There is more than one ideology that isn't 'right wing'!

I see a great deal of confusion of terms, and in particular the use of 'left', 'liberal' and 'socialist' as interchangeable terms to describe political ideologies, or some presumed single 'ideology' (mostly from people on the 'right', but also from some on the 'left'). There may well be reasons why this confusion has arise in the USA in particular, with its 2-party system, and the way in which political terms are thrown around (sometimes in order simply to scare people) - in the UK there is somewhat less confusion, because we have separate parties which are nominally 'liberal' and 'socialist' (although I'm not claiming that there is no confusion at all among some). There seems to be a wide assumption that all of the political ideologies that aren't 'right wing' are the same, but this is not the case.

To set the record straight, 'liberalism' and 'socialism' are entirely different political ideologies, based on different principles, and which manifest themselves differently in policy. In essence:

Liberalism:

Socialism:

These are entirely different things, and different ideologies. Although there is a range of opinions within each of them, those basic principles remain different, and create different policies and priorities. There can sometimes appear to be elements within different versions of the two ideologies which are common to both (in particular between sub-groups like 'Social Liberalism' and 'Democratic Socialism', which share some common elements, but are far from being the same thing in practise because they are based on entirely different core beliefs, which create entirely different sets of priorities, and entirely different ways of doing things in practise), but there are also common elements between versions of 'liberalism' and 'libertarianism', and versions of 'socialism' and 'communism' - that doesn't make those ideologies exactly the same, but they are probably more closely related than 'socialsim' and 'liberalism' in their basic core beliefs.

There may also people who have, an individuals or groups, some kind of mixed ideology, containing elements different particular ideologies (as there can be people with any kind of mix of political ideologies, consistent and coherent or otherwise!), but again that does not make the essential ideological basics of different ideologies become the same.

This confusion is causing accusations from some that people who hold one ideology necessarily hold another, or people who are 'liberals' must also be 'socialists'. That is not true, and I think people should realise this - to fail to recognise this will being an inevitable failure to understand what people actually stand for and believe in, and assumptions that people who claim to stand for one ideology actually believe in a completely different one.

Both 'liberalism' and 'socialism' are considered 'to the left' of 'right wing' ideologies - that is clear, but that does not make 'liberalism' and 'socialsim' the same ideology at all. The assumption that everyone who is 'non-right-wing' in their political opinions shares the same basic political ideology with everyone else who is 'non-right-wing' is untrue. There is more than one ideology that isn't 'right wing'!

 

And Baptists and Methodists and Church of Christers are all quite different and the differences are of immense interest to Christians. Nobody else really cares.

 

That's the point, though. Baptists, etc., are all aspects of one thing - Christianity. Liberalism and socialism are NOT aspects of the same thing at all. They are entirely separate, and as separate as Christianity and Hinduism - they originate from completely different roots and completely different essential core beliefs.

Whatever similarities there might sometimes appear to be within some policy areas are only surface similarities that have been arrived at from entirely different starting points - Christians and Hindu's both believe it is morally wrong to go around killing people, but that doesn't make Hinduism and Christianity the same religion, and it doesn't man that Christians and Hindus believe the same thing, or even remotely similar things, on other issues (such as the existance of Christ, for example). Their basic, essential, core beliefs are entirely different, and they are entirely separate religions, even though they have ended up broadly agreeing with each other about one particular thing.

 

Just came across this test (again - I have seen it before), calling itself the 'moral politics test':
http://www.moral-politics.com/xPolitics.aspx?menu=Political_Systems&action=Draw&choice=PoliticalSystems.All

Similar idea to Political Compass, but using a double axis of 'Moral Rules' and 'Moral Order':

It describes the basic 'political systems' of the four main areas (which it then sub-divides in various ways) as:

It's an interesting way of looking at the differences between different ideologies.

Unsurprisingly, my results were in the 'Liberalism' square, and more specifically:

Putting me in:

and in the overlapping:

It also gives average results for different countries, including:

Doesn't surprise me that the UK would come out on average as mildly socialist. What might seem a little more surprising, at first sight, is:

But, of course, it should be remembered that 'libertarianism' is essentially a form of liberalism (even though it is often associated with the 'right' in more traditional 'left/right' models for expressing political differences). That will make a differences to the average figures.

