Socialism is not liberalism

[SteveA]

It seems many people equate socialism with liberalism. I believe this is largely why liberalism tends toward being a dirty word.

Socialism was initially created as an idea for an intermediary step toward communism and in many ways socialism directly opposes liberalism.

so·cial·ism
n.
1) Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2) The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

So socialism is about adding economic affairs to government functions. The extent to which government controls economic/property issues is the degree to which it's socialistic.

Basically socialism replaces private economic desires with public ones (generally this comes in the form of a few select leaders who get to make economic decisions for a large number of other people).

The way I see democracy, if the economy was controlled in a democratic fashion, individuals themselves would be able to "vote" with their own resources instead of having some central government make the decisions.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

lib·er·al·ism
n.
The state or quality of being liberal.

A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
often Liberalism The tenets or policies of a Liberal party.
An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard.
Liberalism
A 19th-century Protestant movement that favored free intellectual inquiry, stressed the ethical and humanitarian content of Christianity, and de-emphasized dogmatic theology.
A 19th-century Roman Catholic movement that favored political democracy and ecclesiastical reform but was theologically orthodox.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liberalism is basically the diametric opposite of socialism when it comes to economic matters. Liberalism states that workers themselves own what they work to create and are free to use these or trade these things with others as they see fit - no leaders or public opinion polls needed to tell you what you're suppose to invest your time/energy/resources into.

Liberalism is based upon a respect for individual freedoms. People are granted the right to pursue happiness as they feel is best, simply with the constraint that they're held accountable for how those actions might affect others. It's a simple, natural, sane, intuitive and inherently peaceful mehtod of interaction between people. Most forms of authority disappear under liberalism, except those you consent to.

Government under liberalism simply exists to protect individual rights - generally life, liberty and property from force, fraud and theft. That definition can be debated but it gives the general flavor of how I see it. Most political conflicts result from non-liberal policies, because non-liberal policies are less respectful of individual rights and instead disregard the welfare of some minority for the sake of others. Also, non-liberal policies can easily be abused and lead toward tyranny because there are few, if any, inherent rights granted to people under a non-liberal government, so most any policy is fair game simply by claiming it helps a few people (even if it harms others).

[Jack]

This is why broad generalizations in politics are seldom accurate. Even the label "conservative" is misapplied. Neocons aren't conservative. Their desire to turn the U.S. into a theocracy and undermine the Constitutional liberties is radical when compared to true conservative positions like those espoused by Goldwater and others.

[SteveA]

Quote by: Isherwood This is why broad generalizations in politics are seldom accurate...

It would be great to see a move away from partisan politics and instead people discussing individual issues. The internet actually isn't bad in this regard, especially in comparison to the 10 second sound bites people get in portrayals from the mainstream media. The net challenges people to not simply listen but think, respond and defend their views if necessary.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Quote by: Isherwood This is why broad generalizations in politics are seldom accurate. Even the label "conservative" is misapplied. Neocons aren't conservative. Their desire to turn the U.S. into a theocracy and undermine the Constitutional liberties is radical when compared to true conservative positions like those espoused by Goldwater and others.

Man you have to sit down and look at what you jsut read. Lies, bile and crap. I love your belief of Neocons... ina thread talking about labels, you crack me up.


As for Liberalism and Socialism...

Hey don't blame people for equating the two, many leaders of the liberal party in America today have goals that jsut scream socialism.

Universal Healthcare is a perfect example. As long as the modern Liberal party plays the Socialist card, they will be equated AS socialist.

[Matt W]

Man you have to sit down and look at what you jsut read. Lies, bile and crap. I love your belief of Neocons... ina thread talking about labels, you crack me up.

No need for this, Mr.V....I know you're capable of better....tone it down, if you wouldn't mind?

Cheers.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Oh sorry Matt, I was just pointing out that falsely labeling a group while definding against labels is just funny, which it is.

[Chris the Chees]

Hey don't blame people for equating the two, many leaders of the liberal party in America today have goals that jsut scream socialism.

Not if you have read you political history and theory, the two are completely different concepts. However, in the past the term 'socialism' has been thrown around in order to discredit, through association, liberal ideals. This has been successful because of a social taboo manufactured around socialism, for the sole purpose of maintaining the status quo in society. This process has become so ingrained in US politics that people no longer fail to understand the true definition of any of the major political ideologies. People no longer understand quite what socialism really is, it is the complete control of the means of production by the masses, and nothing less.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: Chris the Chees Not if you have read you political history and theory, the two are completely different concepts. However, in the past the term 'socialism' has been thrown around in order to discredit, through association, liberal ideals. This has been successful because of a social taboo manufactured around socialism, for the sole purpose of maintaining the status quo in society. This process has become so ingrained in US politics that people no longer fail to understand the true definition of any of the major political ideologies. People no longer understand quite what socialism really is, it is the complete control of the means of production by the masses, and nothing less.

