NationStates Jolt Archive

So, all you wild-eyed American liberals. Tell me, if you can - what is the difference between a liberal and a socialist? No, there is no punchline coming, though it sounds like there should be... (A liberal, a socialist and a rabbi walk into a bar....)

Anyway, I digress. I really don't think most US folks here who call themselves 'liberal' or 'socialist' can really define whay they are one and not the other, let alone the difference. I have trouble telling the difference myself. So, lets get an inside view...

Are we talking Financial or Social policy here? Being financially liberal is closer to socialism, but it's possible to be socially liberal and financially conservative (Libertarians)

I am a Democrat, and called liberal.

AFIK socialism has no social policy, only economic. No matter, it is up to the responding individual. Whatever it is that makes them identify themselves as a liberal and not a socialist. If a socialist wants to make the case they are not liberal that is fair also, though improbable.

I am a Democrat, and called liberal.
good for you! ...now try answering my question.

Is there any useful internet quiz that you can take to show your political stance?

I don't know the answer... but I offer this contribution...

In Sweden, the Liberal party (Folkpartiet - http://www.folkpartiet.se/), is a fairly centre party, more to the right than to the left. To me a liberal is somebody (and this is at a very high-level) who believes in laissez faire economic policies, i.e. few controls. They generally also believe in a more limited role for the state than socialists or social democrats.

I get the impression from posts on Nation States, that in the USA "liberal" has a very different meaning.

There are many definitions of pretty much all political denominations. Liberalism can be simply defined as socially liberatarian and economically authoritarian. Socialism is a liberal form of government, though strictly speaking is an economic system. It is basically a milder form of communism.

Is there any useful internet quiz that you can take to show your political stance?
http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/

Liberal is sucha broad term, it really means different things to different people now.

For me, I thought Liberal means freedom. A Socialist sort of curtails the economic rights of some people, like taxing people for social welfare. So, a socialist can be liberal socially, but not really ecnomically.

For me, I thought Liberal means freedom. A Socialist sort of curtails the economic rights of some people, like taxing people for social welfare. So, a socialist can be liberal socially, but not really ecnomically.
You're thinking of libertarianism.

Well, I told you liberal means one who advocates rights.

And libertarians believe in absolute economic and social rights. So they're liberals to the full extent.

Yes, here in the US there is a PROFOUNDLY different meaning of liberal. In fact the word has been corrupted so much that John Locke is probably about to come out of the ground and start slapping people. An AMERICAN liberal supports massive redistribution of wealth in the form of a highly progressive tax, increased government regulation, and less market freedom. I consider myself a true liberal, which for a while was called a conservative, now that title has been corrupted too, so now we call ourselves Libertarians.
I honestly believe that the modern day US version of "liberal" is rapidly becoming inseperable from socialist.

As for me, I'm a conservative, but a bit more reactionary. An American liberal pushes for more equality and rights in society. They believe more in the progression of society and science than in morality and religion. An American liberal favors a larger government and higher taxes. Not being able to speak from personal experience, I hope that is accurate, It's what all of the teachers tell us, at least and what I know of some of my classmates. But I could be wrong. As for the political quizzes, selectsmart.com has some good ones. Try the American politics or the political views. I'm a revolutionary conservative/monarchist. :)

a "socialist" is actually a member of the socialist party. a "liberal" is someone being described, in modern parlance, as the opposite of a "conservative."

i think the most striking part of the relationship between the terms currently is a similarity of theirs: both are frequently used as unreinforced slams, meant only to plaster someone with a label in hopes of preventing anyone from looking into what they really stand for.

supposedly, a liberal is someone who doesnt trust individuals to allocate their money as they see fit, & would prefer to have a government about as appropriately sized & cost-efficient as commuting in a Hummer. the liberals dont have values. they dont put their families first. & since the most recent election trends, they can also be lumped even more solidly, purely by location now, as a "blue-stater." let me tell you, living in Chicago, its great to know that every one of the people i see all day long is a "blue-stater," so i know that we all agree.

socialists have been enduring this treatment for a long time. few people are even willing to accept the reality that we have benefited so greatly from socialism. i cant say that i know many members of the party, but i do think many "liberals" could learn some valuable lessons from socialists on how to survive their own attacks. curiously, socialists might be in the better position right now, because i dont think they quite fit entirely in red or blue states, giving them one more chance to be heard by people in both. i am certain, however, that there are no socialists in illinois. there are far too many liberals here to make room for anyone else.

