Are communists liberals and vice versa?

[Soomie]

I keep hearing people call everyone on the left "liberals" and I'm wondering if that's true or not.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Not really. I think it's revleft shorthand for: "you are making a liberal argument".

It might be better for discussions if people put it that way, than "you're a liberal". I've probably been guilty for calling people "a liberal" flippantly at some point.

Liberalism is "common sense" in most places and so often - especially when someone is new to radical politics - they might make an argument that is actually based in liberal assumptions. It happens, but if someone thinks that workers need to (and should) run society themselves, and that it will take a revolution for that to be accomplished, then they're not a liberal. They may be influence or bend to liberal notions of things, it may be their default sort of thinking on issues they have not really examined, but it just means that they grew up in a capitalist society and are probably new to radical ideas.:lol:

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

The short answer is no.

This is the long answer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27RVJJfny4I

That should answer your question.

[Avanti]

liberalism is a reformist ideology.

communism is a messianic ideology.

it's like mixing milk with gasoline.

in europe, conservatives and liberals often ally vs the socialists.

[Soomie]

Essentially, liberals support government involvement, while under communism there is no government. That is my understanding of the simple difference between the two. Am I correct in thinking this?

[ВАЛТЕР]

The term "liberal" generally refers to people who believe in social democracy and Keynesian economics. They are people who believe in reforming capitalism to make it more tolerable for the people while keeping class differences, the state, along with everything else that makes capitalism, capitalism.

[Jimmie Higgins]

By "common sense" I don't mean it makes sense, just that it's often the assumptions that people growing up in capitalism take for granted as "natrual" or "obvious". Things like: "without a state or police, it will just be chaos and people will fight each-other induvidually and try and dominate" or "any use of violence will corrupt you and turn you into 'that which you oppose'" or just "power corrupts".

[Yuppie Grinder]

communism is a messianic ideology.



You're ridiculous.

[Avanti]

communism wants to transform the world and end alienation, the sense of separation between humans and one another and the means of production, and create a sense of togetherness and wholity which will mean the end of history and the liberation of the human being.

[Comrade Jandar]

communism wants to transform the world and end alienation, the sense of separation between humans and one another and the means of production, and create a sense of togetherness and wholity which will mean the end of history and the liberation of the human being.

Can I quote you on the "communism being a Messianic ideology?" That is truly original.

[Blake's Baby]

The term "liberal" generally refers to people who believe in social democracy and Keynesian economics. They are people who believe in reforming capitalism to make it more tolerable for the people while keeping class differences, the state, along with everything else that makes capitalism, capitalism.

Not in the rest of the world except America it doesn't.

"Liberalism" generally refers to those supporters of capitalism who believe that capitalism can actually deliver on the promises of the French Revolution. Freedom of Speech? Liberalism. Freedom of Religion? Liberalism. It's the idology of capitalism par excellence, but capitalism at the time it was busy overthrowing the aristocracy. The founders of the USA were Liberals, the founders of the First Republic in France were Liberals.

In many European countries, the Liberals are free-marketeers (as in the UK). If you're a Keynesian, you're probably a 'socialist' (ie, a social democrat), a 'communist' (ie a different flavour of social democrat) or a fascist. Liberals and conservatives are mostly united around the free market - or at least, free market ideology, as all governments intervene in the economy.

[Ocean Seal]

Basically its just a shot at a person's stance.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Can I quote you on the "communism being a Messianic ideology?" That is truly original.

No it isn't at all. Anti-communists spout that nonsense all the time.
Communism is NOT the end of history. Under communism human relationships will continue to evolve. Communism is no everlasting heaven, but a material reality of post-scarcity and communal social relations.

[Avanti]

me actually kinda like the messianic aspects.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Well you're also terribly idealist so...

[Avanti]

yes, idealism is what moves the world around. that and some burritos.

[Yuppie Grinder]

that's it i'm blocking you

[#FF0000]

avanti is my favorite poster

[Yuppie Grinder]

Avanti is the leading theorist of the Anarcho-Teenagerism movement, devoted to the struggle against school and parents.

[Sea]

Well, liberals (with a lower-case l in the American sense of the term) want to better society in a way that does not threaten the long-term existence of the bourgeoisie. Liberals are generally idealists and humanists, though they're usually not too dedicated to humanism. Idealist not in the utopian sense, I mean that when it comes to materialism liberals tend to push the "eject seat" button and fly the fuck out of there.

