Even if that’s the case (I’m not sure it is), it doesn’t make them the same thing.
It’s not like there is a law of nature that says Social Liberalism can’t make a comeback.
It’s the evolution of a social system guided by the same set of rules. There is actually a very good reason why social liberalism can’t make a comeback. The dynamic of liberalism that champions private ownership leads to capital accumulation in the hands of the small capital owning minority. As the system continues to function you hit a point where the oligarchs have disproportionate power in society leading to the transition into neoliberalism that we’re living under now.
Things don’t just happen randomly, systems evolve according to the rules society agrees on. In order for things to change, an iconoclasm has to happen first. Then a new set of rules will be created, and that will no longer be liberalism because that’s the ideology that will be cast aside in the process.
You keep saying Liberalism as if its only one thing. I’ve already mentioned three economic philosophies, each creating their own new set of rules. I’m honestly not sure we’re talking about the same thing.
The context of discussion was whether the current stage of neoliberalism can revert back to some other form. And my point is that there is no path back within the liberal framework. A different economic philosophy that will succeed neoliberalism will not be based on the idea of private ownership.
Now I understand. And I just don’t see that as inevitable.
Private ownership is too important to people individually. Without it, we don’t even have any reason to expect any anything from our labor, since we can’t be said to own even that. There isn’t much room left for personal autonomy, if we don’t have defacto ownership of our bodies, minds, and effort.
It would require some post-scarcity Star Trek technology to make our labor obsolete. Functionally infinite energy and matter replicators. The technological components would have to be in place, before the social changes become feasible.
There’s a difference between private ownership and personal ownership. For example, in Marxism, personal property is very much respected. Nobody is coming after your toothbrush or your house. What’s meant by private property is owning enterprises that employ other people to work for you. This is replaced by cooperative ownership where workers own the business collectively.
Even if that’s the case (I’m not sure it is), it doesn’t make them the same thing.
It’s not like there is a law of nature that says Social Liberalism can’t make a comeback.
It’s the evolution of a social system guided by the same set of rules. There is actually a very good reason why social liberalism can’t make a comeback. The dynamic of liberalism that champions private ownership leads to capital accumulation in the hands of the small capital owning minority. As the system continues to function you hit a point where the oligarchs have disproportionate power in society leading to the transition into neoliberalism that we’re living under now.
Social Liberalism came about as a response to Classical Liberalism creating the same oligarchic problem you just described.
If it happened once, it could happen again.
I don’t know if it will, but its certainly possible.
Things don’t just happen randomly, systems evolve according to the rules society agrees on. In order for things to change, an iconoclasm has to happen first. Then a new set of rules will be created, and that will no longer be liberalism because that’s the ideology that will be cast aside in the process.
You keep saying Liberalism as if its only one thing. I’ve already mentioned three economic philosophies, each creating their own new set of rules. I’m honestly not sure we’re talking about the same thing.
The context of discussion was whether the current stage of neoliberalism can revert back to some other form. And my point is that there is no path back within the liberal framework. A different economic philosophy that will succeed neoliberalism will not be based on the idea of private ownership.
Now I understand. And I just don’t see that as inevitable.
Private ownership is too important to people individually. Without it, we don’t even have any reason to expect any anything from our labor, since we can’t be said to own even that. There isn’t much room left for personal autonomy, if we don’t have defacto ownership of our bodies, minds, and effort.
It would require some post-scarcity Star Trek technology to make our labor obsolete. Functionally infinite energy and matter replicators. The technological components would have to be in place, before the social changes become feasible.
There’s a difference between private ownership and personal ownership. For example, in Marxism, personal property is very much respected. Nobody is coming after your toothbrush or your house. What’s meant by private property is owning enterprises that employ other people to work for you. This is replaced by cooperative ownership where workers own the business collectively.
That may be an option then.
Still not convinced it’s only way from here, or even the best way. It would depend entirely on the details.