If you only lived in Canada, you would know the difference...
It's sad that you Americans think Liberals are socialists.
In Canada we have three major political parties.

Conservative party of Canada : Conservative
Liberal party of Canada : Liberal
NDP (new democratic party) :Socialist

To sum it up:

Liberalism is a mix of Socialism and Conservativism. Liberal policies for the most part are no different than conservative ones when it comes to things like the economy. However, in terms of social services and human rights they are more proactive (at least up here). Liberals try to preserve social services like healthcare and education and build the economy. Being Liberal is as middle of the road on the political spectrum as you can get.

The funny thing is, in the USA, the Democrats and Republicans are VERY similar in terms of policy making, but since you have no socialist presence in your government, you think of any party with socialist policies as "left wing radicals".

There are many definitions of pretty much all political denominations. Liberalism can be simply defined as socially liberatarian and economically authoritarian. Socialism is a liberal form of government, though strictly speaking is an economic system. It is basically a milder form of communism.


http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/


Very interesting. Not sure it's very definitive, but still interesting.

Apparently I am:
Economic Left/Right: -6.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.41

According to the graph, this puts me in the left libertarian column (just slightly over half way into the liberatarian column).

They are completely different concepts.

Liberalism means not limited by established, traditional views, and Conservatism means an inclination to maintain existing traditional views. So you can see why they are so at odds. :)

Obviously these ideas in practice are not so pure, but that it is the general core.

Socialism on the other hand, means the government controls and owns the distribution of goods and services.

Conservatives often lump the two together (Liberalism and Socialism), eronously, because they feel Liberals expect the government to pay for everything they want.

Is there any useful internet quiz that you can take to show your political stance?

Yes, www.politicalcompass.org

Well, I told you liberal means one who advocates rights.

And libertarians believe in absolute economic and social rights. So they're liberals to the full extent.
No, you are missing the fact that liberals believe in larger government with higher taxes. Liberals are economically authoritarian. You may have your own definition like that, but it is not typically used that way in poltical ideology.

a "socialist" is actually a member of the socialist party. a "liberal" is someone being described, in modern parlance, as the opposite of a "conservative."
Untrue. A socialist is a person who believes socialism is the most desirable form of government. A liberal is a much broader term, encompassing socialists.

supposedly, a liberal is someone who doesnt trust individuals to allocate their money as they see fit, & would prefer to have a government about as appropriately sized & cost-efficient as commuting in a Hummer. the liberals dont have values. they dont put their families first. & since the most recent election trends, they can also be lumped even more solidly, purely by location now, as a "blue-stater."
Only after Reagan. I view all political labels as neutral, it is only the actual beliefs that matter to me.

Liberalism means not limited by established, traditional views, and Conservatism means an inclination to maintain existing traditional views. So you can see why they are so at odds. :)
Not in political jargon.

Apparently I am:
Economic Left/Right: -6.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.41

According to the graph, this puts me in the left libertarian column (just slightly over half way into the liberatarian column).
That would make you a liberal. You are socially libertarian, and economically authoritarian, according to the test.

i say screw them all!!! let dictatorship reign supreme!!!!
liberal- :eek: :sniper: -me
socialist- :confused: :mp5: -me

That would make you a liberal. You are socially libertarian, and economically authoritarian, according to the test.

Ok, maybe by the American definition of the word! But not by the Swedish!

A liberal is someone who does not hold conservative, usually traditional, ideas or ideals. A socialist, however, is a social structure that is often supported by liberals because it fits in with the ideals that they hold. Socialism is, in theory, a social/governmental structure organized to lesson or eliminate the unequal distribution of wealth within a country.
Thereofore, liberalism is a set of values that a particular person holds while socialism is one theory of how to manifest those values within the real world. :fluffle:

Economic Left/Right: 6.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.05

That puts me rather squarely libertarian no matter how you look at it.

Not in political jargon.
Whose political jargon? I'm a liberal, and that is certainly what it means to me.

Whose political jargon? I'm a liberal, and that is certainly what it means to me.
Liberal refers to certain political beliefs. Not deviating from the norm. That is common use of the word, but not in reference to political ideology.

