Are socialism and communism just other names for liberalism? A multi question, question.?

Question

Do liberals maintain that society needs to be reborn for the betterment of the whole?
Do liberals believe there is a group of people who are blocking this needed rebirth?
Is it okay to revise history to accomplish this rebirth?
If someone doubts this needed rebirth are they marginalised, vilified or silenced?
If past efforts of liberal thought has failed, then is it obviously a group of malcontents disrupting the process since the theory of liberalism is flawless?
Has liberal theory ever been wrong?
Does liberalism support the concept that many of societies ills are too large or difficult for individuals to correct and we must have government step in?
Does liberalism belief support that the freedoms we enjoy today are a gift from the state?

All of these questions when answered honestly paint a very disturbing picture, one that people have denied or lied about for quite awhile.

http://www.eco.freedom.org/articles/bailor-205.shtml

Perplexed - I know what you say is true about you, however the majority of liberals I run into and here on Y!A are socialists, and they deceitfully hide behind the respectability of the liberal label. Does that not bother you at least a little? And should it bother why do you not speak out against it.

Answer 1

I think that liberalism has had many meanings throughout the course of history. As many pointed out in their answers, our founding fathers would have been considered liberals in their time because they were proposing new ideas of self rule and freedoms never heard before in the world.

However I think today's definition of liberalism is different than what the definition would be when our founding fathers were around. Today's liberals believe that government must provide for its citizens or provide a nanny state. Our founding fathers wanted government out of our daily lives.

One example of this is health care. How many liberals out there are screaming for a national healthcare system? Liberals in Yahoo Answers always point to how efficient Europes and Canada's systems are and how well run they appear to be. As soon as someone shows a news article to contradict them, they say that that person is not an expert in the field. If nationalized healthcare is so great, why do citizens of these countries come to the USA for treatment? Why are news articles printed in the first place to counter point the argument of a national healthcare system?

Another example is gun control. The reason that we have the right to bear arms is to give the people a chance to revolt if our government becomes too oppressive. Without weapons, the citizens didn't stand a chance nor could they defend themselves from attack. With the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, the liberals again are screaming at the top of their lungs for gun control so that at tragedy like this doesn't happen again. We don't need more gun laws, we need better ways to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally disturbed.

Political correctness is another by product of our liberal friends. I recently was in an discussion with one of my liberal friends. She was telling me that people like Don Imus and Rush Limbaugh do not need to be on the air waves. Isn't this censorship? With freedom of speech also comes the right to offend.

Today's liberals have way too many double standards when it comes to political correctness. For example, Imus cannot use the word "HO" but Hillary Clinton can collect $800 Million from a rap star who uses the "N" word and "HO" word in every song. Al Sharpton is the 1st to critical of Imus, but he uses the same language and gets away with it.

King Henry the VII did the ultimate act of censorship and it was one of the leading factors to the establishment of the freedom of religion in this country. The Supremacy Act of 1534 declared the king to be the supreme head of the church of England. This act, along with the Act for the Submission of the Clergy stands out as an attempt to consolidate the power of the monarchy. The Act of Succession even demanded that all adults had to swear an oath recognizing the annulment of Henry VIII's marriage to Catherine of Aragon.

Isn't this similar to what the liberals are trying to do to every citizen of this country when it comes to nationalized healthcare? The loss of the freedom to choose what healthcare program works for the employeer and employees and being forced into a national healthcare system. How is this different than what King Henry the VIII did with the consolidation of religion in England in the 1500's?

Other answers to this question will lead you to believe that the Liberals today are like our founding fathers before us. However I believe that today's liberals do not have a real grasp on history and therefore we are doomed once again to repeat it.

Answer 2

Liberalism is not the same thing as liberals. Liberalism is based on the philosophy of John Locke and Adam Smith. Liberalism is based on the supremacy of the individual.

Liberalism is founded on the premise that 'men are created equal' and that we are born with certain rights. The state does not give us our rights, as humans we are born with them and then proceed to give some of the rights up to the state. In Liberalism government should only intervene when absolutely necessary and in certain crises, but should not take the lead.

History has proven every society and evry political philosophy has flaws, some more and some less. Liberalism has proven to be the least flawed system of political thought. Obviously it is easier for Liberalism to operate effectively and successfully on smaller scales. This is why the original Consitution provides for a great amount of local / state autnomy and more restricted federal power.

Regarding revising history... wrong. Should always be looked at objectively and with as little bias as possible to gain the maximum amount of learning for the future. There is no point to re-interpret history to fit a political agenda, this is demgoguery and might deliver short term gains for long term regrets. Look at Nazi Germany or Leninist USSR.

Answer 3

Originally no. However, the way that the modern liberal applies the "spread the wealth" idea it is going to get to be very hard to tell the difference. If a man/woman works really hard and is lucky enough to be greatly successful it is wrong for that person to be able to beep what they have actually earned? No way. However, the liberals believe that is you make more money you should give it to the Government so they can in turn give it back to the people who want to sit on their backsides and live off the governments tit. Is this fair to the man who actually earned the money? I say no. Liberals disagree. Liberals believe that the extra money that this man earns should be taken by the Government and redistributed to the lazy. That is also the Socialist way of doing things. So you can come to your own conclusions. Do I believe that a CEO deserves an 11 Million dollar bonus--hell no. However, I see nothing wrong in making a profit and using that money to strengthen the company and equally sharing it with the people who actually earned it. So I guess I am not a good conservative either, I am just fair.

Answer 4

If you are going to paint with simplistic generalizations, then the flip side is "are facism and totalitarianism just other names for (neo) conservatism?"

Ultra-liberalism doesn't work because it's too extreme. The same with today's radical version of conservativism.

