This shouldn’t be considered ideology, because you don’t think the girl ought to dance with you, or should dance with you because you have a right to dance with her, you merely want to dance with her. The appeal to justice doesn’t exist.
All of the other examples you posted are the same thing. If you enjoy or desire something, you have made it your own, you haven’t allowed it to control what you ought to be doing.
I could be called a liberal person because I want to be left alone by the state. I become a Liberal, when I say that I deserve to have the state leave me alone, because they are wrong, and I am right. It is the pretense of justification, the ought, that separates Ideology from desire, or will.
That is a very good point. Everyone in the end, acts in their own self-interest, no matter how pious or self-abasing they seems to be.
But the ideologue is blinded by their righteousness to believe their self-desire is now the Right thing to do. The egoist (or agnostic, since the only thing on the web are non-Stirnerite definitions of the word “egoist”) does not hold such pretension, merely acts according to their will, with no presupposed notion of righteousness.
So its an ideology. You think she should dance with you because it will benefit you, her (possibly) and society (possibly) it will definitely be a change from the status quo.
No. That is an unnecessary justification to want to dance with the girl. You simply want to dance with her.
This is all possible, but unnecessary considerations to act.
I think we should agree to only destroy one thread with our rants. We both (I think) have our definitions posted on this thread, and our reasoning for them. Let’s let that be enough here.
If that is the definition of liberalism then everyone from Marx, Mill and Rothbard would be liberals. Liberalism, in its classical terms, must include private property to allow it to have any explanatory value in regards to liberty.
They are all liberal, in the classic sense when applied broadly and historicly.
Socialism was considerd liberalism, the left-Hegelians were liberals, if you read for 1800’s lit, for example, The Brothers Kazamov; Dostoevsky would call Prodhoun, Bakunin, and Kropotkin liberals. I think the roots of liberalism shows a lot of overlap of all ideas, just look at the liberal French revolution.
On top of that there is good evidence it was used very broadly, and back in the 1800’s I do not think propertarianism was an indispensible point on the liberal platform.
Now if it is practicle to call a socialist, libertarian, or US conservative a liberal today I don’t know. I have a hunch it should just be used for progressives.
It’s not so much what I consider liberal. It is my issue with words like “classic liberalism”, as I don’t think that “classic liberal” is an entirley accurate statement of the 1800’s mentality (not that it doesn’t fit under liberalism). What I want to know is exactly what was meant by the use of the word in the 1800’s. What was the “philosophy of liberalism” in the broadest sense of the term.
It seems to me to mostly imply “equal rights of man”, an antagonistic attitude towards hierarchies, a moral code based upon humanism, and a general rebellion against feudalism, religion, and 1800’s conservatism (especially the continental kind). It also seems to imply an “equal” ruling of man be it constitutionalism, republicanism, anarchism, socialism, etc.
And also;did, how, and why did the word evolve? How is fascism and nazism not a branch off of liberalism?
And with those implications should technocratic, beauracratic, elitist, scientism type progressive types fail to be called liberal when considering the older way it seemed to be used (esp in Europe)?
So, two contradictory statements, ever read 1984? If everyone acts in their own self interest then one’s righteousness is just them acting according to their will.
What? That isn’t a justification at all. He simply does think she should dance with him. The reasons as to why are the justification.
It doesn’t change anything whether he considers them or not.
OK? You should probably have said that without attacking my definition prior though.
David Boaz gives a short history in Libertarianism: A Primer.
Paraphrasing: The first use of the term was in Spain, early in the 19th century. “Liberales” referred to the Spanish middle class that was opposed to the Serviles (who represented the aristrocracy / Ancien Regime). In Britain, they were the Whigs (liberals) vs the Tories. In the 19th century, the term “liberal” came into wide use (the Whigs became the LIberal Party). The term “classical libreral” didn’t emerge in the US until after the label “liberal” was absconded around 1900. Outside the US, the term liberal is still sometimes used to refer to individual rights and the rule of law (South Africa, Iran, China, etc.). In the 1950s, Leonard Read borrowed the term libertarian from the philosophers and it has been the label of choice for many ever since.
At the turn of the century, I guess the Democrats didn’t want to be associated with slavery anymore, so they ran off with our name. SOBs. [:@]
I disagree, Fascism is socialism with a different face, and modified rhetoric. It is a reaction against Liberalism, just as socialism is a reaction against Liberalism. (Classical Liberalism). The mutual enmity between socialists and fascists is merely product differentiation from two retailers that sell substitutable goods. (forgive the terrible analogy)
Fascism to me seems to typify the word “reactionary”, and a direct rebellion against anything on the “left” (which would include capitalists). It built its principles off of nation building, authoritarianism, and imperialism. The thing is though, it did so off of 1800’s “revolutionary” language . They still seem to be a product of 1800’s liberal (broad sense) philosophy in that it seems to be the pinacle/ bastard offspring of continental Germanic and Italian “liberal nationalism”.
Hence my confusion when drawing a tree and branches of liberalism
Well I never said fascism wasn’t contradictory. That what is really is. It’s socialism with a different face but its reactionary against Bolshevik socialism. Paul Gottfried is a good lecturer to listen to concerning the subject of Italian fascism.
" Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity (11). It is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts
The rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual (12). And if liberty is to he the attribute of living men and not of abstract dummies invented by individualistic liberalism, then Fascism stands for liberty, and for the only liberty worth having, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State (13). The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism, is totalitarian, and the - a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values - interprets, develops, and potentates the whole life of a people (14).
No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State (15). Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State (16)."
I think the French Revolution is a good example for what you are trying to say. I think liberalism would even more often than its more theoretical postulates also refer to the generally shared personal preferences of the people deeming themselves liberals. So revolutionary France, with its authoritarian republicanism was to be be thought of as a radically liberal state as long as its authoritarianism was in the service of shaping society towards the preferences commonly held by liberals.
‘Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State’ is certainly a socialistic motto. You brought up before the term ‘left-Hegelians’ well what this is right here is the conservative or rightist faction of Hegelianism which propounds that the full realization of societal advancement, morals and rights is realized through the state apparatus. The state essentially is a representation of the society. It’s socialism of the right. Now the difference between this and what left-Hegelians like Marx was trying to do is pronounce that civil or collective interests are the same as private interests. Hegel liked to think there was constant conflict between the two but Communism according to Marx would be the realization that they aren’t different. Fascism are destroying the private interests and retaining the collective interests, Marx is merely trying to converge them or at least announcing that they will inevitability converge. In either class, the collective interests retains itself as the highest aim so while they may go about it in a different fashion their end goals are still the same.