Liberal refers to certain political beliefs. Not deviating from the norm. That is common use of the word, but not in reference to political ideology.
I disagree. Please provide the definition of liberal as you see it in reference to political ideology.

depressing. Two whole pages and so far nothing but some cheap attempts by conservatives to pigeonhole liberals and some very weak liberal cop-out definitions. I will forgive posters from other countries for their unfamiliarity with US definitions and express marginal gratitude for their unsolicited descriptions of their own political definitions - and often humerous misconception of US definitions.

So what gives lefties? Cat got your tongue? If you can't define your political/economic beliefs compared to socialism then why not just call yourself socialists?

Please provide the definition of liberal as you see it in reference to political ideology.
:headbang:

Socially libertarian, economically authoritarian.

:headbang:

Socially libertarian, economically authoritarian.
This is incorrect. This is your view of it, because the natural resistance to change of the conservative leads to 'how will you pay for that'? Which leads to accusations of socialism or 'economic authoritarianism'. It's a tool to resist change, not a reality. A liberal can be very flexible and realistic in their approach to funding change. The idea that Liberalism and Economic prosperity are mutally exclusive is offensive and false.

I know the difference! In America, liberals believe in regulated capitalism. Socialists believe in no capitalism at all.

In Europe, liberals belief in deregulated capitalism. They are the opposite of socialists.

Is there any useful internet quiz that you can take to show your political stance?
Yes! The Political Compass

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/

Be sure to post your result here

As for me, I'm a conservative, but a bit more reactionary. An American liberal pushes for more equality and rights in society. They believe more in the progression of society and science than in morality and religion. An American liberal favors a larger government and higher taxes. Not being able to speak from personal experience, I hope that is accurate, It's what all of the teachers tell us, at least and what I know of some of my classmates. But I could be wrong. As for the political quizzes, selectsmart.com has some good ones. Try the American politics or the political views. I'm a revolutionary conservative/monarchist. :)
Take this test:

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/

then post your results for my survey

First of all, it should be noted that socialism is a very broad category. Saying something is socialist really doesn't tell you a whole lot about it. Then again, neither does capitalism, since obviously, a fascist, a moderate, and a (US-style) libertarian are all capitalist, but don't really have much in common other that. However, all forms of socialism are characterized by one thing: a disdain for capitalism, believing it is oppressive or unfair in some sense.

Looking at liberals (in the modern US definition), it is easy believe that they are basically socialist. However, there is a major difference between them and socialists and that is that liberals are not really against capitalism so much as they are for reforming it. Socialists will say that they oppose capitalism and liberals will say that they want to reform it to make it more fair. Ultimately, that is basically what the difference.

"Liberal" has a whole other meaning in France. Refers to the middle-rightwinger, pro-business people."Liberals" are often found among young businessmen, and urban upper-classes.
They don't get a lot of support here because of their anti-welfare, pro-american style wild capitalism stances.

This is incorrect. This is your view of it, because the natural resistance to change of the conservative leads to 'how will you pay for that'?
Ahh, I see your problem. This is a subjective definition. You are not trying to be able to make as accurate labels of political beliefs as possible. The definitions I use are regardless of circumstance or time.

Which leads to accusations of socialism or 'economic authoritarianism'.
Ha! Who's accusing? I know I'm not. I believe in economic authoritarianism. I believe that it leads to a greater kind of libertarianism. You are trying to make everything have positive or negative connotations, and I'd just prefer it if these terms are just tools. Tools of definition, not expression. Lexicographically speaking, if you want be able to refer to things as accurately as possible, objective definitions are the way to go.

It's a tool to resist change, not a reality. A liberal can be very flexible and realistic in their approach to funding change. The idea that Liberalism and Economic prosperity are mutally exclusive is offensive and false.
The idea that conservatism and economic prosperity are mutually exculsive is false as well. There are different economic theories. There are authoritarian ones and libertarian ones. Each has their good sides and their bad sides.

Ahh, I see your problem. This is a subjective definition. You are not trying to be able to make as accurate labels of political beliefs as possible. The definitions I use are regardless of circumstance or time.

I took my definitions from the dictionary, I most certainly was not (and am not) attempting to spin either as positive or negative.

Ha! Who's accusing? I know I'm not. I believe in economic authoritarianism.
It's the choice of words that bothers me. Authoritarianism means "Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom". I certainly don't believe in that. I believe in reasonable regulations to keep eight year olds out of coal mines and such, but I am certainly very much in favor of a free market economy.