So I think it's pretty clear that liberals aren't communists, and communists aren't liberals.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Not in the rest of the world except America it doesn't.

"Liberalism" generally refers to those supporters of capitalism who believe that capitalism can actually deliver on the promises of the French Revolution. Freedom of Speech? Liberalism. Freedom of Religion? Liberalism. It's the idology of capitalism par excellence, but capitalism at the time it was busy overthrowing the aristocracy. The founders of the USA were Liberals, the founders of the First Republic in France were Liberals.

In many European countries, the Liberals are free-marketeers (as in the UK). If you're a Keynesian, you're probably a 'socialist' (ie, a social democrat), a 'communist' (ie a different flavour of social democrat) or a fascist. Liberals and conservatives are mostly united around the free market - or at least, free market ideology, as all governments intervene in the economy.

Yeah, I just gave the general definition of a liberal in America. Since that is the definition I am used to. People forget that even though I am in Eastern Europe now, I spent a large portion of my life in the US. Some things stick. :/

[Geiseric]

They just say whatever the capitalists double thought arguements are. War is peace! If we bomb Japan with nukes we won't have to invade them and lose a bunch of soldiers. That's an actual argument Liberals will tell you, about why the nuclear bombs were OK. They were completely for the Iraq war when it happened. The war resolution was passed almost unanimously in the Senate and House. My best friend Jerry Brown is a liberal, and he's been at work trying to destroy the teachers unions and public education.

Liberal and conservative is a matter of taste at this point, they're still capitalists.

[Rafiq]

Liberalism is the ideology of which all bourgeois thought is constrained by. There are 'communists', especially here who pressupose liberalist morals. Communism is to the proletariat what Liberalism is to the Bourgeoisie.

[Let's Get Free]

Communists want to get rid of the entire system. Liberals are generally well-meaning idealists who think we can actually keep capitalism, but make it "nicer."

[Rafiq]

A lot of parties in Europe who call themselves Liberal tend to be far rightists or social conservativists.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

A lot of parties in Europe who call themselves Liberal tend to be far rightists or social conservativists.

And some parties who call themselves communist tend to be liberal.

[Raúl Duke]

In the classical sense, liberalism is a capitalist ideology. It usually seeks to further liberalize markets-economies, bring civil freedoms/rights, want a small state that only does the liberal minimum and so on. In the US, libertarians are the closest to this (but not exactly).

In the past, I assume, conservatism was mostly a movement that wanted to maintain continuity to traditions (usually from the feudal past) and was more gradualist and toned down in their approach to change (for example, "radical liberals" were usually republicans and wanted to end the monarchy. Conservatives preferred constitutional monarchies with parliaments. They're not mutually exclusive from liberals per se.)

In the US...politics were mostly centered on state-power vs federal-power. Some sought to tip the balance more towards the federal government, others more towards states. To this day, a bit of this still continues to have relevance in American politics.

Liberals today in the US are mostly seen similarly to the "Progressives" of the early 20th century, they want the state particularly the federal government to have more power "for the greater good" of society particularly in realms like civil rights but also to effect regulation such as environmental controls. US liberals are basically social reform orientated.

Conservatives usually tend to prefer to let individual states decide on things and usually have a preference for this so to allow states to continue "traditionalist," usually reactionary policy although other states-rights ideologies may not be for this per se.

Libertarians however, in the realm of "civil rights," prefer that the federal government manage it in favor of individuals to do what they want in the personal realm. This doesn't apply for Ron Paul, despite calling himself a libertarian (and fooling his sheepish followers) he's seems to be mostly just a strong "states-rights" paleoconservatism (pre-1940s in foreign policy, pre-1960s in domestic policy, etc) person, more states-rights than Republicans since despite their lip-service to "states-rights"/"smaller federal government" actually like to expand the federal government to enact reactionary policy (DOMA, etc) and increase the security state (Patriot Act). Either way, all 3 ideologies are "liberal" in the sense that they support the classical liberal's economic system: capitalism.

