"Capitalist" and "Liberal" are not mutually exclusive.

[Stinky The Clown]

I'm just sayin'

[sandnsea]

1. Controlling income and production

is essential to personal freedom. Anyone who has been in an abusive or oppressive relationship knows that.

[FiveGoodMen]

2. But regulation-free, winner-take-all, no-new-taxes capitalism and liberalism

are mutually exclusive.

[Stinky The Clown]

4. Indeed they are.

Unfettered anything is a bad thing.

[Bucky]

11. What about...

unfettered love?

                (That's a philosophical inquiry, not a proposition)

[LWolf]

15. No, they're not.

Depending on your definition of "liberalism," of course.

"Neoliberalism" IS, among other things, regulation-free, winner-takes all capitalism.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

Probably not the same kind of "liberalism" you are referring to, but the multiple definitions of "liberal," "liberalism," "progressive," and "progressivism" available today make it possible to use those terms to describe strongly conflicting agendas.

[FiveGoodMen]

19. Do you WANT to confuse the definition of liberalism?

Do you propose a different word that we can all agree means equality for all, maximum freedom for individuals (so long as they don't harm others), and a certain amount of community spirit so that the unfortunate are not without help?

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. It already is confused

Look up the meaning of 'liberalism' in Europe, especially on the continent, if you haven't heard it.

[FiveGoodMen]

21. We need a word whose meaning we can agree upon.

If it's not liberal, then give me another one.

Otherwise we're just jerking off.

[LWolf]

26. I don't "WANT" to.

It already IS confused. There are conservatives and neoconservatives, liberals and neoliberals, and there are "progressives" who consider "progressive" to mean "liberal," and then there are "progressives" who are neoliberals.

I didn't create the confusion. The modern political tendency to Orwellian propaganda did. Those terms are twisted and spun beyond the meaning you are giving it every day, here at DU and out in the real world.

If you want a different term, try "leftist," or "leftist libertarian," which includes the "maximum freedom for individuals" that "leftist" alone can leave out.

That's what I'm using these days, simply to differentiate myself from the "liberals" and "progressives" which can be morphed into almost anything.

[FiveGoodMen]

29. "leftist," or "leftist libertarian" are what everyone uses to smear us

Even within the Dem party.

[LWolf]

30. It's not a smear.

It's more accurate than "liberal" or "progressive."

Why would that be considered a "smear" by anyone but the right-wing?

Of course, I think there are right-wing democrats, lol.

[FiveGoodMen]

31. I don't agree.

Most people (for whatever reason) have an innate idea that the center is more balanced, more natural, more correct.

Define yourself as being way out on the wings and it will look to most observers as though you're just a nut.

Granting everyone the same rights, treating everyone the same way under the law, avoiding too much enforced conformity, and acknowleging a certain responsibility to help others should not be relegated to that sort of far-from-the-reasoned-center kind of treatment. It should be exactly where the center (the mode, the mean, and the median) is.

The right -- including many Dems -- have managed to tar everyone who supports the above goals as being extremist. We shouldn't be helping them by going along with such nonsense.

Also:

liberal

–adjective

1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
...
Origin:
1325–75; ME < L līberālis of freedom, befitting the free, equiv. to līber free + -ālis -al 1

You're saying that's not 'accurate' in defining your position?

[LWolf]

32. Denotation and connotation are two different things,

and they both play a part in public use of the terms "liberal," "centrist," "progressive," and "left."

It's funny that you should bring it up. While my politics are hard left, I'm actually a proponent of balance in most things. Yet I see the center of politics as a stagnant weight, an obstacle to constructive change.

Of course, it's an obstacle to DEstructive change, as well.

[FiveGoodMen]

33. "Denotation and connotation are two different things"

yes they are -- what's your point?

All conversation -- ALL of it, all of the time -- is utterly useless if the only thing we can agree upon is that we don't agree on what the words we're using actually mean.

[LWolf]

36. I think my point is obvious.

You gave me a denotation for "liberal." I've pointed out, repeatedly, that it has different connotations in different contexts, and to different people.

Language evolves constantly. It's not static, and it's not one-dimensional.

If your goal is to standardize some political terminology for the sake of conversation, I'd suggest that you look beyond "liberal" and "progressive," which, imo, have been corrupted beyond the point that they can be useful for your cause. THAT is my point.

[FiveGoodMen]

37. But you don't have any actual suggestions.

[wuushew]

34. People's affinity for "the middle" is based on a false assumption of normal distribution

People fret about being too tall or too short or any other trait that arbitrarily places them into out-lier status. Humans are dominated by herd mentality.

In economics everybody should be a leftist, since the true number of people that are rich is quite small. Still why does everyone think or extol the virtues of middle class status? The income distribution clearly shows the true picture. Is middle class some utopian balance between greed and thrift? :shrug:

[Silent3]

3. Of course they are...

...and you must be either a stooge or a dupe to think otherwise. There is no other explanation possible. ;)

[kenny blankenship]

5. Sure but don't expect capitalists to see it that way.

They will never like you, and always regard you as their enemy. sorry.

[Odin2005]

6. And on a related theme, just because I'm a socialist doesn't mean I must be a Marxist.

Christ that annoys me to hell when some of my fellow left-wingers criticize me for being a "fake leftist" because I don't adhere to Marxist nonsense. One poster called me a suck-up for neoocons because I agree with Karl Popper's critique of Marxism, which is funny because Straussianism and Neoconservatism is exactly the kind of thing thing Popper attacks when he talks about the connection between Plato's political thinking (which Strauss adored) and Fascism. Popper supported the Social Democratic welfare state, which is why I get pissed of when I hear him called a Libertarian patsy just because he was a friend of Hayek. :eyes:

[Oregone]

7. But are you really a "socialist"?

Are you actually a complete "socialist", as you claim, or do you merely advocate public socialized services? A socialist sees that the government should acquire control of private enterprise for the public benefit, and thereby, own corporations that compete, or even monopolize, the market.

