New answers tagged

0

It's historical usage giving a present-day meaning. During the Cold War, countries taken over by or siding with the Soviet Bloc were "Communist". It's the same as how non-free dictatorships friendly to the US were part of the "Free World". China was on the USSR's side, so was "Communist". But more than that, China's post-WWII ...


1

Basically, as user 'eps' nicely found, a decent description of China's government (as given by the CIA) is "Government type: communist party-led state". Note that "communist" here is an attribute of the party. For reasons that were e.g. discussed in this history SE Q&A, having to do with socialism (theoretically) being a milestone ...


11

Why should we not? They call themselves that. And, Communism, whatever its theoretical intents, has to date resulted in governments that behave exactly that way. At some point, something becomes defined by how it actually works, rather than how it says it works. So, for better or worse, 100 years of Communist governments since the October Revolution has ...


19

As I explained in a previous post, pre-1980s China was socialist/lower-stage communist. Karl Marx believed that one method for true communism is socialism or the lower stage of communism to achieve the final stage of communism. In his work Critique of the Gotha Program, Karl Marx mentions the dictatorship of the proletariat, a form of the state where members ...


25

Who's the "we" that refers to China as Communist? As far as I can tell, there are basically two sorts of people that continued to refer to it as Communist after the reforms of Deng Xiaoping:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deng_Xiaoping These are The ignorant. This includes certain US right-wing sorts who haven't abandoned the use of it as a ...


0

Trotsky believed that for Marxist revolution to succeed, it had to ignite similar movements globally. Stalin believed contrariwise. But then his main aim was not the emancipation of humanity from under the iron heel of capitalist imperialism but to win the power struggle as to who should be the heir to Marxism-Leninism and lead the Soviet Union. This he did ...


27

I don't know that there is one which functions. Bad actors will try to game every system and must be opposed else they will take over. Passively by setting up the system to resist gaming and ensuring incentives are encouraging the desired behavior. Actively by having people make judgement calls, nudge actors in the right direction, and tweaking the system as ...


-1

It depends. If you're talking about original-flavor liberalism, then yes — it's widely acknowledged that it's not just a moral necessity to allow even mistaken and dangerous opinions a voice; it's also the only path to progress. You can't cast a light to illuminate the shadows if you lock them away behind closed doors. Liberty is meaningless where the right ...


69

The counter-theory is the free market of ideas. Basically, despicable beliefs will struggle to gain popularity when forced to compete for attention fairly against moderate beliefs. By suppressing people for their beliefs, you don't disprove them, you just show that you fear them. It is easy for proponents of those beliefs to say that you fear them because ...


2

The answer to this question (since it seems it won't be clarified any further) is simply that there's no such thing known as "pure liberalism", in most people's conception anyway. Yeah, this is a bit of a "no true Scotsman" answer, but it's a fact of life that liberalism is a somewhat nebulous concept. In (political) philosophy, a ...


5

My question is, does pure liberalism extend personal freedoms of speech to ideals [...]? No. Ideals, i.e. abstract concepts, don't have rights. Humans have rights. I just wanted to point this out, because even if it seems like a trivial mistake in your question, I have seen this quite often before. It's completely legitimate to wage war on an ideal, it's ...


0

Yes, it does. Simply put, yes, the so-called "paradox" of liberalism requiring it to allow people to propose illiberal ideas is a fundamental part of its makeup. Without it, you will inevitably drift into an illiberal tyranny, either on the Right or the Left, depending on who you censor for being "illiberal" - either censoring the Right ...


2

The support for LGBTQ rights originally came from the left, rather than the right and so it's a surprise to see it so firmly entrenched that an attack on it is said to come from the left. Toppling statues are an example of of non-violent direct actions that certain advocacy groups have been known for, such as Greenpeace or more recently, XR Rebellion. ...


14

In essence, these ideas are being rejected from mainstream liberal society without good faith argument That is the key though: these ideas are not presented in good faith, so they cannot be debated in good faith. The axiom of the liberal political system is that collecting all ideas and debating them leads to the best outcome, basically "it's best if ...


84

This is The Paradox of Tolerance, as mentioned in the comments, and it is a debated grey area. Let's use your three examples, and let's observe that these all happened in the US. This constrains their utility as examples of liberalism, but the concrete examples are useful. Free Speech and Tolerance means you will not be punished for your ideas within limits, ...


20

The original conception of Liberalism as set out in the 17th and 18th centuries — this is usually referred to as Classical Liberalism — was primarily about the relationship between government and property. People who gathered and developed materials from the natural world, as the theory goes, had a natural right to the fruits of that effort. Locke's way of ...


Top 50 recent answers are included