Why leftests just don't get it

[Scooter]

Perhaps there are some differences. But both liberals and leftests as you find them in the US today are a subset of statism.

And someone is more likely to be conservative if they are surrounded by the odour of farts. Go figure.

[Sue U]

Liberals in the contemporary sense and "leftists" are basically two points along the same ideological continuum....
(Just like "conservatives" and "rightists"....)

When a Liberal moves far enough along the political spectrum to the left that they become sufficiently ideologically doctrinaire, they move into the spectrum of "leftism"

That is complete bullshit. There is a fundamental difference between modern "liberalism" as practiced in the U.S. and the principles of traditional socialism and democratic socialism, not to mention communism and its numerous variants.

[Liberty1]

Seems I'm not the only one. From an student educational resource website

LIBERALS – believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. It is the duty of the government to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need.Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve problems.

CONSERVATIVES – believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals.Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems.

[Scooter]

CONSERVATIVES – believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals.Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems.

Which viewpoint they are more likely to embrace in the presence of hand sanitizers and the odour of farts.

[Lord Jim]

There is a fundamental difference between modern "liberalism" as practiced in the U.S. and the principles of traditional socialism and democratic socialism

That's funny because I see one very fundamental commonality:

They all believe in a large and expansive role for government; and the further left you go, the larger you believe the public sector role should be.

The differences I see are primarily in the degree to which one embraces a statist world view.

[Sue U]

Then that is your fundamental misunderstanding. Liberals are wedded to the concept of a "free market" that, although operating with some state limitations, nevertheless primarily serves the interests of capital; from a "liberal" perspective, government acts simply as a brake or limitation on the excesses of capitalism. By contrast, socialist theory posits a reordering of market forces and implementation of controls expressly to serve the society at large through the processes of government. But there is nothing "doctrinaire" about socialism; if you look at the pincinciples of the Socialist International there is tremendous flexibility in creating individualized pragmatic solutions that will work under the conditions presented by any given society.

[Lord Jim]

I think you have a very odd interpretation of the meaning of the word "liberal"....

I know many liberals who view capitalism as essentially a necessary evil, (since they recognize, unlike doctrinaire leftists, the inherent inefficiency of socialist economic models in terms of producing wealth) but who believe the system is to serve first and foremost the greater social good, (not "the interests of capital") and it is the task of government to assure that it does.

Of course I believe you've also said that it was impossible for a socialist society to be a dictatorial one, so this wouldn't be the first odd notion you've advanced on the nature of these philosophies.

[Scooter]

I think you have a very odd interpretation of the meaning of the word "liberal"....

She doesn't, if you look at the use of the word globally, rather than its pejorative use by American conservatives. Look at the party platforms of political parties around the world that call themselves Liberal or Liberal Democratic, and you will find they hold an ideology very much in tune with what Sue has described.

[Sue U]

Jim, I don't have time to get into it right now, but the very purpose of capitalism is to produce profits for the capitalists; capitalism may be restrained by government and some of its profits may be diverted to public welfare, but that is a far cry from a socialist model -- even the so-called "mixed economy" favored by Western European social democrats.

Socialism is an inherently democratic system because it places more control of the economy into the hands of the people rather than leaving it in the hands of the capitalists. Leninism undermined the democratic nature of socialism by imposing a top-down "democratic centralism" that is fundamentally anti-democratic; this is why I generally oppose Leninist variants of socialism and communism.

[Gob]

If there be any party which is more pledged than another to resist a policy of restrictive legislation, having for its object social coercion, that party is the Liberal party.

But liberty does not consist in making others do what you think right. The difference between a free Government and a Government which is not free is principally this—that a Government which is not free interferes with everything it can, and a free Government interferes with nothing except what it must. A despotic Government tries to make everybody do what it wishes; a Liberal Government tries, as far as the safety of society will permit, to allow everybody to do as he wishes.

It has been the tradition of the Liberal party consistently to maintain the doctrine of individual liberty. It is because they have done so that England is the place where people can do more what they please than in any other country in the world...It is this practice of allowing one set of people to dictate to another set of people what they shall do, what they shall think, what they shall drink, when they shall go to bed, what they shall buy, and where they shall buy it, what wages they shall get and how they shall spend them, against which the Liberal party have always protested.

It's a great shames that American politics has twisted the word Liberal 180 degrees out of whack.

lib·er·al
 
adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. ( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

Edited to add; BSG will have palpitations when she reads the thread title.

[Liberty1]

She doesn't, if you look at the use of the word globally, rather than its pejorative use by American conservatives.

True, but as far as I know Sue lives in the US. I and others in this thread have been care to specify the contemporary US use of the term.

