How to make liberalism great again?

How to make liberalism great again?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=FIx-Y8vCj90
youtube.com/watch?v=SJ_L7oK4jPI
youtube.com/watch?v=N2LVcu01QEU
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Liberalism was never great

Classical liberals are the only thing close to having a "good" liberal. They're the ones you'll meet in Massachusetts, for example

>created democracy
>founded the US
>made the industrial revolution possible
>made quality of life 10000x better than anywhere else

>Brake the unholy union of Liberals with Wall Street, Lobbyists, Silicon Valley, Celebrities, Pseudo-Leftists, Pop-culture, 'my-anti-corporate-haircut' people...
>Merge Liberals with original leftist goals like wage-slaving and class struggle
>Mark all people like profiteers Soros or pseudo-philanthropic billionaire scum as enemies of Liberalism
>Generally, un-normie it

What happened then, why is it so perverted nowdays?

They are far too socialist for their own good, or they are more likely to become more socialist.

>Implying the first three things are good

The problem is the term. People on the left think liberals are fascists and fascist enablers. People on the right think liberals are Marxists and communists.
Liberal is basically a derogatory insult, not an actual political position.

t. HUE

Rebrand white nationalism as white liberalism.

It was until universal suffrage in my opinion.

purge all the commies and sjw types.
revert back to classical liberalism.

We must have the sex with our own children.

...

>People on the left think liberals are fascists and fascist enablers.
They clearly haven't read the Manifesto

You can rebrand tribal communism all you want.

Eliminate SJW's and it's done for the right

This

First time I agree with a Bong

>Implying fourth thing is true

>they want to take your guns
>all muslims are terrorists
>fake news
>jews
>refugees want to rape everything


see, works both ways

Liberalism was the same then as it is now: An excuse to rebel. Those good things happened with the rise of public property and human rights, not because feudalism was destroyed.

Now the left has been working very hard to destroy private property and human rights. Because that's all liberalism is, reactionary.

>Those good things happened with the rise of public property
>Because that's all liberalism is, reactionary
t. communist

what is liberalism exactly?

>created democracy
The only even slightly democratic country in the world is Switzerland.
>founded the US
The United States is the Roman Empire + Magna Carta.
>made the industrial revolution possible
Technology has been progressing since writing was invented. Politics may slow it down or speed it up but so long as humanity can record information a singularity is inevitable.
>made quality of life 10000x better than anywhere else
Technology and wealth are responsible for QoL, not how liberal you are. That's why authoritarian China is so more better off than more liberal third world countries.

>Technology has been progressing since writing was invented. Politics may slow it down or speed it up but so long as humanity can record information a singularity is inevitable.
Private property + capital made a lot of technological progress possible

>That's why authoritarian China is so more better off than more liberal third world countries

>liberal
>third world
corruption =/= liberalism

>Private property + capital made a lot of technological progress possible
That's the company line.
>corruption =/= liberalism
That's like separating peanut better and jelly.

>Technology and wealth are responsible for QoL
Both of which are products of liberalism. Why do you think QoL is better in liberal western countries?

>authoritarian China is so more better off than more liberal third world countries
Are you insane? The average Chinaman is far worse off than the average westerner. What planet do you live on?

>Both of which are products of liberalism.
They were a product of whites.

Remember even the most extreme version of liberalism during the industrial revolution in the west would be considered incredibly conservative today.

A Marxist who denies that Capitalism/Liberalism has not created an insane amount of riches due to the liberation of labor is not a Marxist. However, it should be added that the industrial revolution was not a very peasent thing, neither for the western workers, nor for the peoples who suffered under imperialism and colonialism.

Liberals need to realise that their liberty has to be defended in the context of a unified nation state, that neo-liberal approaches boiling down all humanity to identical economic units are inherently self destructive. Tabula Rasa is a myth.

pleasant*

Liberalism was a product of white European culture. Not all whites were liberals though. Plenty were communists and fascists. They didn't fare so well.

Liberalism is more than just the industrial revolution. It's an ideology that has endured to this day and elevated billions of people out of poverty.

