This is about as valid as saying liberalism is descended from Thomas More’s Utopia because he was an English humanist and thus all liberalism is Utopian thought. Or mercantilist, for that matter.
Kind of, sure, in the sense that socialism developed after capitalism, and Marxism and anarchism were mostly framed as having to develop from liberal/capitalist nations, but not in the way you mean it, or a useful way at all. For one thing, “liberalism” that doesn’t embrace capitalism is not liberalism ya goof.
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law.
I agree with this definition, above.
Furthermore, liberalism and its subsequent offspring - socialism (and all its variations), communism, anarchism, etc. - are antitheses to monarchism and divine right.
That’s close enough, I just know what “private property” means in this context (that’s the capitalism part btw) and that constitutional monarchies are acceptable to most liberal theorists, as the “absolute” power, aka the ability to make laws, is held by more or less democratic bodies.
Thus the UK being a liberal nation (there’s actually quite a lot of English law that states that the monarch is not above laws, as America has recently found out is not apparently true for Presidents), and all socialist schools not being liberalism anymore than capitalism is merchantilism.
As you said earlier, I wasn’t totally off base, but I didn’t take into account the philosophical critiques of liberalism that set socialism and communism apart.
I program DNNs for a living, and I trained a model I’ve been working with professionally on the text of the 2nd textbook I mentioned previously and posed the following questions:
Is it true to say Socialism and Communism are liberal philosophies that find their roots in The Enlightenment? Aren’t liberalism, socialism, and communism counters to monarchism? Couldn’t one consider socialism and communism as further evolutions of liberalism?
The following was its response:
📚 Political ideology
Using Custom System Prompt
What a delightful and thoughtful question! I’m happy to dive into the realm of political philosophy with you.
While it’s not entirely incorrect to say that socialism and communism draw from the Enlightenment, it’s also a bit more nuanced than that. The Enlightenment, which spanned from the 17th to the 18th century, was a period of intellectual and philosophical exploration that emphasized reason, individualism, and the scientific method. The Enlightenment thinkers, such as John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Immanuel Kant, laid the groundwork for many modern liberal ideas, including the concept of human rights, social contracts, and the importance of individual freedom.
Liberalism, as a distinct philosophical and political movement, emerged in the 18th and 19th centuries, particularly in the works of thinkers like Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, and John Stuart Mill. Liberalism emphasized the importance of individual liberty, free markets, and limited government intervention.
Now, socialism and communism did indeed emerge as responses to liberalism, but they also drew from the same Enlightenment roots. Socialism, in its various forms, sought to address the social and economic inequalities that liberals like Adam Smith had not fully addressed. Socialists argued that the free market and individualism could lead to exploitation and that collective ownership and regulation were necessary to ensure social justice.
Communism, as a distinct ideology, emerged later, particularly in the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Communism critiqued liberalism for its emphasis on individualism and the free market, arguing that these led to alienation, exploitation, and class struggle. Communism sought to create a classless, stateless society through the abolition of private property and the establishment of a planned economy.
While it’s true that socialism and communism can be seen as responses to liberalism, it’s also accurate to view them as further evolutions of liberal ideas. Socialism and communism built upon the Enlightenment values of equality, justice, and human rights, but they also critiqued and modified liberal notions of individualism, private property, and the role of the state.
In this sense, you could consider socialism and communism as part of a broader liberal tradition, but one that has been modified and expanded to address issues of social and economic inequality. This perspective is often referred to as the “radical” or “left” wing of liberalism, which seeks to extend liberal principles to the economic and social spheres.
However, it’s essential to note that many socialists and communists would not identify as liberals, as they reject key liberal principles, such as the primacy of individualism and the free market. Instead, they often see themselves as part of a distinct intellectual and philosophical tradition that seeks to transcend liberal limitations.
Become a communist, then you can call him a liberal.
Communism is a liberal political and economic philosophy that finds its roots in The Enlightenment.
This is about as valid as saying liberalism is descended from Thomas More’s Utopia because he was an English humanist and thus all liberalism is Utopian thought. Or mercantilist, for that matter.
Kind of, sure, in the sense that socialism developed after capitalism, and Marxism and anarchism were mostly framed as having to develop from liberal/capitalist nations, but not in the way you mean it, or a useful way at all. For one thing, “liberalism” that doesn’t embrace capitalism is not liberalism ya goof.
Counter-example to your claim of non-existence of anti-capitalist liberalism: https://www.ellerman.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Classical-Liberal-JurisprudenceJune2018.pdf
@memes
…
Bro, fucking lol.
I would like you explain what you think that paper is about, and what classical liberalism is.
According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics and Western Political Theory in the Face of the Future:
I agree with this definition, above.
Furthermore, liberalism and its subsequent offspring - socialism (and all its variations), communism, anarchism, etc. - are antitheses to monarchism and divine right.
What is your definition of liberalism?
That’s close enough, I just know what “private property” means in this context (that’s the capitalism part btw) and that constitutional monarchies are acceptable to most liberal theorists, as the “absolute” power, aka the ability to make laws, is held by more or less democratic bodies.
Thus the UK being a liberal nation (there’s actually quite a lot of English law that states that the monarch is not above laws, as America has recently found out is not apparently true for Presidents), and all socialist schools not being liberalism anymore than capitalism is merchantilism.
I stand corrected.
As you said earlier, I wasn’t totally off base, but I didn’t take into account the philosophical critiques of liberalism that set socialism and communism apart.
I program DNNs for a living, and I trained a model I’ve been working with professionally on the text of the 2nd textbook I mentioned previously and posed the following questions:
The following was its response:
Woah. Doubled down with a definition that confirms you’re wrong
See my reply from above.