In sum, a communist is not a liberal (and neither is an anarchist) since these are ideologies that focus on overthrowing the "whole thing" and build a new society. Liberals only make sense and "fit in" this current paradigm. Liberal Republicans were the "revolutionaries, radicals" of the feudal age. Communists, anarchists are the radicals of this capitalist age.

Also, the distinction I made regarding US liberals does not apply anymore. While they may be perceived as the social reformist party (like Labour in the UK, etc) these days they're no longer doing substantial push of social reform...they're at the defensive of their past reforms, in a few cases, or are actually playing along to dismantle their own reforms of the past, in many cases.

Capitalism for the most part seems to have chosen austerity (although I find it paradoxical, it seems like a suicidal path; perhaps the capitalist class is no longer afraid of working class discontent leading to struggle after all in the 90s they celebrated with gloat how "bourgeois liberal capitalism" has triumph and that working class radicalism is neutralized, whether by "Spectacular" means or, when needed, by force) and despite whatever electioneering, politicking, etc that seems to be the general path (no matter who you vote for, austerity is the future; your vote only decides the degree of it).

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Liberals support capitalism and bourgeois democracy. Communists don't.

[Rafiq]

And some parties who call themselves communist tend to be liberal.



No, they don't try to hide it. In Europe"Liberal" could signify social conservativism.

[Althusser]

communism wants to transform the world and end alienation, the sense of separation between humans and one another and the means of production, and create a sense of togetherness and wholity which will mean the end of history and the liberation of the human being.

liberals just want more bicycle paths

[Geiseric]

liberals just want more bicycle paths
And drone strikes in the middle east. They crowded the voting booths for the guy whose doing those! How crazy is that.

[Soomie]

Thanks for the explanations everyone!

[Yuppie Grinder]

liberals just want more bicycle paths

This is my single least favorite thing about liberals. Worse than imperialism. Worse than drone strikes. Worse than subjugating the working poor by making them dependent on government aid.
There's a fucking sidewalk for you to ride your bicycle on. Why make a perfectly good two-lane street a one lane street so you can have a bicycle path in a city where everyone is fat and nobody does anything physically exhausting ever. Because the democrat mayor says so.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Fuck you sidewalks are for walking. Ride it in the street like a big boy imo.

[Yuppie Grinder]

but everyone's to fat to walk or ride a bike so let me have two lanes

[newdayrising]

communism is a messianic ideology.


No, it's not.
It's neither messianic, because it's not waiting for someone else to appear and save us, neither it's an "ideology" in the marxist sense.
It's the real movement that abolishes the present state of things. Sometimes it's stronger, sometimes it's on reflux, but it's an ongoing process, not an idea of an imaginary thing that will come some day and save the world. Which is what "messianic" means.

[Soomie]

I live in the middle of a downtown area. People ride their bikes here all the time, because they're mostly college students, and parking is a nightmare. Well, they ride bikes, or they ride their effing long boards in the middle of the street and sometimes go the wrong way on the longboards. Ugh! That frustrates me the most. Anyway, several people on bicycles get hit by cars here every month. I'm not even kidding. I rode a bike here for six months in the streets with the cars, and I never had a problem. That's because I'm an adult, and I know how to use my brain, unlike some people. Sure, a lot of people in cars have no respect for people on motorcycles, or bikes, or whatever, but that's to be expected. Cars will pass you, but you just keep going and don't freak out and run off the road for some silly reason. I think the reason that a lot of people on motorcycles and bikes get hit by cars is because they're either riding on the sidewalk and get hit while a car is backing out of a driveway, or they're whizzing around cars. Granted my boyfriend is brazilian, and says the latter happens in Brazil all the time and people rarely if ever get hit or hit other people. I think people here just don't know how to drive regardless of their mode of transportation.

[Avanti]

No, it's not.
It's neither messianic, because it's not waiting for someone else to appear and save us, neither it's an "ideology" in the marxist sense.
It's the real movement that abolishes the present state of things. Sometimes it's stronger, sometimes it's on reflux, but it's an ongoing process, not an idea of an imaginary thing that will come some day and save the world. Which is what "messianic" means.

and wasn't marx claiming it was inevitable and would lead to a liberation from all alienation?

that's messianism.

