The current state of liberalism : a socialist perspective

[entanglement]

I've always wondered Why aren't people turning left / liberal in droves? Does this indicate deficiencies in liberalism?

Conventional wisdom has it that the corporate media is to blame or that most people are too busy trying to get by to pay too much attention or that liberals somehow come off as 'elitist' to the masses. The injection of venom / disinformation by the RW media explains (to a limited extent) the sluggish numerical growth of liberals, but is that all there is to the matter?

I contend that the real problem is that liberalism faces a crisis, the reasons for which are only partly extrinsic to it.

One extrinsic factor is that there is something inherently right-wing about the American national character. Before you get offended, consider this: In the past, even the tiniest step toward a freer, fairer and more equitable society was opposed vehemently with almost no exceptions Be it the abolition of slavery, labor rights or civil rights, there were enormous opposing forces that prevented or delayed progress for decades. The mere fact that some of these 'battles' were won should not blind anyone to the fact that the opposing forces never disappeared completely; they simply lay dormant and re-emerged in the 1990s. In a nutshell: There will never be as many liberals as you desire and you will have your hands full fighting those who aren't

This fact is accepted (by many) to some extent: It is not uncommon to hear about the "hard-right 30 percent being unreachable" or something similar. However, this is not the whole story. The intrinsic factors I list below are not discussed very often or given much thought.

The strong ideological framework of classical leftist thinking has been completely abandoned by modern liberals. In the absence of such a framework, what appears is a confused mass of supposedly 'liberal' ideas without support or an underlying scientific basis. Good intentions and gut-feeling sustain liberalism today, not critical analysis. This has led to pop-liberalism and faux-liberalism, of which the latter is far more insidious. The confusions and contradictions that arise because of faux-liberalism are conveniently explained away as a "big-tent" effect. Anyone who followed the immigration debate closely here on DU would remember the immense chasm separating the opposing factions. Reactionary drivel like a call to "round up and deport every last 'alien'" was somehow passed off as 'liberal'. Only to be expected, given the (current) weak ideological structure of liberalism. Liberalism should not hesitate to adopt a strong socialist framework to become a viable, practical alternative to the status quo

The lack of principled opposition has serious consequences. There is opposition, and plenty of it, but much of it is based almost entirely on self-interest or perceived self-interest. "The price of gas has been going up since 2001, it's time to get someone else in power... " kind of opposition inspires very little confidence, because it suggests that people with such views don't really care about wars of aggression abroad as long as THEY don't suffer in any way. Unprincipled opposition leads to the tweedledum - tweedledee effect: essentially interchangeable groups of leaders / ruling elites whose policies differ very little, are essentially hostile to the working class and are mistakenly considered by many people to provide a real alternative when they vote one in and the other out. I predict that "hold your nose and vote" situations will become MORE, not less common, if principled opposition does not develop. Worse, even the minimal opposition that you see today will wither and vanish over time.

In short, the current state of liberalism is far from healthy. The problem of attracting new 'converts' to the fold is merely a symptom of the malaise.

I look forward to your comments.

entanglement

[EstimatedProphet]

1. Interesting comments!

I'd have to say I agree with almost everything you said. I think liberalism's biggest problem is that it has become Urbanism, and many of the tenets are more about feeling good for people in the big cities than about real-world practical solutions.

[leftofthedial]

2. the capitalist elitists spent an entire generation

and trillions of dollars waging a disinformation campaign (the "Cold War") that has so poisoned the word "socialism" in the American consciousness, that no true liberal ideology is viable.

[Jackpine Radical]

5. I think that's pretty close to the mark.

To label an idea as "socialist" is pretty much to shut down debate on it. That's how they killed single-payer health care ("Socialized medicine,") it's how they're going after Social Security, it's how they prevent any controls on corporate power & greed, etc. It's the Poison Word.

