That's liberal as an adjective, not liberalism in its political definition. As a socialist I don't have a liberal party in my country that I can support. They think capitalism will be fixed if there are no disparities in how people are distributed within it. It's like thinking equal black and white slave owners in the Antebellum south would have fixed the economic arrangement of slavery.

I don't think liberal approaches are just unfavorable, I see how they perpetuate the problems they're invoked to address. We've seen nothing but wealth inequality rise as the latest liberal economic consensus came in to effect in the 70s. That economic stratification is what creates these problems, because you have ascriptive taxonomical hierarchies like race that develop out of economic relations like that.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

From the definition I provided, how do you think those ideas have contributed to perpetuating inequality?

On paper, I don't see anything wrong with reform, tolerance and open-mindedness (obviously the paradox of tolerance is inferred, I don't mean tolerance of intolerance)

[–] banneryear1868 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

On paper I don't know what those things really mean, "reform, tolerance, open-mindedness." They sound like good things but are contingent, open-mindedness to what, tolerance to what, reform to what? They function as euphemisms for something I'm supposed to imply on my own. I don't really have a use for this kind of thing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

It's just another way of saying progressive.