I'm not sure of the accuracy of the test overall, or how indicative of the actual countries the comparison results are, but it certainly worked OK for me in terms of what it called me, and what it thinks my general opinions are, based on my answers to the questions (although personal test results are not what this thread is about, of course!).

What is interesting in the context of this thread, though, is the way it defines the differences between 'Socialism:
Socialism blends NonConformance with Interdependence.

And Liberalism:
Liberalism blends NonConformance with Independence.

Particularly in view of its description of Conservatism:
Conservatism blends Conformance with Independence.

I actually think that's an interesting way of looking at it, and a reasonably accurate (although very general) description of the different basic ideologies which may be more useful than the Political Compass 'left/right' and 'authoritarian/libertarian' version (particularly since the 'left/right' axis is difficult to define precisely in any objective way).

 

Cenydd: "That's the point, though. Baptists, etc., are all aspects of one thing - Christianity. Liberalism and socialism are NOT aspects of the same thing at all. They are entirely separate, and as separate as Christianity and Hinduism - they originate from completely different roots and completely different essential core beliefs."

No, they're not. Stating definitions from a dictionary, Wikipedia no less, is irrelevant. Liberals and socialists are, at best, at different steps on the same ladder with communist right behind them.

 

Liberalism no longer resembles anything like the definition you posted. Libertarianism is more closely aligned with that definition.

 

As a liberal, I can tell you that my beliefs are very much like the definition posted, and are also not that far away from libertarianism (although, as a liberal, I find libertarianism to be an extreme version of my political beliefs, liberals and libertarian should be pretty natural allies on many general issues). That is what liberalism is. It is entirely different from 'socialism', but in the US in particular the two have somehow become confused (probably as a result of the 2 party system, and the way that has polerised things into a 'left/right', 'either/or' situation, lumping some pretty unlikely supposed 'allies' together ('conservatives' and 'libertarians' as well as 'liberals' and 'socialists'!).

I don't deny that it adds to the confusion when some (certainly not all, but some) people who call themselves 'liberals' in the US are actually 'socialists', but I guess the public fear of 'socialism' means they don't want to be called that - the confusion exists among some one both sides of the political fence, though. However, that doesn't change the fact that liberalism and socialism are entirely different ideological concepts, based in entirely different thinking, and that in order to understand and properly debate political issues those ideological differences there needs to be at least some understanding and acknowledgement of those differences.

On a personal level, obviously I enjoy discussing politics, and have no problem with people disagreeing or criticising my political opinions - that is what debate is all about. However, decent debate is very difficult to have when an ideological group (one I happen to belong to!) is constantly being accused of believing in something, and having an agenda to do something, that they are firmly and fundementally opposed to in principle. This is especially true when being accused of deliberately attempting to completely destroy the central pillar on which your own ideology is inherently based, freedom of the individual! The concept of accusing a 'Liberal' of attempting to destroy freedom is as ridiculous as it would be to accuse a 'Christian Conservative' of trying to destroy God!

 

To start, allow me to define the political left and right as I understand the terms. (Else we could easily not be discussing the same thing.) On the left most edge of political doctrine is total government control of citizen. Citizen have few to no liberties, e.g. North Korea, Cuba, former East Germany.

On the right most side of the political spectrum is no government controls, anarchy, i.e. Somalia. The Libertarians in the US are one step to the left of anarchy, wanting almost no government interference and almost total personal liberty.

The TEA Party is another step to the left of libertarianism, in that they espouse almost total individual liberty with asmall limited government.

Republicans are, today, almost left of center and Democrats are pushing towards total government control.

I will place myself a bit to the right of the TEA Party, not fully agreeing with the Libertarians. Using my scale, for the purpose of this discussion, where do you see your political position?

