[SpaciousBox]

I had written a large reply to this, but firefox eat it. Probably for the best I guess, here are the highlights without my waffle:

1. Liberalism, an ideology concerned with freedom. Freedom as defined by liberty, equality, and total egality for everyone. Whilst individualistic in ethics, it is collective in it's thinking, as people's freedoms will very often conflict, requiring management to ensure protection and compromise for all.
2. Origins of Liberalism were based on economic freedom, several hundred years ago. Those who retain this original definition are the Libertarians, and Classical Liberals, and support a free market based economy.
3. Those who accept the political left-wings complains of capitalism progressed the ideology into modern day Liberalism, as an ideology focused on Social freedoms, as opposed to economic. Whilst it would be wrong to say we don't value economic freedom, we value it only as far as it is subservient to social freedom, believing that both the free market and modern day economic structure do not lead to people being free to exist as defined above.
4. Neoliberal economics is a blending of Classical Liberalism with modern Social Liberal values, though in practise actually serves neither extreme. It is championed by the majority of modern day political parties, however those parties themselves are not made part of the liberal spectrum because of these views. Where as modern day Liberals, Classical Liberals, and neoliberal liberals may disagree on economics and economic freedom, they all support social liberalism and freedom - which is what makes them part of the Liberal spectrum. Most modern day parties, do not. For example: Those who champion Social Conservatism cannot be liberal, as the social conservative values always conflict with human rights.
5. Economically, Liberalism is an ideology that will support whatever structure works to it's aims. This means that there is no economic structure innately associated with liberalism. Our present support for regulated capitalism is based off the "best we've got" idea, and will most certainly evolve within the future.
6. There are very few Liberal parties within the world, and with only a few exceptions I might argue against, you can find a reasonable list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_worldwide Many on that list are "relative" liberal parties. That is to say, they may not be considered very liberal by our standards, but are progressing towards that ideology within the confines of their culture, which may not be very progressive. It's also worth noting the list has included parties who call themselves liberal, regardless of how far they might champion the value set.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

As far as I know, neo-liberalism was used as Travesty uses it in this thread: It encompassed both, the liberal right and left. But more recently, ie. the last few decades, it has come to mean laissez-faire economic policy which is rather right of the spectrum. So, strictly speaking, I'd say Pod is correct.

Travesty probably thinks the difference between the two wings is so marginal that it's not worth having two categories for them. The centre-left also has been complicit in several policies that could be said to be neo-liberal in the modern sense of the word.

Overall, my impression is that at least on the surface and in the public eye that centre-left and centre-right have been moving closer to one another, trying to appear ever more moderate (and not only with respect to economic policy, e.g. Cameron declaring gay marriage one of his priorities for the UK). Still, both sides have more extreme groups within their ranks and these groups are distinctly different on the right and on the left. Currently, they don't really have much direct power and input, but they need to be appeased from time to time and therefore have some indirect influence.

[republicuk]

I had written a large reply to this, but firefox eat it. Probably for the best I guess, here are the highlights without my waffle:

1. Liberalism, an ideology concerned with freedom. Freedom as defined by liberty, equality, and total egality for everyone. Whilst individualistic in ethics, it is collective in it's thinking, as people's freedoms will very often conflict, requiring management to ensure protection and compromise for all.
2. Origins of Liberalism were based on economic freedom, several hundred years ago. Those who retain this original definition are the Libertarians, and Classical Liberals, and support a free market based economy.
3. Those who accept the political left-wings complains of capitalism progressed the ideology into modern day Liberalism, as an ideology focused on Social freedoms, as opposed to economic. Whilst it would be wrong to say we don't value economic freedom, we value it only as far as it is subservient to social freedom, believing that both the free market and modern day economic structure do not lead to people being free to exist as defined above.
4. Neoliberal economics is a blending of Classical Liberalism with modern Social Liberal values, though in practise actually serves neither extreme. It is championed by the majority of modern day political parties, however those parties themselves are not made part of the liberal spectrum because of these views. Where as modern day Liberals, Classical Liberals, and neoliberal liberals may disagree on economics and economic freedom, they all support social liberalism and freedom - which is what makes them part of the Liberal spectrum. Most modern day parties, do not. For example: Those who champion Social Conservatism cannot be liberal, as the social conservative values always conflict with human rights.
5. Economically, Liberalism is an ideology that will support whatever structure works to it's aims. This means that there is no economic structure innately associated with liberalism. Our present support for regulated capitalism is based off the "best we've got" idea, and will most certainly evolve within the future.
6. There are very few Liberal parties within the world, and with only a few exceptions I might argue against, you can find a reasonable list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_worldwide Many on that list are "relative" liberal parties. That is to say, they may not be considered very liberal by our standards, but are progressing towards that ideology within the confines of their culture, which may not be very progressive. It's also worth noting the list has included parties who call themselves liberal, regardless of how far they might champion the value set.