You are trying to make everything have positive or negative connotations, and I'd just prefer it if these terms are just tools.
I thought you were doing that :) Damn, we're all jumpy even with the election months behind us...

The idea that conservatism and economic prosperity are mutually exculsive is false as well.
I agree. Although that is not an accusation you often hear made, and not the one being made by the title of this thread (Liberal vs Socialist).

I took my definitions from the dictionary, I most certainly was not (and am not) attempting to spin either as positive or negative.
Yes, but, you see, that is common use. In reference to political use, it is different. Though there are many definitions no matter what. But conservative and liberals both want change, at least in the U.S.

It's the choice of words that bothers me. Authoritarianism means "Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom".
Absolute obedience? No. However, there are individual liberties that certainly curtailed in authoritarian economics. You do not have as much right to do what you want with your money. Instead, ideally, it is spread more evenly throughout the populace.

I certainly don't believe in that. I believe in reasonable regulations to keep eight year olds out of coal mines and such, but I am certainly very much in favor of a free market economy.
Then you are economically libertarian. Laissez-fair.

I thought you were doing that :) Damn, we're all jumpy even with the election months behind us...
With me, unwillingness to change holds negative connotations. Change too rapidly also does. In most use, liberal and conservative do not measure the amount of change desired, but what the change, or lack thereof, is. And I'm in a really fecking bad mood right now, so I'm much more jumpy than usual.

Agreed with Gnostikos. Liberalism is defined by social libertarianism, and economic authoritarianism.
We're still speaking of politics here, not the Fox news definition of the word.

Welfare and regulation are indeed forms of economic authoritarianism, no matter how much you don't like that fact.

Welfare and regulation are indeed forms of economic authoritarianism, no matter how much you don't like that fact.
Arigatou gozaimashita!

As for me, I'm a conservative, but a bit more reactionary. An American liberal pushes for more equality and rights in society. They believe more in the progression of society and science than in morality and religion. An American liberal favors a larger government and higher taxes. Not being able to speak from personal experience, I hope that is accurate, It's what all of the teachers tell us, at least and what I know of some of my classmates.
I don't think ANYONE favors larger government and higher taxes per se, those are just the likely byproducts of the policies liberals favor. But our so-called conservative leaders have swollen the bureaucracy and debt to staggering heights, so who knows...

Welfare and regulation are indeed forms of economic authoritarianism, no matter how much you don't like that fact.
The real world is not this black and white. Saying children should not work in coal mines does not mean you favor an authoritarian economy, any more than saying people shouldn't kill each other means you favor an authoritarian social structure. Your definition of liberalism as "Socially libertarian, economically authoritarian" is insufficiant in my mind, and does not speak to the core of the belief.

Dictionary.com defines liberalism as "The state or quality of being liberal" and "A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority."

I'm arguing this because I do NOT believe in economic authoritarianism, and on balance I believe my views on the economy would fall toward a laissez-faire approach, and regulation is only required when industry acts in ways that violate the definition of liberalism above.

I'm socially liberal, and financially socialist. The irony. :P

The real world is not this black and white. Saying children should not work in coal mines does not mean you favor an authoritarian economy, any more than saying people shouldn't kill each other means you favor an authoritarian social structure. Your definition of liberalism as "Socially libertarian, economically authoritarian" is insufficiant in my mind, and does not speak to the core of the belief.

Dictionary.com defines liberalism as "The state or quality of being liberal" and "A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority."

I'm arguing this because I do NOT believe in economic authoritarianism, and on balance I believe my views on the economy would fall toward a laissez-faire approach, and regulation is only required when industry acts in ways that violate the definition of liberalism above.You're preaching to the choir. Nobody is accusing you of being exclusively authoritarian (not to be confused with totalitarian). Don't get caught up in sematics, as everyone's political ideals are scalable, not definite (or black and white, if you prefer).
If you favor lassaiz-fair economics, that is the opposite of authoritarian.
But any government intrusion into your life (whether you believe it to be for better or worse) is still mandated by an authority, and thus, authoritarian. Have you taken the political compass test (http://www.politicalcompass.org) yet?

Government tells you what to do: authoritarian.
You decide what you want to do: libertarian

What's so hard to understand about PoliSci 101?

I'm socially liberal, and financially socialist. The irony. :P
Well, you're just like 70% of the people here then!

