I see this all of the time on the boards.
For example, in this thread:
**
I’ve seen many other examples of equating Liberalism with Communism, and it perplexes me a bit. I know quite a few Liberals, and none of them even remotely approach what I would consider to be a Communist viewpoint.
Is it just a convenient slur which has no bearing on reality? To me, such an epithet belongs to another era.
Probably from where Conservatism=Fascism comes from. Mindless insults to make your point of view look better.
It might help if you examine what you think the difference between a liberal and a communist is.
It is a convenient slur but it does have some bearing on reality. Since the 1920’s it has been the radical left that has embraced Communism in the United States. Note that I say radical left. I don’t believe most people who lean to the left are keen on Communism.
Marc
Damn, foiled again!
Actually, communism and fascism have more in common on a fundamental philsophical level than do “conservatism” and “liberalism” in the American sense of those words. The first two are collectivist in nature, while the latter two at least pay lip service to the concept of individual freedom and responsibility.
One definition:
*Communism:
n 1: a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership 2: a political theory favoring collectivism in a classless society *
None of my Liberal friends advocate the abolishment of personal property-- far from it. In fact, they’re happy Capitalists who, like most Americans, want to own a lot of stuff.
Second, most of my Liberal friends are college-educated, and anyone who’s ever taken a Sociology course knows that a “classless society” is an utter impossibility. It goes against everything in human nature.
A second definition:
*com·mu·nism
n.
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
Communism
A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat. *
Again, I’ve never seen any of my friends advocating for any of the above. They support our Capatalist system, abhor the idea of a single party being in power, and have no interest in overthrowing the government.
*lib·er·al
adj.
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. *
I somewhat agree with this definition of Liberalism: favoring reform, and not limited to the status quo. I have known a few Liberals who aren’t necessarily all that tolerantt, but I think that the basic premis of Liberalism is to tolerate other’s religious, moral and political views. I’ve never considered Liberalism to be advocates of censorship, or of resrticting freedom.
These are just my opinion, and a few definitions from Dictionary.com. Some Liberals may dissagree.
Lissa: Well, many would argue, with justification that the definition of liberalism you have there is not completely in line with how it is used in modern political discourse. In particular, in the economic realm, I think that modern liberals are more concerned about the excesses of unregulated capitalism and therefore tend to support more regulation of property rights, worry more about economic inequality (and thus favor more progressive taxation, for example) and the unfettered power of corporations, etc. With this definition, you can sort of see how liberalism might move us a little bit in the direction of communism and socialism. Of course, as pointed out, this is the same way in which conservatism moves us a little bit in the direction of fascism. Both are probably true but not really very useful points to make.
Of course, to an extreme conservative, almost any attempt to regulate the rights of property owners or to tax at all progressively (what they would call “redistribution” as if one could easily describe something in our complex interactive society that corresponded to not “redistribution”) will be seen as moving down a slippery slope toward communism or socialism. (To some conservative extremists, the fact that we have any sort of welfare state whatsoever essentially means we are already socialist…Or, close to it.)
I think jshore has it basically right. A common perception is that conservatives have a much more immutable affection for individual rights, regardless of how exercising those rights affect others (remember, I said perception, and I understand that many who call themselves conservative care not a whit for the individual rights of certain others–say gays who want to marry). I have the right to my own stuff, I have the right to guide my own destiny. Less government, just leave us all alone, and may the best man win. That kind of thing.
A common perception of liberals is that they are much more concerned with balancing individual rights with achieving the greatest good for the greatest number. Yeah, you have the right to your own stuff, but that guy over there lives in abject poverty. Aren’t we obligated to spread the wealth? Isn’t one of government’s roles to check the sorts of egregious abuses that occur when the free market is left to its own ruthless ends?
That perception, IMO, is of a philosophy that’s at least a step in the direction of communism. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, either. The free market left unchecked is a ruthless animal.
I think the confusion lies in overlapping civil liberties (freedoms of speech, association, movement and so on) with economic rights (specifically the right to own property). I can think of examples of both conservative and liberals wanting to curtail certain freedoms or rights while extoling the virtues of others. jshore hit the nail on the head. If you concentrate just on the economic differences between the 2 ideals, you can see that liberalism is closer to communism than conservatism is. If you look at the civil rights issues you might be able to suggest that conservatism is closer to facism than liberalism is. But the slurs require that you ignor essential characteristic of all 4 philosophies.
Sure, just like when I walk to the store to buy some asprin, I’m actually also moving “closer” towards robbing it.
Back in The Days, I had occassion to have considerable contact with genuine, pure-D, Communists, Trostkyists, the entire gibbous zoo. I heard a Stalinist criticize a Maoist for his failure to understand the industrial basis of Marxism. They reminded me of some of my more deranged Baptist cousins, having only substituted Dialectical Materialism for God.
Thing is, Commies loathed liberals! Liberals were ameliorists, trying to improve things as they found them, trying to reduce the conditions of suffering that should properly lead to revolution. According to the principles of Leninist pathology, anything which served to slow or prevent the revolution was wrong, even if those actions reduce the suffering of the people.
