Why do you think liberalism = socialism?

[Vic]

This is a serious question.

It seems that I read something to that effect here every day, that liberalism and socialism are effectively the same thing. Because they are in fact radically different and opposing ideologies, I think it's time that an explanation was provided by those who continuously spread this blatant lie.

To back up my position:

Liberalism in the dictionary

2. a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.

Socialism in the dictionary

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Liberalism wikipedia

Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal.[1] Modern liberalism has its roots in the Age of Enlightenment.
Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government.[2]

Socialism wikipedia

Socialism is a socio-economic system in which essential industries, social services, property and the distribution of wealth are publicly and cooperatively owned and democratically controlled with a view to equal opportunity and equal benefit for all. [1] Since the ownership and distribution of wealth is controlled by the whole community as a collective, and not individually or by groups of individuals that do not comprise a whole community, socialism has been identified with communism. In a practical ideology, members of the community would contribute as much as reasonably possible, yet they would be capable of consuming as much as reasonably necessary.

Obviously, radically different philosophies.

Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and free market economies, while socialism is strictly collective system that denies individuals even the basic right to own property. From a theoretical standpoint, in fact, I cannot think of any 2 ideologies so diametrically opposed. Yet every day in almost every thread, someone here acts as though they were one and the same. Why?
IMO it is because liberalism seeks to guarantee individual freedom of opportunity. Meaning that a person should not be limited in what they can make of themselves in life (and thus what they can be capable of contributing to society throughout their life) due to some accident of birth. That being born to poor parents should not mean that a child be denied education, for example, as it's not the child's fault that his/her parents are poor. And so forth. To those who hate other people and their children, and seek to use government influence in order to keep other people down for their own benefit instead of helping to lift everyone up, I could see how this could be a frightening philosophy. Not that I care.

However, to those who insist on confusing these philosophies on daily basis, I would appreciate it if you would quit flaunting your ignorance.
Or my next thread will be dedicated to how conservative philosophy is fundamentally opposed to capitalism (aka liberal economics), and the myriad ways that conservatives in America use government influence in order to counter free markets and personal accountability .

 

[Moonbeam]

I listen to the radio and all I know is that both are the hight of evil.

 

[JS80]

Today's american liberal does not equal the classical liberal.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JS80
Today's american liberal does not equal the classical liberal.

Did you even read his post?

 

[WHAMPOM]

Misdirection, just like the "CLEAN AIR ACT" which should have been properly called "corporate industry can dirty the air all they want and get away with it act".

 

[Tab]

I think it's because when many people think of liberals they know the party of liberals is the Democratic Party which unforunatly does indeed hold a lot of socialists.

My question is why are there so few real libertarians? By libertarian I mean socially liberal and fisically conservative. Why are most libertarians not even libertarian? Why has America and it's public strayed so far from the beliefs of our founding fathers?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JS80
Today's american liberal does not equal the classical liberal.

Please elaborate.

Of course, I could say the same for today's American conservative and a paleoconservative. The once isolationist I-make-my-own-way ideology has now become imperialist and corporatist.

However, in actual practice, there are no major liberal American leaders and politicians TODAY who seek an actual socialist agenda.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: JS80
Whatever

Your posts scream credibility with that insightful sig. :thumbsup:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Tab
I think it's because when many people think of liberals they know the party of liberals is the Democratic Party which unforunatly does indeed hold a lot of socialists.

My question is why are there so few real libertarians? By libertarian I mean socially liberal and fisically conservative. Why are most libertarians not even libertarian? Why has America and it's public strayed so far from the beliefs of our founding fathers?

In all fairness it was only the beliefs of some of our founding fathers. There are plenty like Hamilton/the Federalists in general really who were not libertarians. They were big fans of a strong central government. (hell, Adams even passed the Alien and Sedition Act) I mean maybe they were libertarian compared to today, but they still were fighting for more government control over everything.