Take this test
http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/

Then post the results so I can include them in my NS survey which will be posted soon,

There are 3 institutions that directly express social power in the world today: the family, private property, and the capitalist state. Generally speaking, conservatives are the ones who want to maintain these institutions unchanged, for fear of creating instability, whereas liberals propose reforms of these institutions in order to stave off more radical challenges. This is a simplification because "liberal" and "conservative" are on a continuum. Both liberals and conservatives support these institutions; the differences between them are tactical differences about the best way to maintain them.

Socialists are those who are radically opposed to the family, private property, and the state, as such, and whose ultimate goal it is to do away with them. Conservatives often call the mildest of liberal reforms "socialist" in order to score tactical points, and this has been the case for decades. As Karl Marx pointed out, they have some justification for doing this, as every liberal reform--and the struggle to achieve it--opens up political space for socialists to advance their goals.

Welfare statists--liberal and fascist--sometimes demagogically call themselves "socialist" so as fraudulently to claim the prestige earned by the socialist movement (e.g., the New Democratic Party).

That's how I use these terms, although others use them differently as indicated.

The real world is not this black and white.
Yes. Very true. Unfortunately, ideologies are. If you favour any government dictation, that is favouring authoritarian policies, no matter whether you're authoritarian overall or not. An pure economic libertarian would mean that the government has no control over anything dealing with the economy. Incidentally, if there is no economic control, there can be no social control, so they are actually libertarian, no conservative, whether they realise it or not. A pure libertarian economy, however, would be extremely messy, as there wouldn't even be such things as standard currency. There are authoritarian and libertarian parts to nearly everyones' beliefs.

I'm arguing this because I do NOT believe in economic authoritarianism, and on balance I believe my views on the economy would fall toward a laissez-faire approach, and regulation is only required when industry acts in ways that violate the definition of liberalism above.
Then you are just not a pure economic libertarian.

I'm socially liberal, and financially socialist. The irony. :P
Then you are liberal.

There are 3 institutions that directly express social power in the world today: the family, private property, and the capitalist state.
No, not really. There are other types of social power. Take government propaganda for instance. Or corporate propaganda if you didn't mean that by "capitalist state".

Socialists are those who are radically opposed to the family, private property, and the state, as such, and whose ultimate goal it is to do away with them.
Woah, don't confuse Marxism with socialism. Marxism is a form of communism. And socialists are not opposed to any of those, though they are certainly partially opposed to private property. I don't see where your idea that anyone is anti-family, however. Not even Marxists want to do away with family.

Well, you're just like 70% of the people here then!

Take this test
http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/

Then post the results so I can include them in my NS survey which will be posted soon,
Please stop trying to hijack this thread. Start your own if you want to solicit posts unrelated to the topic of this thread.

So, all you wild-eyed American liberals. Tell me, if you can - what is the difference between a liberal and a socialist? No, there is no punchline coming, though it sounds like there should be... (A liberal, a socialist and a rabbi walk into a bar....)

Anyway, I digress. I really don't think most US folks here who call themselves 'liberal' or 'socialist' can really define whay they are one and not the other, let alone the difference. I have trouble telling the difference myself. So, lets get an inside view...

In the United States we have a two tier economic system - socialism for the wealthy and capitalism for the poor.

Large multinational corporations are allowed to develop monopolies and are given tax cuts, subsidies and other forms of corporate welfare, creating in essence an oligarchy of corporate control of the government. The poor and working class, however, are expected to compete for dwindling jobs, with lower wages and decreasing benefits, in a market place where the costs of health care, education, and daily expenses continue to go up.

Both parties offer lip service to the middle class, using the bread and circuses of social issues, such as abortion and gay marriage, to distract from the fact that each is a wholly owned subsidiary of multinational corporations.

so far only a few posts have come close to addressing the difference between liberals and socialists. Come on folks, quit copping out. I'm about ready to conclude all liberals are socialists. Likely an incorrect conclusion, but without any hypothesis it is impossible to conclude otherwise. Please provide.

All socialists are liberals. Are all liberals socialists?

so far only a few posts have come close to addressing the difference between liberals and socialists. Come on folks, quit copping out. I'm about ready to conclude all liberals are socialists. Likely an incorrect conclusion, but without any hypothesis it is impossible to conclude otherwise. Please provide.

All socialists are liberals. Are all liberals socialists?

