Are liberals allies to socialism?

[Tettsuo]

The police are a socialist system for maintaining order. The military is a socialist system for protecting our nation. The fire department is a socialist system... etc.

Everyone likes socialism. The question is how much are we interested in having run in a socialist manner?

 

[Chomsky]

there are just too many definitions problems here. You define what a 'socialist' for your purpose, and I can tell you more. I am a modern American Liberal so I don't need any help there. I am your target audience.

Yep. These terms need definition for purposes of the discussion (including Democratic Socialist & Social Democrat), or it's all going to go south fast!

The easiest might be using the means of production, where we can combine Socialist & Democrat Socialist, and leave Social Democrat off to the side. That would be my take on it.

 

[Chomsky]

Marx was only ever concerned about people getting the value of their work, rather than having that value exploited and extracted. It's bizarre how that is seen as extreme and un-American even by some left-leaning Democrats.

I see socialism as a spectrum rather than an absolute, so yes there can be alliances when goals converge on policy. I don't think anything in its pure form healthy or even realistic -- including socialism. A pure form of socialism would be only slightly less monstrous than pure capitalism. A reasonable goal is a Social Democracy, as you'd experience in Nordic countries, aka the happiest places on Earth

It also depends on the definition you use. Liberal is often conflated with conservative-leaning Democrat or even moderate Republican, aka a neoliberal (or economic liberal). There is no universal definition in modern usage. In the past I think you could conflate liberal and progressive, but that's becoming less common.

Generally speaking, it's not that socialist and moderate liberals cannot align, it's that when the rubber meets the road, moderate liberals tend to align with power, hierarchy and the status quo (aka conservative principles). So any alliance should be met with eyes wide open.

Bingo! Social Democracy manifest in a mixed economy. That's my ideal.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Neither have I. That actually strikes me as something that would be a derogatory meme fired from the Right!

I don't actually know the origin of the saying, but it is quite old.

Among leftists, the phrase “scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds” is often used to describe the phenomenon of moderates and the middle class siding with oppressive forces when threatened by significant social change.

Scratch a Liberal, a Fascist Bleeds: How the So-Called Middle Class Has Enabled Oppression for Centuries

Among leftists, the phrase “scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds” is often used to describe the phenomenon of moderates and the middle class siding with oppressive forces when threate…

nyanarchist.wordpress.com

For example, during the civil rights movement many liberals, while nominally supportive of the idea, defended existing (racist) power structures rather than advocating for their destruction. This is something MLK spoke about several times, though in his context of course he was talking about abolishing racist systems rather than capitalists ones. But the critique is the same.

“We do not need allies who are more devoted to order than to justice,” he wrote in a letter to civil rights leaders. “I hear a lot of talk these days about our direct action program alienating former friends. I would rather feel that they are bringing to the surface many latent prejudices which were always there.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/01/17/martin-luther-king-polite-racism-white-liberals/

 

[Roger Duke]

Consider a family farm 100 years ago. All the members of the family farm contribute according to their ability, and each takes according to their needs.

This will never work today. Remember when Bill Clinton did welfare reform and was accused of racism?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

"Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds"

Oops...
THIS is where statements like that come from and it is the reason why I refuse to let everyone under the umbrella off the hook.
This picture is not a one-off, it's the widely used wedge that gives aid, comfort and cover to every "socialist" (used quotes for a reason) who runs around quacking about how Democrats and liberals are worse than Trump and, years later down the road, the whiny excuse given when you wind up seeing people you knew were former socialists now strutting around on Fox News.
"You MADE us turn into Trumpers!" and "I didn't leave the Democrats, the Democrats left me!"



It also grants license to revisionist trolls like Jonah Goldberg who gets a hefty payday for penning reams of steaming dog crap like "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change" and every single brick, frame and strut that underpins lying sacks of shit like Dennis Prager.
Simply put, it's the raison d'être for the Horseshoe Theory shit show that is Matt Taibbi, Jimmy Dore, Glenn Greenwald and dozens of other "brocialists", all the way up to Kirsten Sinema and beyond.

