Please read Losurdo - Liberalism, a counter-history. Because from its very inception, in all of liberalism's founding authors and countries, liberalism has meant unlimited freedom only for rich, white, male, property-owners / capitalists. Colonized peoples, the poor, workers, and women have always been and were explicitly excluded from the community of the free.

The history of liberalism is one of theft, disposession, and slavery.

[–] WhatsTheHoldup@lemmy.ml -3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Please read Losurdo - Liberalism, a counter-history.

I've been told to read a lot of stuff haha. I'm not unaware of the issues you raise though so I'll respond.

from its very inception, in all of liberalism's founding authors and countries, liberalism has meant unlimited freedom only for rich, white, male, property-owners / capitalists.

Can you clarify what you mean? When I think "founder of liberalism" my brain goes first to John Locke.

John Locke says.

To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.

A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident, than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection, unless the lord and master of them all should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another, and confer on him, by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty.

Why does John Locke say all creatures of the same species are equal when you claim he's only thinking of the white ones?

Colonized peoples, the poor, workers, and women have always been and were explicitly excluded from the community of the free.

That's true. Saying "all people are created equal" and making all people equal are two different things.

Liberalism set the goal to strive for, and it gave us the tools to notice the contradiction and flaws in our society like lack of rights for women, black people, indigenous or other minorities.

When we raised our kids to be liberal, they grew up, saw the oppression and inequality to these groups and one by one, civil rights, Vietnam War protests, woman's suffrage, right to abortion, gay rights were secured as they grappled with the contradictions of this injustice done by the state and the ideology that says the state shouldn't act that way.

All social justice movements today have their roots in this liberal enlightenment philosophy.

For example, you don't get a Karl Marx without first having liberalism. Take his father Heinrich:

Largely non-religious, Heinrich was a man of the Enlightenment, interested in the ideas of the philosophers Immanuel Kant and Voltaire. A classical liberal, he took part in agitation for a constitution and reforms in Prussia, which was then an absolute monarchy.

The values liberals teach their kids allow liberalism to evolve towards societies way freer than the parents could have ever imagined or maybe even accepted from their biases at the time.

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Why does John Locke say all creatures of the same species are equal when you claim he's only thinking of the white ones?

John Locke was a shareholder in the royal african company (a slave trading / capturing company), and also helped author the constitution of the carolinas that enshrined slavery. He also justifies it as captives taken in a "just war" . From his two treatises:

captives taken in a just war forfeited their lives and, with it, their liberties. [They were slaves] ‘subjected to the absolute dominion and arbitrary power of their masters’.

Locke on indigenous peoples:

When he sought to challenge the march of civilization, violently opposing exploitation through labour of the uncultivated land occupied by him, the Indian, along with any other criminal, could be equated with ‘one of those wild savage beasts with whom men can have no society nor security’, and who ‘therefore may be destroyed as a lion or a tiger’. Locke never tired of insisting on the right possessed by any man to destroy those reduced to the level of ‘beasts of prey’, ‘savage beasts’; to the level of ‘a savage ravenous beast that is dangerous to his being’.

This is all out in the open. I suggest you read the book I linked above.

[–] WhatsTheHoldup@lemmy.ml -3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

John Locke was a shareholder in the royal african company (a slave trading / capturing company)

That's horrible, what a hypocrite.

When he sought to challenge the march of civilization, violently opposing exploitation through labour of the uncultivated land occupied by him, the Indian, along with any other criminal, could be equated with ‘one of those wild savage beasts with whom men can have no society nor security’, and who ‘therefore may be destroyed as a lion or a tiger’. Locke never tired of insisting on the right possessed by any man to destroy those reduced to the level of ‘beasts of prey’, ‘savage beasts’; to the level of ‘a savage ravenous beast that is dangerous to his being’.

Yes this is what I was asking for. Fantastic argument.

I think your book might be misleading with its commentary, the original passage doesn't seem to reference Indigenous peoples.

Sect. 172. Thirdly, Despotical power is an absolute, arbitrary power one man has over another, to take away his life, whenever he pleases. This is a power, which neither nature gives, for it has made no such distinction between one man and another; nor compact can convey: for man not having such an arbitrary power over his own life, cannot give another man such a power over it; but it is the effect only of forfeiture, which the aggressor makes of his own life, when he puts himself into the state of war with another: for having quitted reason, which God hath given to be the rule betwixt man and man, and the common bond whereby human kind is united into one fellowship and society; and having renounced the way of peace which that teaches, and made use of the force of war, to compass his unjust ends upon another, where he has no right; and so revolting from his own kind to that of beasts, by making force, which is their's, to be his rule of right, he renders himself liable to be destroyed by the injured person, and the rest of mankind, that will join with him in the execution of justice, as any other wild beast, or noxious brute, with whom mankind can have neither society nor security. And thus captives, taken in a just and lawful war, and such only, are subject to a despotical power, which, as it arises not from compact, so neither is it capable of any, but is the state of war continued: for what compact can be made with a man that is not master of his own life? what condition can he perform? and if he be once allowed to be master of his own life, the despotical, arbitrary power of his master ceases.He that is master of himself, and his own life, has a right too to the means of preserving it; so that as soon as compact enters, slavery ceases, and he so far quits his absolute power, and puts an end to the state of war, who enters into conditions with his captive.

https://english.hku.hk/staff/kjohnson/PDF/LockeJohnSECONDTREATISE1690.pdf

From what I'm reading here, someone only forfeits their rights when they put themselves into a state of war with another.

In that situation, we have a right to end the war and then keep the combatants captive only until we can reintroduce the social contract and return their rights.

I'm thinking or post Civil War reconstruction and partly agreeing we needed to do a better job of shutting down those slavers.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

That’s horrible, what a hypocrite.

Did you miss the part where he listed taking slaves as part of his ideology? He wasn't a hypocrite, he correctly believed that slavery was a compatible part of liberalism.

From what I’m reading here, someone only forfeits their rights when they put themselves into a state of war with another.

So you do accept that unilaterally declaring that someone has "forfeited their rights" and taking them as a slave with no due process is compatible with your beliefs?

[+] WhatsTheHoldup@lemmy.ml -6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Did you miss the part where he listed taking slaves as part of his ideology?

In the way you describe, yes I missed that.

So you do accept that unilaterally declaring that someone has "forfeited their rights" and taking them as a slave with no due process is compatible with your beliefs?

"Slave" is a very archaic word in this context. It is my understanding he is talking about the concept of prisoners.

If a person murders another, I do accept they have "forfeited their rights", and that we should then use due process to try them of this crime, and if guilty they should be imprisoned (does that mean taking them as a slave?).

This is not the economic practice of slave labor being described.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 8 points 7 months ago

“Slave” is a very archaic word in this context. It is my understanding he is talking about the concept of prisoners.

It says that he is considered a wild beast with no rights and can be subject to 'despotic power'. That sounds more like a slave than a prisoner. If he just meant prisoner, it would also mean that he opposes people being imprisoned in any context outside of war.

This is not the economic practice of slave labor being described.

It certainly says slave labor is an acceptable use of these prisoners. Which makes sense given that the person saying it owned part of slaving company.