Capitalism - A Liberal Ideology?

[Perseus]

Capitalism, the free market system. It encourages individualism, like a liberal would. Liberalism is usually associated with the left. The right wouldn't really favor that. Though, it is hard for me to explain myself.

[Amnesiac]

Well, that really depends on what your definition of 'liberal' is. Capitalism is not left-wing at all, since left-wing philosophy supports a world where people are equal, achieving that goal through social change.

Now, capitalism is most definitely a liberal idea. But then again, it's more inclined to "classical liberalism," the definition of which is below.

Classical liberalism is a philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.

From a broad perspective, the term 'liberalism' covers a lot of things, which are listed below:

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom") is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutions, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, free trade, and the freedom of religion.

Therefore, capitalism can easily be considered a 'liberal' idea, but not a left-wing one. Many people fail to realize that there's a huge difference between being a left-winger and being a liberal.

[Perseus]

Well, that really depends on what your definition of 'liberal' is. Capitalism is not left-wing at all, since left-wing philosophy supports a world where people are equal, achieving that goal through social change.

Now, capitalism is most definitely a liberal idea. But then again, it's more inclined to "classical liberalism," the definition of which is below.



From a broad perspective, the term 'liberalism' covers a lot of things, which are listed below:



Therefore, capitalism can easily be considered a 'liberal' idea, but not a left-wing one. Many people fail to realize that there's a huge difference between being a left-winger and being a liberal.

Yeah, I realized that after I made the title. I shall go change that.

[Amnesiac]

Yeah, I realized that after I made the title. I shall go change that.

Okay then :P

A true liberal would believe not only in social freedoms but economic freedoms as well. I mean, liberalism is literally the ideology of freedom. That doesn't apply to only gays and women who want abortions, but everything.

[Perseus]

Okay then :P

A true liberal would believe not only in social freedoms but economic freedoms as well. I mean, liberalism is literally the ideology of freedom. That doesn't apply to only gays and women who want abortions, but everything.

Right. My AP World teacher was explaining to us how capitalism is a result from the Enlightenment and the Renaissance. She went on to explain that capitalism is a liberal ideology, since it supports the individual.

[Amnesiac]

Right. My AP World teacher was explaining to us how capitalism is a result from the Enlightenment and the Renaissance. She went on to explain that capitalism is a liberal ideology, since it supports the individual.

Exactly.

Most people in this country that call themselves 'liberals' are liars. In some ways, the Democrats are just as repressive and "big government" as the Republicans are.

[Severus Snape]

Stop trying to define enlightenment ideals in terms of the US party system, thanks.

[Sage]

If it means anything, in Canada, the Liberal party is actually at the center of the political spectrum, not on the left. This way of looking at things always made the most sense to me.

[Perseus]

Stop trying to define enlightenment ideals in terms of the US party system, thanks.

Too bad that the Enlightenment is what spawned capitalism. Without the Enlightenment, we wouldn't have capitalism like it is today. So, I find it appropriate to "define Enlightenment ideals in terms of the US party system", thanks, cupcake.

[Severus Snape]

Too bad that the Enlightenment is what spawned capitalism. Without the Enlightenment, we wouldn't have capitalism like it is today. So, I find it appropriate to "define Enlightenment ideals in terms of the US party system", thanks, cupcake.

so fucking ignorant.

The collapse and failure of mercantilism, the rise of the middle class and industrial revolution spawned capitalism, not a political ideology. You can't even define liberalism. Get your nose out of your 10th grade textbook.

[Perseus]

so fucking ignorant.

The collapse and failure of mercantilism, the rise of the middle class and industrial revolution spawned capitalism, not a political ideology. You can't even define liberalism. Get your nose out of your 10th grade textbook.

And what helped the rise of the middle class? The Enlightenment. Why? Trade was more rampant now with the Middle East and the East. Before the Crusades, there wasn't much trade going on, but I trust you know this (not being sarcastic.). You are having better lifestyles, people understand things better, they read the classics, they become literate. The Church isn't as strict, and people can make money. Before, it was believed it was "sinful" (using this term lightly) to profit and such. People are interested in their own things, and they want to succeed.

And by the way, insulting me isn't a debate. Chill the fuck out. I'm not as "ignorant" as you think I am. I am ignorant, yes, but not like you think. So chill out, don't take this so personal, and debate with me without criticizing that I'm a sophomore. I don't know what your problem is. I'm just sitting here, trying to spawn something remotely intelligent in ROTW since everything is one sided.

[Severus Snape]

My problem is that you are willfully ignoring my input when you should be taking it at much greater face value.

I'll point out just an easy factual clarification. The crusades occurred three, arguably four centuries before the enlightenment started to take root across Europe. You are thinking far too broadly here instead of focusing on the specifics of pertinent details. For starters, you are confusing the enlightenment with the Renaissance.

Now let the point by point destruction commence.

Trade was more rampant now with the Middle East and the East.

As far as the crusades are concerned, it was more like widescale looting. Trading only started up when the Crusader states and Kingdom of Jerusalem were established. After Acre fell trade between east and west pretty much stalled after 1300 and especially after 1350, with the exception being the Italians continuing trade with the Byzantines who in turn traded with Turks and Arabs.