[Scooter]

And because certain segments of the American political establishment have perverted the term, means that Sue should go along with it?

[Lord Jim]

I found this interesting:

There are four attitudes that can be taken toward capitalism.
First, the extreme conservative view: Capitalism is irreproachable, and to utter even a word of criticism—let alone attempt to restrain it—is apostasy. A great many people hold this view. Nonetheless, it is the most wrongheaded possible position, because it is the most at odds with the truth. Capitalism is essentially unethical, and therefore continuing criticism and restraint of it is both necessary and salutary.

Second, the extreme liberal view: Capitalism is pure evil that must be replaced with something else. There are actually only a few Americans who believe this, and they have nothing like the cultural power that people in the first group impute to them. Even those who call themselves socialists are really advocating a restrained form of capitalism that tries to redistribute part of the capitalist’s profits to the workers, and this approach is not nearly as effective as restraining capitalism before the profits are made. The manifest energy and productivity of capitalism make it impossible for many people to maintain this extreme position.

Third, the moderate conservative view: Capitalism is essentially ethical, but it can become unethical and even abusive in the hands of people of bad faith, so that it needs restraint under those aberrant circumstances. This view too is held by many Americans, and in fact by many who also believe the extreme conservative view—even though to hold both of them is self-contradictory. This conservative position is less wrongheaded than the extreme one. At least it recognizes the possibility that capitalism needs some restraint. But because it does not admit the truth that capitalism is essentially unjust, it is much too inclined to let capitalism barrel ahead without restraint—only to be surprised time after time when the consequences of its essential injustice come home to roost.

Fourth and last, the moderate liberal position: Capitalism is an indisputable engine of economic strength and prosperity that requires ongoing government regulation to restrain its inherent injustice. Of the four views, this is the only one that reflects the truth about capitalism. But because hardly any Americans understand that capitalism is essentially unjust, there are few who actually hold this position. Those who ought to be so inclined—namely, those who recognize that lifting government restraints always leads to impoverished workers and vast economic inequality—fall instead into a position that differs only in degree from the moderate conservative view. They agree with moderate conservatives that capitalism is essentially just, but corruptible. They disagree in seeing much more frequent and more dangerous aberrant behavior than moderate conservatives will admit.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/3 ... Capitalism

Obviously the author is an adherent of position four...

But if you take away his analysis, and just focus on his description of the four points of view, I think it's gives a reasonable summation of the thinking that differentiates the rightist, conservative, liberal and leftist schools of thought.

Though I disagree with a lot of it, (it was written by a liberal after all... ) I recommend the full article. It's well written and gives an interesting perspective.

[Lord Jim]

Capitalism is an indisputable engine of economic strength and prosperity that requires ongoing government regulation to restrain its inherent injustice.

That statement, written by a very thoughtful liberal, sounds an awful lot like what I said in characterizing the liberal view of capitalism:

I know many liberals who view capitalism as essentially a necessary evil, (since they recognize, unlike doctrinaire leftists, the inherent inefficiency of socialist economic models in terms of producing wealth) but who believe the system is to serve first and foremost the greater social good, (not "the interests of capital") and it is the task of government to assure that it does.

[Gob]

That statement, written by a very thoughtful liberal,

Do you mean liberal or leftist by that use of liberal Jim?

[rubato]

Then that is your fundamental misunderstanding. Liberals are wedded to the concept of a "free market" that, although operating with some state limitations, nevertheless primarily serves the interests of capital; from a "liberal" perspective, government acts simply as a brake or limitation on the excesses of capitalism. By contrast, socialist theory posits a reordering of market forces and implementation of controls expressly to serve the society at large through the processes of government. But there is nothing "doctrinaire" about socialism; if you look at the pincinciples of the Socialist International there is tremendous flexibility in creating individualized pragmatic solutions that will work under the conditions presented by any given society.

Liberals, from the middle 1800s to the present are pro-capitalism and pro free trade.

yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

The general liberal view of capitalism is that it is merely an efficient way of organizing human activity but inherently amoral and thus requires regulation to keep it from being harmful.

The first champions of Adam Smith and Ricardo were the first liberals (and some Utilitarians).

yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

Psst, "leftist" and "liberal" do not mean the same thing

In contemporary US society, yea they're pretty much the same.

Only to someone as ignorant as you.

yrs,
rubato

[Econoline]

How about this for a difference: most conservatives are arrogant enough to insist that they understand the liberal mindset better than liberals themselves, and refuse to budge even when corrected by the liberals they supposedly "understand"; most liberals (other than some aberrations like rubato ) have a bit more humility/less arrogance when trying to understand their opponents.

[Rick]