this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2024
857 points (98.1% liked)
Enough Musk Spam
2214 readers
38 users here now
For those that have had enough of the Elon Musk worship online.
No flaming, baiting, etc. This community is intended for those opposed to the influx of Elon Musk-related advertising online. Coming here to defend Musk or his companies will not get you banned, but it likely will result in downvotes. Please use the reporting feature if you see a rule violation.
Opinions from all sides of the political spectrum are welcome here. However, we kindly ask that off-topic political discussion be kept to a minimum, so as to focus on the goal of this sub. This community is minimally moderated, so discussion and the power of upvotes/downvotes are allowed, provided lemmy.world rules are not broken.
Post links to instances of obvious Elon Musk fanboy brigading in default subreddits, lemmy/kbin communities/instances, astroturfing from Tesla/SpaceX/etc., or any articles critical of Musk, his ideas, unrealistic promises and timelines, or the working conditions at his companies.
Tesla-specific discussion can be posted here as well as our sister community /c/RealTesla.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Historically speaking, the most important freedom in liberalism has always been the freedom to exploit the working class.
I believe that's a so called neo-liberalism, mostly synonymous with "laissez-fare" approaching to economy. While classical liberalism seeks for personal freedoms, neo-liberalism seeks for freedoms of fake, legal persons.
The book I linked is an academic work that details how the major liberal philosophers dealt with the contradiction between freedom of the bourgeoisie and freedom of the exploited classes. It's not a long read, and does the important work of contextualizing their philosophies.
Liberal education has a tendency to present liberalism as if someone just got the idea for everyone to be equal and free, and then the people democratically embraced capitalism because that's the most freedom and equal system, and history ended.
Guess what I was trying to say is that that changes over time - and not in a good way. But maybe if you read the book, you can tell us more :)
Edit: looks like the author posits it has "always" been shit in mostly "liberties for me but bot thee" ways.
I understood what you're saying, and I'm telling you it's historically inaccurate, I just gave you a book explaining how your classical liberals practiced and argued about slavery and other "freedoms" of the bourgeoisie.
I get it now, see the edit. And they're not mine ;)
To respond to your edit, I mean kind of not really?
This isn't just the philosophers being hypocritical, there are contradictions to liberalism, and they had different ways of resolving them. Philosophy doesn't happen in a vacuum, the strains that won out were the ones that benefited the most powerful faction of the bourgeoisie at the time because that was the context of promoting them.
People in medieval Europe didn't invent idea of the divine right of kings, and then find a king because they though that feudalism was the best way to run society, that feudal mode of production came first, and everything else was justifying it.
Yes, economic freedom, that's what liberal refer to elsewhere than the US I believe.