> My claim is that liberalism is contradictory because it does not contain a class analysis. It uses the language of true equality but it cannot guarantee it.
Classical liberalism understands the word "equality" to mean something different from what you think it means.
> Did you read the article?
I'm referring to your analysis, so the article is irrelevant. You're saying that classical liberalism says things that it does not say. The article is also not about classical liberalism.
> They use the myth of free markets, they use the myth of equality under law, they use the myth of economic freedom, they use the myth of liberty and justice for all.
None of these things are myths. They are, again, ideals. You commit the is-ought fallacy, blatantly and repeatedly.
Wait, I'm talking about liberalism and classical/social liberalism as extensions of that. Im referring to the overarching philosophy and parts of its derivatives.
>I'm referring to your analysis, so the article is irrelevant.
You didnt read it. I said that the group of ideas that are talked about in the article belong to liberalism, the philosophy. That they are derived from philosophical liberalism, the overarching philosophy of capitalist countries.
> None of these things are myths. They are, again, ideals. You commit the is-ought fallacy, blatantly and repeatedly.
I am specifically saying that these ideals cannot be attained. The philosophy is in negation of itself. That they are unworkable and cannot be practiced while there are classes within society. Moreso that they are how the rich defend their own rule, knowing that they are unworkable ideals. Its a philosophy analogous to "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".
Pfffff, you're basically saying "you're not saying anything relevant", but never actually contributing anything to the conversation.
Alright lets do an exercise...
Please look at any of the widely accepted tenets of liberalism. Okay? Got em? Keep them in mind for this next part...
Now I will distill my argument into one sentence for you:
I claim this article is a critique of the widespread notion that it is possible to figuratively "pull yourself up by your bootstraps", I claim that this notion is founded on the assumption that liberalism has attained its goals or that it is in progress of that.
And I promise you that if you put an ounce of effort you can see what I'm saying. In fact I'll help you more.
"Pull yourself up by your bootstrap" people are either in a financially stable position or support the status quo. They use this phrase to signify that, through a liberal lens of liberty, you are wholly responsible for your condition, and not only that, but that you should be capable of such feat BY VIRTUE OF the benefits bestowed upon you by a liberal economy/country. These benefits that they claim ARE the tenets of liberalism, such as: the right to private property, political equality, rule of law, freedom of assembly, economic freedom, etc.
Do you see? This is, fundamentally, a critique of liberalism.
Please don't reply if you don't have anything to contribute.
The goal of classical liberalism, obviously.
> My claim is that liberalism is contradictory because it does not contain a class analysis. It uses the language of true equality but it cannot guarantee it.
Classical liberalism understands the word "equality" to mean something different from what you think it means.
> Did you read the article?
I'm referring to your analysis, so the article is irrelevant. You're saying that classical liberalism says things that it does not say. The article is also not about classical liberalism.
> They use the myth of free markets, they use the myth of equality under law, they use the myth of economic freedom, they use the myth of liberty and justice for all.
None of these things are myths. They are, again, ideals. You commit the is-ought fallacy, blatantly and repeatedly.