okay i still don't get it. how does socialism appeal to liberals ? there's nothing "liberating" about socialism, right ? and how does capitalism appeal to the conservatives more ? can someone redpill me on this ?
they don't
liberalism and socialism are two different things, it's just americans who use the word liberal to describe leftists
>>73171425
liberals are adolescent, dependent
conservatives are more mature, more independent
liberals afraid of failure or being called failures
conservatives take risks without such fears
that's basically it
>>73171633
so when we see a conservative that complains about degeneracy and homosexuality, we can assume that he's a socialist ?
>>73171789
but if you want to keep things are they are in the past, how is it not different to Islam ? society is always progressing, we will always find and discover new truth about life. if we keep on being what we were, it's what hold us back from being better and better and stronger.
>>73172017
Because our past is glorious and prosperous while their past is just thousands of years of savagery
Liberalism is an extension of capitalism. Liberals take from capitalism the idea that capitalism "libertarian" in the social sphere because money does not care about race, religion, gender, etc. However, on the fiscal side, liberals tend to be more "authoritarian" because they feel that the free-market is too dangerous, because, while money does not care about race, religion, gender, etc., in the hands of some greedy people, it can lead to monopolies which in itself is antithetical to freedom. To liberals, capitalism is both liberating and dangerous.
Conservatism is also an extension of capitalism, but what conservatives take from capitalism is the opposite of what liberals do: where liberals are "fiscally authoritarian" and "socially libertarian", conservatives are "fiscally libertarian" and "socially authoritarian". That is, they are more concerned about controlling the personal lives of people when it comes to religion, race (re: immigration, e.g.), and gender, but they are more libertarian when it comes to the fiscal side of issues (and thus oppose taxation, desire a freer market, etc.)
Now, taken that both liberalism and conservatism are both extensions of capitalism, *neither* are socialist. So, no, democrats and liberals are *not* socialists, for, if they were, that would imply that capitalism itself is socialist, which it is not. (That being said, America is not a socialist nor a capitalist nation, but a mixed-economy nation, and has been pretty much since inception since an absolute free market is impossible, as all free markets lead to either monopolism or unionism.)
However, due to the fact that the economic centralism of socialism is diametrically opposed to the chaos of the free market, and that liberals tend to be authoritarian on the fiscal side of things, socialism is more appealing to liberals than to conservatives, who tend to be more in favor of a freer-market.
On the other hand, conservatives are closer to fascists...
>>73172308
Islam had its goldenrod age around 900 C.E.-1200 C.E. Those years weren't full of savagery. Unfortunately the Muslims today are not as enlightened as the ones in the past.
Liberalism is a hijacked word taken by a bunch of socialists to conseal the fact that they are secretly commies.
Sort of like how Jews take Gentile names.
>>73173783
It was most likely not the Islam, but the places that they conquered, like Persia who haven't been assimilated into the savagery of Islam yet.
>>73174759
Wow. You really don't know much about economics, history, or anything, really. A simple look into history would show you that liberalism, socialism, and communism are all distinct movements. Educate thyself.
Meek and obedient you follow the leader down well trodden corridors into the valley of steeeeeeeeeeeel
What a surprise! A look of terminal shock in your eyes! Now things are really what they seem.
No, this is no bad dream.
>>73171865
He might be a communist.
>>73171425
Liberalism and socialism and two very, very, very different things, my friend. It finds its sources in authors such as Kant (men are rational being and can decide for themselves) or Hobbes (men have fundamental rights) or Mill (contract between men because they are benevolent). It also defined itself against the Ancient Regime's absolutism.
>>73173587
liberalism is everything but an extension of capitalism. What you're talking about may be neo-liberalism (Hayek; society of the Mount-Pellerin). See above for liberalism.
It could even be considered to be the contrary.See Karl Polani's bibliograpgy; Inclosure Actes in England; Hirschmann's valorisation of passions.
Conservatism is everything but an extension of capitalism. It emerged in the beginning of the 19th century in reaction to the French Revolution and the so-called decadence it brought. Their main argument is an appeal to the past, to religion and the existence of a course of things. They reject individualism, which is the core or liberalism.
Fascism can be considered a branch of conservatism along traditionalism.
However, they still aren't socialists of course. But this is absolutely not a way to prove it.
Gee, it's like some random fatass anime watchers on an obscure board on 4chan don't even know whzt they're talking about.
>>73177081
>>73171425
PS: If my explanations are still not satisfying and you don't understand that "how does socialism appeal to liberals" makes ZERO sense, maybe you're not using the correct words.
>>73177081
These are accurate descriptions of the European meanings of conservatism and liberalism. American conservatism and liberalism are different, since the American political spectrum is much narrower than Europe's and the terms have shifted their meanings.
