development of Liberalism while you have made broad and clearly inaccurate generalities

Never did that.

established that you think history has no bearing on theory

Literally did the opposite.

tated a single position that liberalism’s foundation is abstract universal rights

Nope I did not.

anyone who disagrees with that position is not only clearly uneducated but has a media-rotted brain and is incapable of discussing theory.

Nope.

Are you like actually retarded? I don’t ask this lightly. I went into your comment history and you do this to a lot of people and they express having the same experience I have. That you just wildly flop around claiming things, move goal posts, claim nonsense and it’s almost like you’re on drugs when you’re reading.

This entire thread has you doing laps disconnecting the historical context liberalism came from claiming it has this nefarious start of merchants basically lying. Your historical context is skewed and really just absolutely incorrect.

Merchants wanted the wealth they were hoarding to translate into power, but they couldn’t buy power because power was tied to land and land was tied to nobility which was entirely determined by the unitary sovereign which was entirely determined by heredity.

That’s skewed and wrong.

Merchants wanted their wealth to translate to power, so they developed a new political theory for where power should come from

Stupid perspective.

So they started to invent abstract concepts to disconnect power from reality so they could reassign power

Stupid

They invented the concept of abstract rights, and they put a right to private property into a list of things like the right to print whatever they wanted in newspapers that they owned and the right to buy and sell anything.

Stupid

Liberalism is the political philosophy of merchants and land owners that gives them political power on the basis of their effectiveness at accumulating wealth and makes the bare minimum concessions to the laboring masses required to get them to fight against the kings on behalf of the merchants.

Stupid

It is the political philosophy of settler colonialism, of privatization, of chattel slavery, of Thomas Jefferson’s breeding plantations, of Coca Cola hiring death squads, of the Opium Wars, of killing all the buffalo so that land could be taken from the Lakota, of getting people addicted to drugs in order to get them into debt.

Very fucking stupid, do you think Thomas Jefferson created liberalism?

Liberalism is the political movement that destroyed the social safety net that feudal societies maintained through nobilesse oblige and impoverished the masses everywhere until it forced the emergence of a labor movement and the creation of labor unions to give the masses a vehicle to fight the liberals, which the liberals crushed with military and paramilitary violence.

Completely ignorant.

It’s all stupid and ignorant because you’re completely failing to understand the environment these ideals were thought under, multiple people in this thread have pointed it out. Liberalism was not thought up by a cabal of merchants, it wasn’t created by the Illuminati with a goal, it wasn’t fashioned as a tool. It came about from people realizing the increasing failures of monarchies and realizing they were able to move away from the crown as a backbone of society and establish something else. It was literally the only educated folk at the time stumbling into the darkness and searching for something more. They did their best with the language and understanding they had to cobble together an argument for individual’s rights. Literally the easiest way to ever make anyone understand is to teach the origins of the word villain and then ask them how to argue against that concept in the face of a king or noble. Those first few steps will lead anyone towards basically liberalism, the concept of self-determination becomes obvious. Everything else follows.

The way you express yourself is this weird frankenstein view where you’re looking at the ultra rich liberals and claiming those are the core beliefs of liberalism. It was not because merchants had a goal, it is because society moved away from what it was before and people felt it.

Yes, I view all political philosophies through a historical concrete lens and not through an abstract idealist one.

You think this sounded smart, but it means fucking nothing. Political theories are abstract, they are ideals. When anyone tries to point out even in the slightest way that your view is crooked you respond like this:

Please read a book before posting this sort of embarrassingly ignorant shit

You’re a child, you’re an asshole and above all you’re a fucking idiot suffering from some hardcore Dunning-Kruger energy. You think you know, when others reply normally and push back you embrace your inner little bitch energy and just completely crumble. You do not discuss, you cry.

Then you say shit like this :

No. Liberalism creates plutocracies. Your definition of democracy is limited to existing liberal democracies. Real democracy is when the people have the ability to influence the state, which is what communist movements have done successfully despite being called “undemocratic” by the Liberals. Mostly because Liberalism cannot abide a state deciding to nationalize its natural resources.

And expose exactly why you’re so dumb. Because you decided what you believe, not the actual truth. Communist movements have not successfully done that, they have always created a massive divide in wealth under the umbrella of equality. They are usually ruled by a wealthy privileged elite, really only Cuba you could make an argument hasn’t done that but they still have the same issue where citizens who have access to foreign currency exist far above those who do not.

You say shit like this:

And Democracy isn’t what produced the the plutocracy in Rome.

and then instantly contradict yourself.

Roman plutocracy emerged because its systems were literally organized by wealth with wealthy people having more say in bodies like the Comitia Centuriata and with wealth requirements for holding office, especially for senators.

So no you can’t discuss theory, you can’t even discuss. You cry, insult, bitch, complain, you’re nasty and immature and really just fucking stupid. You don’t understand history. You contradict yourself, you move goalposts, you equivocate what you say, you try all these mental gymnastics because like I said, you’ve decided what you think is true and not actual reality. You’re fucking dumb. Stop talking to me lmfao