Whats the same about Liberals and Socialists?

[Richard Cribb]

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.

Your definitions leave a bit to be desired, but your conclusions are sound. At large, we might as well use the terms liberatives and conserverals, since what they have in common is much more important that what separates them.

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

If there is a way to miss a point, it is to bring in that moron Mises in any meaningful discussion about politics. He and his cohorts are among the culprits in having distorted political language.

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

I know. I started a thread about this sort of things recently. It worked for a while since some man-child derailed it by not forgetting Poland. But it turned out that quite a few had rather confused concepts regarding political ideologies.

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.

This is not very correct.
This however...

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.

...is very good, in particular the last paragraph. Read it caefully, gentlemen, and learn something.

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

Hannity? Is that one of those clowns on Fox?

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

Indeed.

 

[amadeus]

If there is a way to miss a point, it is to bring in that moron Mises in any meaningful discussion about politics. He and his cohorts are among the culprits in having distorted political language.

Your side lost! Get over it!

 

[Masada]

Your side lost! Get over it!

So did yours.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Your side lost! Get over it!

I didn't know we had arrived at the end of history. Didn't his excellency Fukiyama call that off?
"My" "side" "lost" a battle. We didn't lose any war. We will return with vengeance.
Be afraid yet, lad.

So did yours.

He is young. Let him stay in his bubble some more years. One day adulthood will kick in.
Or so I hope.

 

[amadeus]

He is young. Let him stay in his bubble some more years. One day adulthood will kick in.
Or so I hope.

They say adults get more conservative as they get older, and I already have a autographed photo of Ian Smith.

 

[Gigaz]

Funny thing is, both liberals and socialists want to free men from opressive forces.
But a liberal wants freedom from government control over people while he doesn't care how much people control each other. A socialist on the other hand doesn't want people to control each other while he doesn't care how much control the goverment has.

 

[Richard Cribb]

They say adults get more conservative as they get older, and I already have a autographed photo of Ian Smith.

They do? Who are they? I don't know them.
Nevermind, it would seem that they are wrong.

Funny thing is, both liberals and socialists want to free men from opressive forces.
But a liberal wants freedom from government control over people while he doesn't care how much people control each other. A socialist on the other hand doesn't want people to control each other while he doesn't care how much control the goverment has.

I don't find that last sentence to be entirely correct, to be modest.

 

[holy king]

i dont even find it to make much sense in itself.

 

[Cutlass]

They say adults get more conservative as they get older, and I already have a autographed photo of Ian Smith.

That's because the brains peak and begin to deteriorate.

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

Liberals are Socialists, Communists; Conservatives are National Socialists, Fascists.

 

[Cutlass]

Liberals are Socialists, Communists; Conservatives are National Socialists, Fascists.

I don't know of a single liberal that is a socialist.

 

[Jan H]

In the Belgian politics, liberals and socialists are about as different as can be (especially economically and fiscally). But when they formed a coalition government in 1999, it was mainly based on their common desire to kick the (conservative) christian-democrats out of office

Other points they have in common are probably their "progressive" viewpoints. Abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage were all legalized through a cooperation of the liberal, socialist and green parties.

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

I don't know of a single liberal that is a socialist.

but i know a few conservatives who could be fascists.