The faults of liberalism
In recent years, I've found myself identifying more with classical liberalism. I hold socialist beliefs in the sense that I think strong unionization is essential for curbing the power of the state. However, I'm no longer certain about how strongly I reject capitalism. I firmly oppose allowing individuals to profit from land ownership, but I'm undecided on the complete elimination of private ownership of firms. Similarly, I'm uncertain about my stance on abolishing regulated currency.
What I've come to realize through my studies is that radical solutions often lead to undesirable outcomes. By "radical," I mean the total upheaval of the current system in favor of an alternative. Instead, I'm inclined towards a gradual approach. I believe in guiding the current system towards improvement, perhaps through a continuous transition. What starts as a capitalist structure could evolve into something else, such as a communist one. I recognize the uncertainty inherent in this approach, as it relies on adapting through the accumulation of data.
I place my trust in unionization and robust governments that uphold fundamental, undeniable human rights. This system seems well-supported by evidence and is relatively acceptable to a wide range of voters due to its proximity to the current system. I view my position as "conservatively radical." Classical liberalism appeals to me because it incorporates mechanisms to ensure the system remains committed to human liberty.
However, my endorsement of classical liberalism doesn't extend to free market ideology. Adam Smith believed in free markets as a means to safeguard freedom, driven by a distrust of monarchy and the state. Nevertheless, he wasn't a dogmatic advocate of free markets. He recognized that they could sometimes clash with the preservation of human freedom, and he believed it was the state's responsibility to prevent this clash. Over time, we've learned that Smith's game-theoretical thought experiments were overly simplistic, and that free markets often fail to secure liberty. Instead, they frequently result in a class-based society. This realization has led us to understand the critical role of a strong state in ensuring both a just market and human rights. Essentially, I align with liberal socialism.
Given this context, what issues do I have with liberals? Primarily, it boils down to the fact that many liberals fail to critically assess their political viewpoints. This leads them to swing between allowing fascism to rise or hypocritically endorsing fascism while believing they stand above it. These thoughts have been brewing within me for some time. In my discussions with left-leaning individuals, I've noticed that they befriend fascists or support privatization and free market ideologies. Liberals seem to have a penchant for embracing defeat. They favor civility politics, which distinguishes them from radical leftists. Liberals permit fascists to enter the discourse while radicals advocate for violent opposition. The rise of fascism doesn't pose a significant threat to liberals, as many come from an economic class that wouldn't be persecuted under a fascist regime. Until then, they perceive more risk in censoring discourse than in allowing it to continue.
This point runs deep. The primary distinction between liberals and radicals lies in their stance toward the existing form of governance. For liberals, fascists and radicals are equivalent in that both critique and seek to alter the current systems. Liberals are reluctant to criticize the current institutions, preventing them from acknowledging the genuine leftist critique of the status quo.
Fascism isn't an irrational, alien evil. It's born from the concerns of the common person, twisted into unproductive solutions. It arises from a distrust of firms abusing their power, the unchecked heinous actions of the wealthy, the funding of deceitful propaganda outlets, and the erosion of social safety nets and institutions. These are real issues that both radicals and fascists rightly point out. Liberals benefit from systems that allow these flaws to thrive. They portray these issues as the result of isolated bad actors within an otherwise perfect system, as they view themselves as virtuous actors. They're hesitant to acknowledge the destruction of these institutions because doing so would harm their interests. Fascists play a necessary role in this dynamic, helping liberals maintain their institutions while avoiding direct involvement. Fascists divert attention from challenging the actual power structures. Liberals oppose fascists not because of their endorsement of oppressive power structures, but because they acknowledge the existence of these structures, which liberals find laughable. Liberals despise fascists because fascism appeals directly to the lower classes, those whom liberals consider themselves superior to. Liberals lack education because knowledge challenges them; they favor the leftist aesthetic of postmodernism as it appears intellectually advanced without challenging their position. They shy away from discussing power structures in concrete terms because that would implicate their role within those structures. They appear weak in the face of fascists because they aim to enable fascism without sowing its seeds themselves.
Liberals aren't true liberals. Those who adopt the label today tend to be part of the bourgeoisie. They enjoy the appearance of liberalism but engaging with classic texts would necessitate a departure from free market ideology in favor of liberal socialism.
All of this brings me to a crucial point. As I mentioned earlier, I don't align with radicalism in its purest form. I don't advocate for complete isolation from society. However, I also don't believe in engaging in discourse with either liberals or fascists. I advocate tolerating liberals to maintain civility, but they don't constitute the core demographic of the left. Conversations with fascists remain out of the question, of course. The true constituency of the left comprises the very people whom the left and the bourgeoisie have often abandoned, and to whom fascists appeal. These are the uneducated, the workers. Rather than using the sugary tactics of fascists, the left should offer to heal their issues with medicine.
Socialists are often associated with two problematic categories: the academics who exclusively theorize about class analysis, and the entirely uneducated who treat socialist theory as infallible doctrine. The true strength of socialism lies in bridging these categories. It involves creating a society that doesn't inherently distrust institutions, but rather scrutinizes and exploits them with a sense of caution.
