Boss
Take a Memo:
Liberalism is defined as a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. The 17th century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property and according to the social contract, governments must not violate these rights.
For all practical purposes, what was once thought of as "liberalism" is now known as "libertarianism." So what happened to "liberalism?" Well, it was hijacked in the mid 20th century by progressives. Progressivism is a general political philosophy advocating or favoring gradual social, political, and economic reform through government action. So we see the major difference is the use of the government, liberalism and progressivism are distinctly different concepts. From here, the progressives have been usurped by the socialists and communists, who advocate for a Marxist-style system to replace capitalism. These people currently claim the "Liberal" banner, but they are not even remotely related.
The battle for American independence, was very much a "liberal" cause. We sought our independence from totalitarian rule by kings, in the name of individual liberty. We established a government system that did not interfere with personal freedom, and confined itself, through the constitution, to a limited role. However, through the Progressive movement to the modern day Socialists, we now see "liberals" adopting a 2,700 page health care bill which uses the word "shall" over 3,000 times. These people are not about personal liberty at all. They are all about control. From the type of light bulbs you can use, the kind of car you can drive, and how much of your income you will be allowed to keep.
We continue to see and hear the very same arguments presented by the Socialist movement in Europe, through most of the 20th century, repackaged and presented as if it's some new revolutionary idea. The 1% vs. 99% meme, is almost verbatim, the argument made by Mao Zedong, which sparked the People's Revolution in China. What had happened in China, was a result of a dynasty which controlled all power, unfairly and unequally favoring the elite members close to the ruler. These people were exploiting the resources and labor of the masses, and profiting from the capitalism at the expense of the people.
Mao proposed, just as the Occupy Wall Streeters have, that something must be done to mitigate the out of control capitalism, which was not benefiting the masses. Of course, after Mao was brought to power through revolution, the "grand plan" called for systemic elimination of all capitalism, to the extent of literally executing those who practiced it. Once all of the capitalists were dead, and the government had confiscated their wealth, the idea was, the wealth would be equally distributed to the people and everyone would be better off. But that didn't happen. The socialist "dream" never does happen, because those who are to do the redistributing become very corrupt, and take the money for themselves.
The disaster in China began to unfold after the capitalists were gone, and the elite controlled the wealth, but didn't know what to do with it, other than spend it. As the masses continued to suffer and starve to death, they became rebellious, and eventually, the Mao regime began to execute political dissidents. It is estimated that over 70 million people died as a result of Mao's reign of power. In the end, the masses were not better off, they were considerably worse off. It wasn't until after Mao's death, the government was able to 'moderate' back to a somewhat capitalist style system, and in a matter of the past 40 years, have emerged as a global economic superpower. The point, and lesson, was that destroying capitalism didn't solve the problems, it made matters worse.
It is through our unique combination of limited government intervention, personal freedom, and free market, free enterprise capitalism, that we have been able to enjoy unprecedented success as a nation. This was very much a "liberal" idea, but what we see today from the left in America is completely foreign to that concept. Indeed, we should stop calling these people "liberals" and start calling them what they are, Communists, Socialists, Marxists and Maoists.
For all practical purposes, what was once thought of as "liberalism" is now known as "libertarianism." So what happened to "liberalism?" Well, it was hijacked in the mid 20th century by progressives. Progressivism is a general political philosophy advocating or favoring gradual social, political, and economic reform through government action. So we see the major difference is the use of the government, liberalism and progressivism are distinctly different concepts. From here, the progressives have been usurped by the socialists and communists, who advocate for a Marxist-style system to replace capitalism. These people currently claim the "Liberal" banner, but they are not even remotely related.
The battle for American independence, was very much a "liberal" cause. We sought our independence from totalitarian rule by kings, in the name of individual liberty. We established a government system that did not interfere with personal freedom, and confined itself, through the constitution, to a limited role. However, through the Progressive movement to the modern day Socialists, we now see "liberals" adopting a 2,700 page health care bill which uses the word "shall" over 3,000 times. These people are not about personal liberty at all. They are all about control. From the type of light bulbs you can use, the kind of car you can drive, and how much of your income you will be allowed to keep.
We continue to see and hear the very same arguments presented by the Socialist movement in Europe, through most of the 20th century, repackaged and presented as if it's some new revolutionary idea. The 1% vs. 99% meme, is almost verbatim, the argument made by Mao Zedong, which sparked the People's Revolution in China. What had happened in China, was a result of a dynasty which controlled all power, unfairly and unequally favoring the elite members close to the ruler. These people were exploiting the resources and labor of the masses, and profiting from the capitalism at the expense of the people.
Mao proposed, just as the Occupy Wall Streeters have, that something must be done to mitigate the out of control capitalism, which was not benefiting the masses. Of course, after Mao was brought to power through revolution, the "grand plan" called for systemic elimination of all capitalism, to the extent of literally executing those who practiced it. Once all of the capitalists were dead, and the government had confiscated their wealth, the idea was, the wealth would be equally distributed to the people and everyone would be better off. But that didn't happen. The socialist "dream" never does happen, because those who are to do the redistributing become very corrupt, and take the money for themselves.
The disaster in China began to unfold after the capitalists were gone, and the elite controlled the wealth, but didn't know what to do with it, other than spend it. As the masses continued to suffer and starve to death, they became rebellious, and eventually, the Mao regime began to execute political dissidents. It is estimated that over 70 million people died as a result of Mao's reign of power. In the end, the masses were not better off, they were considerably worse off. It wasn't until after Mao's death, the government was able to 'moderate' back to a somewhat capitalist style system, and in a matter of the past 40 years, have emerged as a global economic superpower. The point, and lesson, was that destroying capitalism didn't solve the problems, it made matters worse.
It is through our unique combination of limited government intervention, personal freedom, and free market, free enterprise capitalism, that we have been able to enjoy unprecedented success as a nation. This was very much a "liberal" idea, but what we see today from the left in America is completely foreign to that concept. Indeed, we should stop calling these people "liberals" and start calling them what they are, Communists, Socialists, Marxists and Maoists.