I think people do understand that definition of socialism, hence its taboo.

[xyzer]

Socialism..is defined as a system of social organization in which the means of production and distibution of goods are owned collectively or by the government. If we add in the attempts to have the government also control services that can otherwise be privately sponsored(health care) I think that pretty much covers socialism. More government control of the economic and social mores and customs of a country..ergo bigger more expensive government.

In modern america what we call the liberal party(Democrat) seems pretty well peopled by those who advocate bigger and more intrusive government. This is validated by the constant drumbeat of higher taxes and more governmental control of the environment, industry and human behavior. Legislators identifying with the Democrat Party(liberals()most often vote for legislation that promotes this thesis. This includes less respect for private property rights.

To me this suggests there are similarities between the two. In addition, perhaps more important..if

Liberalism is based upon a respect for individual freedoms. People are granted the right to pursue happiness as they feel is best,

then liberals add the concept of moral relativity to the mix. This bothers me because there has to be moral standards in any social grouping or we have chaos. Moral accountability and stability iaremore important than personal happiness.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: BobbyO I think people do understand that definition of socialism, hence its taboo.

Well, capitalists and those in power certainly do understand what it means, hence the generation of the taboo. It threatens their prosperity and stops them being able profiteer from other efforts.

Better dead than red is it?
:rolleyes:

[xyzer]

Isherwood..

Neocons aren't conservative. Their desire to turn the U.S. into a theocracy and undermine the Constitutional liberties is radical when compared to true conservative positions like those espoused by Goldwater and others.

I've seen no evidence of this! It's the liberals who lobby for eliminating any practical or lingusitic reference to religion from our country. This in spite of the constitutional amendment which permits people to practice religion if they desire.'neocon' was the term coined to describe those who believed in forcefully challenging international terrorism. We didn't come up with a name for those who preferred to let the terrorists get away with it. How about pacicoms? Or wimps?

[pubmanager]

Quote by: xyzer .'neocon' was the term coined to describe those who believed in forcefully challenging international terrorism. We didn't come up with a name for those who preferred to let the terrorists get away with it. How about pacicoms? Or wimps?

Sorry, but the term neo-con was in use long before 9/11. It was a term used in reference to the rise of far right conservative political influence in the US. See, new conservatives, neo-cons.

[SteveA]

Quote by: Chris the Chees ...People no longer understand quite what socialism really is, it is the complete control of the means of production by the masses, and nothing less.

That's capitalism. Socialism is when government controls the economy. You might claim that's not how socialism is ideally but this is a politcal forum and we're talking politics now, so we aren't talking about socialism as in some voluntary community endeavor, we're talking about government social programs and taxes and economic planning by a central authority that often doesn't take no as an answer and might even put you in prison if you disagree too strongly.

Despite the fact that some governments claim to represent "The People", this is far from true. Individuals represent themselves. Government represents a monopoly on force. It claims to speak for "The People", but how much of that is simply a salespitch? When you actually look at who's talking, it's generally a single person or a small group. I recognize most people desire a collective way to defend themselves and their interests, and that's fine but that's a far cry from telling you what doctor you can see, and claiming a right to be able to take your property simply because they can make a profit off it, or taking your money ostensibly in order to save for your retirement and then claim they've spent it all and they might not be able to pay you much of anything back or tell you who you can marry, or what you can sell, how long you can work and how much you can charge for something etc. etc. etc.

Capitalism is when everyone gets to "vote" in the economy with their own resources without estimeed leaders or polls taken in determining where your efforts should be directed. Noone has a right to invade or economically enslave you simply because they claim they're doing it in your best interest.

Communism claims to protect workers, whereas it does the exact opposite. Notice how only the 'means of production' is taken nuder communism? That's because noone wants to be responsible for things that aren't productive. In other words, communism is about stealing everyones wealth - sure, you get some back, but that's simply because noone would tolerate having most everything taken from them and get virtually nothing back.

Socialism is very similar to communism. Socialism controls the economy. Communism, the means of production. The economy is the means of production for most all intents and purposes. The reality is that both socialism and communism never seem to stop there either - they get into the business of teaching your children, taking/taxing your property and often times even telling you what you can or can't say (and to an extent even think).

So there might be a few differences between socialism and communism but in the extreme they are identical and in reality they are destructive. How much fun is Europe having economically now? Now compare this to the growth of many asian countries that have relatively small/lax governments and you'll find that economic prosperity isn't something that a few beaurocrats can plan out in a top down fashion, it comes from the multitude of individuals doing their day-to-day activities to improve their lives that results in prosperity for everyone. Also, most wars and other large scale conflicts aren't inspire the wishes of the average Joe Schmoe wanting to pick up a gun and head off somewhere in the world, they're usually caused by large controlling social institutions whose leader(s) decide it would be a fun thing to start a war.