>Both of which are products of liberalism
No.
>Why do you think QoL is better in liberal western countries?
Because Western Europe and Northern America have had a technological edge on the rest of the world for hundreds of years. Why do you think Germany has been richer than France and Britain for hundreds of years despite being less liberal than them?
>Are you insane? The average Chinaman is far worse off than the average westerner. What planet do you live on?
Reading comprehension.

Did any other racial group produce a successful facsimile of that white European "culture" which created this advancement?

Delusion. You simply refuse to acknowledge the advantage that liberalism gave the west and the reason it has been adopted the world over to great success.

There are plenty of successful non-European countries if that's what you're asking.

Liberals let their party get overtaken once again. They are weak people and have no respect for others. They won’t get any respect in return anymore.

abolish it

>There are plenty of successful non-European countries if that's what you're asking.
Non-European, non-Asian, non-Jewish.

What I'm asking is, are there any black, middle eastern, or hispanic countries which have replicated this level of attainment you attribute to white culture?

Even better, show me one which has an economy that isn't entirely dependent on selling natural resources to western nations to survive.

Ideal, Laissez-faire capitalism ("Classical Liberalism") is a product of the 19th century and will not come back. You can not push the reset button and break all the oligopolies up and skyrocket the profit rate.

Globalization has to led to different economic relations which may, in some cases, still lift people out of poverty if foreign capital is willing to do so and tariffs are imposed, such as in Singapore, for example. Arguably, even sweatshops do so, however on a slower rate, because capital accumulation is much slower when the surplus is extracted to another continent by the haute bourgeoisie, instead of being accumulated by the national bourgeoisie. Ironically, sweatshops actually stifle development in the western world itself, because it's more profitable for the capitalist to outsource labor to the Third World instead of automating manufacturing industry at home, or raising productivity in general. Sweatshop labor is insanely unproductive, but profitable. Where neoliberalism ultimately fails is when Third World countries have their raw materials exploited, and then are forced to import the same materials in their processed form (timber become boards, etc) at a net deficit, this way these countries will never be able to accumulate and stay poor. This is not some "defect" of an otherwise perfect system, rather, it's a systemic issue, because there is no reason for western capitalists not to push for free trade and investment protection agreements with Third World countries.

Why are you using a communist flag when the economic system you seem to be advocating for is national socialism?

The German Empire was less democratic than France and Britain but it was richer, why? Also what criteria are we using for how liberal a country is? On the one hand Britain allowed it's citizens to vote, on the other hand they had the largest colonial empire in history. So would they be less or more liberal than the German Empire?

>gee the 19 th century was such a good time to be alive! all those wars slaughter and torture and disease!

adopt conservative views

daily reminder if you dont like welfare for lower class you are a bigot, and starving africans dont need foreign aid goy!

Laissez-faire capitalism =/= Classical liberalism, it's more like anarcho-capitalism.

Moving the goalposts.

I don't want laissez-faire capitalism. Virtually everyone agrees that would be detrimental to society in this day and age.

I don't care how wealthy the German empire was. That's not how you measure the quality of life of individuals within a nation.

National "Socialism" isn't sustainable either, it's Keynesianism on steroids with privatization of public assets in favor of corporatism, all financed with a ponzi scheme (Mefo-Wechsel). Why do you think Hitler had to start WWII four years before he actually planned to?

Bait. Any retard can look at history and see that the “steady upward progress of technology is inevitable”. Look at the difference between Europe and asia or Europe and Africa. Clearly politics and administration matters.

>Moving the goalposts.
Can you answer the question?

19th century capitalism wasn't anarchist in any way, you had a massive repressive state which busted unions and outlawed social movements, and supported colonial adventures of trading companies. The only thing they didn't do was mess with the economy, until Bismarck invented the welfare state to pacify the social democratic movement.

Sure. The gulf states are very wealthy Arab nations with a high standard of living. Chile is an example of a highly successful Hispanic nation. Africa is still pretty fucked up but it's making great strides towards development. Most Africans certainly enjoy a higher standard of living today than they did in the past.

All these things are thanks to liberalism. Can you stop moving the goalposts now?

