Talk:Freedom and Solidarity

Infobox ideologies, again

Hello, as of late I have seen several edits on ideologies in the infobox. I think we can all agree on "Liberalism", but I am not sure that the "show" solution is the best we can have. I would actually have only two ideologies, "Liberalism" and "Libertarianism". "Classical liberalism" is little out-of-date these days and "conservative liberalism" is not precise enough as the party is also liberal on social/ethical matters. --Checco (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree, really. I don't like the trend of using classical liberalism in Infoboxes for current-day, extant parties, as it's more of a historical ideology. Liberalism and Libertarianism are as broadly descriptive as possible while also giving an adequate depiction of the party's main ideological base.--Autospark (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the infobox, I agree that "liberalism" and "libertarianism" should stay there, other descriptors can be found in the Ideology subsection. --Vacant0 (talk) 11:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

We might as well just have liberalism. Libertarianism is an American-centric term to mean the exact same thing (cultural or civil liberal and fiscal conservative or economic liberal), and considering that this is an European party, it makes no sense to have it there, especially when sources are using it exactly to refer to that, and not as a distinct ideology. Just because a source say libertarian, it does not mean anything if they mean European liberalism or economic liberalism. Many sources use communism or Communism to refer to Communist states and Marxism–Leninism, not the generic, small-c broad movement. What matter the most is the context in which terms are used. Liberalism is enough for the infobox, and anything else can be clarified in the lead and body. Davide King (talk) 06:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

What I have just read is very interesting. I also think, for instance, that "Communism" and not "Marxism-Leninism" should be used as ideology in political party infoboxes. However, to come back to our issue here, I do not think that "Libertarianism" is an "American-centric term" meaning the same as "Liberalism". Quite the contrary, it is a distinct ideology. --Checco (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree – I would dispute the claim that "libertarian[ism]" is purely an American English term that is synonymous with "liberal[ism]" in the European sense. However, I would also be prepared to compromise to solely listing "Liberalism" in the Infobox, even if I would prefer both "Liberalism" and "Libertarianism".--Autospark (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Autospark, Checco, thanks for your comments. First of all, Marxism–Leninism is a widely used term, so I disagree on that; what I would propose is removing communism and just use Marxism–Leninism for parties which are not big-tent Communist parties but mainly Marxist–Leninists. Second of all, I think you either misunderstood me or I did not express myself clearly. I meant to say that this party is libertarian mainly in the economic liberal (Meandering in Transition: Thirty Years of Reforms and Identity in Post-Communist Europe calls it neoliberal in a descriptive sense) or American sense of fiscal conservative and cultural liberal (again, in American terms), see The New Party Challenge: Changing Cycles of Party Birth and The New Party Challenge: Changing Cycles of Party Birth and Death in Central Europe and Beyond. It is precisely that libertarianism does not necessarily mean liberalism or economic liberalism that we should avoid it, or be more specific (at this point, I prefer to avoid it). From sources on the party I have read, libertarian is either used to describe as a synthesis of economic liberalism/fiscal conservatism and cultural liberal (as in the United States, and what I was referring to) or is used not as an ideology but as a political position on the libertarian–post-materialist spectrum et similia. Finally, it is redundant and would be like adding socialism at any centre-left, social-democratic/socialist party. In general, most sources just call it liberal, and by libertarian mean the same thing. Davide King (talk) 05:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I also would accept User:Autospark's compromise. However, SaS is libertarian also on most social issues... --Checco (talk) 05:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

It does stand on the libertarian side of a two dimensional spectrum, such as the Political Compass, vis-à-vis an authoritarian or traditional scale, but the proper term for that is cultural liberalism, which is not a proper idoelogy and is something that is better described in the lead. Davide King (talk) 06:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I would prefer (Classic) Liberalism, Libertarianism and Soft euroscepticism. This is in my opinion the best way to describe them Braganza (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Liberalism and libertarianism I deem acceptable (classical liberalism is a 19th century ideology); if other editors feel that Euroscepticism has to be included in the Infobox, only Euroscepticism without any modifiers should be used (the sources do not refer to so-called “soft” Euroscepticism).—Autospark (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I would have "liberalism" and "libertarianism", avoid "classical liberalism" and remove "Euroscepticism".

Regarding the so-called "soft" and "hard" Euroscepticism, there is a discussion at Talk:Euroscepticism. --Checco (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

We had long discussed on this issue, but, as some users have recently disputed the current consensus, I think it is useful to recall that we finally settled on "liberalism" and "libertarianism" for the infobox. Of course, any consensus can be challenged, but, until a new consensus is achieved, the current one should be upheld. --Checco (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)