Just because you believe that one ideology will lead to another ideology doesn’t mean the original ideology is that, especially when the supporters explicitly reject what you believe is the inevitable result. Let me analogize it to other places where the same tactic is done: “advocating for drug decriminalization is advocating for drug abuse” “socialism is tyranny” “trans rights = drag queen story time” “housing homeless means you want more homeless”. Whether or not Y is the result of X, if the misguided supporters of X explicitly oppose Y it is wrong to call them supporters of Y.
Liberalism explicitly rejects corporatism, now you’re free to believe the corporatism consumes liberalism because say corporations buy the judges or whatever. Leading to the destruction of liberalism. My belief, is that any utopian ideology, be it liberalism, socialism, or anything else really, will experience blight. That doesn’t invalidate efforts to excise the blight, or the utopian goal in general. Liberalism is a goal, that requires work to be strived for, and can never be perfectly achieved, just like communism. And similar to communism, there’s never even really been an effort to fully enact it.
I sympathize with what you’re saying, but you have no evidence that the DNC explicitly rejects liberalism. They are an outwardly liberal party that is just as suspect to the problems of liberalism as any other liberal form would be. The consequences of liberalism are still a result of liberalism, after all. Liberalization of the economy directly led to what you call corporatism and what I see as just extended liberalism.
No, but liberalism the ideology explicitly rejects corporatism. Neither the DNC or GOP have 1 ideology, but I think it’s fair to say, every major DNC candidate at least since Gore has been corporatist.
Liberalization of the economy directly led to what you call corporatism
Maybe to some extent, but an illiberal economy still has a lot of corporatism. See Transnistria lol. And, in a perfectly liberal economy(which admittedly will never exist) there could be no corporatism, as there would be no state power for corporations to wield. In a less perfect world, a limited state, such as by strong constitution, limits the possibility of corporate abuse.
Liberalism as a practical model and liberalism as an ideology are not necessarily the same.
Letting the free market loose will absolutely result in a state, as Private Property cannot exist without a state, and as such larger Capitalists will build up a state to protect their interests.
Even if you had a limited state with a strong constitution initially, the Capitalists will absolutely abuse what power they can to build up a stronger state.
If by putting liberal policies into action results in illiberal consequences, then it’s fair to call them consequences of liberalism.
“advocating for drug decriminalization is advocating for drug abuse”
It isn’t.
“socialism is tyranny”
It isn’t.
“housing homeless means you want more homeless”
It doesn’t.
“banning abortions means you want women to suffer”
Now see, this one is actually true. The right will claim “nooo, of course nooot,” but that’s the only outcome. They don’t want child care, they don’t want welfare for parents or single moms, but they do want to ban abortions. This directly leads to parents who don’t want to be, with to much responsibility to go to college, start a career or just enjoy their time. So, whether the right likes it or not, they want women to suffer. They want everything about the suffering, just without calling it that.
The problem is not that X leads to Y. It’s that, in the other cases, X doesn’t lead to Y. If X actually does lead to Y, then X is by consequence a pro Y position.
You’re kind of ignoring my point though, whether or not Y is the consequence of X, if someone genuinely supports X and genuinely opposes Y it is malicious to call them supporters of Y whether or not Y is the result of X.
Sorry, but the DNC is textbook liberalism. What you call Corporatism is the end result of liberalism.
Sorry, but that’s a malicious tactic.
Just because you believe that one ideology will lead to another ideology doesn’t mean the original ideology is that, especially when the supporters explicitly reject what you believe is the inevitable result. Let me analogize it to other places where the same tactic is done: “advocating for drug decriminalization is advocating for drug abuse” “socialism is tyranny” “trans rights = drag queen story time” “housing homeless means you want more homeless”. Whether or not Y is the result of X, if the misguided supporters of X explicitly oppose Y it is wrong to call them supporters of Y.
Liberalism explicitly rejects corporatism, now you’re free to believe the corporatism consumes liberalism because say corporations buy the judges or whatever. Leading to the destruction of liberalism. My belief, is that any utopian ideology, be it liberalism, socialism, or anything else really, will experience blight. That doesn’t invalidate efforts to excise the blight, or the utopian goal in general. Liberalism is a goal, that requires work to be strived for, and can never be perfectly achieved, just like communism. And similar to communism, there’s never even really been an effort to fully enact it.
I sympathize with what you’re saying, but you have no evidence that the DNC explicitly rejects liberalism. They are an outwardly liberal party that is just as suspect to the problems of liberalism as any other liberal form would be. The consequences of liberalism are still a result of liberalism, after all. Liberalization of the economy directly led to what you call corporatism and what I see as just extended liberalism.
No, but liberalism the ideology explicitly rejects corporatism. Neither the DNC or GOP have 1 ideology, but I think it’s fair to say, every major DNC candidate at least since Gore has been corporatist.
Maybe to some extent, but an illiberal economy still has a lot of corporatism. See Transnistria lol. And, in a perfectly liberal economy(which admittedly will never exist) there could be no corporatism, as there would be no state power for corporations to wield. In a less perfect world, a limited state, such as by strong constitution, limits the possibility of corporate abuse.
Liberalism as a practical model and liberalism as an ideology are not necessarily the same.
Letting the free market loose will absolutely result in a state, as Private Property cannot exist without a state, and as such larger Capitalists will build up a state to protect their interests.
Even if you had a limited state with a strong constitution initially, the Capitalists will absolutely abuse what power they can to build up a stronger state.
If by putting liberal policies into action results in illiberal consequences, then it’s fair to call them consequences of liberalism.
This seems earnest, but
“advocating for drug decriminalization is advocating for drug abuse”
It isn’t.
“socialism is tyranny”
It isn’t.
“housing homeless means you want more homeless”
It doesn’t.
“banning abortions means you want women to suffer”
Now see, this one is actually true. The right will claim “nooo, of course nooot,” but that’s the only outcome. They don’t want child care, they don’t want welfare for parents or single moms, but they do want to ban abortions. This directly leads to parents who don’t want to be, with to much responsibility to go to college, start a career or just enjoy their time. So, whether the right likes it or not, they want women to suffer. They want everything about the suffering, just without calling it that.
The problem is not that X leads to Y. It’s that, in the other cases, X doesn’t lead to Y. If X actually does lead to Y, then X is by consequence a pro Y position.
But if it doesn’t, it isn’t.
You’re kind of ignoring my point though, whether or not Y is the consequence of X, if someone genuinely supports X and genuinely opposes Y it is malicious to call them supporters of Y whether or not Y is the result of X.