I probably sound more opposed to a lot of social institutions than I truly am but it's only because the mentality of too many people feel we need even more of these and they should be even more involved in our personal lives. Somehow it seems I'm usually the one getting the short end of the stick in these things too, so yes, it kind of pisses me off after a while when I heard people try to talk about how glorious things are (for other people) because of these institutions - meanwhile I don't see much of any real evidence that these claims are true and in fact believe we'd be better off without so many coercive social institutions around.

[GodBlessAmerica]

Patriotic liberalism has been dead since after John Kennedy IMO.

To me, socialism, like communism takes the spirit out of people to achieve and limits people from their success to end up instead sharing the misery that is left.

[SteveA]

Quote by: GodBlessAmerica Patriotic liberalism has been dead since after John Kennedy IMO. To me, socialism, like communism takes the spirit out of people to achieve and limits people from their success to end up instead sharing the misery that is left.

It's all about dependence and control. If it were truly about being beneficial to people, it wouldn't require police to make it work.

[Chris the Chees]

That's capitalism.

Wrong, capitalism is where the means of production is controlled by an elite few individuals.

[rez]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Man you have to sit down and look at what you jsut read. Lies, bile and crap. I love your belief of Neocons... ina thread talking about labels, you crack me up.

Hey Vicc, check it out.....this dude voted for Bush too! another neo-con......your buddy....you agree, no?

Quote by: Mad Mennonite Under God was put in by George M. Docherty in Alexandria,PA I meet him and I believe it should stayour foundin fathers were obviously good christians with a strong faith look at our laws they are similar to he 10 commandments, even if you dont beleive in God ,even though he exists, you dont have to say it i dont rember seein anyone with a gun to your head, why do you complain about such a small issue when there are so many other things that you could do for the country that are POSITIVE this is NEGATIVE and the gays, atheists, tree huggers, in california can just shut up they just have to have their way and AMERICA the BEST country in the WORLD does not bend for you millions try to come to this country everyday,you are blessed by GOD everyday you live here and if you dont love America th way it has loved and cared for you then you should leave because you bring the country down youare free but you destroy what that right means and turn it o something it wasnt ment to be a weapon against our fine goverment espesially Mr. Predident Bush who has done a outstanding job as a human a christian and a President

[GodBlessAmerica]

Quote by: SteveA If it were truly about being beneficial to people, it wouldn't require police to make it work.

The government is supposed to prevent monopolies, keep the public safe and so on. Laws that are passed by the people require law enforcement because some people can't go by the law and need to be restrained.

No law enforcement would be IMO anarchy.

[GodBlessAmerica]

Quote by: Chris the Chees Wrong, capitalism is where the means of production is controlled by an elite few individuals.

Not in the American example. We have lots of people with nothing rise in a single generation to great things all without welfare.

Most American businesses (which pay most all of the taxes) are the little guy operation a small business.

[SteveA]

Quote by: Chris the Chees Wrong, capitalism is where the means of production is controlled by an elite few individuals.

Bogus, you're talking about government - socialism specially, that's by definition.

Simply because not everyone owns the same things under capitalism doesn't mean things are controlled by a few elites.

Government itself is often the elite ruling class you're speaking about. How many governments do you know of that aren't run by famous/rich/powerful etc. individuals?

Under capitalism, most everyone can have their own home and property and be "king of their own castle". Whereas, most socialist governments claim a right to take this from you or tax it away and leave you with nothing. Isn't that basically serfdom? Where some lord(s) own the land and you have to continually pay to keep something that they didn't even create.

Land and wealth exist independent of any government or police. Liberalism acknowledges the need for individuals to protect their lives, property and freedom, and we generally attempt to do this through government but that should be where it stops. When you hire a security guard to watch the place, that doesn't include handing him the right to come into your home and tell you how to live.

Who cares if a few rich people exist under capitalism? Wouldn't many people desire the opportunity to achieve that themselves? And anyway, as long as they've acquired that wealth through beneficial exchanges with others, there's nothing to resent by this nor is it destructive in itself. The main thing is that people want to have a place they can call home and the ability to pursue the things that make them happy. Though it might sound cliche, money doesn't buy happiness and in my personal opinion, I'd rather enjoy life than try to pool a lot of wealth ... but that's a personal thing ... if someone else wants to work 70 hours a week and think about what they can make to exchange with people to earn some more, all the more power to them. Everytime I go shopping, I'm thankful that some people are still willing to work and invest their time into these exchanges.