[newdayrising]

Not really. It's not inevitable in the sense that it's bound to happen anyway no matter what we do, but in the sense that there's no alternative to it other than barbarism. Also, it's not dependent on a messiah, meaning somebody else that will eventually come along and do the revolution for us, but on the self activity of the working class.
Having a revolution done by somebody else on your behalf, which is what "messianism" implies, is the very definition of alienation. The end of alienation implies, and, requires, leaving such messianism behind. Plus, "the end of all alienation" doesn't mean a return to the garden of eden, a world without contradictions or, say, bad things. It means a world free of the "bad things" inherent to class society, such as alienation, as Marx saw it.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

No, it's not.
It's neither messianic, because it's not waiting for someone else to appear and save us, neither it's an "ideology" in the marxist sense.
It's the real movement that abolishes the present state of things. Sometimes it's stronger, sometimes it's on reflux, but it's an ongoing process, not an idea of an imaginary thing that will come some day and save the world. Which is what "messianic" means.

I thought it was waiting for the establishment of a vanguard party?

[newdayrising]

No, because it's not about waiting for anything, it's about building it. In any case, the "vanguard party" doesn't make the revolution, the class does. Including the part about forming the party.

[Comrade Jacob]

Liberalism is a form of capitalism, communists are very much against any form of capitalism.
You should read "Combat liberalism" by Mao-Tse-Tung. It will take you 10 minutes maximum.

[Sotionov]

Kropotkin, Conquest of Bread:


Should an authoritartan Socialist society ever succeed in establishing itself, it could not last; general discontent would soon force it to break up, or to reorganize itself on principles of liberty. It is of an Anarchist-Communist society we are about to speak, a society that recognizes the absolute liberty of the individual


It seems to us that there is only one answer to this question: We must recognize, and loudly proclaim, that every one, whatever his grade in the old society, whether strong or weak, capable or incapable, has, before everything, THE RIGHT TO LIVE,

:grin:

[nominal9]

I keep hearing people call everyone on the left "liberals" and I'm wondering if that's true or not.
I've postoed this "square" on other boards here. I think politics is perhaps best categoriazed or defined as a combination between form of Government and type of Economy... something like the logical "square opposition, below....this is my own set of "names" for different sorts of "ideologies. and the like....and my "value judgments"...
COMMUNISM.....................U.S. Model
Totalitarian / Socialism....... Democratic / Capitalism
Bad / Good........................Good / Bad
(square in middle)
Bad / Bad..........................Good / Bad
Totalitarian / Capitalism..... Democratic / Socialism
FASCISM..........................European Model

So, in reply to your question... according to my opinion and definitions.... no... Communists are "totalitarian"..... which is NOT liberal......the TRUE Bakunin type Anarchists.... they're the "Democratics and the liberals.....

[Ace High]

Liberal - A spineless person with good but naive intentions who sees problems in society, yet they refuse to fix it.

Liberals are also capitalists. That's the main issue.

[Alan OldStudent]

Hello Comrade Soomie


I keep hearing people call everyone on the left "liberals" and I'm wondering if that's true or not.
Let me have a bit of a go at this: First off, too often people in discourse use labels like "liberal" as a retort when what's wanted is some kind of rational and sober analysis. Here's my attempt at a modern political bestiary, a lining up of views along a right-to-left spectrum. I start with the far right.


Reactionary: One who wants to turn back the clock to some kind of yesteryear, some kind of golden age, the "good old days." Usually, reactionaries have a very distorted understanding of what those good old days actually were. Some reactionaries are monarchists. Others favor the what they think existed 50 years ago, 100 years ago, etc. They pine for the days when the republic restricted the vote to white male property holders. Many, and likely most, reactionaries hold racist and Eurocentric views, and many favor theocracy. In countries with active revolutionary movements, they tend towards being active counterrevolutionaries.
Conservative: One who wishes to keep things as they are now. They don't like the idea of change very much at all and favor the capitalist system. Conservatives often recognize capitalism has its problems, but they think any other alternative would likely be worse and see efforts to make changes as being risky, doomed to failure. The word "conservative" is related to the word "conserve." In the United States and elsewhere, reactionaries often call themselves "conservatives" and yap about "conservative values," but what they are actually talking about is reactionary values. At various times, conservatives will have certain shibboleths. Currently, a favorite shibboleth is "taxes" and another is "limited government."
Liberal: A person who favors the capitalist system but wants to reform it. They may even favor nationalizing certain sectors of the economy. They may favor government intervention in and regulation of the markets and industry. They may favor certain social-welfare programs to one extent or another. They often favor civil liberties such as free speech, and so on. But they favor them in the context of the capitalist system. It's true that conservatives say they also favor civil liberties to one extent or another, but they tend to talk more about "liberty," which they interpret to mean economic liberty.
Radical: The word radical comes from the Latin word for "root." This is someone who favors making radical changes to the system, and many radicals are also revolutionaries.
Revolutionary: This is one who favors replacing the capitalist system. Most, but not all, revolutionaries are Marxists or anarchists. Marxists and anarchists also most often favor rights, but various revolutionaries may define rights differently than other revolutionaries.

