Though this doesn’t apply to modern American political labels, the actual, ‘dictionary’ definitions of ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ can be quite instructive. ‘Liberal’ originally referred to someone who believed in freedom (hence ‘liberal,’ from ‘liberty’), limited government action, challenging the status quo, and rationalism. ‘Convervative’ meant someone interested in preserving the status quo and the power of the elites; rather than taking a specific stand on government action in general, it would support government action just so far as the government perpetuated the status quo. Thus, at the far ‘liberal’ end of the spectrum, you have radical libertarians, like me, who doubt the usefulness of government at all (I accept police/army/court as necessary, but don’t like it and consider the whole idea at best questionable, ethically). On the far conservative side you have a group much harder to classify in modern American politics. Originally those who supported the king and landed elite, they’re now those who support keeping wealth where it is (protecting people who are already wealthy, hindering others from becoming wealthy) or wish to impose some form of social mores (whether the social mores of believing in God or the social mores of charity. Without rendering judgment on the desirability of either, or the extent to which they’re advocated, promoting either would be an example of trying to maintain a traditional social structure). As best as I can tell, under these definitions, both major parties are fairly conservative; socialism and communism can be either but tend towards conservatism. Reasons (once again, I’ll try to classify positions without judging; but I am libertarian, and can’t divorce that entirely from my tone):
Democrats and Republicans are wealth-wise conservative in different ways, but both exhibit it (they also have a liberal side, of course; private property, individual rights, social mobility. As such, they’re more middle-of-the-road than a true conservative position, which really doesn’t exist in America. To find one, look at feudalism, absolute monarchy, or theocracy). Both support licensing of certain industries/businesses, for instance; this preserves the position of those already in the industry and protects them from new competition and fresh blood. Similarly, trade protectionism protects domestic industry from foreign competition. Republicans obviously try to uphold traditional social mores with regard to family, God and country; Democrats, less obviously, tend to enforce traditional morals like a belief in the justice and necessity of charity. Also, both parties favor special protections for certain minority groups. This is easy to point to for Democrats (racial, gender, sexuality, etc.); it’s less obvious for Republicans, but owners of major businesses and their heirs are certainly in the minority. All of these protections allocate to the protected a certain social place protected by law. Breaks to business (which are supported by both sides, though more by Republicans–agricultural subsidies over the last half-century have been bipartisan) allow old businesses to continue in prosperity, and racial protections (at this point–they may have been liberal when first envisioned) preserve the protected status of minorities. Finally, trade regulation was a hugely conservative idea. The ICC–the first major federal regulation–took off, not when populist farmers advocated it, but when the railroad bureaus jumped in. The railroad barons realized that a regulatory bureau could be used to squash newcomers and preserve their status. Once the ICC was set up, the populist reformers moved on; the railroaders got control, and they’ve used the committee to restrict and limit new forms of competition (airplanes and trucks, mainly) ever since. The original idea was to crush the railroad monopoly; when technology arrived that would do that naturally, the railroads could protect themselves through that regulatory agent. Finally–as Milton Friedman pointed out in Capitalism and Freedom, much to my amusement, a progressive income tax is generally a conservative force. It doesn’t tax people with more money–it taxes people with more income. Thus, it makes it harder for Steve Jobs or Warren Buffet to earn his fortune, but doesn’t prevent a Hearst from hanging on to his. It doesn’t destroy the fortunes of the already-rich, but it makes it harder to join their company.
Socialism: certainly can be used to promote liberalism, but is usually a conservative force. Most of the ideas I covered above apply to socialism, only more so–regulatory boards make it harder to challenge old businesses, government control makes it harder to challenge established order. Socialism tends to add a few additional troubles, though; first, because the government is the only source of employment, it’s hard to contradict it. It would have to be an incredibly principled government that would give a nice, cushy job to someone who opposed that government; even if it did, there’s still not a significant amount of money lying around to fund radical movements. If the government chooses to fund radical movements, it will be faced with a number of them that no one cares about, but that are founded because the founder wants governmental monies. In a free-market system, concentrations of wealth exist apart from the government, and can fund opposition groups and ideals; it seems there’s no idea so radical or ridiculous it can’t find some funding somewhere. Further, though socialism may appear to destroy class by eliminating wealth, it usually replaces one class with another. Travel writer and political humorist PJ O’Rourke noted in socialist Sweden that even when people had similar incomes, perks differentiated classes: who gets the corner office? Who gets the trips to conferences? Who gets the trip to the week-long Pan-European Conference of Something-Or-Other and stay in the hotel resort (not that all conferences are worthless and held in hotel resorts, only that those that are can be used as incentives. We send the flunkies to the hell weeks). Thus socialism maintains class even when it appears not to. Finally, this type of class is harder to challenge. In capitalism, someone always has the potential to change class either by coming up with a great idea that makes tons of money, or paying for a lot of stupid ones that bleed money. Under socialism, people are less vulnerable to the market, and more likely to stay where they were at birth. Still socialism embraces liberal ideals in concept–freedom of individuals, individual rights, and a rationalistic government–and its appeal is mostly founded on liberal ideas.
Communism: Maybe the most complicated. Communism was created as a liberal philosophy, a revolt against stable families of ‘old money.’ By eliminating money, Communism says, we create a system where all are free to pursue their own good, and no one is held back by wealth or class. In this sense, communism is liberal. I’ve heard allegations (link to big article expousing same ideas I propose here) that Lenin returned to the Soviet Union to try to reclaim the liberal side of Communism, and would have implemented a fairly capitalist economy had he lived. However, Communism can also exist as a conservative force. The main concern of Stalin’s regime was self-maintnance: Stalin had power, and his system was designed to keep it for himself. Thus, Communism as it was actually practiced in the USSR was quite conservative. It created a regime of oppression, unlimited government, and tyrrany, and perpetuated this regime through force and propaganda. Communism can ideologically lean liberal, but is generally implemented conservatively.
