I have noticed that many critics of the modern social justice ideology, who do not consider themselves conservative, are classifying themselves as "classical liberals". Yet, when you dig deeper into what kind of politics and policies they advocate, I think that in many cases "social liberal" would be a much more accurate description. (In fact, "classical liberal" describes much more closely American conservatism. Nowadays perhaps ironically enough.)
Definitions of all these terms are not set in stone and 100% unambiguous. However, in general, I would say that "social liberalism" is pretty much synonymous with "welfare capitalism". A crude (and perhaps on some level slightly inaccurate) way of putting it is that "social liberalism" is "classical liberalism + welfare system" (which is a pretty accurate description of welfare capitalism.)
The "social" in "social liberalism" in this case refers to the social services provided by the government (such as healthcare, unemployment benefits, and other similar social services that exist primarily to help those who cannot otherwise afford such things and who would be in danger of severely substandard and even dangerous standards of living, including poverty, homelessness, sickness and even death.)
Classical liberalism is inherently capitalistic in nature. In fact, one of its core tenets, one of the fundamental human rights that it advocates, is the right to private ownership, including (especially so) the right to private ownership of capital, the means of production, industry, and commercial activity. One of the core duties of the government is to ensure and protect this right, and to provide a framework where private commerce can happen (among other things by providing an official system of currency with which to engage in all forms of commercial activity).
One of the differences between classical and social liberalism is that in the former the influence and power of the government in the private industry and commerce ought to be as minimal as possible, with as little regulation as possible, while social liberalism advocates for more governmental control on these commercial activities, both to deter abuse and to collect taxes (that are, optimally, used for the welfare system.) This is also one of the most fundamental differences between American conservatism and social liberalism (which is why classical liberalism fits so well to describe American conservatism. Conservatives aren't very fond of welfare capitalism, nor with the government meddling with the private industry and entrepreneurship.)
This is why when so many critics of social justice ideology, who classify themselves as liberals (rather than conservative), claim to be "classical liberals", I think they are wrong. Most often they aren't classical liberals, but social liberals, because they also advocate for a welfare system, ie. welfare capitalism, while true classical liberals don't (at least not to that extent.)
I suppose "social liberal" would describe myself as well, much more so than "classical liberal", because I, too, support welfare capitalism.
However, I detest using that term "social liberal" to describe myself. I believe I'm not the only one.
Why? Because people so often confuse "social liberalism" with "socialism", just because the word "social" appears in both. Yet, they are not at all the same thing.
Socialism is a form of government where there is no private ownership of the means of production and commerce. The government owns all the industry, all corporations, all the means of production, and all commercial transactions and activity. In other words, it's pretty much the opposite of capitalism.
This is in quite drastic contrast with liberalism, which is inherently capitalistic in nature, as private ownership of the means of production and economy is considered a fundamental right.
But "social liberalism" is unfortunately named, as it so easily gets confused with "socialism", and way too many people confuse the two, even though they are extremely different.
That's why I, and I'm sure many others, detest using that term to describe myself, even though technically speaking it would fit. It's no wonder why so many people are using "classical liberal" instead, even though that doesn't fit so well.
(There might also be some kind of confusion in what that term means as well. Perhaps many of these people think that the "classical" there is in opposition to "modern", to the current trend of "liberal" countries becoming more and more "progressive" and all that jazz, rather than keeping the good old liberal values of a few decades ago. However, that's not really what "classical liberalism" means. It's an actual term, with its own relatively specific meaning. And it puts no big emphasis on a welfare system, which is why it often fits poorly as a term to describe these people.)
Definitions of all these terms are not set in stone and 100% unambiguous. However, in general, I would say that "social liberalism" is pretty much synonymous with "welfare capitalism". A crude (and perhaps on some level slightly inaccurate) way of putting it is that "social liberalism" is "classical liberalism + welfare system" (which is a pretty accurate description of welfare capitalism.)
The "social" in "social liberalism" in this case refers to the social services provided by the government (such as healthcare, unemployment benefits, and other similar social services that exist primarily to help those who cannot otherwise afford such things and who would be in danger of severely substandard and even dangerous standards of living, including poverty, homelessness, sickness and even death.)
Classical liberalism is inherently capitalistic in nature. In fact, one of its core tenets, one of the fundamental human rights that it advocates, is the right to private ownership, including (especially so) the right to private ownership of capital, the means of production, industry, and commercial activity. One of the core duties of the government is to ensure and protect this right, and to provide a framework where private commerce can happen (among other things by providing an official system of currency with which to engage in all forms of commercial activity).
One of the differences between classical and social liberalism is that in the former the influence and power of the government in the private industry and commerce ought to be as minimal as possible, with as little regulation as possible, while social liberalism advocates for more governmental control on these commercial activities, both to deter abuse and to collect taxes (that are, optimally, used for the welfare system.) This is also one of the most fundamental differences between American conservatism and social liberalism (which is why classical liberalism fits so well to describe American conservatism. Conservatives aren't very fond of welfare capitalism, nor with the government meddling with the private industry and entrepreneurship.)
This is why when so many critics of social justice ideology, who classify themselves as liberals (rather than conservative), claim to be "classical liberals", I think they are wrong. Most often they aren't classical liberals, but social liberals, because they also advocate for a welfare system, ie. welfare capitalism, while true classical liberals don't (at least not to that extent.)
I suppose "social liberal" would describe myself as well, much more so than "classical liberal", because I, too, support welfare capitalism.
However, I detest using that term "social liberal" to describe myself. I believe I'm not the only one.
Why? Because people so often confuse "social liberalism" with "socialism", just because the word "social" appears in both. Yet, they are not at all the same thing.
Socialism is a form of government where there is no private ownership of the means of production and commerce. The government owns all the industry, all corporations, all the means of production, and all commercial transactions and activity. In other words, it's pretty much the opposite of capitalism.
This is in quite drastic contrast with liberalism, which is inherently capitalistic in nature, as private ownership of the means of production and economy is considered a fundamental right.
But "social liberalism" is unfortunately named, as it so easily gets confused with "socialism", and way too many people confuse the two, even though they are extremely different.
That's why I, and I'm sure many others, detest using that term to describe myself, even though technically speaking it would fit. It's no wonder why so many people are using "classical liberal" instead, even though that doesn't fit so well.
(There might also be some kind of confusion in what that term means as well. Perhaps many of these people think that the "classical" there is in opposition to "modern", to the current trend of "liberal" countries becoming more and more "progressive" and all that jazz, rather than keeping the good old liberal values of a few decades ago. However, that's not really what "classical liberalism" means. It's an actual term, with its own relatively specific meaning. And it puts no big emphasis on a welfare system, which is why it often fits poorly as a term to describe these people.)
Comments
Post a Comment