Nice title which suggests you have absolutely no idea what liberal means (in this or any other context) and you thought this was an attack against liberals.
Update:
I made a mistake. I didn't notice the actual community name and had a knee-jerk reaction to the subject as an attack on "liberals" as is commonly used when talking about politics in the U.S.
In review, I see that you are having a more intellectual conversation and I should have taken more time to see that in the first place. Apologies.
Seems that it is in fact you who have no clue what liberalism is. Liberal democracies are dictatorships of capital, and they quickly pull off their mask in times of crisis. Freedom under liberalism primarily refers to freedom of those who own private property to exploit others for their benefit. The imposition of the capitalist system that is at the root of liberalism is fundamentally based on violence and coercion, forcing individuals to conform to its principles or face dire consequences.
Liberalism has two distinct aspects: political liberalism, which champions individual freedom and democracy, and economic liberalism, which is synonymous with capitalism. While appearing compatible, the two faces of liberalism clash once the interests of capital come under threat. Political liberties are inevitably sacrificed to protect the economic interests of the ruling class.
When threatened by populism, liberalism readily abandons its political ideals in favor of preserving the capitalist economic system. It ultimately serves as nothing more than a mask for capitalism, concealing its exploitative nature behind a facade of individual freedom and democracy.
The concept of property, central to liberalism, is presented as a cornerstone of freedom. However, it ignores the fact that individual property can represent a theft from the community, and its protection justifies state violence. Liberalism’s commitment to freedom of expression is undermined by its legal and constitutional protections of property, which remove the issue of property rights from the realm of political discourse.
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law.
By “private property,” what is meant is “the means of production.” Liberalism is the philosophy of the bourgeoisie, otherwise known as the capitalist class.
Private property isn't as supportive of capitalism as it initially seems. Classical laborists (e.g. Proudhon) and their modern intellectual descendants (e.g. David Ellerman) argue that the positive and negative results of production are the private property of the workers in the firm. This argument immediately implies a worker coop structure mandate on all firms and rules out capitalism. Capitalism is so indefensible that even private property requires the abolition of capitalism
Perfect description of Russia and China!
Poor people living there… Being fed lies from their media, and basically being rejected the access to true freedom, like in the "western world"... I hope someday they can free themselves.
I'm literally a westerner in China and all I can tell you is you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.
It's staggering how propagandised westerners are. That you can look at the history you yourself have lived through and proclaim yourself as free is proof of that.
A KGB spy and a CIA agent meet up in a bar for a friendly drink.
"I have to admit, I'm always so impressed by Soviet propaganda. You really know how to get people worked up," the CIA agent says.
"Thank you," the KGB says. "We do our best but truly, it's nothing compared to American propaganda. Your people believe everything your state media tells them."
The CIA agent drops his drink in shock and disgust. "Thank you friend, but you must be confused... There's no propaganda in America."
Chinese people feel both that their country is more democratic, and that democracy is more important than USians do.
And they're right
Because in the US, the average person's support for a policy has NO EFFECT on how likely it is to be passed, whereas the opinions of the ultra-wealthy are basically already law.
So concludes a recent study, external by Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin I Page.
This is not news, you say.
Perhaps, but the two professors have conducted exhaustive research to try to present data-driven support for this conclusion. Here's how they explain it:
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
In English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.
Oh… My wife is Chinese, she agrees with me. My child is half Chinese.. So, all I am saying is, that there are Chinese who believe differently. Mostly the ones, who have seen the outside world.