Can a Liberal not be a socialist?

[JaDed]

Just bringing this discussion to a new thread as I don’t want to derail the other one.

My personal opinion is that [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] is from a generation where Liberals and capitalists aligned against the Marxists as explained in the article below and that’s why his opinion is Liberal Socialist is an oxymoron.


https://www.liberalcurrents.com/what-is-liberal-socialism/

“Liberalism and socialism are modernist doctrines committed to the moral equality and freedom of all human beings. Both doctrines responded critically to the ancient belief, espoused famously by Aristotle in his Politics, that some were by nature unequal (which is a nice way of saying inferior)—whether in virtue, piety, or entitlement to rule. Liberals and socialists have both failed many times in upholding their principles with conviction: the American founding fathers preached that all men were created equal while codifying slavery for profit into the Constitution and Bolshevik revolutionaries promised freedom for the masses while methodically constructing gulags and crushing dissent. Despite sharing a mixed legacy and many common values—certainly relative to the forces of reaction—liberals and socialists have portrayed each other as existential enemies. The latter half of the 20th century was defined by an epic clash between liberal capitalism and Soviet Marxist-Leninism that seemed to end decidedly in favor of the former. Once upon a time the young Francis Fukuyama even declared that we’d reached “the end of history” with liberal capitalism now the sole surviving ideology with any global credibility.

This judgment turned out to be premature. Liberalism faced a new and potentially lethal crisis of legitimacy in the 2010s with the emergence of post-modern conservative anti-liberals like Donald Trump, Jair Bolsonaro, and Victor Orbán. By 2018 most major countries in the world—the United States, Turkey, Brazil, Russia, Italy, and India—were governed by illiberal strongmen with questionable democratic allegiances. Emboldened critics on the political right insist it’s long past time to abandon modernity wholesale and get back to what worked before liberals and socialists mucked everything up. This crisis of legitimacy was fostered by many of the features of liberal capitalism which socialists had long been critical of: skyrocketing inequality, deepening economic precarity, the decay of solidaristic community in favor of hyper-competitiveness, and above all a sense that state institutions served the interests of a global elite rather than their own citizens. Unsurprisingly this has also given socialism a renewed appeal, which propelled politicians like Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Lula da Silva to global prominence. Given this, it is important to renew the dialogue between liberalism and socialism. I will do this by putting forward an argument for a kind of democratic liberal socialism. While some may claim that this is simply an oxymoron, it in fact has deep roots in the expressive individualist strain of the liberal tradition and has been espoused by important authors like J. S. Mill, John Rawls, and Chantal Mouffe.“

it continues

 

[Champ_Pal]

Modern day Liberalism has joined with Socialists. It is hard to separate their values and demands.
If you think about it, the Conservatives who adhere to Christian values should be the ones who should be leaning towards socialism. But its the opposite at least in United States.

I am a classic liberal. I am a nationalist and a complete Capitalist. Without Patriotism imbibed into the minds of the citizens, a country will always struggle with unity. Without Promoting talented individuals, bright minds and risk takers, no economy can ever grow.

 

[ahsan17]

To be clear, Sanders, AOC and similar politicians are not socialists. We need to look at definition of socialism and it's nowhere near the policies of Sanders and AOC. It's just a more left version of liberalism, but not far enough to be called socialism. Sanders and AOC just want what other western democracies have. Other western democracies are not socialist.

I think due to media misinformation in the US people have conflated socialism with something else. By their definition, almost all US allies are socialist.

 

[JaDed]

To be clear, Sanders, AOC and similar politicians are not socialists. We need to look at definition of socialism and it's nowhere near the policies of Sanders and AOC. It's just a more left version of liberalism, but not far enough to be called socialism. Sanders and AOC just want what other western democracies have. Other western democracies are not socialist.

I think due to media misinformation in the US people have conflated socialism with something else. By their definition, almost all US allies are socialist.

How would you define Canada’s NDP and Liberal party?

 

[ahsan17]

How would you define Canada’s NDP and Liberal party?

Liberals in Canada could be defined as contemporary neo-liberals in the western liberal democracies except for US (US liberals and neo- Liberals are to the right of conservatives in Canada). They are pro-business and want to maintain status quo when it comes to public services, welfare.

NDP is slightly more to the left of liberals, but definitely not socialist. They want to expand government services such as vision, dental, pharmacare, free university and several other things.

One of the largest tenets of socialism is the lack of privately owned business. Businesses are owned by the workers.

One thing I realize reading all this is to make sure we don't mix up US liberalism and conservatism v/S liberalism and conservatism in other western democracies.

US liberalism generally doesn't favour universal healthcare, higher minimum wages, strict gun control and very often wants to erode government services and welfare.

 

[Technics 1210]

Liberals = MSM Narrative.

End of.

