Liberalism does not equal Socialism

[Michael]

Liberalism does not equal Socialism.

These idiots in the media who keep repeating this nonsense (without actually realizing they are doing it) are really annoying.

Are Liberals Less Liberal Than They Think?

British economist James Rockey suggests that self-identified liberals actually possess more conservative views on issues than their ideological affiliations would suggest. Andrew Sullivan points us to an academic working paper that surveyed some 280,000 people in 84 countries, including Hungary, Vietnam, and China, as well as major Western industrialized countries. One of the paper's most perplexing findings:

It would seem that the better educated, if anything, are less accurate in how they perceive their ideology. Higher levels of education are associated with being less likely to believe oneself to be right-wing, whilst simultaneously associated with being in favour of increased inequality. This result contrasts with those for income: higher levels of income are associated with both believing oneself to be more right-wing as well as considering more inequality to be necessary.

So what's going on here? In the US, for example, there are certainly pockets of wealthy self-identified liberals who are less inclined to support income redistribution—but who support liberals because they’re either willing to overlook some of their differences with the left on economic issues (given their views on social issues), or who ultimately decide it's not worth being as selfish when it comes to actually casting a vote.

Mother Jones Article (http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/06/are-liberals-less-liberal-they-think)

Double-whammy here. The British Economist who did the study and the American (leftwing) blogger who comments upon this both are working with the assumption that "liberalism = socialism".

How else does one explain the nonsense about "equality" and/or "income redistribution"???

Liberalism has always opposed income redistribution on principle and accepts it only as useful policy under certain circumstances. Liberalism can NEVER support the idea of income redistribution as a goal in itself.

Likewise with equality. Liberalism is built on the principle of equality of opportunity and equality before the law. Liberalism has NEVER been concerned about equality as a goal in itself.

The ideology that holds income redistribution and equality as noble goals in themselves is called socialism.

Liberalism may tolerate or support some such policies, but only if they address specific policy goals and/or have limitations.

In reference to the quoted passage, methinks it is not liberals themselves who are confused about this nonsense.

The real issue here is why these socialists keep trying to pretend they are liberals (or ignorantly believe they are liberals) and then whining endlessly when real liberals act like real liberals?

Liberals are not confused here. The socialists (and their conservative critics) are the ones who are actually confused and delusional here.

[Multiplum]

In America in particular, the words "socialist", "liberal" and "conservative" and variations of these are thrown around so much that they have lost all original meaning to me. Maybe you could give a definition of "conservative", as all I can come up with is "opposed to change".

I don't want to butcher your post or anything, but I will need to do some splitting of quotes.
Likewise with equality. Liberalism is built on the principle of equality of opportunity and equality before the law. Liberalism has NEVER been concerned about equality as a goal in itself.
I like this. Good, concise, accurate definition of liberalism. Equality before the law, equality of opportunity.

The ideology that holds income redistribution and equality as noble goals in themselves is called socialism.

Liberalism may tolerate or support some such policies, but only if they address specific policy goals and/or have limitations.

In reference to the quoted passage, methinks it is not liberals themselves who are confused about this nonsense.

The real issue here is why these socialists keep trying to pretend they are liberals (or ignorantly believe they are liberals) and then whining endlessly when real liberals act like real liberals?

Liberals are not confused here. The socialists (and their conservative critics) are the ones who are actually confused and delusional here.
I am very much in favour of redistribution of wealth, as I can't help but regard it as a means of preserving equality of opportunity. Self-proclaimed conservatives - Americans anyway - often oppose redistribution of wealth (when it benefits others/everyone at least!), usually based on principles of individualism. In my eyes, they are generally not interested in a higher/fairer level of social mobility, where their children will have to bootstrap themselves to the wealth they themselves enjoy. Class is very much inherited, and the notion that "poor people are poor because they don't work as hard" is common, and nothing but a justification to prevent social reform. Social constructs decide what is rewarded, and access to these niches in society is kept less accessible to a majority of citizens. Wages and effort exerted are not in proportion. And they shouldn't be in total proportion. Competition is good, income inequality is necessary to nurture ambition, I suppose.

I could be missing the point entirely here. Isn't some degree of redistribution necessary for equality of opportunity? I'm the first in my family that we know of to attend university. I got that opportunity because a redistribution of wealth is in place to promote social mobility. Not surprisingly, I am in favour of this compromise. While socialism =/= liberalism, is it not possible that a certain level of redistribution is necessary to have at least some level of equality of opportunity? You are saying that the two aren't one and the same, which is absolutely true. I'm just making the case that the one is beneficial for the preservation of the other.


Ugh, I lost my way here, but I already typed this much. Just kind of curious to see what you think.

No more taxes! Btw give us some of that white privilege we hear so much about.

[WFCY]

If you had a look at that formal debate thread I had about Nazism/Socialism, my opponent's line of argument has always been that liberals are socialists and vice versa. That in fact, is a very common view amongst the American right wing, whether they are educated or not.