That’s just plain nuts.
> anyone who’s ever taken a Sociology course knows that a “classless society” is an utter impossibility. It goes against everything in human nature.
This is bullshit. Nobody “knows” that a classless society is an “utter impossibility,” and you don’t “learn” that in a Sociology course unless the Sociology professor “teaches” it. The idea that class is a theory at best, not a fact, and indeed, there have been and are essentially classless societies, so it’s a poor theory. What it really is a knee-jerk capitalist-society mantra. “It’s against human nature. Baaaaa.”
As for communism = liberalism, moron “conservatives” don’t know what either one, nor do they know what conservativism is. It’s just more bleating from the poorly educated, non-reflective, American sheepscape.
There are a couple of problems here. First, trying to completely describe any philophical/political.economic philosophy by shoe-horning it into one of two categories is never going to be very useful. There’s probably a fair plurality of voters in the U.S. that are economically “conservative” and socially “liberal” – think Arnold Scwarzenegger.
Second, the left/right, conservative/liberal dichotomy implies that political philosophies are laid out on a line such that the far left is the opposite of the far right. This is false. Rather, political philosphies fall on more of a circle. If you go too far in any direction, you’ll end up back where you started. In other words, right isn’t the opposite of left. Rather, democratic is the opposite of authoritarian. From a practical political perspective, fascism and communism are largely indistinguishable.
In many societies, it is the “liberals” who are pushing for less regulation. To the extent “liberal” and “conservative” have any inherent meaning, the liberals want to change things and the conservatives want to maintain things. However, almost equally often, it’s the “conservatives” who want to “restore” the long-lost glories of some mythical past by changing things and it’s the liberals who doggedly defend the grossly disfunctional status quo.
In a word, such labels may simplify the debate but they seldom help clarify it.
The Communist ideal is to spread the wealth evenly amongst everybody, thus, eliminating the economic class system.
In Communism, the government is supposed to take care of you “From cradle to gave.”
And finally, Communist nations are usually hostile to religion.
Thus, to sum up the argument, both Communists and Liberals are in favor of wealth redistribution, big government taking care of us, and all our needs, and are anti religious.
Yes, this may all sounds pretty harsh, and since this is GD, all these points will probably be debated, but I’m just trying to answer the question to the best of my knowledge, and I think that I hit it on the head.
When you have a closed mind and little to defend your position it helps if you take all opposition, supposed or real, and create one big, single conspiracy out of them. That way you can pretend they are all the same and it’s a simple case of right vs wrong and you against the combined forces of evil! It’s also a very handy tactic if you can’t be bothered to, or just plain can’t, address them individually. One strawman fits all sizes if you pretend they are all the same.
It’s as simple as that.
Name calling is an old propaganda technique.
I would argue that none of the examples you mention are “anti-religious” and would also remind you that most “liberal” in the US self-identify as religious.
It’s those who would mandate religious practices in schools or insist on erecting monuments in courthouses who are hostile to religious freedom.
Joel, please notice that Liberals are not opposed to public displays or expressions of religion. We are opposed to the display of religious symbols on property belonging to the government. Do you understand the difference?
If you don’t understand, you are making a terrible mistake. Many of us who are Liberal are also devout. In my case, I am a Christian. How can you say that I am anti-religious?
Be the way, it is not against the law to pray in school or to read your Bible at school. Did you know that?
Communists may or may not try to remove religious elements. Very often Liberals promote concepts that you might describe as traditionally “Christian” – Peace on earth, respect for all life, helping those in need, loving our enemies.
Has anyone tried to control your language, Joel, or is it that you tend to hear “Happy Holidays” more often now than “Merry Christmas”? I used to hear “Merry Christmas” more but that was back when I was ignorant and assumed that everyone that I talked with was celebrating Christmas. Remember that Holiday actually means Holy Day anyway. But use what you choose. You have freedom of speech.
That is really funny. Surely no one believes that anyone can live decently on Social Security. I was a teacher. My SS is about $1100 a month. Room and board at assisted care runs about twice that much. And if you need a medicine, you are out of luck.
I am a Liberal who does support school vouchers. I believe that public schools have to be totally revamped from the ground up. But I suspect those vouchers are not going to pay for poor kids to go to really good private schools.
We support class warfare? That’s a new one on me! Want to explain?
Peace, even to the people on the rich side of town…
I have to love Joel’s “five paragraph essay,” just like the 500 worder he’d hand into a high school sophomore English teacer and get, oh, maybe a B.
The above is a pretty good illustration of what I what I meant when I said:
By the way, I wouldn’t say that liberals are the ones who “promote class warfare”. I’d say that conservatives (at least of the GW Bush variety) practice it and liberals just try to make the lower and middle classes aware that it is happening (while the conservatives often try to distract them with appeals to “family values” and by throwing them a few scraps in their tax cuts). As Warren Buffet (who is a very rich person who is sufficiently non-self-delusional to appreciate his debt to a society structured in a way that allowed him to become so fabulously wealthy) so nicely put it: “If this is class warfare, then my class is winning!”