 

[JaDed]

Liberals in Canada could be defined as contemporary neo-liberals in the western liberal democracies except for US (US liberals and neo- Liberals are to the right of conservatives in Canada). They are pro-business and want to maintain status quo when it comes to public services, welfare.

NDP is slightly more to the left of liberals, but definitely not socialist. They want to expand government services such as vision, dental, pharmacare, free university and several other things.

One of the largest tenets of socialism is the lack of privately owned business. Businesses are owned by the workers.

One thing I realize reading all this is to make sure we don't mix up US liberalism and conservatism v/S liberalism and conservatism in other western democracies.

US liberalism generally doesn't favour universal healthcare, higher minimum wages, strict gun control and very often wants to erode government services and welfare.

So any form of Public owned would come under socialism.. so in my opinion Liberalism in US used to be the true Liberal or Libertarian mindset till Obamacare.

Even having some form of community/public/government owned sectors without Private involvement should be included in umbrella of socialism.

Socialism cannot be completely lack of private owned businesses, wouldn’t that be communism?

 

[sweep_shot]

Yes.

It is possible for a liberal to not be a socialist.

However, it seems like a large percentage of modern day liberals are rabid socialists.

 

[Technics 1210]

Just remember folks, Socialism ushered in WW1 and WW2.

Keep this in mind.

 

[ahsan17]

So any form of Public owned would come under socialism.. so in my opinion Liberalism in US used to be the true Liberal or Libertarian mindset till Obamacare.

Even having some form of community/public/government owned sectors without Private involvement should be included in umbrella of socialism.

Socialism cannot be completely lack of private owned businesses, wouldn’t that be communism?

There are other differences between socialism and communism, but the main difference between liberalism and socialism is that workers own businesses in socialism.

Government services that you mentioned aren't it.

Also, the dichotomy is not that useful. You have to look at it policy by policy to see what makes sense.

 

[KB]

I think it is useful to make a distinction between liberalism and socialism.

Liberalism might be usefully defined as containing three core concepts. Firstly, the protection of individual rights against governmental interference and potential tyranny, necessitating guarantees of civil and political liberties, an emphasis on rule of law and a non-authoritarian ethos. Secondly, an acknowledgement of diversity of individual beliefs and ways of living. Thirdly, the acceptance of the economy being run mainly along free market lines.

Defined as such, liberalism can encompass both right-of-centre and left-of-centre positions on the political spectrum. In the case of a right-of-centre liberalism, the emphasis is more on laissez-faire capitalism, a position that might be viewed as descending from nineteenth century classical liberalism. In the case of the left-of-centre, the emphasis is more on welfare state capitalism.

Socialism on the other hand might be defined as aiming, even if only gradually, towards an economy where the means of production are owned publicly - through state ownership, or some form of worker ownership.

Of course one can argue that the ideas of contemporary Social Democrats in Western countries are influenced by both socialist and liberal thought. But in accepting a capitalistic economy (even as they might seek to “civilise” it), they are, to my mind, better described as left liberals than socialists.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Yes.

It is possible for a liberal to not be a socialist.

However, it seems like a large percentage of modern day liberals are rabid socialists.

I see that you are a Muslim. Pardon me if I am wrong. But isn't Socialism more closer to Islam than Capitalism?

 

[sweep_shot]

I see that you are a Muslim. Pardon me if I am wrong. But isn't Socialism more closer to Islam than Capitalism?

I think Islam has a much better system than what western socialists want to implement.

Unchecked socialism can cripple a country. Too much of anything is bad.

 

[Robert]

[MENTION=137142]JaDed[/MENTION],

Socialism is where the State owns and runs the means of production and distribution. There is low social mobility.

Liberals can be rightist like Gladstone - a classic liberal who freed up the markets to dominate. This is anathemic to socialism. However, Gladstone also liberalised society by giving working men state pensions, then Lloyd George enfranchised women. So right liberals want to empower the people.

Liberals can also be leftist, seeking social intervention, for example state owned railways and the Welfare State which slew the “giants” of disease, squalor and poverty after WW2 in the UK. But they differ from socialists by allowing markers to continue to operate, and eschewing centralised power. The Nordic capitalism model is the best type of this type of liberalism - devolved government, high taxation, strong public sector services and high social mobility.

All liberals would oppose control of people’s personal lives by big government - for example Lynne Featherstone MP (Lib Dem) tabled a Private Member’s Bill in 2012 to allow gays to marry, which became law.

 

[Robert]

I think it is useful to make a distinction between liberalism and socialism.

Liberalism might be usefully defined as containing three core concepts. Firstly, the protection of individual rights against governmental interference and potential tyranny, necessitating guarantees of civil and political liberties, an emphasis on rule of law and a non-authoritarian ethos. Secondly, an acknowledgement of diversity of individual beliefs and ways of living. Thirdly, the acceptance of the economy being run mainly along free market lines.

