GoodMerlinpeen t1_iwl5jen wrote
Reply to comment by Humane-Human in Minor party candidate who called for Daniel Andrews to be hanged preferenced ahead of Labor by Liberals by Jeremy_Gorbachov
>no, they aren't classical liberals
What are the characteristics of classical liberals in your view?
gregorydgraham t1_iwl9o7w wrote
Classical liberal are the party of merchants, entrepreneurs, and the nouveau riche. They believe in free trade and freedom of labour (to move to their factory). They’re against workers rights, subsidies (right up until they need them), and entrenched aristocracy.
Classical conservatives are the party of landowners, established monopolies, and old money. They believe everything is just perfect and will enact miserly changes only when forced to.
Classical Labour/socialist are the party of the little guy. They believe in freedom of trade, freedom of labour, and freedom of movement. They’re against the other 2.
Believe it or not, none of these exist any more. All we have now is Neoliberals, Reactionaries, and closet neoliberals. And the Greens, I suppose
vacri t1_iwn45x6 wrote
>Classical Labour/socialist are the party of the little guy. They believe in freedom of trade, freedom of labour, and freedom of movement
???
That wing of politics is much more for protectionism than freedom of trade. Socialism in particular is big on controlling trade.
Freedom of labour and movement is also a weird one, as they're not really up for freedom of labour and movement if it's the wrong kind of person. And certainly in practice, history's socialist countries have been quite strict on freedom of movement even for the favoured people
gregorydgraham t1_iwn6a3j wrote
Traditional Marxism sees international borders as yet another way to oppress the little guy. Modern labour parties are covered in paragraph 4
vacri t1_iwnlxz7 wrote
When you say "All we have now is", you're implying that in the real world we used to have significant political parties that followed your definitions.
gregorydgraham t1_iwoeiw7 wrote
Fairly certain I explicitly said we used to have parties like that. My apologies if it was only implied.
vacri t1_iwp425n wrote
Sorry, you're right, you did explicitly say that. I stand corrected.
Who were the real-world significant political parties that had abolition of the concept of nations as a core part of their platform?
gregorydgraham t1_iwpb6p0 wrote
Well the Bolshevik’s for a starter.
vacri t1_iwpq4wn wrote
... and what a borderless, free-trade nation they created once they took power!
zipsam89 t1_iwn0zby wrote
That is absolutely not what classical Labour or socialists are.
Especially not freedom of trade.
HouseHusband1 t1_iwljk7r wrote
Classical liberalism means low government oversight, as in "being liberated". Basically libertarian. This results in private citizens mistreating other private citizens with little legal recourse.
Colloquial liberalism means social inclusion, as in "accepting ideas other than your own." So welfare programs, corporate regulations, and inclusion of all demographics.
socialcommentary2000 t1_iwlmgco wrote
Yeah it's basically "Pay no attention to the fash unless it's hurting my avarice and then, only pay attention to an extent that it doesn't inconvenience me (and not cost me any money.)"
[deleted] t1_iwm9b56 wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments