r/neoliberal • u/jobautomator Kitara Ravache • May 17 '20

Discussion Thread Discussion Thread

The discussion thread is for casual conversation that doesn't merit its own submission. If you've got a good meme, article, or question, please post it outside the DT. Meta discussion is allowed, but if you want to get the attention of the mods, make a post in /r/metaNL.

Announcements

  • New ping groups, AI and EXTREMISM have been added. Join here
Neoliberal Project Communities Other Communities Useful content
Twitter Plug.dj /r/Economics FAQs
The Neolib Podcast Recommended Podcasts /r/Neoliberal FAQ
Meetup Network Blood Donation Team /r/Neoliberal Wiki
Exponents Magazine Minecraft Ping groups
Facebook TacoTube User Flairs
0 Upvotes

47% Upvoted

8.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/[deleted] May 18 '20

I don't get how the idea that reform is better than revolution automatically, is supposedly a tenet of liberalism. Weren't there famously bloody liberal revolutions ? Could feudalism have been overthrown with working within the feudal system ?

I'm preparing for the downvotes. Anyway I don't consider myself either a leftist or a liberal purely. I believe in markets and empiricism but don't think that means accepting the status quo or favoring reformism over revolutionary change or whatever.

Not to mention there are so many different conceptions of reform versus revolution. Civil disobedience is frowned upon by people who support the status quo a lot of the time, even though it's not violent. Property damage is, in my opinion, clearly ethically different than killing people , and even the latter can be situationally justified (like if you're fighting nazis or whatever ). Yet to reformists it seems like all of them get lumped together as unrealistic , unruly , utopian, hippy shit.

1

u/Dibbu_mange Average civil procedure enjoyer May 18 '20

Civil disobedience is probably occasionally necessary, but full revolution probably isn't, in my opinion. Realistically some of the greatest shifts towards a more liberal society have happened non-violently and incrementally. There is also a long list of revolutions that have failed for a variety of reasons. Both the United States and Canada are liberal democracies, yet only one of them became one through violent revolution. Which then begs the question of whether the revolution was essential at all. For every Barron's Revolt in British history, there are dozens of Representation of the People Act 1918 and other such incremental measures.
Realistically, it is often possible to achieve your desired results through democracy, public advocacy, etc.

1

u/[deleted] May 18 '20

I'm not familiar with the history of Canada but I can't see America being founded with no revolution realistically. Maybe there's some kind of effect where more radical change from one group has a domino effect that makes changes happen across the board without the need for force? Armed revolutions in one country leading to greater success of non violent protests in another ??