Liberals are not socialists, although socialists sometimes support liberal reforms.

Socialism differs from liberalism in that it seeks fundamental change; the transformation of the economy from capitalism to socialism. Liberals seek reform of the capitalist system to make it more equitable, not its overthrow. Also, socialists support such institutions as consumer cooperatives, workers’ collectives and worker/consumer participation in the management of governmentally-owned industry. Liberals seek to regulate and reform industry to ensure competition, fair business practices, and safe working conditions, not wholesale government ownership of industry.

Liberals are capitalists who want to make the system fair and equitable for all people. They work within the existing system.

Socialists oppose capitalism and want to get rid of it in favor of a different economic system - socialism. They want to replace the existing system.

Wel you could be like the Liberal party of australia and be right wing, or be like the liberal party of Canada and be left. Liberal is differant everywere.

Yes, here in the US there is a PROFOUNDLY different meaning of liberal. In fact the word has been corrupted so much that John Locke is probably about to come out of the ground and start slapping people. An AMERICAN liberal supports massive redistribution of wealth in the form of a highly progressive tax, increased government regulation, and less market freedom. I consider myself a true liberal, which for a while was called a conservative, now that title has been corrupted too, so now we call ourselves Libertarians.
I honestly believe that the modern day US version of "liberal" is rapidly becoming inseperable from socialist.

The Democratic Party
no longer existed, after the Bryan takeover of
1896, as a committed laissez-faire, hard-money
party. From then on, both parties rapidly became
Progressive and moderately statist. -- Murray Rothbard

Unfortunately, the 'democrats' at one point supported slavery, and thus a division was set in the once 'libertarian-like' party. The civil war occured, and the rest is history...Dems were no-longer a power in America, and converted to the next demand in America ie Socialism.

To me the word 'liberal' or 'conservative' is meaningless, and as we all know they are constantly changing. I prefer ideas, per se. Nothing else really matters. I could say I'm a leaning-libertarian now, but years latter I could possibly end-up being considered a liberal democrat....who knows how these words will change.

I mean...do you consider Bush a true Conservative (in it's original sense)?


I don't.

Liberals are not socialists, although socialists sometimes support liberal reforms.


Liberals are capitalists who want to make the system fair and equitable for all people. They work within the existing system.

.

I agree, fundamentally.

Marx was highlighted as being a Communist, but I really see little difference between the concept of Socialism and Communism. Here's his ten steps to Communism...

Ask yourself, did Dems support a motion towards these ideas?

Point #1

Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

Point #2

A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Point #3

Abolition of all right of inheritance.

Point #4

Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

Point #5

Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Point #6

Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

Point #7

Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

Point #8

Equal liabilityof all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

Point #9

Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

Point #10

Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc., etc.

Well, going by the US definitions, with the Democrats counting as Liberal, the diference is that the Socialists are more extream in the amount of control they want put on the economy and corporations. Things is that in some countries the democrats would actualy be a fairly centrist party. Liberal can mean alot of diferent things. Libertarians, who basicly support the minimiztion of gov. to just defence and justice roles, call them selves liberal. Democratic Socialists and such also refer to themselves as liberal. So realy it can mean anything.

I agree, fundamentally.

Marx was highlighted as being a Communist, but I really see little difference between the concept of Socialism and Communism. Here's his ten steps to Communism...

Ask yourself, did Dems support a motion towards these ideas?

Point #1

Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

Point #2

A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Point #3

Abolition of all right of inheritance.

Point #4

Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

Point #5

Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Point #6

Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

Point #7

Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

Point #8

Equal liabilityof all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

Point #9

Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

Point #10

Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc., etc.

He also supported the achievment of these goals through the violent revolution of the prolitarite(sp). Modern socialist want to achieve these through the democratic process. However Democrats don't count as socialists, because they still want to keep capitalism, just with proper controls to prevent the more undesirable results of capitalism.

political compass test (http://www.politicalcompass.org) yet?



Economic Left/Right: 6.50 to the right

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.33 to social libertarian

I'm near Milton Friedman. I wish the questions had more neutral answers to them.

He also supported the achievment of these goals through the violent revolution of the prolitarite(sp). Modern socialist want to achieve these through the democratic process. However Democrats don't count as socialists, because they still want to keep capitalism, just with proper controls to prevent the more undesirable results of capitalism.