At this point, the "horseshoe" has become a perfect circle.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

My own view is socialism would work on a large scale if self-interest wasn't part of human nature.

I'm a socialist because I believe humans are self-interested. That's why CEOs and their big shareholders on top will make decisions that are objectively bad for society but are great for them. I don't want unelected aristocrats controlling entire sectors of the economy.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Which of the 344394589548095480954 definitions of socialism and 43483289034809342342809 definitions of liberal are we using for this question?

A very very narrow accelerationist "I want to see the whole thing BURN!!!" definition.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I'm a socialist because I believe humans are self-interested. That's why CEOs and their big shareholders on top will make decisions that are objectively bad for society but are great for them. I don't want unelected aristocrats controlling entire sectors of the economy.

Do you assign these faults wholesale to Democrats and other "liberals"?

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Do you assign these faults wholesale to Democrats and other "liberals"?

I believe people in power will generally make decisions that benefit themselves. That has nothing to do with political affiliation. The fault I assign to liberals is that I don't believe their politics produce outcomes that align with their stated values.

 

[Grand Mal]

I strongly suggest you read a book on political science. Anything. Coles notes.

Even start out with a dictionary. OED or, for Americans, Merriam-Websters.
But definitely move on to Political Ideology for Idiots.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

As someone who considers himself a Social Democrat (as can be seen in my avatar sig), I think I disagree with that I bolded.

Social Democrats adhere to capitalism, they just want to practiced it with due social restraint. The main difference between Socialists and Social Democrats, is the economic means of production. As capitalists, Social Democrats - in classical textbook definition - would never preclude the economic means of production from private individuals.

I think you misunderstand me. Unless I am misunderstanding you, the part you bolded completely agrees with your post. Social democrats are capitalists that believe a regulated market economy with a robust welfare state is the best system for achieving a just and equal society.

My point is that socialists are also primarily concerned with structuring society to produce equality and social justice, but disagree with social democrats as to what systems actually produce those outcomes.

Whereas Socialists, as we know, remove the means of economic production from individuals. And this last, of course, is what freaks so many out (rightfully so!).

Yeah, that generally is the crux of the issue isn't it. What I would ask you is why you believe a handful of people should have control of nearly our entire economy? If you support the democratization of our political structures, why not our economic structures as well?

 

[Grand Mal]

I would say that nearly no liberals are socialists...............most are Dems of GOP members

Exactly no liberals are socialists. Those are two different ideologies. You can be a liberal or you can be a socialist but you can't be both.

 

[aociswundumho]

I'm a socialist because I believe humans are self-interested.

Ok, how would a socialist society deal with greed and self-interest if everyone is self-interested?

That's why CEOs and their big shareholders on top will make decisions that are objectively bad for society but are great for them. I don't want unelected aristocrats controlling entire sectors of the economy.

Why would an elected aristocrat be any better? If he's self-interested he's just going to tell the voters what they want to hear.

 

[Tigerace117]

Liberals think that all the free stuff that Democrats buy votes with comes from the government. They have no idea it comes from taxpayers.
It's like Margaret Thatcher said...."Socialism is fine until you run out of other people's money."
Democrats will probably win most elections in the future because they'll offer more "free" stuff. The strategy will work well...until it doesn't.
The answer to the OP is yes. Liberals are wimpy and soft. They want big brother government to take care of them from cradle to grave....that's so much easier than actually accepting responsibility.

Conservatives are so whimpy they’ll fall right in line for the first jackbooted thug who starts screaming about “commies”.

