>>2873964>red cultural MarxistsDid you wake up from a ten year long coma? I haven't heard this one since 2016.
Give us a couple of examples of "red cultural Marxists", I wanna be entertained.
>Does liberalism even exist?This question deserves as much time as you are willing to think on it, and articulate your thoughts on it.
There is the very easy answer: yes it does. Look at the New York Times. Look at Macron, Friedrich Merz or Merkel before him, Brussels, Hilary Clinton.
Both culturally and economically, it is liberalism: the State is there to insure capital flows can circulate more or less freely, to foster business interests, reproduce its own wealth, but need to set some limits with the law, judicial decisions (e.g. Ponzi schemes are bad for the economy in the long run, so they need to be curbed before they spread too fast), cops (eco-activist shenanigans are also not good for business), various state intervention in the economy in the form of subsides, but also culturally, in the form of secularism (even if the values of most liberals in Europe and North America are Christian-coded), some form of "equality in front of the law", which is very important for the liberal narrative, when it comes notably to women's rights, ethnic minorities' rights, or sometimes conversely it takes the form of some kind of positive discrimination, in order to
make everyone comfortable as an economic agent, worker or capitalist entrepreneur.
The thing, liberalism has never been ideologically pure, like most ideologies.
There is perhaps a kernel of pure liberalism somewhere to be found in books, but when you say:
>they have died out and been replaced by the usual right vs. leftThe "usual right vs. left" is 90% of the time liberalism, depending on your definition.
We are all children of the liberal revolutions of England, America and France, the liberal and republican ideology of the Enlightenment, John Locke and Adam Smith, the 17th and 18th centuries
(even Marxists and anarchists).
You can say there has been a rise of "illiberal liberalism" in the past decade, a form of liberalism which doesn't fully embrace all the humanist aspects of the doctrine, and make cute liberals sometime look like mini-Pinochets. But it's just a capitalist state favoring business interests, because it has to.
Sorry if my response is being vague and bit disorganized, but I have no choice as your question is extremely vague to begin with. You don't elaborate on what is your idea of "liberalism" in pure terms.