The huge myth, the huge lie, is that the "Gubbmint" can't do anything right. Wanna get a guaranteed snicker out of any redneck in the country? Go up to him & say, "I'm fum da Gubbmint & I'm here to help you."

Everybody believes that Medicare is screwed up, that Social Security is screwed up. And both programs are incredibly efficient and effective. Medicare, for example, runs on a 2% margin (paying out 98% of what it takes in for actual health care), while the most efficient insurance companies have at least 15-20% overhead, and most are much worse. Likewise, the Cons make SocSec look bad by tricks such as comparing it to retirement plans that don't provide anything like the same benefits--no disability insurance, for example.

[leftofthedial]

7. by demonizing "social-",

they gutted liberalism, which, as the OP points out, is rooted in the same core values as socialism

and they've gutted the labor movement, which is inherently socialistic

and they've thwarted any effort to modernize the American health care system, leaving tens of millions at the mercy of disease


meanwhile, they have mercilessly waged class warfare against workers and bourgeoise alike (that the poor have suffered goes without saying)

I fear that it is now too late to stave off another long, dark age

[Jackpine Radical]

13. Communitarianism--to avoid the "S"-word for a minute--

goes into ascendency whenever the ruling classes (whether monarchs or capitalists) go over the edge in their greed and rapacity and push the masses too far into the dirt. I think those times are returning--which probably explains why the fascists are instinctively doing what they can to kill off the intelligentsia, from whose ranks the leaders of the revolution have traditionally arisen.

[leftofthedial]

16. isn't monarchy

effectively just the pre-corporate-era capitalist end game?

get rich enough and you (and all your descendants) get to be king?

[Jackpine Radical]

20. Maybe the post-corporate endgame as well.

Only time will tell.

Although I think the end-state of corporate capitalism may be the destruction of the host (i.e. the planet).
Not too hard to make a comparison between psychopathic corporations & cancers.

[leftofthedial]

21. hear hear!

it's amazing how groups of humans will enthusiastically do horrific things that they'd never do alone.

Corporations are psychopathic.

[entanglement]

11. I agree. Our culture of judging things by their labels rather than

the contents means that the only real remedy is shunned as poison.

[IChing]

3. I agree that a strong socialist framework must be enacted in order

to battle what is happening in a dialectic argument to oppose the neo-con corporatist mentality.
We have witness this occurring in Mexico, Venezuela, Argentina, Chile, Spain, Italy and other nations.

However here people are like a live lobster put into an increasingly warming to boiling pot and will only realize it when they ready to be eaten.

[riderinthestorm]

4. Corporatism has corrupted our democracy

And the military industrial complex powered by entities like BFEE have undermined both sides.

I would posit that both conservatism and liberalism are "weak" structurally which is why the PNACers and the RR were able (allowed to?) wrest so much control of our political discourse.

[originalpckelly]

6. I think you're right, but I also don't think that socialism is the...

solution, it is the problem. Real liberalism is what today is termed "libertarianism" (a bullshit term made up so that so-called "conservatives" could feel safe with wanting someone to control their own destiny.)

America is a liberal democracy. Liberalism is the ability of one to control their destiny, the idea that no one else for arbitrary cultural or other reasons can determine your future (this is another term for tyranny.) In turn you are not able to control someone else's destiny because of arbitrary cultural/other reasons.

That is it.

Socialism in its most benign form, if there is such a thing, focuses on the importance of society and seeks to integrate society and government into a single power structure.

When one centralizes power it becomes more likely that one or a few people will control your destiny for arbitrary cultural/other reasons. This is in fact what happens in communist countries, which are extreme forms of the socialist ideology.

America is a society of individuals, not a society. We are therefore (when true to our roots) a liberal nation.

In the last century/(end of nineteenth century) liberalism became associated with socialism, mainly because of the efforts of people like President Roosevelt. He was not a liberal in any sense of the word, and in fact not many Democrats have been true liberals as President. I think fmr. President Clinton (and this is a recent thought as you can look at my post history) is a real liberal.

