Comparison of liberalism and socialism

OK, to all you geniuses out there, I need a bit of help. Basically, I'm trying to plan an essay: "Compare the core values of socialism and liberalism". This is a half an hour essay, and I'm just looking for any ideas.

I've looked at different perspectives on human nature, equality and freedom. But the annoying thing is that there are so many different types of socialist and liberal.

Like what's the distinction between a democratic socialist and a social democrat, and between social democracy and the Third Way. All the textbooks are really unhelpful on this distinction, using the Third Way interchangeably with social democracy and social democracy with democratic socialism.

AAAAH.

Reply 1

redanator

Hi. I do not study politics formally, so perhaps my answer won't be that helpful, but I'll try and offer some thoughts!

I think a good distinction to make first of all as regards to socialism is the means that are used to achieve it. The means used to achieve it often influence its ultimate character.

A democratic socialist can be distinguished from a revolutionary one. The former will try to use the democratic system and constitutional means to get to socialism, whereas the latter believes that the state represents (and will always represent) the interests of the bourgeois (ie capitalists) and hence must be overthrown if socialism is to be realised.

So a democratic socialist is still very much a socialist, but simply wants to go about achieving it differently, originally believing that it would arise through liberal capitalism after the extension of suffrage to society as a whole (inevitability of gradualism). However, this didn't really happen (changes in class structure, working class become better-off and less disposed to caring about class issues, etc) and it was consequently difficult for democratic socialists to get the votes to implement their agenda (Michael Foot, Labour 1983). Basically, socialists diluted their policies in order to remain electable.

So I think that 'social democracy' was really a revision of traditional democratic socialist policies. For example, they embrace capitalism as a means of creating wealth, but believe it should be 'tamed' by state intervention: "the market is a good servant but a bad master". So it is reformist in nature, but still retains many socialist ideals; eg eradication of poverty, social justice. The argument against it is that capitalism may be impossible to tame, because it clearly favours powerful people, who usually do not like to give up that power.

The 'Third Way' is a bit of a mish-mash of ideologies so far as I can make out, drawing many things from liberalism and also from social conservatism. More of a pro-business, pro-free market attitude. Meritocracy, limitations on social welfare, neo-liberalism. Further, where social democracy still retains a focus on the nation state, the 'Third Way' embraces globalisation, meaning hardly any intervention in the economy. I can't see how it's socialism in any meaningful sense of the word; it just seems like an incoherent ideology with an excessive emphasis on pragmatism. This is basically New Labour under Blair.

Brief answer about liberalism in relation to socialism. Classical liberalism emphasises negative freedoms, ie freedom from governmental interference, let the market economy sort itself out, not interested in dealing with poverty (if you're poor, it's because you didn't work hard enough(!)). Marx was actually reacting against this way of thinking.

Positive/modern/social liberalism still focus on the individual but want to help people more (thus taking ideas from socialism). Accordingly, a lot of people think modern liberalism and social democracy are very similar.

Hope that helps. :smile:

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 2

Left Hand Drive

socialism is the way forward

Reply 3

gambit12

Redanator, you are a gift from heaven.

Reply 4

redanator

gambit12

Redanator, you are a gift from heaven.

You're too kind. :o:

I'm glad it was helpful!

Reply 5

username424278

Left Hand Drive

socialism is the way forward

Excellent contribution.

Looks like the job's already been done...

Reply 6

MagicNMedicine

The Third Way was basically a free market ideology, trying to curb the worst excesses of the free market with a bit of legislation like a minimum wage, but it basically tried to use the market to promote socially useful aims, eg bringing the private sector into the delivery of public services, using private sector investment to fund hospitals, school building through Private Finance Initiative (or Public Private Partnership as New Labour called it).

Third Way governments like New Labour would not put too many regulations on big business, they hope that if business is doing well and the economy is growing then that will create jobs and keep unemployment down, and also if they are making big profits then that swells the governments tax coffers. The banking sector was making uberbillions and funding Gordon Brown's coffers with their corporation tax, which was allowing him cash to spend on public services. Then they went bust and the whole house came down.

Reply 7

politicallyconfused

if i was doing this, i'd probably break up equality:

1.) marxism - absolute equality of outcome. compare this with the liberal critique of equality of outcome.

2.) social democrats - equality of opportunity via good public services. compare this with liberal weak conception of equality of opprtunity, who say the only barrier to equality is discrimination. but it's similar to modern lib view of strong equality of opportunity.

3.) liberal political and legal equality - embraced by social democrats - inevitability of gradualism etc. buttt criticised by marx.

and with freedom, i'm not so sure. but all socialists would be critical of negative freedom. and socialists embrace positive freedom differently. for marx its about common ownership and absolute equality, but neo revisionists, its about equality of opportunity and rights and responsibilities. *shrug*

ramble over =|

Reply 8

Taniya