In the US, American conservatism promotes individual liberty and a limited role of government. Part of that is the right to keep your own property and the belief that the government shouldn't be the corrector of "cosmic injustices" through taxation and bureaucracy. Capitalism is hand in glove with this since it's an economic system that lets you keep what you earn, and make economic decisions freely.
American liberalism or progessivism rejects the individual as the unit of society and is concerned with the collective. It seeks to create "equality" and justice by dividing earnings and changing legal status in order to create an equality of outcome.
>>73177835
Christ, americans and their particularism. I can't even talk about distance or measure to a burger, and now i can't talk about plitics either, because they never know the correct definition of big words even since the very first generation. They literally use the antonyms (liberalism rejects individualism, KEK!)
This is a nice explanation though. I'm keeping this abstract for possible ulterior needs. thanks.
>>73178329
It's a product of both history and political structure, my French friend. The classic definition of "liberal" applies to almost all Americans, since both American conservativism and progressivism are "liberal" ideologies, just one farther down the individual liberty road than the other. There is no relevant ideology in the states that represents fascism, marxism, or what Europeans would call conservatism. Basically, it's just to what degree you are for personal freedom - some people draw the line at socialized medicine, some draw it at education, some draw it at national defense, etc.
This is because our constitution and the election system force political parties to be as large as possible in order to win seats in congress or win the electoral votes for the presidency. In much of Europe, if you win a 2% slice of the popular vote you may be entitled to a seat or two in parliament, which creates a very diverse collection of voices and parties that have to make coalitions. In the states, most elections are first past the post (FPTP), meaning whichever candidate gets 51% of the vote, also gets 100% of the delegates or the seat in congress. If want to govern, you have no choice but to appeal to a majority and therefore have to be pretty centrist. That's why all the jokes about our two parties being different flavors of vanilla make sense - John Jackson and Jack Johnson. Go too far to one side or the other, and you lose the center and therefore your representation in government.
>>73179186
A lot of things makes sense now. Thanks.
What a shitty political system, though. Not that I didn't know about it, but reminding it to me never fails to amaze me. Does anybody ever call for a change in the electoral rules?
>>73171425
Number one rule of US politics: liberal is a misnomer
The framers of the constitution were liberals. Today there are few liberals
>>73179483
It's dangerous to call for a change because there are too many traitors among us. It was not long ago that they killed off a Supreme Court Justice just to try to change things.
>>73179483
Sometimes, yes. The US Constitution is the oldest living democratic constitution (that I'm aware of), and as the first of its kind has some problems in it its writers didn't think of. It's a prototype.
Al lot of the electoral weirdness stems form the fact that when it was written, the government was intended to be elected by only a slice of the population: land-owning white males. Over time this has changed to include every person over 18.
The rest of the weirdness comes from the fact that the architects didn't anticipate the rise of political parties in the United States. Washington didn't have a party. In fact, several of the founders thought political parties would be very bad for the Republic. Unfortunately for them, the mechanics of elections they put in place pretty much guaranteed parties would come about. Adams, the second president, was a Federalist and Jefferson, the third, was a Democratic-Republican. From that point on there has always been a two-party system in the US.
If I had my way, we'd go back to a representational republic where only people who paid taxes could vote. I don't think popular straight democratic elections work very well over time, since it creates leaders only concerned with sort term elections instead of long-term prosperity.
they hear the term "taxes on rich" but it only actually hurts small business
>>73180174
I was going to say that thinking parties would not develop was extremely stupid and a strong sign of incompetence, but as you said, at the time a thing such as representative democracy just didn't exist.
I don't know if you have some basic knowledge about constitutional law, but is it possible to change the Constitution? And how easy?
In France we make some minor changes pretty much every 6-7 years, when it's necessary because the country change, or because we have to ratify a European treaty.
American liberals don't love liberty.
I have no fucking idea how the fuck did they name leftist views "liberal".
>>73180585
It's easier to change the Constitution by international treaty without proper ratification than by amendment these days. It's not easy, which is why they always try to circumvent the process.
"The illegal, we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes longer."
-Henry Kissinger
>>73180585
We can amend the constitution, which we have done 22 times since the document was written into law. There are 32 ammendments, but the first 10 - the "Bill of Rights" - were passed with the constitution.
We don't change it very often because the process of amending is VERY difficult. To change the constitution, you must:
1) either get 2/3 of both houses of congress to pass it, or 34 of the 50 states
then
2) be ratified by 34 of the 50 states through conventions.
It takes a lot of people agreeing with something, and agreeing with it strongly enough to commit to the legal proceedings to pass an amendment, which is why it happens so rarely. In a way this is bad, since we have trouble fixing annoying things, but in a way it's good, since it means our legal system is very stable and moves only with the broad consent of the entire society.
>>73180857
Kissinger is pretty based.
Diplomaty doesn't include the new historiography of international relations, though.
