A Case For Liberalism
I was at a party the other day (don’t worry, less than ten people, so I guess it’s more of a get-together) when I met this amazing gentleman who had been raised in India. We were having a really interesting conversation about how ancient Indian culture was so incredibly ahead of its time: the architectural marvels that were created without the wonders of modern technology, the surprisingly efficient systems of water management, the careful weaving of science and math into everyday life. However, for some reason, the discussion switched over to college majors, particularly Philosophy. The aforementioned gentleman suddenly said to me, “That’s just liberal crap.” Defensively, I responded, “I’m a liberal.” And then he looked at me, with genuine confusion splattered across his face. He took a few seconds to recompose himself, as I apprehensively waited for his response. He laughed and said, “Seeing how you respect Indian culture, there’s no way you’re a liberal.”
I wish that was the first time someone said that to me.
It really confuses me, it really really does, as to why “liberalism” is a bad word. I understand that you may not agree with certain kinds of liberalism, and that’s fine. But if you’re not a liberal, there are two possible reasons why: a) you’re completely uneducated on what a liberal is (90% of the population), or b) you’re the Avengers 2012 version of Loki, or some derivative thereof (I can name a few names, but we won’t go there).
You see, liberalism, unlike some other “-isms” in philosophy (transcendentalism and existentialism to name a couple), is pretty much what it sounds like: a philosophical movement/way of life that preaches liberty.
Does this sound like the start of something...YUP! Capitalism. See where I’m going with this..?
Everyone who’s reading this is mad: the socialists are mad cuz I’m supporting capitalism (I’ll get to that in a sec), and the capitalists are mad because half think that I called them the Avengers 2012 versions of Loki, and the other half think that I called them something much worse…
…a liberal.
I suppose the moderates are chill.
They wanted to take part in innovation, give businesses the freedom to bring about progress, bring social change through economic freedom, and more. My opinion isn’t really relevant here, but I’d say they did a pretty decent job, even though we have a long way to go.
And THIS is what confuses me. There’s an astoundingly evident connection between capitalism and liberalism. They’re two sides of the same coin, soul mates who found each other from opposite ends of the world, etc. However, basically every staunch capitalist I know is not a liberal.
I suppose a large part of that is because both capitalism and liberalism have evolved drastically.
Let’s start with the former, shall we (hey there, socialists).
It wasn’t long before many would argue that capitalism wasn’t so great. Because of the rising levels of production, it would soon be revealed that in order for capitalism to be efficient, a working-class was needed. Enter long hours, child labor, arduous workdays with no escape. This was life for a significantly large portion of the population. And the people who monetized this struggle were at the top, rich to begin with, just making more money. The working class really had no way to grow, they were burdened with loads of work to be able to even afford a meal a day, and they certainly were not privileged enough to get an education. Consequently, the divide between the classes became larger, class conflict grew, leaving us with the inherently classist society we deal with today. A lot of people realized that capitalism, something that had promised to replace authoritarianism for freedom, didn’t do that at all. Instead, it simply switched the power of authoritarianism from the federal government to the rich businesses. And because of nepotism, the lack of a meritocracy, and straight-up poverty, equal opportunity was thrown out the window.
Many capitalists justified what was happening by saying that, as humans are animals, it is our natural state of being to organize ourselves into hierarchies, the class breach being a result of that. I, personally, choose not to believe in this, and I’m sure that you can see how this idea is diametrically opposed to what capitalism started out as: an economic philosophy that grants freedom and equal opportunity to all businesses and individuals.
Because of the changes in capitalism, liberalism drifted away. Modern liberalism still holds the same ideals, except it includes businesses in the definition of “establishment” in “anti-establishment.” After all, liberalism is against anything that could potentially threaten individual freedom. And as we discussed, at this point, capitalism wasn’t doing so great in that department.
Again, my opinion doesn’t matter, but I’m going to say it anyway. The goal is to reach the middle ground (WOAH, Shreya, no one knew). Anything left unchecked is harmful, capitalism included. Capitalism and socialism are both imperfect philosophies that need each other more than we think.
Capitalism is the key to freedom, provided socialism exists to make sure it doesn’t spiral out of control.
And in order to reach a middle ground, we need a common goal.
And what better common goal than the highly-misunderstood liberalism?
At the end of the day, isn’t that what everyone is fighting for: the right to be themselves, to do what they want on their own terms, to be able to choose? Why isn’t that the end goal?
When you talk about a politician that you don’t like, and you call him/her a liberal, it’s more of a compliment than you think. When you say, “these liberal socialists are stupid,” you’re actually saying that “the socialists who protect freedom are stupid.” And I really want to think that’s not what you mean.
Because, at this point, if you don’t believe in freedom and equal opportunity, I have no words.
And I still have no idea as to how any of this relates to Indian culture.
This post was written by Shreya Arukil, and edited by Sreya Kalapala