 

The problem with that model is it is far too simplistic - 'left' and 'right' aren't sufficient labels to describe positions with any degree of useful accuracy, because there's more to it than what you describe - there are social factors, economic factors and so on as well as the issue of government authority. It makes it appear that everyone to the left of 'right wing' believes in one single set or principles and ideology, and everyone to the right of 'left wing' likewise - neither of those things are true at all. It's that kind of thing that produces, for example, so many people who say they are fiscally conservative while being socially liberal - at least some of them may be basing that on a misunderstanding of what fiscal liberalism actually means, because of the commonly used 'left/right' political model (and the general assumption that 'left=authoritarianism' and 'right=non-authoritanarianism').

What is somewhat better, although still flawed in some ways, is the political compass kind of idea, using a left/right axis and an authoritarian/libertarian axis.

On that kind of scale the differences are clear - 'socialism' comes out to the left and authoritarian, whereas 'liberalism' is fairly central or centre-left, and moderately libertarian (in my case, I come out roughly in the middle of the left/libertarian box). Liberals are, on social issues, certainly to the left of right-wing ideologies, but are not 'left wing' in anything like the same way socialism is. Liberalism is not authoritarian or in favour of the big state controlling the population - quite the opposite, in fact. The whole essence of 'liberalism' is freedom for all.

Another test is the moral politics test I mentioned earler (along with my own results), which uses a different approach (which I think is actually slightly better) but again the difference between socialsim and liberalism becomes clear - socialists believe in a government controlled economy and population (supposedly for the good of all), with equalisation of wealth through distribution. Liberals believe in freedom for all, using as small a government as possible only to regulate the free market to ensure it remains free and competetive (NOT to control industry or the markets) and to ensure that freedom for all is achieved through the equalisation of opportunity for all to work to better themselves (NOT redistribution of wealth).

The assumption that everything 'right' is for small government and 'freedom', and everything to the left of that must therefore be for big government and removal of freedom is wrong. It's based on using a too simplistic model to define all political beliefs, and one that doesn't actually work. Have a look at both the tests I mentioned (I'm not suggesting they are perfect tests, but they are worth looking at to get a general picture of how different ideologies differ).

For the purposes of discussion, it would be very difficult to define 'liberalism', or myself, on the 'left/right' scale, because it just doesn't work. However, on a 'libertarian/authoritarian' scale I would certainly be on the 'libertarian side', but not as extreme as those who would be called 'libertarians'. I could certainly never be described as believing in any form of government authoritarianism, although I do believe in somewhat more use of government than a libertarian (but only the use of government to ensure and protect effective freedom, and equality of freedom through toleration and opportunity (and the prevention of manipulation of the economy by unrestrained corporatism), for the whole population).

In purely social terms, of course, I guess would probably be considered 'left', because I believe in toleration for all, and the freedom of the individual to live their lives how they choose, free from either direct government interference or from public discrimination (be they black, white, hindu, muslim, christian, jew, gay, straight, etc.). I don't believe in the kind of 'conformism' associated with the 'right' (and ideologies such as Christian Conservatism). However, that doesn't make me believe in an authoritarian state - the two things aren't tied together in that way, as they often seem to be assumed to be in the simplistic 'left/right' model.

Have a go at both of those tests, and see where you end up on the charts. Also have a read through their descriptions of some of the different ideologies (and socialist and liberal ones in particular). The problem with the 'left/right' model should become clearer.

 

I tried you test and got to page two. The questions are distorted, directive and undefined. A poooooor measure of political thought. A poor measure altogether.

The last two questions are an example of what I mean.'

Define "protectionism

Is that ALL they do? Define "simply manipulate money".

Your social leanings (in the USA) would be considered farther right than our Republicans. Here the left has little tolerance for any but those that believe as they believe. The left also has a view that government knows what is best for the citizenry. Libertarians have the philosophy that government must be limited and personal liberty is fully recognized.

Fiscally the left believes that government needs to take all income and redistribute it to those that need it most (usually them).

The left/right axiom is different on this side of the Atlantic.

 

I don't like your scheme, because there are ideology that blends nonconformance with independence, and are socialist.

Your ignorance is great.