Simply wanting socialized services (education, health, retirement) in a capitalistic system is nothing revolutionary or worthy of the term "socialist". It just means someone advocates for a strong mixed capitalistic economy. Being a mixed market advocate is still being an advocate for capitalism (not socialism).

[Odin2005]

25. Yes, I am a socialist. I want corporations replaced by co-ops.

And private capital investment should be replaced by government-owned and community-owned investment banks. As I posted in the "what do we need Wall Street for" thread, I consider private investment to be a relic of 200 years ago, back when governments didn't have as much spending power and wealth as they do now. Basically, I thibk the Industrial Revolution and the Computer-Internet-Information Revolution has made the private investment of capital that is the basis of Capitaslism obsolete.

This is where I disagree with Marxists, in that I don't think shifts from one economic system to anotheris some deterministic process. Marxism says that a societies values is determined my it's economic structure, this I think is backward, IMO it a a society's value ststem that determines the economic system that develops. Primitive steam engine technology was know by the ancient Romans, but nothing ever became of it because aristocratic values were too dominant, and knowledge of steam power died with the Roman Empire. It was not until first the monastic sactifification of hard work in the Middle Ages followed by the the influence of Calvinism fatally weakened the aristocratic value regime that the Industrial Revolution could occur. England was the first place the Aristocratic values regime broke down and the Techno-Comercial values regime took over so it's no wonder it was were the Industrial Revolution started. The Industrial Revolution didn't take off fully in the US until the Southern Planter Aristocracy was crushed in the US Civil War.

I see in the history of Western Eurasia a sucession of values regimes that contrary to what Marxists claim, came out of internal cultural change and thus allowed a shift in economic system, not the other way around. these values regimes, from oldest to newest, are:

Despotic-Heiratic (Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia): 4000BC to 1000BC
Aristocratic: 1000BC to 1700AD
Techno-Comercial: 1700 to 1970
Systemic-Holistic-Gaian: 1970 to Now

[Bucky]

8. Thank you. I had to restrain myself from responding to that "Why do we need Wall St?" thread

You can oppose animal cruelty and still eat meat. You can oppose police brutality and still support traffic laws. There's no reason opposing criminal business practices or favoring financial regulation means you're against people making a good living at the perfectly human "propensity to truck and barter" (as Adam Smith put it).

[leftofthedial]

9. pretty damned near

"successful capitalist" and "liberal" are antonyms.

[Bucky]

12. Why did I know people disagreeing with this OP would not offer any details?

[leftofthedial]

14. I don't know. Why did I know you wouldn't know though?

[superduperfarleft]

10. Correct.

In fact, I'd say that liberalism and capitalism usually go hand in hand.

Which is why I am not a liberal. :shrug:

[LWolf]

True.

Just as "progressive" and "neoliberal," "Obama" and "neoliberal," and "Democratic Party, "Democrats," and "neoliberal," are not mutually exclusive.

I can name some liberals who are also capitalists. I can also name plenty of "progressives" who are "neoliberal" as well.

Capitalism is not in any way synonymous with "neoliberal."

:shrug:

[Oregone]

13. I think that actually depends on your definition of "liberal"

[Captain Hilts]

16. Yeah

FDR: Aint' THAT the truth!
ER: Yeah baby!

[gravity]

17. Most liberals are capitalists

They just don't support laissez-faire capitalism.

I don't think many liberals are against the idea of people starting and owning their own businesses. They just want proper regulation to curb excess greed and government social programs to make sure the benefits of capitalism are fairly distributed throughout society.

[sutz12]

23. I guess I'm with you on this one.

Some kind of liberal capitalist, or something.

Labels are always a bit confining, aren't they.

I'm not for killing the free market system, I'm just for polishing off most of the rough edges that get people hurt or killed.

[Solon]

18. I agree, hence why I'm not a liberal, I'm a Socialist. n/t

[Luna Lovegood]

38. So socialists are against people starting their own businesses?

I thought there was a difference between a socialist democracy and a socialist dictatorship -- and that the former allowed room for individual creativity and entrepeneurism?

[Greyhound]

22. Both terms have had their definitions so tortured and deformed, they are possibly synonyms. n/t

[wuushew]

24. Capitalism is a dead end

once you realize that wealth is finite, a mechanism of redistribution is going to be necessary less we return to some form of neo-feudalism. The historical cycles of growth and collapse are not particular beneficial, especially since there won't be any fossil fuel resources to exploit on the way up again after a collapse.

Ultimately somebody's freedom is going to be curtailed.

[bean fidhleir]

28. That's something the "capitalist liberals" should understand but don't

Capitalism depends on the world being both an uncloggable sewer and an inexhaustible cornucopia.

Capitalism is a system only psychopaths and the ignorant support.

[David__77]

27. That's why I'm a progressive, not a liberal.

In the most clear sense, classically, Margaret Thatcher was a liberal.

[blindpig]

35. As a matter of fact all liberals support capitalism..

They just want to feel good about themselves so they pretend that they can keep capitalism from eating babies. They can't really do, them babies got to be eaten or capitalism would starve and if it stopped shitting then they wouldn't have anything to eat. But it's fun to pretend and allows for a good nights sleep.

[JackRiddler]

39. Capitalist and sustainable are, though.