There is no such thing as liberalism — or progressivism, etc.
There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists; by the political analogue of Gresham’s Law, conservatism has driven every other idea out of circulation.
There might be, and should be, anti-conservatism; but it does not yet exist. What would it be? In order to answer that question, it is necessary and sufficient to characterize conservatism. Fortunately, this can be done very concisely.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.
For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual.
As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence.
So this tells us what anti-conservatism must be: the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.
Then the appearance arises that the task is to map “liberalism”, or “progressivism”, or “socialism”, or whateverthefuckkindofstupidnoise-ism, onto the core proposition of anti-conservatism.
No, it a’n’t. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh. The core proposition of anti-conservatism requires no supplementation and no exegesis. It is as sufficient as it is necessary. What you see is what you get:
The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.
I agree with that, Liberalism as an ideology exists to justify capitalist relations and protect property rights. The mistake people make is in thinking that Liberalism is somehow progressive to begin with.
In practice, it’s like a coin with two very different sides. On one face, you’ve got political liberalism that’s all about individual freedoms, fair elections, and human rights. This is the feel-good stuff that’s used to market Liberalism and make it seem universally appealing.
But flip that coin over and you get economic liberalism, which is really just capitalism wearing a fancy philosophical mask. This side worships markets, treats private property as sacred, and assumes wealth accumulation is basically a human right. Since property rights are seen as the foundation of all other freedoms, the system effectively locks in wealth inequality by making redistribution seem like theft.
That’s why liberals lose their minds whenever governments impinge on the rights of the rich or regulate corporations. In their worldview, any limit on property rights is a threat to freedom itself.
I thought this was a great take on the whole thing
Just because it’s got different pants on, doesn’t change its core message. Some have rights, while others are excluded. Liberals trade their freedoms for the security of the few at the top in-group.
The excluded “other” can change over time, but it is always excluded from those freedoms enjoyed by those at the top as long as there is conservatism, capitalism, liberalism, or any -ism.
I don’t know if there’s a working solution, but I know I’m anti-conservative.
There’s no such thing.
I agree with that, Liberalism as an ideology exists to justify capitalist relations and protect property rights. The mistake people make is in thinking that Liberalism is somehow progressive to begin with.
In practice, it’s like a coin with two very different sides. On one face, you’ve got political liberalism that’s all about individual freedoms, fair elections, and human rights. This is the feel-good stuff that’s used to market Liberalism and make it seem universally appealing.
But flip that coin over and you get economic liberalism, which is really just capitalism wearing a fancy philosophical mask. This side worships markets, treats private property as sacred, and assumes wealth accumulation is basically a human right. Since property rights are seen as the foundation of all other freedoms, the system effectively locks in wealth inequality by making redistribution seem like theft.
That’s why liberals lose their minds whenever governments impinge on the rights of the rich or regulate corporations. In their worldview, any limit on property rights is a threat to freedom itself.
I thought this was a great take on the whole thing
https://orgrad.wordpress.com/articles/liberalism-the-two-faced-tyranny-of-wealth/
In my mind liberalism=capitalism=conservatism.
Just because it’s got different pants on, doesn’t change its core message. Some have rights, while others are excluded. Liberals trade their freedoms for the security of the few at the top in-group.
The excluded “other” can change over time, but it is always excluded from those freedoms enjoyed by those at the top as long as there is conservatism, capitalism, liberalism, or any -ism.
I don’t know if there’s a working solution, but I know I’m anti-conservative.
The working solution is Marxism, that’s the antidote to capitalism and the ideologies that prop it up.