Defined as such, liberalism can encompass both right-of-centre and left-of-centre positions on the political spectrum. In the case of a right-of-centre liberalism, the emphasis is more on laissez-faire capitalism, a position that might be viewed as descending from nineteenth century classical liberalism. In the case of the left-of-centre, the emphasis is more on welfare state capitalism.

Socialism on the other hand might be defined as aiming, even if only gradually, towards an economy where the means of production are owned publicly - through state ownership, or some form of worker ownership.

Of course one can argue that the ideas of contemporary Social Democrats in Western countries are influenced by both socialist and liberal thought. But in accepting a capitalistic economy (even as they might seek to “civilise” it), they are, to my mind, better described as left liberals than socialists.

First class post!

 

[Robert]

Yes.

It is possible for a liberal to not be a socialist.

However, it seems like a large percentage of modern day liberals are rabid socialists.

No, socialism requires strong centralised power so such a modern day liberal would stop being liberal.

 

[ElRaja]

the term liberal has been hijacked, economic liberalism is now completely divorced from social liberalism. social liberalism has tied itself to a psuedo marxist classism, promotion of the group identity rather than the individual, there are so few actual political hills to die on, people made there own, out of molehills for the most part.

economic liberalism got hijacked by very thinly veiled corporatism. there is no modern market economy which is not susceptible to American corporate interests.

there is no true liberalism (economic and social) in the world today. id like to consider my ideological beliefs to fall closest to the categorisation of liberalism, but as I've grown older I've realised forcing such a label on oneself is ironically a rather modern socio liberal thing to do.

 

[Robert]

[MENTION=56933]ElRaja[/MENTION],

Your article mentions John Stuart Mill. He proposed the Harm Principle, which is where social liberalism splits from economic liberalism. The Harm Principle is that everyone should be as free as possible in a system, until that freedom begins to impinge on the freedom of others.

So regarding what some here mis-term freedom of speech - my freedom to express ideas ends where your freedom is reduced - so I am to be prevented by law from expressing Islamophobia and suchlike forms of prejudice that can lead to violence. Such expression is illiberal.

And in economic terms: everyone should be free to make money, but where money becomes concentrated in two few hands then power does too, so neoliberalism (which is just warmed-over nineteenth-century palao-liberalism) is illiberal too.

 

[JaDed]

Thanks for the posts guys, I do agree that the definitions are evolving and just maybe modern definitions are getting formed just my opinion.

 

[JaDed]

No, socialism requires strong centralised power so such a modern day liberal would stop being liberal.

Where do you think Corbyn stood?

 

[Robert]

Where do you think Corbyn stood?

Excellent question.

I’d day he is old-school Bennite left. To be able to push those 2017 and 2019 manifesto reforms through he would have to have been somewhat authoritarian, buying back shares and so on.

He had been careless in sharing platforms for years with some nasty authoritarian and antisemitic figures in the name of legitimate protest.

Gabriel Pogrund’s book Left Out[/] paints a picture of LOTO (Leader of The Opposition Office) at odds with much of the Parliamentary Labour Party and trying to centralise power. Hence, illiberal.

 

[ElRaja]

[MENTION=56933]ElRaja[/MENTION],

So regarding what some here mis-term freedom of speech - my freedom to express ideas ends where your freedom is reduced - so I am to be prevented by law from expressing Islamophobia and suchlike forms of prejudice that can lead to violence. Such expression is illiberal.

ill admit speech that impinges on other liberties is, in essence, illiberal, however not acted upon, it does not impinge on anyone's liberties. Conversely however, a broad range of speech can be deemed to impinge on someone's liberties if the implicit chain of consequences is made long enough to legitimise the censorship of valid expression.

And in economic terms: everyone should be free to make money, but where money becomes concentrated in two few hands then power does too, so neoliberalism (which is just warmed-over nineteenth-century palao-liberalism) is illiberal too.

im not advocating laissez-faire, what im saying true economic liberalism always looks to limit the powers of the state.

the point im making is that there is simply not enough political debate around finding that sustainable minimum, because all politicians are incentivised to grow the state.

id also add that the opposite of economic liberalism, whatever term that may be, does significantly more to enable people to concentrate wealth by creating large legitimised power structures the wealthy can co-opt.

 

[JaDed]

Excellent question.

I’d day he is old-school Bennite left. To be able to push those 2017 and 2019 manifesto reforms through he would have to have been somewhat authoritarian, buying back shares and so on.

He had been careless in sharing platforms for years with some nasty authoritarian and antisemitic figures in the name of legitimate protest.

Gabriel Pogrund’s book Left Out[/] paints a picture of LOTO (Leader of The Opposition Office) at odds with much of the Parliamentary Labour Party and trying to centralise power. Hence, illiberal.

Thanks for the post, I agree on the same here.