This bestiary makes certain assumptions. The main one is that the most fundamental aspect of our civil existence rests on how we organize property and the economy according to class. Understand that by economy, I'm not discussing money, but how the social system produces and distributes the material necessities of life and our society.

The term "left," as is the case with the term "beauty," is most often in the eye of the beholder. Having said that, many apply the term left to anyone who is a liberal, radical, or revolutionary. Others restrict the term to radicals and revolutionaries. Sometimes in debate between radicals or revolutionaries, a partisan of Sect A may think that a position espoused by Sect B has implications that favor liberalism and will say "you're just a **** liberal." Labeling the difference is often much less productive than explaining the difference.

Another caveat: Many, and maybe even most, people in this world cannot squish their views into one or another of these categories. So you may have a conservative with some reactionary views, a liberal with some socialist views, and so on. Humans are not always so consistent in their views.

Here's what I would suggest to someone new to our movement: Listen to the argument being made. Consider what seems to you to be its strong points and its weak points. Be willing to change your view in light of evidence and logic. If what's being espoused seems reasonable and true to you, then accept it. If it does not seem reasonable to you, then reject it. Don't just accept something because some hallowed figure said it if the concept doesn't ring true to you.

As a fair disclosure, I consider myself to be a revolutionary-minded Marxist. I don't belong to any groups or specific tendency beyond that.

Regards,

Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living—Socrates

[Rafiq]

The term "liberal" generally refers to people who believe in social democracy and Keynesian economics. They are people who believe in reforming capitalism to make it more tolerable for the people while keeping class differences, the state, along with everything else that makes capitalism, capitalism.

This is correct, within the American context of the word.

However, the proper use of the word (we Americans apparently have a problem with that sort of thing, i.e. "Socialism") is how it is used in europe. Firstly, all bourgeois ideology stems from liberalism. Liberalism is to the bourgeoisie what communism is to the proletariat. All conservatives are liberals.

In the U.S., Conservative liberals are socially conservative yet "liberal" with regards to the economy.

So called "progressive" liberals are socially liberal yet conservative with regards to the economy.

But don't be fooled, Liberalism and Conservativism are not counterparts. Conservativism is just conservative liberalism.

In Europe, many times you find Liberal parties that are liberal in both regards. Many times a Liberal Party can be a rightist party that is socially conservative. You get the idea.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Liberals are also capitalists. That's the main issue.

No it's not. A working class person can be a liberal, too.

[Rafiq]

The point is, all rhetoric about "Liberty" and "Human rights", all that bullshit isn't a natural breath of fresh air. It's Liberalist ideology.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

No it's not. A working class person can be a liberal, too.

I think he means 'capitalist' as in a supporter of the economic system, not an actual capitalist.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Liberals are also capitalists. That's the main issue.

Maybe in the 19th century the liberals were indeed the same person as the capitalist. Nowadays liberals aren't capitalists in a suit with hat and a walking-stick. Pro-capitalist, yes. But capitalist as a class-position, no.

[Partigano]

Pretty sure Mao wrote a pamphlet or something called Combat Liberalism so it'd be safe to say that no, Communists are not Liberals.

Mao aside (because we must Oppose Book Worship amirite :laugh:) Liberals are content to humanize Capitalism and we (Communists) seek to destroy it. I'd also like to say that in my opinion Liberals (particularly younger liberals) are potential Socialists/Communists/Anarchists that have fallen into the pit of limiting their questioning of the status quo.

They are brave enough to question and act against Racism or Poverty but they've not been motivated (developing Class Consciousness) to move beyond that to questioning the system that produces Racism and Poverty.