At what point do they call it 'proper'? When the medical industry is fully regulated by the government (which scares me by the way)? Now I'm not suggesting that some dems don't want to find a ground that makes general sense...I don't think all of them are on the same page. I guess no one is though. I just don't think two parties, per se, can fullfill a nation's demands.

Yeah...dems want capitalism to exist to a point. I've never met a dem to this point, that hasn't accepted that capitalism is nescessary. For some reason I'm thankful of that.

Liberals seek to regulate and reform industry to ensure competition, fair business practices, and safe working conditions, not wholesale government ownership of industry.

.
I would have to point out the current liberal agenda regarding healthcare and disagree with this definition.

I would have to point out the current liberal agenda regarding healthcare and disagree with this definition.

The definition is the definition. You can disagree with the philosophy, but the definition remains the same.

The definition is the definition. You can disagree with the philosophy, but the definition remains the same.


um a definition is invald if behavior is provided that is not contained or is contrary to a presumption within the definition, as I just did.

a liberal is someone whose ideology leans towards the left. If we look at it as a spectrum (which it is), then on the far left you would have socialism/communism and on the far right you have fascism. So, socialism is the far left of the spectrum in left-right politics. Obvioiusly, a socialist is liberal, but a liberal isnt necessarily socialist.

<----------------------|----------------------->
socialism______________________________fascism

Pretending that the above diagram is perfectly symmetrical, anything to the left of that center line is liberal and anything to the right is conservative.

a liberal is someone whose ideology leans towards the left. If we look at it as a spectrum (which it is), then on the far left you would have socialism/communism and on the far right you have fascism. So, socialism is the far left of the spectrum in left-right politics. Obvioiusly, a socialist is liberal, but a liberal isnt necessarily socialist.

<----------------------|----------------------->
socialism______________________________fascism

Pretending that the above diagram is perfectly symmetrical, anything to the left of that center line is liberal and anything to the right is conservative.

Wow, that's a pretty good explanation for once.

Political beliefs cannot accurately be measured on a linear scale and it is dangerous to do so in terms of oversimplifying a complex issue. One's political views often defy traditional concepts of political categorisation. One whose views are largely socialist need not necessarily be liberal. This illustrates that political views exist in a relative manner to one another. Former Soviet hardliners of the past might be considered paragons of conservativism. Just so, from the capitalist perspective, all socialism might be considered a type of liberalism.

Having said that, there is a traditional model of political classification that we generally recognise--that is, the linear one. But perhaps politicians should be given a test not unlike this game in order to determine their true beliefs as much as possible.

I would bet that most would shape their responses to issues sufficiently to appear in the political centre--as they tend to do when they come to power.
This is in inherent problem with deomcratic systems. Barring the invention of a permanently benevolent dictatorship, this will continue to plague us whilst we become distracted by the game of name-calling in which most politicians engage largely just for that purpose.

K

In Denmark, Liberals means someone who:

1. Wants a smaller state.
2. Wants to abolish welfare or make reforms on it.
3. Wants the state to only take care of the most basic things, like police and military.
4. Hate poor people.
5. Think people getting cash assistance are stupid.
6. Hate people who don't have a great high paid job.
7. Wants a reform of the welfare state, so that welfare means welfare for the companies, like giving more financial aid to the companies, the larger the more funding.

And conservatives means someone who:

1. Agree with the liberals.
2. Wants a strong state - but not a state that takes care of the poor but a state that takes care of the rich.
3. Wants more religion in the policy - especially Christianity.
4. Likes George W. Bush.
5. Hates everybody outside Denmark.
6. Are evil.
7. Like "For God, King and Country".

We have a liberal-conservative government in Denmark.
And February 8th our Bush-loving prime minister is going to be reelected... unfortunatly :(

a liberal is someone whose ideology leans towards the left. If we look at it as a spectrum (which it is), then on the far left you would have socialism/communism and on the far right you have fascism. So, socialism is the far left of the spectrum in left-right politics. Obvioiusly, a socialist is liberal, but a liberal isnt necessarily socialist.

<----------------------|----------------------->
socialism______________________________fascism

Pretending that the above diagram is perfectly symmetrical, anything to the left of that center line is liberal and anything to the right is conservative.
I disagree with your definition of the far right. FASCISM=a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual. I'm not so sure that socialist is an accurate description of the far left either.

