being conservative, but we are a collection of Marxists and left anarchists. ;-)

In most colleges and universities, the sociologists are (with the possible exception of the English department) the furthest to the left of any faculty.

Which is why most Sociology is not science, it's ideologically motivated pseudoscience. It is to the PoMo Left what Supply-Side Economics is to the Corporatist Right. I am an ex-Marxist (thanks to reading Popper) and have no use for such nonsense.

_________________
My Blog: My Autistic Life

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

22 Dec 2007, 2:41 pm

nominalist wrote:

In the sociology department, we see almost all the folks in the economics department as being conservative, but we are a collection of Marxists and left anarchists. ;-)

In most colleges and universities, the sociologists are (with the possible exception of the English department) the furthest to the left of any faculty.

Oh, I absolutely know that. I have seen studies on political bias in academia. Sociologists are around the furthest left of the social sciences, economists tend to be the furthest right in academia and even though they, like many academics, lean further left than the average population. Their economic views are very pro-market for left-wingers though.

Odin wrote:

Governments are a major supporter of a "Corporatocracy" so to speak. Where would many of these corporations be without the government kickbacks to give them extra cash for nothing? How would they try to exclude competitors through various laws if it weren't for a corrupt man upstairs to make them? You are right, rulers are rulers, however, the burden falls on you to prove that we will fall into a "Corporatocracy" as really, I think it seems to the right libertarians that there is a reason why major corporations are paying major politicians, and that the results are probably majorly unjust and perhaps supporting a "Corporatocracy" more so than any free market economy would bear.

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

22 Dec 2007, 3:09 pm

Odin wrote:

There is no such thing as "science." There are only diverse fields which use modifications of a method which originated in physics (with Aristotle and then Newton).

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

22 Dec 2007, 3:16 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Personally, I restrict the term "left" to socialism, communism, and left anarchism. The use of "left" for liberalism is basically an American innovation. As a leftist myself, I have little use for liberalism. I see liberals as appeasers of conservatives.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

22 Dec 2007, 3:18 pm

nominalist wrote:

Odin wrote:

There is no such thing as "science." There are only diverse fields which use modifications of a method which originated in physics (with Aristotle and then Newton).

You know, I really don't think that helps you make your case considering he already dismissed your subject as the wankery of the PoMo left.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

22 Dec 2007, 3:22 pm

nominalist wrote:

I don't because America doesn't HAVE the type of left wing. We have left liberalism and right liberalism in America. Now left liberals are not liberal in your eyes but they are on the American left. Now, do you mean how conservatives call democrats "liberals" when you say that? Or the fact that America is so liberal that people on our left are still liberal? I already know some things about both. Trust me though, my view on leftists is not that favorable either.

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

22 Dec 2007, 3:29 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

I don't because America doesn't HAVE the type of left wing.

Not a very organized one, no. However, I intentionally do not use the term "left" for "liberal" in order to emphasize it. When I refer to the American left, I have in mind a tiny segment of the general population. A lot of us probably end up in sociology departments or the like.

Quote:

We have left liberalism and right liberalism in America.

Jesse Jackson and Dennis Kucinich are left liberals. The Clintons are right liberals or even left moderates.

Quote:

Now left liberals are not liberal in your eyes but they are on the American left.

There is an American left, albeit quite small. However, no leftists I know would consider liberals to be a part of it.

Quote:

Now, do you mean how conservatives call democrats "liberals" when you say that? Or the fact that America is so liberal that people on our left are still liberal? I already know some things about both. Trust me though, my view on leftists is not that favorable either.

A lot of conservative pundits call people "leftists" who, to me, are right conservatives. I have given up on trying to figure out how self-defined conservatives classify others.

Odin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2006
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,475
Location: Moorhead, Minnesota, USA

22 Dec 2007, 3:59 pm

nominalist wrote:

Odin wrote:

There is no such thing as "science." There are only diverse fields which use modifications of a method which originated in physics (with Aristotle and then Newton).

Science = method of investigation based on creating and testing falsifiable hypotheses.

_________________
My Blog: My Autistic Life

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

22 Dec 2007, 4:19 pm

nominalist wrote:

Yeah, a very very small portion of the population. I really don't see the point in even referring to them with such a commonly used term. Especially when I consider the folks who support socialism to be the far-left already given that I consider most of the ideas of socialism hopelessly discredited in mainstream thought.

Quote:

Jesse Jackson and Dennis Kucinich are left liberals. The Clintons are right liberals or even left moderates.

We define terms differently, I am still working within the American framework rather than yours because I don't see the reason to invoke a world or universal ideological framework.

Quote:

There is an American left, albeit quite small. However, no leftists I know would consider liberals to be a part of it.

You define the term differently. I really don't care about your definition. Get over it.

Quote:

A lot of conservative pundits call people "leftists" who, to me, are right conservatives. I have given up on trying to figure out how self-defined conservatives classify others.

You are far left. Some of this is of course just ideological nonsense, but still.

Page 2 of 4 [ 61 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Jump to:

Liberalism or socialism? Post Reply New Topic

Liberalism or socialism?