A Great Question: Liberalism vs. Socialism
Recently, Colin Urban asked me:
"...Also, you seem to group liberalism in with socialism. I can see how you may associate the two but they are far from the same thing."
Well Colin, as for socialism vs. liberalism, you are correct. They are different in the textbook definitions. Socialism advocates that all property is controlled collectively. The old aphorism is "From Those Who Are Able, To Those Who Need." Well, what is the practical result? That the state sets wages and prices, the economy is centrally planned, resources are rationed to the people, and any means of resistance are controlled by the government.
Liberalism espouses the use of government power to solve social problems. It stems from classical liberalism which believed that government power should only be used to relieve market externalities (ie. The Tragedy of the Commons). The classic example is a lighthouse, from which many benefit, but for which few have to pay. According to classical liberalism, the government would need to take over operation of the lighthouse in order to ensure that this important service continues to be provided. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal Democrats extended this idea of liberalism. They believed that government power could solve not only economic problems, but social problems as well. To understand how this ideological jump can be made, consider that poverty could be considered a failure of the market (by those who do not understand it...). And so arose what we now see as modern liberalism.
What was the practical result of the new liberalism? State intervention in industry, price controls, wage controls, welfare and social security (From those who are able, To those who need), etc... Essentially a massive growth of the state. As the state grew, and interfered with the economy and private life, problems were exacerbated not solved. This of course created the need for more government to solve those problems (aka. the Great Society), which created new problems, which called more government, etc...
Now, look at where we are today:
I think that major politicians, and a majority of their supporters, who call themselves "liberals" are in essence no different from socialists in what they are advocating. I mean, you have Senator Hillary Clinton saying she wants to "take the profits" of the major oil companies, and spend it on government energy programs. You have many of the major Democrat presidential candidates calling for universal health care (or "socialized" medicine). You have Democrat Congressmen like Joe Kennedy praising Leftist Venezuelan Dictator Hugo Chavez, who is nationalizing every industry he can get his hands on... And the list can go on and on. My question is: If today's Democrats are not socialists, how would they act any different from how they already do?
You see, Colin correctly states that liberalism is not socialism. Instead, it is a flawed ideology that inevitably leads to socialism. Government cannot solve social problems, and it is debatable the degree to which government can solve economic problems. A Libertarian professor, whose name I unfortunately cannot remember, once put it to me best: Government is just not smart enough to solve social problems. It does not have enough information to make choices for millions of people. It does not understand what we need better than we do, and it cannot anticipate the thousands of little things we do everyday to keep our lives in balance and running smoothly. By interfering, Government upsets that balance and creates new problems.
Now, some liberals (perhaps like Colin) are well intentioned. They want to help people solve problems in their life, and see government power as a quick way to do so. As one of my liberal college friends told me once, "We have the power to stop these problems now... Why are you standing in the way?" The problem, as I have explained, is that government does not have the power to solve these problems, and very often makes them worse. But, these well-intentioned liberals allow their emotions to cloud the long-term ramifications of their actions.
However, an elite group of liberals within the leadership of the liberal movement (like Sen. Hillary Clinton) are not well intentioned, but in fact understand everything I have outlined here. They prey upon the good intentions of average people and use them to obtain greater and greater power. These elite liberals politicize every issue and advocate government power as a solution, with them in charge of course. They advocate social programs in order to create a dependent class of voters that will ensure their power into perpetuity (ie. Social Security). They use class envy to turn the poor and the middle class against those who employ them (and by extension feed them), generating public support for a government takeover of industry. They exacerbate racial and social tensions in order to stifle free speech and to obfuscate any argument against them. And, they infiltrate media and educational institutions to brainwash the ignorant, the apathetic, and children into believing their lies and accepting rule by a liberal elite. Any way in which these elite liberals can advance themselves and their power, often at the expense of the average citizen, they take. It is a brand of fascism and totalitarianism that should have died off long ago, but must unfortunately be continually guarded against.
Thank you Colin, for giving me the chance to really delve into this issue. Liberalism is not socialism... it is a more sinister ideology that leads us to socialism through the back door. Capitalists and those who love freedom must constantly guard against the idea that government is the solution, and avoid the seductive sirens call of power. We must continue to advance an agenda of political and economic liberty for all, progress through unbridled human innovation and private enterprise, and happiness through the freedom of the human spirit.
http://capitalistleague.blogspot.com/2007/05/great-question-liberalism-vs-socialism.html