And as for Thatcher, there’s a reason plenty of folks cheered when PIRA just barely missed vaporizing her.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

"So last night I discovered that back in 2020, Brocialists were cheering the spread of Covid as "Boomer Remover." They joked about coughing on old people because old people didn't vote for Bernie.
I'd like to take a moment to remind you that Donald Trump and Jared Kushner were putting together a national response that would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. But then they learned that Covid was killing more Black people than white and was, at the time, hitting mostly blue cities in blue states.
So they did nothing and cheered the spread of Covid because Blue and Black voters didn't vote for Trump.
The indifference to human life is identical.
I say all the time that I'm OK with MAGAs killing themselves by refusing the vaccine. Is that the same? No. Those are people inflicting harm on themselves in service of a cruel and inhumane ideology.
What brocialists and Trump/Kushner did was advocate the -involuntary- death of people they didn't like in service of a cruel and inhumane ideology.
I really thought I couldn't despise brocialists any more than I do but, wow. They really are no different than the soulless monsters of the right."
---Justin Rosario

 

[independentusa]

"Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds"

A saying thrown around by some leftists. Generally used either to deride liberals for not taking fascism seriously enough thereby allowing them to take power, or to imply that liberals still hold some fascistic beliefs (maybe being pro cop, or pro US international corporate imperialism).

Socialists and liberals have, historically, had a fairly confrontational relationship. The example most frequently used is Rosa Luxembourg and the socialists who were rounded up, arrested, or killed after allying with the social democrats to overthrow the German Empire.

But just because there are some bad historical examples, does that mean liberals are inherently enemies to socialism? I don't think so. Liberalism as a philosophy was built on the ideas of the enlightenment. Democracy, equality under the law, social justice, etc. Since virtually all socialist theory is built on top of the same enlightenment values, socialists and liberals almost always at least share the same value system. That is to say our ethical frameworks for how we view the world are similar. For example, if I am arguing for socialism with a conservative, often there is almost no way I can reach them. The argument that "we can create a more equal and fair society" fails at ground 0 against someone who isn't interested in making society equal. Whereas arguments about socialism with liberals usually boils down to liberal not believing socialism can actually create a more equal society, not that the pursuit of such a society is inherently bad.

For liberals, and especially progressive social democrats, the barrier between being socialist is generally just that they believe socialism is unfeasible, not that its goals are bad. You'll hear arguments like, "the ideals are nice but it would never work" or "well regulated capitalism with a welfare state is the best system".

So, can liberals be potential allies to building socialism? I think so. They are the largest political block and their ethical values are more aligned with socialist ones than other political groups. I think leftists should spend more time answering questions liberals have about how socialism would work and doing outreach instead of assuming they are a lost cause (the most common belief in my experience). If you want to have enough people in your political movement you need to convince wine moms and soccer dads.

The real question is, are GOPers and MAGA"s autocrats who want a dictatorship?

 

[btthegreat]

I guess the way I see it is you can remove as lot of those problems by not having firms controlled by just a few individuals. We came to the conclusion that kings and autocrats generally don't make as good decisions for society as a democracy does when it comes to our government. Why does that not extend to corporations too? Why should the decisions of a company like Walmart, the single largest employer in the US, be made by a few people? Walmart will come into a small town, put everything else out of business, and then pay people shit wages for the privilege of working at the last employer left within 50 miles. Would the people that live in those towns allow that to happen if they weren't powerless?

Sometimes Walmart comes to a small town, sometimes it comes to a big town. Walmart may need a union to address that shit wage problem. Sometimes City councils need more backbone before offering tax breaks and zoing exemptions to Walmart that they never offered to Maggie's Marget 30 years ago. But your solution works

 

[Razoo]

Some are ......some are not .......

Socialism and Capitalism require each other. Capitalism has never stood on its' own in my lifetime. Socialism is a powerful equation.

 

[btthegreat]

Exactly no liberals are socialists. Those are two different ideologies. You can be a liberal or you can be a socialist but you can't be both.

I can be a liberal who may toy with socialist answers to specific and stubborn problems within specific sectors of the economy and I can be a liberal who toys with a free market response to that same problem in that same sector. I get to choose. You can support private prisons further regulate or deregulate the industry , or you can discourage, impede or even ban private prisons,

When I vote I can vote for the republican, the Democrat the green or the workers party candidate too.