I am still somewhat young and formulating my own personal vision of liberalism, but I guarantee you it is not anything like socialism.

Though of course I know that you mean well. All of the American Socialists mean well. That is more than I can say for the American Fascists in the Republican Party (and they are full on fascists these days.)

PS: I don't have time to debate this now, but I'll bookmark the thread to see if anyone got pissed off (as I suspect you will. I can explain, honest :-) )

[entanglement]

9. Well, all is not lost

Socialism is often mistaken for Stalinism or Maoism, which it isn't. Authoritarians are of one stripe everywhere, be they fascist or Stalinist. I'm very sure that the image of 'socialism' in your mind is a caricature far removed from reality. Anyhow, more on that later.

PS: It is always an uphill battle to inform people about socialism, so I'm not pissed :)

[IChing]

8. A good author with crediablity to read is Richard Moore

Plus the links I gave.
I nominated your thread by the way.


http://escapingthematrix.org /


“Richard Moore’s Escaping the Matrix is one of the most exciting books of ideas I’ve read in many years. I couldn’t put it down until I’d finished. He goes to the root cause of the cancer that is destroying life on our planet today. He does so with a simplicity that is deceptive and an argumentation accessible to anyone of a right mind. His proposals for escaping the Matrix are equally simple and at the same time profound. This is a book that needs to be widely read and debated.”
—F William Engdahl, author, A Century of War, Pluto Press.

“A brilliant historical expose of democracy as a smokescreen for continuing elite rule, followed by the most sensible ways to create it nevertheless. Couldn't be more timely or important.”
—Elisabet Sahtouris, author, EarthDance: Living Systems in Evolution

“Richard is both a gifted writer and wise seer. In Escaping the Matrix, he helps us really take the red pill and examine the awful tragedy of our current world situation. More importantly, he then shows us an exciting path we can actually take to create a world that works for everyone.”
—Jim Rough, author of Society’s Breakthrough

Richard K. Moore fell down the rabbit hole less than fifteen years ago. His Silicon Valley position allowed him to host one of the oldest online discussion community groups at http://www.Cyberjournal.org . The deterioration of the political system in the U.S. drove him to Ireland, but he continues to write, visit, and learn from the growing opposition to what he calls "The Matrix," that fabricated reality sold to Americans by the corporate press and politicians which has little correlation to the physical reality of those who bear the brunt of U.S and corporate policies.


http://www.amazon.com/Escaping-Matrix-People-change-wor...

[entanglement]

10. Thanks for the link, I'll take a look at it

:)

[spag68]

12. socialism

Having read all the comments, I have to conclude that nobody has heard of Sweden or Finland ar any of the other country's nearby. All have socialism in one form or another and they seem to be doing OK>

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. They are social democracies, but I wouldn't say they're socialist

How many nationalised industries do they have? They may have socially-owned health and care systems, and education, but the means of production are still owned by for-profit companies.

[loyalsister]

14. I agree to a point

I would argue that people are not necessarily inherently conservative across the board, but have been talked into it by "leadership."
I don't go as far as Nader so as to say that there is "no difference," but I do recognize that there is a profound corporate influence in the Democratic party. Not many of the prominant recognized leaders have been free of such influence. Your post fits with some of my recent reading.....
All men are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality. Martin Luther King Jr.

In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends. Martin Luther King Jr.

A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus. Martin Luther King, Jr.

When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. Martin Luther King Jr.

[EFerrari]

15. small point: how do you measure who is turning left when

the media is rightwing and our national elections are rigged? :)

[Greyhound]

17. #5 and I'll be back tomorrow.

:kick:

[orwell]

19. Liberalism...

...has nothing to do with either socialism or capitalism. The latter two are methods of social/economic organization. Liberalism starts as a personal ethical philosophy.

I agree with originalpckelly's interpretation more than yours with one caveat. I don't see socialism and liberalism as being inherently antithetical nor is liberalism and properly regulated capitalism.