He never said that or even insinuated that

Actually, most (ex-)Third World nations which experienced huge economic growth did so with a massive public investment program, India had 5-year plans and almost 50% of a public economy, South Korea was being a shithole until it adopted massive state investments with 5-year plans as well, and the Gulf states almost have no private sector, their assets are in the hands of the royal cronies and the labor which is done is foreign labor or even slave labor.

You are making too generalized statements because you think ideologically, but in reality every situation is very different and what might work for some states might not at all work for other states.

fxd

Sure I accept that different nations are going to need different approaches. However there seems to be a trend where nations that move towards more liberal policies tend to see growth. Obviously it's going to depend on things such as a nation's political history and available natural resources but overall there's a definite correlation between liberal policies and financial success. Do you disagree?

>created democracy
Democracy is the worst creation in human history.

Liberalism has always been great, retarded Americans have just butchered the term like so many others.

>Switzerland is the only democratic nation

Indirect representation is still democratic, the members elected are accountable for their actions (through elections). Indirect representation is just a much more practical way of providing democracy to many people. Who has sovereignty over Britain, america, Australia, etc? The citizens.

>Magna Carta + Rome = U.S

In practice
The head of state is accountable to the people because they are elected by the people. The legislature is also subject to this (Roman senate was not). Through checks and balances, no one arm of government in the U.S has the power that represents an absolute monarch. No where in the Roman system or Magna Carta does this happen.

No it doesn't, literally everything you said is true.

>Any retard can look at history and see that the “steady upward progress of technology is inevitable”.
True but only a non-retard can look at history and realize that the steady progress of technology is inevitable.
>Look at the difference between Europe and asia or Europe and Africa
Regional differences in technology have always existed. Sometimes one region will overshoot another but that isn't proof that the other regions are doomed to technological stagnation, just that they're progressing slower. Even a Dark Age doesn't halt technological progress, you might lose knowledge in some places but you gain it in others and in time you overshoot where you were.

>Indirect representation is still democratic
The only people who have a shot of getting elected are people who belong to major parties, and the only people who can get into major parties are those who have made themselves useful to the elite. So I fail to see how it's Democracy, Rule of the People, when the People are only given one option dressed in different colors. Instead it's just Oligarchy with theatrics.

Human rights is regarded as a privilege in China. When the communist party decides it gets in the way of their political activities, it is ignored. In fact the whole Chinese constitution is ignored because the communist party is above all. An example is their limitations on legitimate political contribution by the people and tight restrictions on access to the internet. This system works amazingly for China as a nation though

And besides, who needs stuff like that for a great quality of life?

Good plan. Good luck getting all of those fucks out of lobbyist pockets.

He will show us the way

...

Too much liberalism results to degeneracy

Liberalism can only work in a homogeneous society, Poland. If you let people off the leash in a multicultural society, they don't coexist peacefully accordingly to the liberal principles, they fucking try win the best spot for themselves and attack each other. Segregate ethnicities, let them have whatever systems they wish to have, and also have a working liberal systems for whites.

>Created Democracy
Implying that's a good thing? Democracy is weak shit.
>Founded US
If Liberalism includes race-realism, hating niggers, and keeping women in check then perhaps liberalism isn't that bad, but I don't think that is what people mean by liberalism, as these things would be considered fascist today.
>made the industrial revolution possible
Again, implying that is a good thing? Liberals are weak and decadent and handled it poorly.
>Made quality of life 100000x better than anywhere else
Not true, national socialism offered a much better quality of life than the liberal Wiemar republic. Also it has arguably decreased quality of life and domesticated us into a weak, decadent, stupid race, along with the savages we reign superior over.

Fuck off, you retarded domesticated cunt.

>The US is the roman empire
Ha, no it fucking isn't. It is a shitty degenerate country founded and created by a shitty degenerate people. It isn't at all like the fucking Roman Empire you cuck, the Roman empire didn't even have a democracy.

>System works great for China as a nation though
As long as they have American leaders to cuck to them and they can feed off of Capitalism, Communism works great!

Into the fucking abyss

>conflating social liberalism with classical English liberalism
Fuck off, faggot.