 

Statements like that is kind of the point of it. If you are going to agree with such a statement, it puts you in a certain likely ideological group. If you don't, it means you are in a different group. Some of the statements will seem ridiculous, but different people will find that to be true of different statements, and those results will determine wherethe system ends up placing you on its chart. It isn't perfect, but it is interesting enough, I think, to be worth persevering with.

The 'moral politics' one is even more interesting, since it abandons the 'left/right' model altogether in favour of the view of how society should be on one axis, and how to get it there on the other.

I think that is the big misunderstanding. Some on the left, those with 'socialist' tendencies, will think that. Others will not, but they are all being lumped in together as if they all believe that, which is the problem. I'm a liberal - that puts me to the 'lefto 'f being 'right wing', certainly, but it doesn't by any means mean that I believe in state authoritarianism or redistribution of wealth.

'Liberals' will tend to believe in a slightly higher level of taxation than libertarians, obviously, because they will see a role for the state in ensuring that eveyone has equal opportunity to take advantage of freedoms that should be offered to all (on the basis that inequalities of opportunity, and therefore of freedom, exist as a result of pre-existing extreme poverty, and the consequent issues of poor education, and so on - the 'poverty trap' that stops those people from actually being free). That shouldn't be mistaken, though, for being the same thing as the socialist ideology of taking everything and redistributing it from the rich to the poor, with everyone being brought under the control of the state. It isn't that at all, and is based in a completely different set of ideals.

At the basic level, I guess you could describe it, in personal wealth terms, as the difference between the liberals' 'freedom for all to become wealthy by their own efforts' and the socialists' 'eveyone having equalised wealth'. In government terms it is the difference between the liberals' 'government exists only to ensure equal freedoms for all and should be under direct as possible control by the people', and the socialists' authoritarian ideas that 'government exists to control wealth and society, and therefore must control the people'.

Lumping both of those ideas as 'the left', just because neither of them could really be described as 'right wing' (if 'right wing' is being described as 'every man for himself, and if they start off without opportunity that is their problem', or as 'eveyone must conform to Christian teachings (both of which get included in the definition of 'right wing')) is wrong. They are different things, ideologically opposed to one another, but the left/right model and the two party system are effectively making them be seen as one.

The left/right model doesn't work to define political ideologies.

 

I disagree.

There are relative viewpoints within all these very broad ideological groups, of course, and some 'socialists' are more authoritarian than others. However, socialism at the basic level is redistribution of wealth, and state (or society) control of the economy and means of production, to one extent or another. Socialism is not essentially based on freedom of the individual, but on equalisation of wealth. It has spawned 'social democracy' as a movement, but 'social democracy' is barely a socialist system at all, even though it comes from the same original idea, but it often manifests with some of the basic socialist inctincts of state authoritarianism (see the UK's Labour Party under Brown and Blair as an example of that!).

Broadly speaking, nonconformance and independance is a way of describing liberalism. It does not describe socialism as a system.

 

I did not make that statement. I argued against it from the "compass" test.

The argument is about which set of moral codes we associate. Prisoner torture, euthanasia, pornography, public nudity, etc. are all moral judgments that a civil society may either accept or reject. Which moral standards a nation accepts is based on the morality of the majority of it's citizens.

Any taking of personal wealth by the government is immoral and is/was unconstitutional in the USA. Accumulation of wealth should be encouraged, not punished. That is immoral. Taxing personal income is really theft, since as I understand wages, wages are a barter of effort for a commodity, but since the individual that needs my labor may not have the product or service I need, we (used to) exchange a third item of value that will be accepted by the person that does have what I need.
It is an equal contractual exchange, not an increase for either party.

I made a valid correction in your definition.

In the USA we have the guarantee of equal opportunity, that includes the opportunity to try and fail.

I disagree that liberals do not also advocate for redistribution of wealth. It is one of their main platforms.

 

That would be a platform not based in the principles of liberalism, which is why the correction you made to my quote was incorrect. Liberalism is about ensuring that freedom is not restricted by inequality of opportunity due to social conditions and intolerance (using the minimum amount of government action possible to achieve that). It is specifically NOT about redistribution of wealth from rich to poor - it is up to the individual to take their opportunities if they want to better thier situation. Redistribution of wealth is a socialist ideal, not a liberal one - that's the whole point, and that is why liberalism has no need of the authoritarianism and statism inherent in socialism (authoritarianism and statism that are entirely against the central principles of liberalism anyway).