You are having better lifestyles
Actually, no. Feudalism was well entrenched until after the Great Mortality when it began to erode due to lack of manpower. The lower orders still lived in crushing and desperate poverty and filth until in many cases the 16th century. The exception here is again, Italy, because the merchant class was allowed to take thrive and survive.

people understand things better, they read the classics

Wrong, the vast majority of the population remained illiterate until later. Even then the "classics" that were retrieved were written in either Latin or Greek. Only the upper classes would have been able to read them.

they become literate.
Literacy increased slowly.

The Church isn't as strict
Wrong. Some of the most overbearing popes pontificated at this time including Boniface XIII. The church was at the height of its power and influence during the high and late middle ages. The church imposed interdicts (if you know what that is), excommunications of secular leaders it did not approve of, and even sanctioned crusades against christian enemies to exercise control over Christendom. You don't see the church lose any significant amount of this power until the 16th century.

and people can make money.
Only in Italy.

Before, it was believed it was "sinful" (using this term lightly) to profit and such.

No, only loaning money and collecting interest. That's the societal role of the Jews in medieval Europe.

People are interested in their own things, and they want to succeed.
You are describing the northern Italian merchant class, not Europe as a whole until the 17th century at the earliest.

[Severus Snape]

My problem is that you are willfully ignoring my input when you should be taking it at much greater face value.

I'll point out just an easy factual clarification. The crusades occurred three, arguably four centuries before the enlightenment started to take root across Europe. You are thinking far too broadly here instead of focusing on the specifics of pertinent details. For starters, you are confusing the enlightenment with the Renaissance.

Now let the point by point destruction commence.

Trade was more rampant now with the Middle East and the East.

As far as the crusades are concerned, it was more like widescale looting. Trading only started up when the Crusader states and Kingdom of Jerusalem were established. After Acre fell trade between east and west pretty much stalled after 1300 and especially after 1350, with the exception being the Italians continuing trade with the Byzantines who in turn traded with Turks and Arabs.

You are having better lifestyles
Actually, no. Feudalism was well entrenched until after the Great Mortality when it began to erode due to lack of manpower. The lower orders still lived in crushing and desperate poverty and filth until in many cases the 16th century. The exception here is again, Italy, because the merchant class was allowed to take thrive and survive.

people understand things better, they read the classics

Wrong, the vast majority of the population remained illiterate until later. Even then the "classics" that were retrieved were written in either Latin or Greek. Only the upper classes would have been able to read them.

they become literate.
Literacy increased slowly.

The Church isn't as strict
Wrong. Some of the most overbearing popes pontificated at this time including Boniface XIII. The church was at the height of its power and influence during the high and late middle ages. The church imposed interdicts (if you know what that is), excommunications of secular leaders it did not approve of, and even sanctioned crusades against christian enemies to exercise control over Christendom. You don't see the church lose any significant amount of this power until the 16th century.

and people can make money.
Only in Italy.

Before, it was believed it was "sinful" (using this term lightly) to profit and such.

No, only loaning money and collecting interest. That's the societal role of the Jews in medieval Europe.

People are interested in their own things, and they want to succeed.
You are describing the northern Italian merchant class, not Europe as a whole until the 17th century at the earliest.

[Perseus]

My problem is that you are willfully ignoring my input when you should be taking it at much greater face value. I am not; I have put what you have said into thought.

I'll point out just an easy factual clarification. The crusades occurred three, arguably four centuries before the enlightenment started to take root across Europe. You are thinking far too broadly here instead of focusing on the specifics of pertinent details. For starters, you are confusing the enlightenment with the Renaissance. I realized that last night, before you made this post. A sort of blended them together.





As far as the crusades are concerned, it was more like widescale looting. Trading only started up when the Crusader states and Kingdom of Jerusalem were established. After Acre fell trade between east and west pretty much stalled after 1300 and especially after 1350, with the exception being the Italians continuing trade with the Byzantines who in turn traded with Turks and Arabs. Fair enough, though it does bring wealth back to Europe and Italian merchants have their foothold.


Actually, no. Feudalism was well entrenched until after the Great Mortality when it began to erode due to lack of manpower. The lower orders still lived in crushing and desperate poverty and filth until in many cases the 16th century. The exception here is again, Italy, because the merchant class was allowed to take thrive and survive. I am more referring to Italy more than anything, though I never made that clear or even stated it. That's my fault.



Wrong, the vast majority of the population remained illiterate until later. Even then the "classics" that were retrieved were written in either Latin or Greek. Only the upper classes would have been able to read them. Me not thinking.


Literacy increased slowly. Though it does increase, especially when the printing press is invented by Gutenberg. During the 16th century, you have more people being literate.


Wrong. Some of the most overbearing popes pontificated at this time including Boniface XIII. The church was at the height of its power and influence during the high and late middle ages. The church imposed interdicts (if you know what that is), excommunications of secular leaders it did not approve of, and even sanctioned crusades against christian enemies to exercise control over Christendom. You don't see the church lose any significant amount of this power until the 16th century.p/quote] Me not thinking again.






[quote]No, only loaning money and collecting interest. I thought it was with profiting, too.


You are describing the northern Italian merchant class, not Europe as a whole until the 17th century at the earliest.
And this is where you are right. I jumped a couple of hundred years back and forth in my thoughts. Thinking they were the same.

[ShatteredWings]

Capatlism IS liberal.

Liberal in the 1800s industrial age.

The free market, sink or swim, with a democratically elected government is the original liberalism.

So yes, it is a liberal ideology.


**fun stuff we learn in AP history classes, no?**

[Sith Lord 13]

The right wing ideologies, on the fiscal aspect, are liberal. No one is socially liberal anymore, all being repressive in one way or another.