what's the different between liberals and socialists?

[smoer]

What's the different between liberals and socio's?
I'm a socialist.

[canikickit]

Good question Smoer.
The problem is, in the US "liberal" has taken on a distinct political meaning, basically, it would appear a liberal is someone who votes for the Democratic party, a liberal is a left wing capitalist.

There is also the economic idealogy, liberalism, which is a particularily destructive version of capitalism, if I understand correctly. I'm not that sure on the specifics, but I'd imagine the "liberal" thing is the market, as in the free market (capitalism).

There are also these definitions of liberal:

1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education> b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED <a liberal giver> b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c : AMPLE, FULL
3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS
4 : not literal or strict : LOOSE <a liberal translation>
5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms


Some of which are traits I admire.

For information on socialism, read Redstar's post - "What is Socialism (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=900)".

(Edited by canikickit at 9:15 pm on July 6, 2003)

[canikickit]

#Moderation Mode



Moved here (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=939)

[革命者]

well, actually, smoer, Liberalism has more to do with little interference in both the social as the economic matters of a country(less rules, big bussiness), other than Libertarianism, which is an ideology which mainly focuses on a free market(and often even littleler government interference overall).

Liberalism is a more crystalized a dialectized ideology than Libertarianism, which only has gained influence in rather poor countries, with failing economies and much pressure from other countries and institutions (like the IMF/Worldbank) to introduce a free-market, Libertarian economy and little money for social matters-- like good law enforcement(rather than using great police/military force, which is mostly not lacking in those countries) and which leads (usually) to downfalls of weak governments by terrorist organizations (Edit in: or Fascism).

this form of Libertarianism is sometimes also called neo-liberalism, due to the inability to take care of the needs of the ppl, and the pressure from other countries and institutions to pay back the vast debts these countries have.

neo-liberalism, as most neo-ideologies, are mostly used in negative context.

However, in dutch, Liberalism has, strangely enough, a (totally) different meaning, one which you can compare with Libertarianism, rather than Liberalism in the American(world) sense.

In Holland one can say that the VVD is the greatest advocate of Libertarian ideas(or in dutch Liberale ideeën :)).

Scotty

(Edited by Scotty at 11:00 pm on July 6, 2003)

[sc4r]

Actually Liberalism is technically the entire socio- economic ideology which includes an economic component called capitalism.

It gets confused for all the reason given and additionally because there is today a complete ideology which calls itself variously 'Lassez faire Capitalism' sometimes 'Objectivism' sometimes 'Libertarian Capitalism' and sometimes 'anarcho- capitalism'. There are minor differences between them, but they are very minor.

And unfortunately many adherents of these ideologies insist that they, and only they are 'capitalists'.

Liberalism (in the 'proper' sense used in political philosophy) early on split into two main camps - those who thought that individual freedoms were optimised by non intervention in anything beyond a fairly circumscribed set of 'rights' mostly concerning the right not to be murdered , have ypour property stolen etc. ('negative liberals') and those who thought the reverse that true liberty must involve ensuring that people were additionally adequately provided for with such basics as food sheller etc. (positive liberals)

The first sort are basically all but indistinguishable from Libertarians and lassez faire capitalists etc.

The second sort were the original pre Marx 'socialists'. Today they usually call themselves social democrats but do quite often use the older term too.

Both sorts have a shared view of what 'fundamental rights' are, and there are various sub branches that argue about deriving these rights from various sources (GOD, 'Natural law', 'social contracts', and on almost infinitum). Fundamental to all of them is the notion of 'liberal property rights' which is what defines what may be owned, by who, under what circumstances, what he/she is allowed to do with what he/she 'owns' and so on.

At its most basic it is in this area (property rights) that Marxist economic tenets differ from positive liberalism. Marx's 'property rights' are of course very different incorporating as they do the notion of 'common ownership of the means of production'.

Almost all modern democracies are Liberal technically. And all of them are probably best described as positive liberalisms (though how positive varies dramatically - Norway is very positive, the USA is fairly negative).