I'm not disputing that the terms have become mixed up by some of those on the 'left' in the US, as well as by those one the 'right', though, and that some of those claiming to be 'liberal' seem to be advocating policies that seem to be against the principles of liberalism. That doesn't mean that all people claiming to be liberals are doing that, though, and there needs to be greater understanding of the term all round to avoid different ideologies being put together and consequently misunderstood entirely.

 

I repeat, in the USA liberalism is about redistribution of wealth, and class envy.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need is a slogan popularised by Karl Marx in his 1875 a classic liberal (in the USA).

 

I like this test, its very simple.

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz


What ever the textbooks say, those who claim liberal in the US generally are more Socialistic than not. I'll use whatever definitions are current... We're only talking about common sense.

 

First of all, a professed belief in liberty is worthless if the distinction between liberty and license is not understood. For instance, if you support "gay marraige", what you are supporting is license, not liberty.

Second, at least in the US, most people who identify as liberals don't really support any of the underlined, even though they may think they do. If they profess to believe in constitutionalism, they mean the Constitution as interpreted by the Judiciary, an idea Jefferson found execrable. If they claim to be for free and fair elections, they mean elections wherein felons, illegal aliens and dead people get to vote. If they claim to believe in human rights, they mean the right of people to indulge their subhuman proclivities. If they claim to believe in capitalism, they mean "green technology" which benefits no one. If they claim to believe in freedom of religion, they mean the freedom of atheists to dictate how Jews or Christians conduct themselves in public.

 

I just thought this one was worth reposting again... thats all.

 

I think the whole post is worth repeating.

 

True, true...

 

Liberty is freedom. Freedom to live your life according to your own beliefs, without undue interference from others and without oppression from others. Liberty is NOT the 'freedom' for one group in society to dictate to other people how they are allowed to live, or to prevent other individuals from having their own free choices.

Absolutely not. They mean the freedom of everyone not to be dictated to or oppressed by Jews, Christians or any other group (religioous or otherwise). They mean freedom of worship and belief for everyone, not just for people from one particular group. Nobody should be dictating how anybody else lives their lives, what religion they persue, or how they act according to their beliefs. The only limitation on the freedom of one individual should be the limitation which stops their freedom from removing the freedom of others. Jews and Christians should absolutely be free to conduct themselves in any way they like, as should Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, Rastafarians, Athiests, Agnostics, or anyone else. They should have freedom of belief, freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom of action. Where their freedom becomes limited should only be at the point where they start interfering with the freedom of others to equally conduct themselves according to their own beliefs, opinions and choices.

Freedom which only allows an individual to 'conform', and live their lives only according to principles dictated by others, is no freedom at all. Enforced conformation is not 'freedom', it is oppression, whether it is carried out by the state, by religious groups, or by anyone else.

Liberals support liberty. Liberals support freedom. Liberals oppose oppression, from whatever source it comes.

 

The modern term "liberal" has been usurped by a political movement based in socialism to hide it's true nature. The political term itself has no relation at all with the dictionary definition.

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." -Norman Thomas, six-time Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America

 

It certainly does to some of those who call themselves 'liberal', and not just those of us outside the USA. It's very difficult for such people to get their points across, though, when their opponents constantly attack them as really being 'authoritarians', 'statists' and 'socialists', no matter what they are actually saying!

 

The movement in the United States, self-termed as liberalism, is steeped in the notion of social engineering on a mass scale. It is the hallmark of the American left, and those notions are often supported by left-leaning groups in other countries.

However, you're talking about groups, as opposed to individuals. On an individual level I would posit to you that no two people will hold identical viewpoints on every issue across the board. I am a solid Republican, and I am very much in favor of fiscal conservatism, but socially I lean more to Libertarianism, which is the political term currently much more aligned to your dictionary definion of liberal. While I believe I am respected among fellow conservatives, I don't support the entire Republican platform, wholesale.