>sage

fuck off!

Poland literally provoked Hitler to start WW2.

Poland = British prostitute.

>Implying that marxists read

Massachusetts isn't classical liberal you fucking retard. Why do people like you post dumb shit that's utterly untrue and make it clear you don't know what the fuck you're talking about?

accept libertarianism instead

1.) educate people on what Liberalism actually is to dispell this meme idea of it. in other words Locke over Neo-Marxism

2.) acknowledge the inherent flaws within the liberal/capitalist market so that we can fix them. Ignoring them only makes the problems larger for fringe retards like the alt-right and antifa to exploit.

I think the main problems are the environmental hazards, which could be fixed with regulations and EPA type of laws. Also consumerist nihilistic culture, which I see as a by products of monopolies, which can be fixed with anti-trust laws.

Exaggerated truths are better than straight up lies.

For example, one thing the EU did right was BTFO Google with their anti-trust laws.

youtube.com/watch?v=FIx-Y8vCj90

And now, the Missouri state government is looking into that as well
youtube.com/watch?v=SJ_L7oK4jPI

I think the main problem with Republicans is their no regulations bullshit.

Delete the Jewish injection into liberalism.

ok

>The only people who have a shot of getting elected are people who belong to major parties

Perhaps in America, and that is a result of the use of plurality voting (person with the most votes gets in). But I ask you, what of Italy? Who have the opposite problem, who's government is so unstable because of the many meme parties they have to form coalitions with. Or in more moderation my country Australia, where there are 5 (admitadly not many) MPs currently in the lower house not associated with a major party and our senate who have many more meme small parties that "recommend" changes to the bill (meaning the government has to negotiate and compromise to make them happy). Perhaps then it is not the fault of indirect democracy, but the way it is carried out in the U.S? (Imo I believe US should change its voting system and electoral systems)

>MPs are just for the elite... All the same just dressed in different colours


I agree that in the U.S you have virtually no other choice but to vote for either Dems or Republican, it is a very strong two-party political environment and parties often favour big business and the like because they are largely funded by them. A blatant democratic issue.


But does that mean democracy as a whole is non existent in the U.S because citizens are not perfectly represented? I see your human rights well protected in the constitution, a system that makes the government accountable to the people who are entitled access to free and fair elections, equality of all under law, strict seperation of powers, independent judiciary, right to political participation etc. And I would admit that elements of a good democracy is missing in the U.S (as well as all other democratic nations), but I believe, for the most part, countries that have implemented indirect representation achieves democratic principles

what do you even mean by "Massachusetts" liberals?

we've got everything from Cambridge/Amherst liberals that would give the most SJW-ish numale you could imagine a run for their money - to South Boston Democratic voters that will openly refer to Trump as an orange fag.

the state routinely elects non-retarded GOP governors.

You say this as if the U.S doesn't rely on China

>SJW=Liberals

The rights of man come before all else

Every egalitarian ideology is SJW faggotry by default.
People are not equal to each other, this is a scientific fact.
Only neo-lysenkoism faggots will argue

youtube.com/watch?v=N2LVcu01QEU

> The United States is the Roman Empire + Magna Carta.

WE

>arguing against strawmen
>suggesting that lysenko was a liberal
Even communist will get pissed at you for referring to them as liberals.

Communism IS egalitarian ideology.
Read some Marx.

yeah, its not liberalism. Socialist ideology in general evolved out of the French revolution AGAINST the liberal idealist. If you look at SJW telling you to learn their pronouns and think they are liberal, then you have no idea what you are talking about.

What's the difference?
Both ideologies are shit, leading to a slow decline of Western Civilization.

Picrelated book killed as many people as communism.
And the book continues its bloody mission.

Make it nationalistic and patriarchal like it was before the 20th century

>What's the difference?
Do you really not know the fundamental differences between a liberal society and a socialist one? A free market vs a controlled market? Liberal ideology focuses on the individual, while socialism focuses on the society. It is a collectivist ideology.

You still missed my point.
I'm not interested in small differences.
I'm talking about the basic thing that both ideologies are based on.
Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité and shiet.

Boomer genocide when?