Liberalism and Communism

[Morality Games]

I was going to respond to this quote by Ghook in the 'about libertarianism thread, but it seemed to go on too long of a tangent considering the topic in discussion.

But if you take true liberalism you have communism/socialism both are not desirable.

If you want to read the treatises of liberal philosophers like Benedict de Spinoza and then compare then with the writings of communist Karl Marx, then I would fully endorse any statement you made about either ideology as the words of a well-informed individual. Falling short of that, I have to shake my head in despair.

Communism is characterized by a number of beliefs which set it apart from Liberalism both in theory and practice. These beliefs are not 'incidental', but are pivotal to how the ideologies work in society.

For instance, Communism relies on an interpretation of history not standard in Liberalism, which is that human civilization can be summed up as 'class warfare', with the wealthy always coming up on top because of their overwhelming advantages over the public. In contrast, Liberalism would say that the non-reconciled differences between various ideologies within the community and the ensuing inequalities are the main catalysts for the sufferings of society.

This is why Communists believe that giving the public control over the means of production and distribution (the machines that make and move around material goods, including food and water) is the only way to achieve genuine social progress – until that happens, the wealthy can use the advantages afforded by their ownership of the means of production to achieve political domination.

Liberals look at this problem in an entirely different light: there is no problem with a gap between the wealthy and the public per se, but if the gap widens too far it can lead to tensions damaging to the security and prosperity of society as a whole. Hence it becomes necessary to relocate some of the wealth of the upper-class into programs aiming to enhance the living conditions of the lower-class. The moral justification for this movement is roughly the same behind that of the draft: you live here, you benefit greatly from living here, so now you need to do something special to keep this place from falling apart. Still, liberals see no need to place ownership of the means of production and distribution in the hands of the public, and so they are not Communists.

There are other massive differences, like communism being purely naturalistic (including atheism) and liberalism being ironical (meaning, in effect, that it is open to a plurality of ideologies, both naturalistic and religious).

[Thanatos]

Well done. I seem to spend more time arguing definitions than I do anything else.

[GHook93]

Does all socialism = communism? NO, but does all communism = socialism. There are many forms of communism from Trotsky, Marxism, Chinese style communism, Stalinism to leftism communism to Grandpa's so called "anarcho-communism."

Communism has a general theme, which is a classless society based on common ownership of property, with dominate government controls and is branch of socialism. The theme is domination by the state. Socialism is federalizing and state control. I associate the 2 together. Liberals/left want government control over things. The degree of control is varies by how far left you are. So if you are an extremist liberal, then you will be seen wearing a Che T-shirt, talk about the Great Hugo FatA$$ and desire state domination. The extremist liberal adopts leftist communism.

Do I think most American liberal adopt extremist liberalism? No. As I don't think more Libertarians adopt extremist libertarianism (which equates to anarchy and no government)!

[GHook93]

One thing to note the author of the Libertarian thread was addressing extremist libertarianism and I was addressing extremist leftist liberalism

[Morality Games]

I associate the 2 together.

The two cannot be associated together. First of all, every ideology with the exception of anarchy and including conservatism demands the government exert control over social processes, so the degree of control can't be the primary determinant of what sets an ideology apart from other ideologies -- there is too much gray area for there to be definite distinctions. The only appropriate determinant is the principle behind the control, and the principle of liberalism differs from that of communism.

Liberals/left want government control over things.

Again, everyone except anarchists wants the government to control things. The degree of control it demands the government exert, whether high or low, is not the right way to define a political ideology. Only the principle, or, "Why this amount of control?" can define a political ideology. Communism and Liberalism are not in principle similar, and Soviet Communism even threatened the most cherished principle of Liberalism (Ironism, which is what makes Liberalism work).

The degree of control is varies by how far left you are. So if you are an extremist liberal, then you will be seen wearing a Che T-shirt, talk about the Great Hugo FatA$$ and desire state domination. The extremist liberal adopts leftist communism.

Stop looking at control and starting looking at the logical principles behind the control. Right-wing governments from Ancient Greece to Nazi Germany to many African and Asian countries have exerted sizeable control over the processes of society.

Control is a confusing and unrealistic determination for the things you are trying to describe. Liberals and Communists have sweepingly different visions of how society should work and why -- as different as Conservatives and Facists.

Anyway, see the following differences in the principles of the two ideologies:

1. Communism emphasizes class-struggle as the source of most suffering (even war), Liberalism emphasizes ideological differences (especially war).

2. Communism emphasizes the public owning the means of production and distribution of material goods as the only way to end suffering, Liberalism emphasizes that people should find common ground in their beliefs and make society as a whole ideologically neutral.

3. Communism interprets equality as people enjoying the same material prosperity no matter what, Liberalism interprets equality as meaning equivalence of chance and opportunity in an otherwise capitalist society.

This is just the beginning. The differences go on and on.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Morality Games The two cannot be associated together. First of all, every ideology with the exception of anarchy and including conservatism demands the government exert control over social processes, so the degree of control can't be the primary determinant of what sets an ideology apart from other ideologies -- there is too much gray area for there to be definite distinctions.

Well, a classic conservative argument is that the "Government that governs best, governs least." Of course, it doesn't tend to work that way with state government.

Grandpa h.

[Morality Games]

Quote by: grandpa Well, a classic conservative argument is that the "Government that governs best, governs least." Of course, it doesn't tend to work that way with state government. Grandpa h.

The people who originally formulated that argument belonged in the social class which benefited most from the non-intervention of government. The people who continue to champion that argument belong to the social class which benefits most from the non-intervention of government. The argument is hardly an objective observation -- it works in the interests of a particular group.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Morality Games The people who originally formulated that argument belonged in the social class which benefited most from the non-intervention of government. The people who continue to champion that argument belong to the social class which benefits most from the non-intervention of government.

I understand what you mean, but the "social class" benefitting from "non-intervention" could be everyone. You're also forgetting that, throughout human history, government has primarily served elite positions of power and privilege. Of course, we would need a social revolution of some kind to end destructive tendencies in government. Until that happens, people will likely need these so-called "handouts."

Another view:
"The property of this country is absolutely concentred in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards... I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on."

--Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, October 28,1785. ME 19:17, Papers 8:682


Grandpa h.