what does the word 'liberal' really mean?

Is the Communist Party as it is currently extant in China “liberal” (progressing towards a blended socialist/capitalist economy) or “conservative” (retaining its socialist character while experimenting)?

Ah, so the neo- is in reference to classical liberalism. Makes sense, though Hayek and von Mises wouldn’t qualify as neoliberal, as For You suggests is the case with Europe.

I agree with BrainGlutton and Michael Lind, that “liberal” should not be paired with “conservative”.

Progressive / conservative makes more sense.

Thus, China is liberalizing, in that it is granting more individual freedoms. It is doing so in a cautious, conservative manner.

Well, modern libertarianism is also a somewhat different thing from classical liberalism, though it derives from it, and so does modern liberalism. Neoliberalism, I think, differs from libertarianism in being less extreme – no neoliberal wants to abolish the Federal Reserve or adopt a gold-based currency – and in being confined to the economic sphere; there is no neoliberal agenda for decriminalizing drugs, etc.

Agreed, libertarianism is a descendent of classical liberalism, and thus differs from it in some ways.

Neoliberalism probably shouldn’t be compared directly to libertarianism for that reason, one is a whole political platform, the other pretty strictly economic. It should be compared to classical liberalism on one side, and, I suppose, market socialism on the other.

Well, not liberal. “Liberalism is a theory of a social order based on individual civil liberties, private property, popular sovereignty and democratic republican government.” The CCP is not progressing towards any part of that but private property.

Right; not liberal, but liberalizing, slowly.

So “liberal” is not literally a relative counterpoint to “conservative” but a specific meaning that can encompass some ideals that Americans equate with conservatism? Like, Ron Paul could be so described, but it seems likely that he would bristle at having “Liberal” slapped on him.

That is because, in American political discourse, “liberal” has also been hijacked into what the semantic theorist (and U.S. Senator) S.I. Hayakawa called a “snarl word” – expressing a hostile emotion but otherwise semantically meaningless. (There are also “purr words.”)

Exactly so. Nearly all Americans are liberals, to one degree or another, in the classical sense of “in favor of freedom and equality”. Almost all of us agree on free and fair elections of our lawmakers, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, private property, and so on.

I’m sure Ron Paul is aware of the traditional meaning of “liberal”, so if he bristled at the label, it would be a result of the modern American usage, which I took at stab defining in post #37.

That’s a fine assessment. I’d say “socialist” is getting there, I hear it ascribed to centrist Democrats fifty times for every one time I hear it used to describe actual socialism.

On the left, I think “privilege” and “1%” are getting into “snarl” territory.

Mr. Hayakawa’s definition demands that a “snarl word” is semantically meaningless outside of the conveyance of hostility. “Privilege” and “1%” are not meaningless, as they both convey specific ideas. You may not like the ideas they convey, but the very fact that you know you don’t means they are not semantically meaningless. Or, as Wittgenstein once said, nice try.

Right, hence “getting into” the snarl-word category, not quite there yet. They do convey specific ideas, but that specificity is becoming secondary to using them as a label to affix to those you disagree with politically. Much like “liberal”.

Do you agree on “socialist”?

Liberal means “I hate America and I hate white people.”

I already addressed this silliness in Post #35. Thank you for providing a clear example.

(And your namesake would not have made such a risible comment.)

i was mostly interested in emphasizing the non political aspect of the word that tends to get lost, when i feel the word has been hijacked to be used in this fake divide and conquer left vs. right polarity. Its use in political contexts clouds the purer meanings associated with the word, so I thought it is was worth drawing attention to them.

the wiki page about classical liberalism talks about its orgins in the 1500’s, and yet John of Salisbury wrote his ‘Metalogicon’ @1150 that goes over the liberal arts. the trivium, and quadrivium were at the core of education back then, and were surely much older. you will notice that kings and queens, who were given special educations would usually be able to play instraments or sing, as music is the 7th liberal art. (Henry VIII; Mary I)

http://www.calameo.com/books/000107044639e1e85b433

I would think this would be interesting to people who are into discussing and debating different ideas, because thats exactly what grammer-logic-rhetoric is about. without getting to the rhetoric stage (another word that has adopted only certain connotations), this learning method doesnt fully reach its potential. the process of persausive discussion is part of using the liberal arts to learn any subject, really. It’s almost like a template for learning, or something.

Do you know how the Liberals first came into being? They were Moderates once, taken by the dark powers, tortured and mutilated. A ruined and terrible form of life.

That’s because liberalism has nothing to do with the liberal arts.

i disagree, it has everything to do with the liberal arts.

how does one become a true liberal if not by the study and mastery of the liberal arts?
education used to consist of the study of the liberal arts for 1000 years, and anyone who was considered educated had it under the belt, and could therefore be considered liberal.

its not just a coincidence that its the same word.

I produced a book from 1050 AD using the word liberal in describing the liberal arts, w/ the pdf.
not sure if anyone has read it?

the default meaning, and purest meaning, or definition of a word is the oldest meaning.
the meaning, or connotation of a word can change over time, but when in doubt of which definition we are going on, you default to the oldest meaning (unless the context makes it obvious)… for example, the use of the word trivia, as in ‘trivial pursuit’; useless facts; only goes back to the 60’s… before that it meant pertaining to the trivium (meeting of 3 roads)

so why can’t liberal mean ‘versed in the arts of grammar, logic, and rhetoric; mathematics, geometry, astronomy, and music’ ??

it would be hard to claim that it can never mean that?

:rolleyes: Not coincidence, but not synonymous either. Look, back in the day, a Master of Arts – one who had completed the Trivium and the Quadrivium phases of the Liberal Arts curriculum – was not necessarily “liberal” in any modern political sense; and could not have been, as no political ideology or viewpoint fitting any political usage of “liberal,” whether libertarian or left-progressive, had yet been conceived. The word “liberal” was not even used in any political sense before the 18th Century.

And, once again: liber meaning “free” and liber meaning “book” were different words in Latin, with different pronunciations and different grammatical desclensions.