Sorry, don't mean to hijack so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: JS80
Whatever

Your posts scream credibility with that insightful sig. :thumbsup:

Heck, even if I were a die hard McCain supporter and Obama hater I would still ignore this guy. He's an embarrassment. These are tough times for us all though no matter what you believe or support. Some people are more vulnerable to the pressures than others which can often lead to uncontrollable hatred that clouds the mind of reasonable thinking.

 

[Genx87]

Because leftists hijacked the world liberal long ago. Talking radio heads use the phrase "liberalism" when talking about the hijackers agenda. Which is usually bigger govt, more equality at the end of the a govt gun ect ect.

It is an ever progressing system of change anyways. Todays liberals are tomorrows conservatives. I think we are one generation away from liberals turning into conservatives and the cycle continues. We are already seeing some of that with the isolationist and nationalist campiagn talk from the democrats. Even if it was hot air, surprising to hear it from them.

Though I suspect we wont see a small govt movement in this country the way this country was founded ever again

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Vic
However, in actual practice, there are no major liberal American leaders and politicians TODAY who seek an actual socialist agenda.

Hillary Clinton likes universal healthcare. I'd say that's socialist, although her entire agenda is not.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Tab
I think it's because when many people think of liberals they know the party of liberals is the Democratic Party which unforunatly does indeed hold a lot of socialists.

My question is why are there so few real libertarians? By libertarian I mean socially liberal and fisically conservative. Why are most libertarians not even libertarian? Why has America and it's public strayed so far from the beliefs of our founding fathers?

Good questions. Of course, I'd argue that there are plenty of people who readily embrace the theory of fiscal conservatism but, just like there are plenty of fat people who embrace the theory of being thin, we as a nation are unwilling to go on a fiscal diet. No one wants their favorite programs cut, and everyone wants someone else to bear the burden. With deficit spending, we can have our entitlements and kick the bill for them into the future. As long as the national credit card isn't maxed out, why stop borrowing and spending?

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Because leftists hijacked the world liberal long ago. Talking radio heads use the phrase "liberalism" when talking about the hijackers agenda. Which is usually bigger govt, more equality at the end of the a govt gun ect ect.

It is an ever progressing system of change anyways. Todays liberals are tomorrows conservatives. I think we are one generation away from liberals turning into conservatives and the cycle continues. We are already seeing some of that with the isolationist and nationalist campiagn talk from the democrats. Even if it was hot air, surprising to hear it from them.

Though I suspect we wont see a small govt movement in this country the way this country was founded ever again

Well, if you didn't let the Fundamentalist Christians and Corrupt Corporations hi-jack your party you might have had a chance.

 

[Genx87]

Had a chance for what?

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Because leftists hijacked the world liberal long ago. Talking radio heads use the phrase "liberalism" when talking about the hijackers agenda. Which is usually bigger govt, more equality at the end of the a govt gun ect ect.

It is an ever progressing system of change anyways. Todays liberals are tomorrows conservatives. I think we are one generation away from liberals turning into conservatives and the cycle continues. We are already seeing some of that with the isolationist and nationalist campiagn talk from the democrats. Even if it was hot air, surprising to hear it from them.

Though I suspect we wont see a small govt movement in this country the way this country was founded ever again

I'm not going to argue that your theory is wrong because it could be correct (not sure myself). However, have you considered that your opinions about today's supporters of liberalism might be too heavily fueled by the louder (yet worthless) extremists who claim to side with liberalism? Sometimes it can be hard to identify what the majority of people that belong to any particular political grouping actually believes because of how much the extremists yell and scream all of the time.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Vic
However, in actual practice, there are no major liberal American leaders and politicians TODAY who seek an actual socialist agenda.

Hillary Clinton likes universal healthcare. I'd say that's socialist, although her entire agenda is not.

And I believe that her healthcare mandate is a big reason she didn't get the nom. It was for me at least.

However, her UHC plan was not socialist, strictly speaking, as there would have been no government ownership in the system. It was not liberalism either, with its mandate that clearly violated individual rights. More of like a corporo-fascist system, where a private entity provides a product which the government then requires the people to consume.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Though I suspect we wont see a small govt movement in this country the way this country was founded ever again

Here's what our government does:

1. Pass a bill - In good nature of making our lives better.

2. Pass a law- In good nature of making our lives better.

3. Increase spending- In good nature of making our lives better.

If these things fail to do what they were designed to do (which happens the vast majority of the time), what should we do?

