Liberalism vs Conservatism

[Comrade #138672]

We all know that Liberalism and Conservatism are Capitalist ideologies, so they necessarily have much in common. However, I was wondering what the differences between the two are, and whether they are significant (enough) to Communists. Even though Conservatives often have Liberal views and Liberals often have Conservative views, there does seem to be a distinction to be made. What drives some people to become Conservatives rather than Liberals, and vice versa? What is the Marxist / materialist explanation for this?

What do you think?

P.S. If a context is necessary, then assume we're talking about the U.S. But, if possible, then I would like to discuss this in a broader context.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Good question. I usually just think of them as sides of the same coin and when I compare or contrast them it's generally more specific in context: "this is the current conservative position on X, verses the liberal position on X".

Their specific positions and policies do seem to change quite a bit depending on the context though: liberals and conservatives in the Keynsian era were two sides of a general consensus and liberals and conservatives in the neoliberal era are two sides of a different consensus. Conservatives in the 1950s wanted guns and butter just like liberals and it was a question of how best to do that; conservatives and liberals now want austerity and again, it's a question of what things to cut first and how best to do it without provoking some kind of revolt.

Anyway, I'd also like to hear what people have to say about this.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I wrote a response but right as I was about to post it, I suddenly felt like I was answering a question you didn't ask. Are you asking why the political parties in the US have the ideologies that they do, or are you asking what drives John Doe to be a Liberal while Jane Doe is a Conservative?

[tuwix]

We all know that Liberalism and Conservatism are Capitalist ideologies, so they necessarily have much in common. However, I was wondering what the differences between the two are, and whether they are significant (enough) to Communists. Even though Conservatives often have Liberal views and Liberals often have Conservative views, there does seem to be a distinction to be made. What drives some people to become Conservatives rather than Liberals, and vice versa? What is the Marxist / materialist explanation for this?

What do you think?

P.S. If a context is necessary, then assume we're talking about the U.S. But, if possible, then I would like to discuss this in a broader context.

Let's start with the beginning of these concepts.
Such division has emerged to differentiate those who are for monarchies (conservatists) and those who are against monarchy (liberals). It is pretty interesting that in French parliament was exactly the same divisions between right-wing (conservatists, monarchists) and leftwing (liberals, socialists). And this is why at the beginning liberals and socialists were pretty the same.

The “liberals” in terms of economics referring to the utopia of free market passed to right-wing and conservative movement after bourgeois republic started to be dominating model of state. King ceased to be main subject of differentiation.

Now let's check what the word 'liberal' really means. It has its origin in Latin word 'liberalis' that means free.
P.-J. Proudhon has stated that freedom with (private) property is just impossible because property subordinate people to bourgeoisie . It explains who is truly liberal and who pretends to be.

[G4b3n]

"The class that has the means of material production at its disposal has control at the same time over the means of mental production" - Friedrich Engels

As for materialist analysis, this is probably the most important concept to keep in mind. All abstraction is simply a reflection of the physical world. People are driven to become either liberals or conservatives because they are often put under the impression, by bourgeois politics, that the political sphere is binary, which is false. The other most common misconception is the notion that the political and economic spheres are separate entities that must be addressed as such. This is because bourgeois democracy addresses the political sphere alone, because as we know, it is only sham democracy and not true democracy.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

"Conservatives" and "liberals" are both, at this juncture, liberals in a historical sense, emerging out of the same liberal tradition to varying degrees, and, in practice (along with social-democrats and a disturbing number of "socialists") are essentially carrying out the same programme of neo-liberal restructuring that kicked off in the 70s.
On an individual level, whether someone is a liberal or a conservative matters in terms of discourse - how they talk about things, and what they mean. That is, we have to approach them as distinct ideology in the sense of "false consciousness". Of course, this also intersects with class. There's not much beyond the superficial in common between bourgeois and working class liberals and conservatives (nor much to be gained from engaging with the former) - if anything, ideology functions to gloss over this veritable gulf. In any case, my point is that having a handle on liberal and conservative discourses will make winning over liberal or conservative workers significantly easier. Pick an issue, for example guns. You won't need to sell a Conservative on the idea that the working class ought to be armed, but you will need to have a conversation about where the guns need to be pointed (ie Not at black teenagers, but at . . .). As for liberals, you'll have to take an entirely different tack.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

I always put it like this:


A conservative is a person who sees a problem and doesn't think its a problem.

