,
17 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
Okay, I've finally cleared enough of my podcast backlog to get to this. With "socialism is liberalism doubling down on failure being my main critique, I was interested in it.
Before I begin llistening I'm going to lay out my ground rules of what liberalism is, and why it's bad.
Before I begin llistening I'm going to lay out my ground rules of what liberalism is, and why it's bad.
1. Liberalism is any ideology that holds that the primary purpose of political economy is increasing autonomy, usually justified by recourse to some notion of spontaneous order.
2. Spontaneous order and autonomy are both incoherent concepts. Belief otherwise is proto-liberalism.
2. Spontaneous order and autonomy are both incoherent concepts. Belief otherwise is proto-liberalism.
3. Because autonomy requires a ahistorical and ateological philosophy to mentally sustain, liberalism believes that human beings are fungible atoms, in the sophistic sense of the word. Accordingly, liberal politics cannot legitimately distinguish between different kinds of human.
4. Simplified, this means liberalism treats ethics as an epistemic problem rather than an experiential one. In three words: "Liberté, égalité, fraternité." As al of these logically imply each other, an ideology's possession of ANY makes it liberal.
5. For the purposes of the question "can socialism be illiberal?" I shall define socialism as "joint ownership* of capital by the relevant labour class," which I think shall be broadly acceptable.
*I shall be charitable and assume a sane understanding of "ownership."
*I shall be charitable and assume a sane understanding of "ownership."
5.5. The difference between sane and insane understandings of property and ownership as explained here: neoabsolutism.wordpress.com/2017/05/23/neo…
With that recorded in advance to keep me honest, It's time to listen. I'll continue this thread after I finish.
Halfway through while taking notes and it's not looking good. A lot of 'freedom to choose how to spend your time' talk. Anti-producerist, but still autonomist. I hope it picks up in the second half.
"[Machiavelli and Hobbes] are operating with more traditionally classical understandings of freedom and equality." 😬
@CBonduk was right: Hobbes cucks literally everyone.
@CBonduk was right: Hobbes cucks literally everyone.
@CBonduk At least he understands the difference between reactionaries and fascists. Top 10% of socialists just from that.
@CBonduk @aimeeterese has graduated from socialism to at least implicit Fascism, (NB the capital. It means 🇮🇹) but I'm not sure if she's entirely broken orbit with liberalism yet. She's inchoate at least on this episode. (I haven't listened to any others.)
@BMStudebaker is speaking basically of negative liberty and talks about infringing on people's rights. 100% liberal, sad.
@BMStudebaker Aimée, by contrast, talks about how she was more free as a child despite how parental powers would be considered tyrannical in the context of adult citizens. She also more or less describes families as fractals of government.
@BMStudebaker That's tacitly a conception of liberty as "freedom to cultivate virtue," which is, hopefully, reactionary as fuck. If not it's at least Fascist, so good job Aimee Therese.
@BMStudebaker *Terese, lol. My autocorrect being very agressive tonight. My apologies.
@BMStudebaker Anyway, being as I've tagged them in, I hope the hosts of this show appreciate my feedback. One of the higher-tier politics I've heard. Only @TrueDilTom has a better show on a regular schedule,I think.
@BMStudebaker @TrueDilTom (unless this episode was of unusually high quality, I mean. I haven't listened to other episodes yet.)
