"liberalism is built on a foundation of contradictions: it trumpets equal rights while fostering incomparable material inequality; its legitimacy rests on consent, yet it discourages civic commitments in favor of privatism; and in its pursuit of individual autonomy, it has given rise to the most far-reaching, comprehensive state system in human history"
Was he right?
Replace liberalism with state capitalism and he's got it.
>far-reaching, comprehensive state system in human history
to be fair, there are more people than ever in human history; there might be a correlation. other than that, good job. now go tell the people who run the world that you're on to them and it's not fair.
Naw, you can take anything and find "contradictions" in it. Any large scale ideology or system will have some elements which look peculiar when juxtaposed but may not really conflict in practice or do make sense when the ideology or system is viewed as a whole.
If liberalism is failing, it is because of the illiberal impulses of mankind. Perhaps there really is some deep contradiction within liberalism, but I haven't identified it yet. Even if there is one, we won't know until it's too late, I'm sure.
>"liberalism is built on a foundation of contradictions: it trumpets equal rights while fostering incomparable material inequality; its legitimacy rests on consent, yet it discourages civic commitments in favor of privatism; and in its pursuit of individual autonomy, it has given rise to the most far-reaching, comprehensive state system in human history"
where's the contradictions?
The author seems to think that equal rights must entail equal outcomes.
The only possible contradiction I could think of in America is they define popular sovereignty as choice but only give you two options politically (one really since Americas politics is essentially one giant horse pulling one giant anchor) Whilst bombarding you with the free market.
>Why Liberalism Failed ME
Fttfyf (fix'd that title for ya, senpai
I don't see how Liberalism has field here; contradictory or not, it seems as if both liberal presidents and liberal governments have done serviceably or better.
I'm assuming the author is a conservacuck and isn't intended to advocate for socialism, but if liberalism is failing then it stands to reason its failure is a consequence of not going far left enough. Considering how well most socialist countries have done that is.
>conservative
>complains about material inequality
>State capitalism
We still playing this delusional game
to be fair, in the case of prescriptive rights the likes of which many socialist-leaning countries favor, rights that don't engender near-equal outcomes have almost no reason to exist.
For example: what's the point of affirmative action if the hiring discrepancies between different races aren't reconciled?
Of course this just digs an infinite rabbit hole
Do you not actually understand that Conservatism is just another flavor of Liberalism
>If liberalism is failing, it is because of the illiberal impulses of mankind.
spoken like a true ideologue
the author is a Catholic and a Distributivist
>Considering how well most socialist countries have done that is.
Yeah, Venezuela is doing amazing
Chinas market socialism and it's doing pretty good.
China is closer to mercantilism than anything, if we're being honest and not just ideologues
>who needs due process and freedom of association nah fug it let's do market "socialism" like a peasant nation whose government has caused the death of millions in failed high modernist projects
Lol that's what I was thinking. Clearly the book is about liberalism in the vein of Locke inspired representative governments that protect the rights of property and not some derivative usage as a conservative radio host would use.
>LMAO what is 80% of Europe.
>LMAO what is scandinavia
>LMAO cherry picking
>LMAO Canada
I love capitalism. But that doesn't mean its perfect. That's why there are socialistic democracies. Taking care of the lowest of society is a moral obligation. The United States may have a lot of huge industries, but fuck is it twisted and backwards in a lot of ways compared to Europe.
This, that opening line is basically conflating like 4 kinds of liberalism. Yeah they sometimes conflate each other, he doesn't write like he knows that.
>Market socialism
>Socialism
Hahahaha do you even know wtf socialism means or how China's economy works? It's all private and corporate businesses working under the sanction and finance of the government. In practice it's almost literally a copy of fascist economies of the 1930s
Thanks to right-liberalism, working class guy has low paying contract job with no benefits instead of decent paying union job. Told only way to improve life is to get good grades and work hard, but this doesn't work because he has a 95 IQ and can't cut it in a high-skilled economy.
Thanks to left-liberalism, working class guy is a obese, tattooed, unmarried, godless, probably on drugs and socially atomized, when back in the day he could have been a virtuous family man with a place in a community.
so socialism isn't actually "the workers owning the means of production"?
you think socialism is just the government redistributing wealth?
>Taking care of the lowest of society is a moral obligation.
Lowest what? 5%? 15%? 50%? Whatever *feels* right to....... you??
have you ever fucking seen a documentary about poor people in China? watch Wang Bing
>people don't die in MUH GAPIDALIZM