 

[Grand Mal]

I can be a liberal who may toy with socialist answers to specific and stubborn problems within specific sectors of the economy and I can be a liberal who toys with a free market response to that same problem in that same sector. I get to choose. You can support private prisons, or you can ban private prisons,

If you 'toy with socialist answers to specific and stubborn problems within specific sectors of the economy', would that make you a socialist?
Liberals believe in a free market. 'liberal who toys with a free market response' is just a garden-variety liberal.
As for private prisons, no liberal could support holding people in incarceration for profit.

 

[Hamish Howl]

I agree with socialists on a few issues, but I'm not an ally to them. We just share a common enemy.

 

[btthegreat]

If you 'toy with socialist answers to specific and stubborn problems within specific sectors of the economy', would that make you a socialist?
Liberals believe in a free market. 'liberal who toys with a free market response' is just a garden-variety liberal.
As for private prisons, no liberal could support holding people in incarceration for profit.

No, I don't think so, if most of the time I do NOT believe in reaching for socialist answers because most of the time, a little more regulation of privately owned business or more statutory support for collective bargaining or tax incentives to induce private businesses to alter specific policy decisions might be plenty. I know THIS liberal is adamantly opposed to private industry reach into prisons, and THIS liberal is not likely to change his mind. Its just a hypothetical example of the wide reach liberals have to look for ideological solutions which of course easily includes de-regulation as well as regulation, or solutions that promote more competition rather than less in a given industry.

 

[ralfy]

It probably depends on the type of liberalism and type of socialism, i.e., for the former there are types that advocate free markets while for the latter there is a range of regulations that restrict private ownership of businesses.

Meanwhile, there are economic policies that may combine the two, such as market socialism, where ownership is restricted to public corporations and cooperatives but markets are deregulated.

Finally, given the point that socialism refers to a range of regulations, then generally all economies worldwide are socialist because they involve governments with regulations. In addition, modern capitalist systems can't exist without them, e.g., fiat currencies for smoother transactions, public corporations for industries with no competition (like utilities, security, and some components of transport systems), legal systems, etc. Even corporations have their own regulations and forms of government that are internal, e.g., articles of incorporation, corporate by-laws, procedures for electing board members among owners, and the goals of the corporation given by the owners.

 

[Mach]

In the broadest sense, any system where the majority of capital (factories, firms, anything that is used to produce value) is controlled democratically or collectively.
I am personally a libertarian market socialist and believe most firms should be operated as worker cooperatives but that non-essential goods should still be distributed through a market system.

Socialism lost as a theory on how to run a successful nation. It was a lot of wishful thinking that lured many a person into its siren call of utopia, kind of like libertarians.

We are not transforming to that any time soon, unless the world collapses and resets, and then it's a roll of the dice on who gains power back and what they do with it.

We might nationalize an industry or two more, but that's about it I would think, we're in pretty good shape except for a few caveats.

It's funny, you look at China, the largest "socialist" country in human history, and even they don't agree on what is socialism, or whether they really are socialist, or really care about socialism. They have steadily added capitalism, citing "we use what works" instead of classifying it as socialist or capitalist, and they see the impact the United States, using capitalism mixed with social programs, has had, and they envy it. They recognized the weaknesses early on. They still embrace the concept, but not necessarily practice it. Having a one party system that also controls the military, is just scary AF.

The U.S. can benefit from separate corporate/wealth power from government even more, if we can just get Republicans to wake up from their right wing propaganda stupor.
And we can use public health insurance (at the least), and perhaps some increase in public funding of post high school education (I think trades and college both), and some worker benefits that are sorely needed. But aside from healthcare, this is mostly fine-tuning.

We don't know what the future holds...no one really does, this is kind of new territory for the human race.

It will be interesting if we develop AI to help solve national problems, it might be a new style of governing, that includes AI solution sets, which we then analyze and prune, and then vote on.