There is absolutely heaps of liberal thought, much of it abstract philosophy, but it a well defined and complete ethos rather than say 'capitalism' or 'Facism' which are pretty loose (Fascism especially).

A reasonable grasp of liberal thought (nobody could possible understand all of it) is probably essential as the foundation if you want to really understand socio economics as it is the foundation for all modern societies and bits of it are incorporated in everything from Anarchism to 'Capitalism' and of course 'socialism' and communism.

here is a starter link I found that seems to give the gist :

http://academics.vmi.edu/psy_dr/political_..._philosophy.htm (http://academics.vmi.edu/psy_dr/political_philosophy.htm)

But there is vastly vastly more to it than this and be prepared to be absolutely hornsaggled by the profusion of names and the sometimes all but impossible subtleties between the various branches, and come up for air ocasionally, it is mind boogling confusing.

Today if some calles themself a Liberal they are almost certainly a fairly postive liberal

If they call themselves a 'capitalist' they are probably a fairly negative liberal; but they be a lassez faire capitalist.

If they call thmeselves a socialist inthe USA they are probably a very positive liberal.

In the UK they could be either a fairly positive liberal or a Marxist.

If someone calls themself a conservative it usually means they are negative liberal leaning in most respects but with some odd disjointed bits tacked on.

Republican in the USA means conservative (and hence negative liberal leaning).

Democrat means positive liberal leaning.

Both Democrat and republican mean, however, that you vote for a party which is actually more like an oligarchy.

If someone calls you a liberal it usually means 'asshole' - ignore it, or call them one back and enjoy the confusion.

best wishes.


(Edited by sc4r at 12:50 pm on July 17, 2003)

[bluerev002]

A liberal is anyone in a capitalist society who favors little Govt. involvement, and wants change and would even result to violence to get it.

The diffrence would be that a Communist would take down the whole govt. to make it a communist govt. a liberal can do the same, but a liberal can also tear down the govt. and set up a capitalist society.

~My guess~

[Elect Marx]

You people seem to have repeated some information, I will try not to. Liberals, as I have seen them, seem to be slightly left of centrist and generaly support reform. They also seem to be fairly nonconfrontational and try to work within the system for community values. A socialist would naturaly be a bit farther to the left and less prown to work in the system. Although socialism is a rather broad term, I think someone could actually be both.

[Comrade Raz]

Liberals are middle class with beards.
And
Socialists are the working class with brains.

Generally.

[Elect Marx]

Comrade Raz,
middle class is a vauge term, as opposed to working class which is fairly specific. If it is ever good to use the term middle class, I think the meaning should be specified. I take it that you are using middle class as higher financialy (than the working class).

[Marxist in Nebraska]

I have noticed that many of you are associating liberalism with laissez-faire capitalism. The World Bank, IMF, etc. are instruments of neo-liberal policy, which means to put everything imaginable into private ownership. "Liberal" in the United States, however, implies one who is sympathetic to human rights causes. Liberals, at their best, are about fighting racism, sexism, and homophobia. They are committed to protect welfare programs and public schools from greedy, stingy reactionaries.

Where an American liberal parts ways with a radical leftist is when one decides how much blame for our problems should be attributed to the capitalist system. Liberals will look to things like the Enron scandal and corporate welfare and decide that we need more regulation to find individual corruption. In other words, they want more reform to protect the people from a few bad apples. A leftist blames capitalism itself. A leftist says reform is fleeting, that we must expropriate the expropriators to end this corruption.

In short, the liberal hopes to live in a kinder, gentler capitalism. A radical has greater expectations.

[apathy maybe]

It was always my opinion that Liberals where aiming to move the current (economic) system further to the right, while socialists aimed to reform it to the left. Niether are conservitive (aiming to keep the current system or to bring back the 'good old days). Either could have conservitive moral values however.

Compare the Liberal and Labor parties in Australia.
The Liberals want to flog off everything under the sun, while Labor never used to want to (they may now however). 'Real' socialists (like the Greens) are further to the left then Labor and don't support selling assests. But do support a more equal system.