And that's the issue. The latter, of being free to even have the the possibility for economic freedom, is liberalism in it's essence. And that's not happening in capitalism. Under capitalism only the rich are free, so liberalism happens outside of capitalism.

[–] mathemachristian@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No it isn't. That's just not what people mean when they talk about "liberalism". Liberalism's core idea is around a free (liberal) market. Just like how socialism's core idea is around a collectivization of the means of production. You cant be a capitalist socialist and you cant be an anticapitalist liberal. It doesn't make sense.

[–] boredtortoise@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Tying liberalism to the market is an afterthought. Its core is in social freedom.

Only the rich are free in capitalism

[–] mathemachristian@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If it is its not mine. This is what people talk about when they talk about liberalism. If you want to use the word differently you should clarify that from the start b

[–] boredtortoise@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

People should read up on liberalism and stick to it instead of capitalist newspeak

And we who know better can always correct the misuse

[–] mathemachristian@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If people "read up on liberalism" they'd be reading the definition of it which includes free market capitalism, because this is what textbooks on the matter will associate with liberalism. Not your definition of it which is shared by almost no one.

[–] boredtortoise@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Even the Wikipedia article is 95% social freedom. And any critical person could see that when it mentions the additional economic liberalism is not possible under capitalism

Easy test: Does everyone have the possibility to be economically (or otherwise) free in capitalism? No. Therefore liberalism is impossible with capitalism