Whats the same about Liberals and Socialists?

[Crbarber22695]

A Conservative keeps telling me a Liberal and Socialist are the same, and Socialists are Communists and Communists hate America. Is that so? Here are the definitions of Liberalism, Socialism, Communism, and Conservatism...

Socialism: 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.

Conservatism: the disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change.

Liberalism: 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.

Communism: a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

Now yes, Communism and Socialism sound the same to me, but Liberalism and Socialism and Communism are not. On the political spectrum in fact, it shows that Democrats and Republicans are closer together, both containing mostly conservatives and liberals.

 

[Lone Wolf]

A Conservative keeps telling me a Liberal and Socialist are the same, and Socialists are Communists and Communists hate America. Is that so?

No. . .

 

[amadeus]

The terms "liberal" and "conservative" have been bastardized in the U.S. to such an extent that any discussion like this is usually pretty unproductive.

 

[Lone Wolf]

In Russia, "Liberal" means, basically, "Pro-western". The term "Conservative" is rarely used.

 

[Phlegmak]

The terms "liberal" and "conservative" have been bastardized in the U.S. to such an extent that any discussion like this is usually pretty unproductive.

To put it simply: I'm glad you said that.

 

[Crbarber22695]

The terms "liberal" and "conservative" have been bastardized in the U.S. to such an extent that any discussion like this is usually pretty unproductive.

I don't want people to tell me that this thread is pointless, if you don't like it, stay out.

 

[kulade]

Socialism: 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.

Conservatism: 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: 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.

Communism: a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

And why are your definitions for Socialism, Conservatism, and Communism the same?

 

[Crbarber22695]

And why are your definitions for Socialism, Conservatism, and Communism the same?

i got them off of dictionary.com. so talk to the ask.com team, not me.

the conservatism one is a typo. i forgot to pres CTRL+C when highlighting so yeah..sorry!

 

[holy king]

there's nothing more to discuss about the op.
it's right.

 

[amadeus]

I don't want people to tell me that this thread is pointless, if you don't like it, stay out.

I'm afraid you're missing the point entirely. Here's a (1940) quote from Ludwig von Mises:

The usual terminology of political language is stupid. What is 'left' and what is 'right'? Why should Hitler be 'right' and Stalin, his temporary friend, be 'left'? Who is 'reactionary' and who is 'progressive'? Reaction against an unwise policy is not to be condemned. And progress towards chaos is not to be commended. Nothing should find acceptance just because it is new, radical, and fashionable. 'Orthodoxy' is not an evil if the doctrine on which the 'orthodox' stand is sound. Who is anti-labor, those who want to lower labor to the Russian level, or those who want for labor the capitalistic standard of the United States? Who is 'nationalist,' those who want to bring their nation under the heel of the Nazis, or those who want to preserve its independence?

 

[Crbarber22695]

I'm afraid you're missing the point entirely. Here's a (1940) quote from Ludwig von Mises:

okay, im not saying that each of these governments are wrong or anything, im just saying, are the textbook definitions of these types of governments alike? I'm looking for an opinion on that.

 

[amadeus]

It varies from country to country; a "liberal" in the United States generally favors more state control over the economy, whereas in China, the "liberal" Communist party faction would be more in favor of decentralizing the economy.

 

[pi-r8]

okay, im not saying that each of these governments are wrong or anything, im just saying, are the textbook definitions of these types of governments alike? I'm looking for an opinion on that.

There aren't any meaningful textbook definitions anymore. Especially in recent years, with conservative pundits calling anyone they disagree with a socialist.

 

[Integral]

There aren't any meaningful textbook definitions anymore. Especially in recent years, with conservative pundits calling anyone they disagree with a socialist.

In addition, there is a wide difference between 'textbook definitions' and the terms as they are actually used; as used, they tend to signify bundles of policy ideas and not coherent political philosophies.

 

[Bill3000]

Conservatism is probably even more diverse than liberalism et al anyway, considering that it theoretically includes from absolute monarchy to anarcho-capitalism.

 

[Kerozine]

A Conservative keeps telling me a Liberal and Socialist are the same, and Socialists are Communists and Communists hate America. Is that so? Here are the definitions of Liberalism, Socialism, Communism, and Conservatism...

Self-declared conservatives are abusing the terms.

 

[GoodGame]

Now yes, Communism and Socialism sound the same to me, but Liberalism and Socialism and Communism are not. On the political spectrum in fact, it shows that Democrats and Republicans are closer together, both containing mostly conservatives and liberals.

The difference between Communism and Socialism being the extent of tolerance for private property and ownership, with Communism being extremely anti-private property.

Liberalism potentially aspires to Socialism, but the concept has evolved a lot over the centuries. The labeling may be a bit relativistic in that some Socialist polices are only somewhat left of Liberalist policies, and 'socialism' is probably a dirty word among some liberals in some societies. It's important to realize that Liberal/Conservative are a spectrum and not absolutes.

 

[Traitorfish]

The difference between Communism and Socialism being the extent of tolerance for private property and ownership, with Communism being extremely anti-private property.

That's not the difference at all, actually. The difference stems from the fact that socialism is essentially statist, albeit ideally very democractic, while communism is an anarchist ideology. Socialism holds that the means of production should be controlled by the people through a system of government, rather than held directly (although typically encourages the formations of unions and soviets to represent workers). Communism, on the other hand, holds that the means of production should be held directly by those who use them, and shared as necessary, and administered through a system of direct democracy.
Furthermore, in both cases the emphasis is typically on large industrial activity, rather than the minutae of commerce. Small independent businesses could be expected to exist in both.

Some ideologies, most notably Marxism, advocate both systems, as progressive stages of economic and social evolution. Socialism, seen as the stage following capitalism- an equally necessary stage- would deconstruct the capitalist class, and transfer ownership of the means of the production to democractic government. Communism would further reform this, passing ownership directly to the worker.What's more, neither of these "revolutions" needed to be immediate, or violent, and could emerge progressively, much like capitalism.

 

[Lay_Lay]

Thread won by Traitorfish. Hannity disagrees though. You are all Socialists!

 

[innonimatu]

That's not the difference at all, actually. The difference stems from the fact that socialism is essentially statist, albeit ideally very democractic, while communism is an anarchist ideology. Socialism holds that the means of production should be controlled by the people through a system of government, rather than held directly (although typically encourages the formations of unions and soviets to represent workers). Communism, on the other hand, holds that the means of production should be held directly by those who use them, and shared as necessary, and administered through a system of direct democracy.
Furthermore, in both cases the emphasis is typically on large industrial activity, rather than the minutae of commerce. Small independent businesses could be expected to exist in both.

Some ideologies, most notably Marxism, advocate both systems, as progressive stages of economic and social evolution. Socialism, seen as the stage following capitalism- an equally necessary stage- would deconstruct the capitalist class, and transfer ownership of the means of the production to democractic government. Communism would further reform this, passing ownership directly to the worker.What's more, neither of these "revolutions" needed to be immediate, or violent, and could emerge progressively, much like capitalism.

Ahgg... a contribution to a thread about "liberals" and "socialists" attempting to provide clear definitions for what's being talked about.! We must have fallen thought to some parallel dimension