The problem with American word usage is that "liberalism" is used, most illogically, to label socialists and social democrats. Some of them want more social freedoms, some do not. Those who do not fall under my definition of "The Left".
You need to stop using YOUR definitions in a discussion of poli-sci. Statism is not liberalism, libertarianism is NOT liberalism.The problem with American word usage is that "liberalism" is used, most illogically, to label socialists and social democrats. Some of them want more social freedoms, some do not. Those who do not fall under my definition of "The Left".
As for equating "statism" with the left-wing policies - well, that's what "left-wing" means to me, based on what every left-wing government in history did so far.
Last edited by Cyrylek; 05-21-13 at 05:06 PM.
I know you've been taught it is all about left and right, but the truth is that all this "left" and "right" stuff, and the traditional left-right "scale", is just made up bull****.
The 3D version makes more sense, typically with economic freedom on one axis and political freedom on the other, but even it is just a CONSTRUCT... a representation of something based on various assumptions.
In reality, people and their views are complicated, and so are societies and governments... too complex to easily fit on any scale or matrix.
Fascism is neither left nor right, it is just Fascism. Authoritarianism and totalitarianism are terms indicating government control. Fascism tends to be authoritarian, and often dictatorial. So do the more extreme versions of Socialism or Soviet and Red Chinese Communism.
Fundamentally there are two kinds of government: Limited and Unlimited. Limited governments have some kind of checks and balances and built-in limitations to keep them in check. Unlimited governments have NO limit to how authortarian or totalitarian they can become except "how much will the people put up with before they revolt?"
Fiddling While Rome Burns
ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
"I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."
And again, this all comes from YOUR personal bias, you have twisted the meanings to suit yourself. Statism is practiced to some degree by both left and right govts.As for equating "statism" with the left-wing policies - well, that's what "left-wing" means to me, based on what every left-wing government in history did so far.
It's traditionally considered right-wing by historians and political scientists due to its nationalistic and militaristic nature.
Note that throughout recent political history the definition of "right-wing" has not been "less government." And the definition of left-wing is not necessarily "more government." That is a false dichotomy that many libertarians have manufactured in order to obscure debate.
- Colonel Paul YinglingNobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.
Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.
All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
No, actually, it is not. It has become that, but it isn't, it was started from the premise of what the OP was taught (incorrectly).In case you didn't notice, this is a thread about OUR definitions.
Classical liberalism is a philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.
Classical liberalism developed in the nineteenth century in Western Europe, and the Americas. Although classical liberalism built on ideas that had already developed by the end of the eighteenth century, it advocated a specific kind of society, government and public policy required as a result of the Industrial Revolution and urbanization. Notable individuals who have contributed to classical liberalism include Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo. It drew on the economics of Adam Smith, a psychological understanding of individual liberty, natural law and utilitarianism, and a belief in progress. Classical liberals established political parties that were called "liberal", although in the United States classical liberalism came to dominate both existing major political parties. There was a revival of interest in classical liberalism in the twentieth century led by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman.
In the late 19th century, classical liberalism developed into neo-classical liberalism, which argued for government to be as small as possible in order to allow the exercise of individual freedom. In its most extreme form, it advocated Social Darwinism. Libertarianism is a modern form of neo-classical liberalism.
The term classical liberalism was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier nineteenth-century liberalism from the newer social liberalism. The phrase classical liberalism is also sometimes used to refer to all forms of liberalism before the twentieth century, and some conservatives and libertarians use the term classical liberalism to describe their belief in the primacy of economic freedom and minimal government. It is not always clear which meaning is intended.
I am the President see me smile