1. Get rid of the bill- Nope, foul! Cause that bill was designed for good things.

2. Get rid of the law- Nope, foul! Cause that law was designed for good things.

3. Reduce spending- Nope, foul! We need that money to operate better!

A lot of the times there aren't really any politicians on EITHER side advocating to reduce the government size. Republicans are democrats alike will propose new laws and bills and spending allocation for their own agenda without taking a look at what is not working and focusing on either fixing it or erasing it.

I think this is a fate that all free market nations will face.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Vic

And I believe that her healthcare mandate is a big reason she didn't get the nom. It was for me at least.
However, her UHC plan was not socialist, strictly speaking, as there would have been no government ownership in the system. It was not liberalism either, with its mandate that clearly violated individual rights. More of like a corporo-fascist system, where a private entity provides a product which the government then requires the people to consume.

I actually did not know that. I really haven't read too much into Hillary.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Because leftists hijacked the world liberal long ago. Talking radio heads use the phrase "liberalism" when talking about the hijackers agenda. Which is usually bigger govt, more equality at the end of the a govt gun ect ect.

It is an ever progressing system of change anyways. Todays liberals are tomorrows conservatives. I think we are one generation away from liberals turning into conservatives and the cycle continues. We are already seeing some of that with the isolationist and nationalist campiagn talk from the democrats. Even if it was hot air, surprising to hear it from them.

Though I suspect we wont see a small govt movement in this country the way this country was founded ever again

That would be like judging all of conservativism solely on the extreme and vocal opinions of Pat Robertson or the Neo-Nazis. I could do that, of course, but it wouldn't make any sense and would be unfair.

We've already discussed your 2nd paragraph and I agree. Cycles, my friend, endless cycles. That's the nature of the universe. Endlessly vibrating strings like on a guitar going from one extreme to the other that constantly pass through but never stop at the center. That's the fundamental nature of everything.

There never really was a small govt in the US. There used to be a small federal govt, of course, but then the power rested in individual state and lower govts that were more often than not quite authoritarian by today's standards.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Vic

And I believe that her healthcare mandate is a big reason she didn't get the nom. It was for me at least.
However, her UHC plan was not socialist, strictly speaking, as there would have been no government ownership in the system. It was not liberalism either, with its mandate that clearly violated individual rights. More of like a corporo-fascist system, where a private entity provides a product which the government then requires the people to consume.

I actually did not know that. I really haven't read too much into Hillary.

I just realized that what I posted there wasn't entirely true. Let me rephrase to say that there would have been little to (arguably) no increase in government ownership in the system, given that Medicare currently pays for about 50% of today's healthcare costs.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Vic
However, in actual practice, there are no major liberal American leaders and politicians TODAY who seek an actual socialist agenda.

Hillary Clinton likes universal healthcare. I'd say that's socialist, although her entire agenda is not.

And I believe that her healthcare mandate is a big reason she didn't get the nom. It was for me at least.

However, her UHC plan was not socialist, strictly speaking, as there would have been no government ownership in the system. It was not liberalism either, with its mandate that clearly violated individual rights. More of like a corporo-fascist system, where a private entity provides a product which the government then requires the people to consume.

That was one of the biggest turn offs about her for me too actually.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Had a chance for what?

A party that actually wanted and worked for fiscal responsiblity.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: JS80
Whatever

Your posts scream credibility with that insightful sig. :thumbsup:

Heck, even if I were a die hard McCain supporter and Obama hater I would still ignore this guy. He's an embarrassment. These are tough times for us all though no matter what you believe or support. Some people are more vulnerable to the pressures than others which can often lead to uncontrollable hatred that clouds the mind of reasonable thinking.

way to assume i am "for" McCain.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Genx87
Had a chance for what?

A party that actually wanted and worked for fiscal responsiblity.

Wrong thread.