I define the central tenets of liberalism to be individual liberty and justice, nothing more or less. To put it in terms that most could understand, my liberty is bound by your liberty. The freedom to throw your fist ends before it hits my nose. This framework postulates that you anyone can operate freely within the limits of other's freedoms. You have a right to run a business, but not a right to pollute our air. You have a right to start a power company to deliver electricity, but the state, operating as a separate social actor, has that right as well. There is nothing inherently wrong with the state acting as a free social participant, contrary to libertarian social organization schemes. In fact, certain infrastructures are probably best manged by the state for reasons of strategic economic organization. Water, power, major transportation infrastructure almost certainly fall into this category. Healthcare might as well.

Liberalism should be re-branded to it's core tenets, liberty tempered by justice. This clear statement, rather than a set of individual policy positions driven by special interests, would do much to identify liberalism with the founding documents of this country.

At it's heart, conservatism is authoritarianism, liberalism is freedom.

Thanks for your thought provoking post.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

22. I see what you are referring to all the time, especially when posters

seem to think that it's all a matter of personalities rather than systems.

For example, when people say things like, "This would never have happened with Gore/Kerry in office," don't be so sure. A President Gore or President Kerry would still have to deal with the massive power of the corporate elite, who fight with every legal and illegal means to make sure that their privileges are not compromised.

Remember that Welfare "Reform" (push people out of the safety net into jobs that leave them worse off) and NAFTA (freedom for goods and jobs, but not people, to cross borders) were both enacted under Clinton's watch and that his health care proposals, with their "managed care" and reliance on HMOs would have ended up pretty much in the same place we are today.

The Republicanites in office beginning with the Reagan administration have been hard-right revolultionaries, carrying out a revolution in favor of the wealthy classes and the modern-day Pharisees. It is important to remember that. The Republicans have been shameless and ruthless at every turn. They don't even pretend to be reasonable anymore.

Even if the Democrats take back both houses of Congress and the White House, the damage that the Republicanites have done is so far-reaching and so severe that the typical "mainstream" Democratic modus operandi of tinkering around the edges to make existing institutions kinder and gentler will not be enough and will only push the electorate into further apathy.

If the Democratic party is not to fritter itself away on piecemeal programs, it needs to come together, put together a bold, sweeping platform written in non-wonkish language (something a middle school student could understand), and support only candidates who promise to promote that platform. And none of this DLC nonsense about making video game ratings a major point of the platform. Let's leave personal behavior issues where they belong, with the individual and the family.

If the Democratic party is to save this country, it needs to move sharply away from business as usual, renouncing interventionism except in a short list of clearly defined circumstances (and with a new rule that a vote for war will lead to Congressional and administration family members being drafted first) cutting ties to the military-industrial complex, destroying the prison-industrial complex by treating drug addiction as a medical and sociological problem instead of a criminal problem, destroying the insurance-industrial complex by instituting single-payer health care, showing a preferential option for U.S.-based businesses that hire within this country, showing a preferential option for family farms that practice humane and environmentally responsible agriculture, providing blue collar people with living-wage jobs by repairing our country's infrastructure and building affordable housing in every community, funding transit systems and an up-to-date intercity rail system, and otherwise encouraging a transition away from petroleum.

Such a program would bring about real improvements in ordinary people's lives, just as FDR's New Deal did. I believe that the behavioral issues would fade away, because their current prominence is a reflection of people who feel that their lives are out of control trying to gain control of something.

If the Democratic party just says, "Oh, we'll keep pretending that sending troops all over the world is the same as 'defending freedom' and we'll solve the health care crisis by subsidizing people's purchases of conventional insurance and we'll pretend that hydrogen cars are a panacea," and other mealy-mouthed positions, they will soon dwindle into irrelevance.

[entanglement]

23. "Systems, not personalities" is succinct and accurate

thank you