Nice post, I agree with pretty much all of that.

have you met any corporatist, feudal or Marxist liberals lately?

This is a ridiculous question.

Its kinda implied you know private property and free trade being core tenants of Liberalism.

Adam Smith HELLO?! Laissez faire economic Liberalism?! is Capitalism

You said liberalism can't exist without capitalism, no its not as simple as that, you pigeon-hole political views on politicians and bodies you associate with them, we all know politicians don't often live up to the principles they claim to support so why not talk about the true underlying ideas?

[Someone5]

1. Liberalism, an ideology concerned with freedom. Freedom as defined by liberty, equality, and total egality for everyone. Whilst individualistic in ethics, it is collective in it's thinking, as people's freedoms will very often conflict, requiring management to ensure protection and compromise for all.

Liberalism is hardly about freedom. Liberalism is about allowing people to wield the power they hold as a cudgel to suppress others who disagree. If liberalism were really about freedom, they would oppose the private ownership of capital, among other basic requirements for freedom.

2. Origins of Liberalism were based on economic freedom, several hundred years ago. Those who retain this original definition are the Libertarians, and Classical Liberals, and support a free market based economy.

... which is about as oppressive as feudalism--providing but two options for the worker, work or starve.

3. Those who accept the political left-wings complains of capitalism progressed the ideology into modern day Liberalism, as an ideology focused on Social freedoms, as opposed to economic. Whilst it would be wrong to say we don't value economic freedom, we value it only as far as it is subservient to social freedom, believing that both the free market and modern day economic structure do not lead to people being free to exist as defined above.

You didn't define freedom, and moreover you can't have freedom while most people work and a few others own the means of production. You can't have freedom when there are gatekeepers to labor, and when work is required to live.

4. Neoliberal economics is a blending of Classical Liberalism with modern Social Liberal values, though in practise actually serves neither extreme. It is championed by the majority of modern day political parties, however those parties themselves are not made part of the liberal spectrum because of these views. Where as modern day Liberals, Classical Liberals, and neoliberal liberals may disagree on economics and economic freedom, they all support social liberalism and freedom - which is what makes them part of the Liberal spectrum. Most modern day parties, do not. For example: Those who champion Social Conservatism cannot be liberal, as the social conservative values always conflict with human rights.

Neoliberalism is quite often directly responsible for human rights abuses all across the globe. Suggesting that it has any regard for "modern social liberal values" merely underscores the broader point about how shallow and insincere modern social liberal values actually are.

5. Economically, Liberalism is an ideology that will support whatever structure works to it's aims. This means that there is no economic structure innately associated with liberalism. Our present support for regulated capitalism is based off the "best we've got" idea, and will most certainly evolve within the future.

Bullshit. Liberals have always propagated capitalism. They depend on capitalism.

[SpaciousBox]

Someone: Whilst it looks a lot like you are deliberately misrepresenting the views stated here, I will give the benefit of the doubt and answer those points.

[Libertarianism/Classical Liberalsm]... which is about as oppressive as feudalism--providing but two options for the worker, work or starve.

Neoliberalism is quite often directly responsible for human rights abuses all across the globe. Suggesting that it has any regard for "modern social liberal values" merely underscores the broader point about how shallow and insincere modern social liberal values actually are.

We agree. In fact I have argued countless times on this forum that the modern economic establishment is illiberal for those exact reasons. The parties that wield these views are highly imperialist, very restrictive of basic rights, and as you correctly mention care nothing for the plight of the working man. I am pleased to see you at least appear to agree with us. When I refer to "right wing liberals" it is only as a courtesy in acknowledgement of our mutual origins. It isn't because I believe they are in anyway interested in the sorts of values or views we (left-liberals) hold.

Bullshit. Liberals have always propagated capitalism. They depend on capitalism.

This alone isn't going to hold water and you know it.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nice post, I agree with pretty much all of that.

Thank you, it's always appreciated. I think the answers given within this thread highlight the exact reason why it is needed. There is a lot of misinformation spread; much of it deliberate, I am starting to believe. However this can only be countered through patient arguing and explanation - I am happy to see I'm not the only one who seems to be fighting an endless battle on this one..