Bruh, I literally work in academia. Perhaps it is not important to you, but it is important to me. No one remembers the richest person of yesteryear, but important ideas and people associated with ideas remain timeless.
If you think this is irrelevant, good for you; why try to impose your opinions over mine when all I asked for was a discussion on merits? By your metric, we should all just toss the philosophy, political science, jurisprudence, social science books etc. out of the window and only study corporate law because that is relevant.
Lol, I am a Centrist on social issues (think nationalism, law and order, etc.) and Socialist on economic issues, more like the Congress Party of Indira Gandhi and Rajiv's time. Post 2004, the Congress has moved slightly to the Left on social issues and its economics was a weird mixture of old license raj red tape and full-blown Chicago school free market. It didn't help that different Cong leaders (Sonia, Rahul, Pranab Mukherjee, Chidambaram, and the regional satraps like Vilasrao Deshmukh/Prithviraj Chavan/Amarinder Singh) had differing positions on the ideological spectrum. It is only Sonia and Rahul who lead the socially liberal charge in the Congress.
Also in the fag end of UPA 2 they brought in some really socialist measures like NREGA, Land Acquisition Act and Food Security Act as they were shocked at the resurgence of the Hard Left after the Nandigram movement.
It is fascinating indeed, because we have seen for a short while till the interwar period, classical/orthodox liberalism - gradual dis-embedding of markets from the normative fabric of society as Polanyi calls it. This was followed in the postwar period by the rise of 'embedded liberalism' (as Ruggie calls it) with a re-embedding of markets in social structures, and a compromise between domestic welfare systems and demands for international free markets (Bretton Woods compromises). Then came neo-lieberalism, and now we see, once again, the calls for re-embedding liberalism within society. One could think of this as a Hegelian thesis-antithesis-synthesis perpetual pendulum that never stops.
Liberalism subsumes within itself all merits and all critique, like the article OP posted, so that is not surprising to me. The only problematic aspect of the article is that it does not appreciate the interest of liberals in maintaining the status quo for it has benefitted them - needless to say any challenge to liberalism (from the right or the left) will be met with vehement opposition. The 'illiberal left' as a concept to criticise is still important (not saying it is good or bad), because it draws back focus to individualism, pointing out that the left wants exactly the same things as the right-wing - only that the norms are to be substituted by their own.
I am disappointed. I thought it would be a fun subreddit to browse, and I will be owned by the memes, but there is nothing but deafening silence there.
If you think this is irrelevant, good for you; why try to impose your opinions over mine when all I asked for was a discussion on merits? By your metric, we should all just toss the philosophy, political science, jurisprudence, social science books etc. out of the window and only study corporate law because that is relevant.
Also in the fag end of UPA 2 they brought in some really socialist measures like NREGA, Land Acquisition Act and Food Security Act as they were shocked at the resurgence of the Hard Left after the Nandigram movement.
It is fascinating indeed, because we have seen for a short while till the interwar period, classical/orthodox liberalism - gradual dis-embedding of markets from the normative fabric of society as Polanyi calls it. This was followed in the postwar period by the rise of 'embedded liberalism' (as Ruggie calls it) with a re-embedding of markets in social structures, and a compromise between domestic welfare systems and demands for international free markets (Bretton Woods compromises). Then came neo-lieberalism, and now we see, once again, the calls for re-embedding liberalism within society. One could think of this as a Hegelian thesis-antithesis-synthesis perpetual pendulum that never stops.
Liberalism subsumes within itself all merits and all critique, like the article OP posted, so that is not surprising to me. The only problematic aspect of the article is that it does not appreciate the interest of liberals in maintaining the status quo for it has benefitted them - needless to say any challenge to liberalism (from the right or the left) will be met with vehement opposition. The 'illiberal left' as a concept to criticise is still important (not saying it is good or bad), because it draws back focus to individualism, pointing out that the left wants exactly the same things as the right-wing - only that the norms are to be substituted by their own.
- R
Truth is, both the left and right in this country is pretty shit.
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/09/04/the-threat-from-the-illiberal-left