>>73181116
the broad consent of the entire society which can be produced (or destroyed) out of nothing. Or, at the very least, can be produced very easily.
Thanks for all the explanations. These didn't fall on deaf ears.
>>73181455
>the new historiography of international relations
explain this for the dumbtards
>>73171425
>pooland
>>73171633
> liberalism and socialism are two different things
Common mistake.
Both have disdain for tradition
Both have appeal to materialism
Both potentialize the class struggle
>>73181455
Anything for our Yorktown allies
>>73181654
The opening of russian archives after the collapse of USSR led to a new interpretation of historical events, especially (at least that's the part I studied) during the 19th century. That's one of the main factors.
2 main things that lead to a sometimes wrong interpretation of history:
-hindsight bia (if it happened, it was bound to happen and the guy had it all planned; it was easily predictable)
-political bia (you don't know how far the aversion of France for Germany and Germany for France goes after 1870)
The new historiography struggle against these things to re-interpret things
Today, we know, that's the main example, that Bismarck wasn't a complete genius that planned everything from the beginning to the unification of Germany. His actions were legitimated and rationalized a posteriori. for example, he actually never lured Napoleon III with possible territorial compensations
Bismark never seeked for Russian friendshipin order to have them help him unificate Germany.
We also misinterpretated Napoleon III diplomaty.
I didn't read the whole bool Diplomaty, but international relations in Europe, 19th century, seemed to be a central point.
>>73183051
So what's your conclusion from all of that? How should we proceed?
Not to be rude, but your spelling is unusual for a France person. Where do you come from?
>>73183695
i have no conclusion, nor do recent historians. But they're slowly giving us a new perspective on this part of history.
I'm a french from France.
My spelling is probably weird because I don't bother talking in a pefect english language when I'm on 4chan. For the same reason I also have the bad habit to literally translate some french turns of phrase that are probably weird in english.
Do you ask because my english is good, bad or just weird?
>>73184396
Just weird. I like France because it doesn't cuck itself into English, and that makes it more interesting.
What's your opinion on your own revolutionary war?
>>73171425
perhaps, people are willing to give some form of personal freedom in exchange to be taken care of
Liberals and socialists are two different things.
However the main thing that seems to cause confusion is that conservatives typically believe in negative freedom (freedom of not being interfered with) while left wingers believe in positive freedom (freedom granted through material conditions). This is what causes all the seeming contradictions and for whatever reason no one seems to address it.
>>73173587
>Conservatism is also an extension of capitalism, but what conservatives take from capitalism is the opposite of what liberals do: where liberals are "fiscally authoritarian" and "socially libertarian", conservatives are "fiscally libertarian" and "socially authoritarian".
The progressive-left is culturally authoritarian as well.
>>73184821
The usual guy who just comes out of the frog factory (our amazing and beloved 'school system') only knows it was the first republican moment of France, The collapse of a multisecular absolutist system, and the end of Monarchy. The King Louis XVI was indeed tragically separated from his head.
Overall, it's a very good thing for France and freedom, and also the the occasion to drink booze and watch the fireworks on the 14th of July.
I wish you asked me that question a few months later because i'm currently learning the truth on that subject.
-Revolution only led to an Empire, and then to more monarchy. Then we had a 4 years long Republic, and another 20 years of Empire.
-Revolution was the occasion of FABRICATING a national identity
-It wasn't just a big revolt in the whole country, some peasants still supported the King. They were all massacred
-The Revolution, orchestrated by the bourgeoisie (and possibly the freemasons) gave them access to the power. Indeed, we can observe a slow but steady penetration of the blood aristocraty by the bourgeoisie, that partly helped led to the Revolution.
I'm afraid i can't be more precise at the moment. But simply going deeper in these ideas (which just comes down to justifying them and rejecting the officiel narrative) makes you a conspiracist/wooo illuminati and whatnot.
If there is any translation, serach for "Understanding the Empire" by Alain Soral. He's a bit crazy on some subjects but in this book he talks about the myth of the Revolution, the banks, etc, with a solid sociology and good arguments.
>>73186118
maybe I should precise that Alain Soral is the living incarnation of /pol/, only with prestance and good arguments and historical sources.
>>73171425
Because they are just bad with money. They can't figure out why they never seem to have enough when all they ask for is a 100k woman's studies degree, 2 cups of Starbucks per day, and an apartment withing walking distance of public transportation.
>>73186118
Napolean came from Corsica, so I guess not really Napolease. Kissinger came from Austria.
But I agree with your analysis mainly. There's a way of thinking I rejected at first, but then I heard a second thought for a while.
Why is terrorism a problem in France? It shouldn't be. There were many other colonial empires that at one time or another mistreated different peoples. Why are we seeing these problems today?
My belief is that it's all tentical rape porn to see what might work.