In order to accept your definition then one would say a liberal is ok with just a little socialism and a conservative is ok with just a little fascism. It is a biased scale and grossly inaccurate. It would seem obvious to anyone familiar with the conservative idea of small government and strict interpretation of the law.

A more accurate scale would be to take US politicians with extreme (but not ridiculous) positions and place them on either end of the scale then differentiate their beliefs. I don't think you'll find many fascists, but I'm certain you'll find many socialists (or at least considerable socialist agenda). That is why I find it difficult to believe socialism is the extreem left.

Liberal refers mainly to domestic social policy.

A liberal generally believes in minimal government interference in the lives of its citizens, and equality of all citizens before the law.

Examples of these broad ideas in practice are:
Liberal opposition to criminalizing abortion.
Liberal support of decriminalizing marijuana.
Liberal support of racial minority and gay civil rights.
Liberal opposition to religious laws.


Socialism however is essentially an economic policy, though it is inextricable from certain social policies.
Socialists believe that some of the proceeds of the market economy should be collected by the state and used towards the vital public good.

Socialist ideas in practice include:
Socialized healthcare
Public financial safety net
Unemployment allowance
Affordable (preferably free) education through the post-graduate level.


Neither of the ideas as they are successfully practiced anywhere in the world (and make no mistake they are practiced to stunning success in scandinavia and parts of europe and canada) have nothing at all to do with communism (again, as it has been practiced in reality).

On a final note, it is important to dismiss ideal systems out of hand and discuss and focus on the systems which actually govern countries in the real world.

<----------------------|----------------------->
socialism______________________________fascism
This is good for a very basic understanding, but a uniaxial system does not work. Fascism is more than just far right.

Liberal refers mainly to domestic social policy.

A liberal generally believes in minimal government interference in the lives of its citizens, and equality of all citizens before the law.

Examples of these broad ideas in practice are:
Liberal opposition to criminalizing abortion.
Liberal support of decriminalizing marijuana.
Liberal support of racial minority and gay civil rights.
Liberal opposition to religious laws.
.

Innacurate. Liberals support quota systems based on race and sex. Liberals support wealth redistribution, liberals support hate crime legislation (punishing motive and not just the act of breaking the law), liberals support heavy-handed environmental legislation and liberals support the socialization of the second largest segment of the economy (healthcare). Liberals even consider it more risky to leave money in the hands of the earner than confiscated by the government (private social security accounts). To call that 'minimal government interference' is grossly inaccurate.


Socialism however is essentially an economic policy, though it is inextricable from certain social policies.
Socialists believe that some of the proceeds of the market economy should be collected by the state and used towards the vital public good.

Socialist ideas in practice include:
Socialized healthcare
Public financial safety net
Unemployment allowance
Affordable (preferably free) education through the post-graduate level.


Neither of the ideas as they are successfully practiced anywhere in the world (and make no mistake they are practiced to stunning success in scandinavia and parts of europe and canada) have nothing at all to do with communism (again, as it has been practiced in reality)..

Don't overestimate the success in Scandanavia. If you have any familiarity with their system then you know it is currently facing a similar, though more devistating and urgent, crisis as social security. One major problem is that the highest money earners leave the state and cease to contribute to the tax base.

On a final note, it is important to dismiss ideal systems out of hand and discuss and focus on the systems which actually govern countries in the real world.
You have adequately defined socialism, but failed to differentiate liberalism from it. Your definition of liberalism is narrow and inaccurate. Liberals are not the 'limited government' party. In fact it was Reagan who said 'Big government is not the solution, it is the problem' Reagan was, as you may recall, a recovered liberal. :) Liberals seem to be the opposite of that, looking to centralize more and more government power, particularly at the federal level. Conservatives have done a piss poor job of reducing government, but then, this thread is not about that.

I don't know the answer... but I offer this contribution...

In Sweden, the Liberal party (Folkpartiet - http://www.folkpartiet.se/), is a fairly centre party, more to the right than to the left. To me a liberal is somebody (and this is at a very high-level) who believes in laissez faire economic policies, i.e. few controls. They generally also believe in a more limited role for the state than socialists or social democrats.

I get the impression from posts on Nation States, that in the USA "liberal" has a very different meaning.

Hmmmm thats interresting, Swedish Liberals seem to be more like American libertarians than American liberals. Out of curiousity, how popular is this party in Sweden?

EGADS! In sweden I'd be a liberal??!! ACK!

What is a conservative in Sweden like?