I feel honored to have lived during the same time period as Chomsky! Who will fill his shoes when he is gone? Chomsky is an invaluable and monumental intelligence.
TX 4 the valuable upload ! -- "From that moment on, I was no longer a liberal, a believer in the self-correcting character of Am.democracy. I was a radical, believing that something fundamental was wrong in this country ...something rotten at the root. The situation required not just a new president or new laws, but an uprooting of the old order, the introduction of a new kind of society - cooperative, peaceful, egalitarian." -- Howard Zinn "You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train" (1994)
I am not a liberal but liberalism is a great idea that i realy respect (i mean the real liberalism) and i hope that the socialists and the liberals will fight together against globalisation and for workers rights! sorry for my bad english folks.
@@Jmriccitelli What I was trying to say is: Liberalism hasn't been liberating for a long time. It may once have had a different meaning, as Chomsky explains, but its main purpose is now to back up capitalism. To hope for a joint struggle by liberals and socialists is to delude oneself. Being 'against globalisation and for workers' rights' also strikes me as reformist, if not reactionary.
I get fantastic medical care, because I'm rich and medical care is rationed by wealth. If you're rich, the system is working just right. The insurance companies, the health maintenance organizations, the pharmaceutical corporations are doing just great. Wealthy people are doing fine. If most of the population can't get decent medical care, that's not our problem. If health care costs are astronomical, too bad. NOAM CHOMSKY
liberalism in its classical era was developed in a post-feudal but pre-capitalist environment crucial distinction nobody ever told me that no professor, no text book it just clears up a lot of confusion edit: McGee is impressed with the clarity
Liberalism regards the rights of the individual and individual self-empowerment as sacrosanct. Socialism is collectivist, where society or the 'common good' is regarded as the key entity that must be protected. The terms 'liberal' and 'liberalism' aren't really interchangeable- liberal refers to a willingness to accept social change and really only exists in opposition to social conservatism.
+Tim Cokayne Wrong. A fundamental part of Marx's critique of capitalism is precisely the alienation and the loss of individuality that goes on under capitalism, while the whole point of socialism is liberation, leaving humans free to realize their potential as creative beings, their innovative urges in whatever way they will. Anarchism is particularly concerned with this. Let's drop the whole "collectivist" nonsense, please.
H Afonso, thanks for your comments. From what I understand Libertarians and The New Right take the position that Socialism (and the bureaucracy required to implement it) infringe on individual liberties. The Capitalist ideal is that everyone partakes in the marketplace and that it's shared consensus is a less hierarchical version of society than one implemented by 'social engineering' and policy. Unfortunately Nine years of government intervention and bank bailouts to fix the 'ecosystem' has highlighted the ideological flaws in the Libertarian obsession with the reduction of intervention, and ideal of the free market failed to live up to the promised goal of a 'fairer society'. Anarchism is ideologically closer to the The New Right than Marxism.
Also there's a broader discussion to be had about Capitalism's 'Hall of Mirrors' and it's negative effects on social progression. That's probably off-topic here.
***** How so? Anarchism has always been a left-wing, socialist tradition. In fact, there's a certain line to be drawn connecting what liberalism claims to be (a theory of liberty that ultimately fails to defend liberty because of its support for private property) and what anarchism is-a theory of individual liberty that supports a tyrannical form of anti-liberty, represented by private property, and can only be defended through social ownership of the means of production, guaranteeing freedom for all individuals.
You use these words comfortably enough, but you don't seem to know what they mean. Just what is it about socialism that prevents you from going "upwards"? And don't trot out tired examples from the USSR or Red China. Those countries were never socialist. They were called socialist by the U.S. in order to discredit socialism and by the Soviets in order to gain for themselves the support of oppressed working people all over the world who were invariably drawn to socialism.
Liberalism allows you to go as upwards as much as you wish, but it also lets you fall as much. Socialism protects you from falling to the bottom, but it prevents you to go upwards.
Had to laugh today about are darling channel RU-vid as it prevented me from calling somebody woke earlier..? Is it now classed as an offensive word in this world of the offended society..? FREEDOM OF SPEECH, Just watch what you say 🫶
