how would you describe your views • page 4/8 • Off-Topic Discussion • lichess.org

@chummer >In most of the world, liberalism is associated with laissez-faire economics

What about in Western Europe? Don’t they fit the broad definition I wrote in #7?

@chummer >In most of the world, liberalism is associated with laissez-faire economics What about in Western Europe? Don’t they fit the broad definition I wrote in #7?

chummer

#32

@FC-in-the-UK raises a very good point.

Communists were viable political parties ever since the end of WW2, across many different countries. Bologna, Italy - for example - had a nickname of 'La Rossa' or 'The Red,' in part because they had a Communist mayor every year from 1945 until the end of the 20th century.

The entire Emilia-Romagna region was a Communist and Socialist stronghold, despite housing some of the most advanced companies in the world (Ducati, Lamborghini, Ferrari, and Maserati).

But that stopped. Some of it inevitably due to the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and some of it due to the development of the internet and renewed globalist market driven economies of the 90s.

Communists are now a pale shadow of their former selves, and have largely morphed into democratic socialist policies or progressivist parties.

@FC-in-the-UK raises a very good point. Communists were viable political parties ever since the end of WW2, across many different countries. Bologna, Italy - for example - had a nickname of 'La Rossa' or 'The Red,' in part because they had a Communist mayor every year from 1945 until the end of the 20th century. The entire Emilia-Romagna region was a Communist and Socialist stronghold, despite housing some of the most advanced companies in the world (Ducati, Lamborghini, Ferrari, and Maserati). But that stopped. Some of it inevitably due to the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and some of it due to the development of the internet and renewed globalist market driven economies of the 90s. Communists are now a pale shadow of their former selves, and have largely morphed into democratic socialist policies or progressivist parties.

FC-in-the-UK

#33

@chummer said in #32:

The entire Emilia-Romagna region was a Communist and Socialist stronghold, despite housing some of the most advanced companies in the world (Ducati, Lamborghini, Ferrari, and Maserati).
I am not sure I would use the word "despite" here.

@chummer said in #32: > The entire Emilia-Romagna region was a Communist and Socialist stronghold, despite housing some of the most advanced companies in the world (Ducati, Lamborghini, Ferrari, and Maserati). I am not sure I would use the word "despite" here.

chummer

#34

@Tae7 said in #31:

What about in Western Europe? Don’t they fit the broad definition I wrote in #7?

As @chronicalien wrote, the definition of liberalism has changed quite a bit, but I think western Europe still adheres largely to the notion that liberalism is a philosophy defined mostly in economic terms which sometimes bleeds into other arenas.

For example, the Economist is a famously liberal newspaper and they were one of the earliest proponents of gay marriage, and are staunch supporters of gun control and penal reform. They also strongly believe in free trade, freer immigration policies.

They have endorsed both Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama, and Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair and Jo Swinson.

@Tae7 said in #31: > What about in Western Europe? Don’t they fit the broad definition I wrote in #7? As @chronicalien wrote, the definition of liberalism has changed quite a bit, but I think western Europe still adheres largely to the notion that liberalism is a philosophy defined mostly in economic terms which sometimes bleeds into other arenas. For example, the Economist is a famously liberal newspaper and they were one of the earliest proponents of gay marriage, and are staunch supporters of gun control and penal reform. They also strongly believe in free trade, freer immigration policies. They have endorsed both Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama, and Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair and Jo Swinson.

FC-in-the-UK

#35

@Tae7 said in #31:

@chummer >In most of the world, liberalism is associated with laissez-faire economics

What about in Western Europe? Don’t they fit the broad definition I wrote in #7?

No. You wrote

Liberal- politically it means favouring policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare.

Economic "laissez-faire" often (if not always) lead to social regress and receive strong social opposition. Think of Thatcher breaking the miners strikes. Think of her purpose of dismantling the NHS.

More generally, economic laissez-faire implies not subsidizing economic sectors that are not economically profitable. All the welfare sector is, by definition, not economically profitable (and, as a side note, this implies taxes are the only way to fund it).

@Tae7 said in #31: > @chummer >In most of the world, liberalism is associated with laissez-faire economics > > What about in Western Europe? Don’t they fit the broad definition I wrote in #7? No. You wrote > Liberal- politically it means favouring policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare. Economic "laissez-faire" often (if not always) lead to social regress and receive strong social opposition. Think of Thatcher breaking the miners strikes. Think of her purpose of dismantling the NHS. More generally, economic laissez-faire implies not subsidizing economic sectors that are not economically profitable. All the welfare sector is, by definition, not economically profitable (and, as a side note, this implies taxes are the only way to fund it).

CosmicPegasus2006

#36

@FC-in-the-UK neither I said that you have tried to insult him. Just mark your words- That's the most idiotic reason for hating communists I've ever read if it's not insulting @mAHiTh1708 view point then explain me what have you tried to explain by saying that. Moreover the sense in which u have written the sentence is not less than insulting someone but atleast I'm not saying anyone hilarious without knowing who is the person!!!

Tae7 edited

#37

#35 I dispute your depiction of laissez faire as being often responsible for social regress. In the case of Mrs Thatcher and the miners, the Thatcher government’s actions were very necessary and strongly supported by the British people

chummer

#38

I think it's important to reiterate that liberals support laissez-faire unless there's a market failure. For example, many economic liberals support a carbon tax to limit emissions. No market solution plausibly works to save the planet, and a carbon tax is more efficient than direct government intervention.

Many liberals also support a national healthcare system because the if people cannot afford to provide the most basic of services, then it is another market failure and it would be unconscionable to let them die in the street like dogs.

An economic liberal supports free trade even if it means shuttering some domestic industries, but would also likely support using those economic gains to build a training program to transition the displaced workers to new industries.

I think it's important to reiterate that liberals support laissez-faire unless there's a market failure. For example, many economic liberals support a carbon tax to limit emissions. No market solution plausibly works to save the planet, and a carbon tax is more efficient than direct government intervention. Many liberals also support a national healthcare system because the if people cannot afford to provide the most basic of services, then it is another market failure and it would be unconscionable to let them die in the street like dogs. An economic liberal supports free trade even if it means shuttering some domestic industries, but would also likely support using those economic gains to build a training program to transition the displaced workers to new industries.

Akbar2thegreat

#39

#1
I am strongly a radical.

#1 I am strongly a radical.

FC-in-the-UK

#40

@chummer what you describe is moderate liberal. Some liberals would be opposed to any national healthcare whatsoever (or to carbon taxes). Let's not forget that the Pinochet regime was (exonomically) neoliberalism in it purest form.

And even those liberals who do support a minimal healthacare -- well it's minimal. Meaning cutting funds in non-profitable economic sectors such as education and public hospital. Meaning less staff, more workload and more stress for the staff, and a poor quality service even in vital institutions.

@chummer what you describe is moderate liberal. Some liberals would be opposed to any national healthcare whatsoever (or to carbon taxes). Let's not forget that the Pinochet regime was (exonomically) neoliberalism in it purest form. And even those liberals who do support a minimal healthacare -- well it's minimal. Meaning cutting funds in non-profitable economic sectors such as education and public hospital. Meaning less staff, more workload and more stress for the staff, and a poor quality service even in vital institutions.