Sure, there are always outliers and you can correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s just the overall impression I have.
(I wasn’t sure if !asklemmy@lemmy.world or this community would fit better for this kind of question, but I assume it fits here.)
Sure, there are always outliers and you can correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s just the overall impression I have.
(I wasn’t sure if !asklemmy@lemmy.world or this community would fit better for this kind of question, but I assume it fits here.)
My intent was not to cause division, I originally meant to clear things up for the user I was originally replying to, but things quickly descended into arguing about semantics. I agree that we should all work together to eliminate the rising threat of far right, fascist parties worldwide. That is what we should be focusing on.
I’m tired over me bikeshedding, So i’m just going to forfeit out of this argument.
Have a great weekend
We don’t have to have an argument over it. It’s ok to have a conversation. I’m familiar with the ‘liberals are right wing’ talking point.
I’m just trying to understand what exactly it is that defines ‘right wing’ and how we define ‘liberalism’ . You’re right, it IS a semantic discussion, but clearly the implication is that liberalism is on par with being right wing. So, nonetheless, a semantic relabeling which is not devoid of consequences.
So I’m wondering, at what point do those two overlap (liberalism and right wing politics)? Is it the right to private property? Beyond that, what exactly makes liberalism ‘right wing’?
I should have specified, i was talking about classical liberalism. Social liberals are center-left to left wing.
The way i see it, the barebones definition of right wing and left wing is that leftism supports minimization, or abolishment of hierarchy, and equality, both class and social. You don’t have to be 100% of all these points to be left wing, just a degree of it.
The right wing believes that hierarchies are natural, and inevitable, or even desirable. They believe inequality is natural, due to social differences. Most of them believe that authority is good (not exclusive to right wing politics, there are authoritarian leftist ideologies) with libertarians and ancaps being an exception.
Classical liberals believe in free market, and generally have negative views on social services, taxes, and such.
Social liberals believe in a mixed economy, and favour social services, and believe in social justice (also class equality, but not a huge talking point for them). I think this makes them center, and at most, center-left (See social democracy or the nordic model). What makes them different than socialists and communists is that they are not quite radical in comparison to them, socialists desire to minimize wealth inequality (and inequality in general. politically, socially, etc) as much as possible.
Another point that you brought up is private property. I think this is also a defining factor on why I think liberals tend to be more right leaning.
You can still believe in markets, and be far left. Socialism, is when the workers own the means of production. It’s a pretty barebones definition, which makes it possible to have free markets, AND socialism. See Mutualism, Market Socialism, and Titoism
I agree with all of this. However, and I could be wrong, my understanding of classic liberalism is that it was never directly opposed to regulation or social services. My initial understanding is that it’s by necessity tied to free markets and private property.
But if it is then I’m learning something new.
Maybe not, but nowadays, most are. And you are correct, they believe in free markets and private property, with little regulation.
Yea you know what: I stand corrected. Classic liberalism is closely aligned with conservatism in the sense that it is shuttered from regulation. My mind is on the social liberal aspect.