Liberalism is a much misunderstood word. In the US, it can be used to mean “left.” In the UK, it is often understood as “centrist,” and in Australia, it can be taken to refer to the conservative party. However, liberalism is not a political position. It is a set of values that seeks to defend every person’s freedom (individualism), tolerate and even appreciate difference (pluralism) and recognise and value our shared humanity and see in it a moral responsibility to ensure that the same rights, freedoms, and responsibilities belong to everybody (universalism.) Liberalism, therefore, can be at home on the left where it mixes with left-wing aims to distribute goods more evenly to enable everyone to reach their potential, or on the right where its concepts of freedom extend more into the realm of markets and overlap with libertarianism.
The article raises an issue that I would like to see developed further: the issue of power. The article deals with the Marxist POV, but i've long felt that the existence of power differences (not imbalances because I don't assume it must be balanced) is something that isn't discussed/taught. I have seen organizational power used well and badly, and I recall some discussion of other types of power (e.g., expert power, individual power), but if the Marxists are going to use it as a fundamental, then it seems to me useful to have a better idea of what it is, how to know when you have it (or not) and a rational/objective understanding of its proper use.
I was impressed with the dissection of Critical Theory, but I think one element is missing, namely the violent means that have been used by historical adherents and would be necessary to "correct" the power imbalances that this theory advocates. The negating of some persons rights to correct perceived imbalances only shifts the old victims to a new privileged position; in effect a role reversal. Rights are basically incompatible with this incongruous notion that can only reduce society to warring factions attempting to grab their claimed economic or social power.
The article raises an issue that I would like to see developed further: the issue of power. The article deals with the Marxist POV, but i've long felt that the existence of power differences (not imbalances because I don't assume it must be balanced) is something that isn't discussed/taught. I have seen organizational power used well and badly, and I recall some discussion of other types of power (e.g., expert power, individual power), but if the Marxists are going to use it as a fundamental, then it seems to me useful to have a better idea of what it is, how to know when you have it (or not) and a rational/objective understanding of its proper use.
I was impressed with the dissection of Critical Theory, but I think one element is missing, namely the violent means that have been used by historical adherents and would be necessary to "correct" the power imbalances that this theory advocates. The negating of some persons rights to correct perceived imbalances only shifts the old victims to a new privileged position; in effect a role reversal. Rights are basically incompatible with this incongruous notion that can only reduce society to warring factions attempting to grab their claimed economic or social power.