A liberal is a person who sees a problem but is too chickenshit to do anything about it.

A radical is a person who sees a problem and takes action.

[Craig_J]

Liberals are in practice meant to be more progressive in the fact that they are more tolerant of new ideas in terms of homosexuality, gender equality, racial equality and different lifestyle choices whilst demaning that people be self-sufficent in the real world under a capitalist system. Of course though, in practice this is never really the actualy case as liberals are often quite conservative but present themselves as "liberal!" because it seems less outdated and more progressive to potential voters who always seek change and rogress. IN reality, it is supporting the capitalist system, and you only have to look at things such as the fact that in so called liberal societys single parent mothers are often evry undersupported to see that by heping capitalism they still very much restrict the quality of certain lifestyles choices.

Conservatives on the other hand, in theory don't present themselves as all progressive and change seeking. Againm, they support Captalism but the way they present themselves is as seeking to "guard history, tradition and culture" from invading forces in life which seek to "disrupt the equillibrium of society thus resulting in anomie", where values and norms in society are "broken" causing society to collapse from disruption to the shared values of society. Conservatives will often present themselves as anti-homosexual and may in some places, such as Mick Romney in the USA, look to go back to a more traditional culture based more on religious principles.

Of course I don't agree with my description of conservativsm, or how I started of describing liberalism, bnut that's what they beleive, what they in theory do and what the view points of liberals and conservatives would be against each other and of themselves. In reality, both prevent change as they seek to keep capitalism in place. On paper, the lesser of the two evils would have to be Liberalism as it is, again on paper and in theory, more progressive. But in my point of view both underpin capitalism and thus both do the same fundamental job of keeping the bourgeosie state in place. Simply, I think they both exist to polarise one another like two sides of a triangle, other a small degree of choice to give the impression they're voting for change or no change, and support each other. That's why most governments these days are liberal or conservative.

[Comrade #138672]

I wrote a response but right as I was about to post it, I suddenly felt like I was answering a question you didn't ask. Are you asking why the political parties in the US have the ideologies that they do, or are you asking what drives John Doe to be a Liberal while Jane Doe is a Conservative?

People often answer questions in their own way according to their own interpretation of the question, especially when it's about definitions that don't really have a clear unambiguous meaning. This isn't necessarily bad. Sometimes this provides new insights that the person asking the question didn't even think of at the time.

My question was a little ambiguous too. In fact, I was asking both questions at the same time, which isn't strange, because they are, after all, related to each other.

[Sotionov]

"during the eighteenth century Whigs and Tories represented the same landed interest, but one party endeavoured to further it by affiance with the bourgeoisie of the towns at the expense of the Throne and its resources, while the other party conceived the Monarchy to be its strongest support. Similarly to-day in England and also elsewhere, Liberals and Conservatives represent the same capitalist interests. But the one thinks they will be best served by an alliance with the landed class, and forcible suppression of the working classes, while the other fears dire consequences from this policy, and strives to conciliate the working classes by small concessions at the expense of the landed class."

Kautsky, Dictatorship of the Proletariat, 4. The effects of democracy

[blake 3:17]

You guys are sooooooooooooooooooooooooo American.

On some issues I get a long better with liberals, and on some others I get along better with conservatives.

Marx often had a lot of praise for Tories over Whigs. I've a gossipy story about a famous American radical and the Canadian left I want to share, but shouldn't...

[RedCloud]

Liberalism and conservatism are not ideologies, they are both of capitalism, I think capitalism would be the ideology in this context. Maybe I'm wrong, but terms like that do not necessarily mean democrat and republican which seems to be what you're getting at. I consider myself more of a conservative person (socially and in my dress habits) but I am not "a conservative" republican, for example.

That said, neither.
Transcend your typical American capitalist "left and right" concepts.