Remember when our greatest period of prosperity occurred - after the liberal programs of the New Deal took over, and there was a tremendous growth in the middle class. Conservative policies favor enormously inequitable distribution of wealth, with a smaller but vastly richer top class, and a much huger and poorer working class. The current policies are pushing things back to what they looked like before the Great Depression. Is that really the model for a successful society?

Look out for and help those who need it the least and eat the poor? A sad state of affairs.

And, no, if you look at the article you linked, the person talks about the dictionary definition of communism and socialism, and liberals and their stated policies have never had government ownership of production as a major tenet. The only people who claim that are ignorant in their cartoonish stereotyping, like the author of that article.

Answer 5

And once again I see a question calling liberals communists, anti-American, etc, blah blah blah blah.

Liberals have flaws...just like conservatives.

The whole division in US society, of the govt's making, has done exactly what it is supposed to do. Keep us all fighting amongst ourselves over words and who is right and wrong while the people in power laugh at us and run the public into the ground to enrich themselves.

Because of the recent outbreak of right wing "if you're not with us then obviously you are an enemy looking to nuke the US" mentality created after the Dems won Congress this ploy has become the most successful operation in the history of the Earth. I mean we don't even have party lines anymore...now it is general chaos as attacks happen inside and outside party lines...just as our puppet masters desire and require.

Only when the people pull their collective heads out of their asses will America really rise again as we take back control from the greedy, power hungry parasites in charge now who let us die by the thousands to make their stocks or polls go up 1/4 of a point. Only when we prove we are not sleep walking anymore can we take our country back from those who are not interested in the will of the people but exploit the people for their own gain.


rmagedon> I see lots of conservatives who, by their words, prove their love of fascism and hatred of freedom. I guess I wonder why I don't see any conservatives speaking out against these people who hide behind the mask of conservativism.

Answer 6

Socialism and communism are not other names for liberalism, and you know better than that.
Liberalism is the founding ideology of this country. Liberalism is the founding ideology of capitalism.
Every point you make in your question are the defining points between liberalism and socialism.
Simply put, liberalism is private ownership and control of wealth(capitalism), and equal opportunity.
Conservatism adds to liberalism by encouraging fiscal control and streamlined government.
Socialism is the enemy of capitalism, and therefore the enemy of liberals and conservative who know that only with capitalism can individual freedom survive. Socialists believe the state should own and control the wealth in this country. Whenever wealth is controled by the state, that state will be oppressive. This has been proven over centuries. This can be proven today.

Of course it bothers me that socialists are hiding behind the word liberal, and I am speaking out. What I've discovered is that more and more people who claim to be conservative are actually liberal minded. People in American have forgotten what liberalism actually is. It is not socialism, as you have pointed out yourself a few times on this forum.

Answer 7

War without end. Rape of Mother Earth by faceless corporations. Exploitation of the poor. Subjugation of the masses. 9/11/01 marked the beginning of a new era of profound fear and suffering for the human race. Contrary to the Ministry of Truth of the United States government, the terrorists are not the source of this misery. A malevolent force has taken root in the United States. This force is rendering damage terrorists can only fathom in a dream, and is actually responsible for creating the terrorists. Psychological manipulation and economic enslavement of Americans have enabled our government to covertly inch the United States closer to tyranny with each passing day. With an arsenal of weapons which include a complicit mainstream media (i.e. Fox), an obscenely wealthy plutocracy (i.e. the Bush clan), and an equally affluent consortium of monolithic corporations (i.e. Halliburton) at their disposal to extinguish individual freedom, the US government becomes less of a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" with each passing day. While the murder, mayhem and destruction perpetrated on 9/11 was wicked and tragic, the spiritual subjugation of hundreds of millions of Americans is a travesty with much broader implications. Our White House warns of the dire consequences of "rogue nations" attaining nuclear capabilities, but fails to acknowledge that the nation with the most potent nuclear capabilities is governed by rogues.

Answer 8

I think what you say is essentially true...and disturbing. For that reason, a lot of people find it discomforting, and reject it without giving it any thought.

Perhaps you're also a victim of "terminology-creep". Liberalism today means something quite different than it did to John Locke and the founders of our nation. What they stood for would probably be called Libertarianism in today's words. Modern-day "liberals" tend to stand for all the socialist ideals that you list, except that they're probably more wishy-washy in their dedication.

The simple fact is that the liberal movement has been hijacked by socialists. Socialism is a devastating system, yet one which can present a very tempting image as a solution to all the world's problems. The problem is that this solution comes at a devastating cost. Until Americans wake up, and in particular, liberals wake up, we'll be headed down that path.

Frankly, I think George Bush has done more to push us down that path than any President since Nixon.

Answer 9

Past efforts of liberal thought...

Founding the United States.
Ending slavery.
Voting rights for women.
Equal rights for minorities.

The reason liberals are seemingly pro-government is because there is a stronger, more evil force than government in our lives...corporatism.

Corporations seek to control...well..everything. This is what teddy roosevelt saw, when he went "trust busting"

Corporations seek to divide america into owners and wageslaves "ownership society".

Vilifying one half of the political spectrum is exactly what leads to fascism, and why Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia both got so screwed up.

You're among the emerging fascists who want to destroy one half of the political spectrum...some of the liberals you rail against are the other half of those emerging fascists.

As is always the case, the best path lies between the two extremes.

And as always, those fascists on either side see themselves as correct, and their opponents as evil.

Yay.

Answer 10

After reading the responses of "dstr" and "GreyFox" I see no reason for me to respond. Their words ring clear and true, and I bow to their eloquence.

**APPLAUSE**




God Bless America! God Bless Liberal Thought!