It serves a few very convenient purposes. First it helps them paint their political opponents, liberals, as supporters of Stalinism- a common cliche about Socialism, and ultimately enables them to make Nazi associations- since being pro-choice and advocating gay rights don't really sound all that bad, you cannot defame your opponent based on their platform right off the bat. But calling them "socialists" suddenly gives you an arsenal of attacks, from name association (National "Socialism"), to discussing welfare programs under the Nazis, instituted with the help of "big (Nazi) government"- a "big government" liberals also tend to advocate etc.

There is not a trace of truth in any of that, ofc. But the masses don't care, so it is a powerful propaganda weapon. With a population as indiscriminate and indoctrinated, mainstream media is only too happy to exploit it to the fullest.

The other reasons, well, it simply changes the subject in any debate on serious issues- you could be discussing the war in Iraq, or health care, and suddenly be confronted with questions like "why do you support the Pol Pot?", "don't you know your hero, Che, is a mass murderer?" etc. Any possible debate with the right wing degenerates very quickly this way, and a liberal always gets forced into the defensive, which is exactly what they want. They do not want to talk about issues, they want to throw slime at you.

It also shifts the whole political spectrum towards the right. I mean, if you have to advocate the abolishment of all New Deal achievements, favor the right to segregate on private properties, wave the bible and march around wraped in the American flag to the rhythm of Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman's banters to be considered "not a socialist" (aka Stalin), well, there cannot be a middle ground can there? You had better stay on the right of Mussolini if you want to be treated as a normal person.

Whole bunch of reasons, that's only a few from top of my head.

[dilettante]

I think this is mostly just a semantics issue. 'Liberal' carries two meanings. It can either refer to one who is a proponent of the ideology of Liberalism (which is Michael's meaning) or it can refer to the adjective "liberal" and those it describes (the more common American meaning). As an common adjective "liberal" means:


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.

Hence the liberal/conservative dichotomy between those supportive of change, progress and tolerance and those favoring tradition and orthodoxy.

In that sense, increased socialism and mass redistribution of wealth is "liberal" in the American context since its perceived as being new, unorthodox, and intended to bring about reform. Liberals, in this sense, are all those who look to better the world through new ideas and policies, as opposed to conservatives who look to better the world through orthodoxy and stability. Liberalism, as an ideology, can thus be either 'liberal' or 'conservative', depending on whether it has the weight of tradition behind it or represents change.

Neither definition is "wrong," the problem arises from confusion between the two when one fails to define their terms. Getting into a fight about what the word "really" means, as if some objective meaning existed apart from use, is pointless.

That said, I would like to second Multiplum's insightful question:
Isn't some degree of redistribution necessary for equality of opportunity?

[evanescence]

I think this is mostly just a semantics issue.


Yes, it is.

[evanescence]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism

[Michael]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism
As a general rule, Wiki (like the dictionary) is a good place for people to start their inquiry into these kind of philosophical topics. However, on any topic that is controversial, Wiki becomes pretty much useless and/or facile because it is specifically non-technical and uses pop-culture definitions that are popular with amateurs and supported with nothing more than media references that are facile at best. This particular topic is a good example of exactly that.

Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual.

This is nonsense. This is the core definition of socialism, plain and simple.

Liberalism fundamentally holds that liberty is the goal or ought to be the desired 'end state' of all government policy. All other goals are held to be subservient to this one. Different forms of liberalism are all about how much comprimise of this one goal is permitted in favor of some other goal (such as equality or social justice that may be anti-thetical to liberty). If the goal of liberty is reduced to the same level as the goal of equality, liberalism is gone and you have socialism.

To assert that equality is an equal goal to liberty or that any collective good 'equals' private liberty (by definition) is pure theoretical socialism (Marxist dialectic is required to justify or to formulate that specific construction).

Fact is, socialism is an economic system. As a governing system, it can either be A) a dictatorship of the proletariat (aka authoritarian socialism), or it could be B) democratic socialism, or it could be C) libertarian socialism (aka anarchic socialism). None of these forms of socialism have anything to do with liberalism. They are variations of socialism, not liberalism.

Indeed, I have the same question I always have for these threads - why is it that these people who hold or support socialist political principles need to deny socialism and lie to pretend they are liberals? Fact is, so many people have been doing this, and the media just repeats the nonsense since they are usually even more ignorant than the people/topics they cover, that the compound errors of this nonsense get cited as 'proof' of the definition! :rolleyes:

I'm perfectly aware of why the US rightwing has a strong vested interest in pretending that American socialists are actually 'liberals' but this is pure partisanship and dishonest. I just don't see why the socialists play along with this game. That makes no sense, unless you accept the idea that socialism itself sucks (which is what the rightwing is arguing). And if you agree that socialism sucks, why are you asserting socialist ideals in the first place? Seems like ignorance and cognitive dissonance might be actively involved on this issue as much as it is with other similar issues (like the self-identification of conservatives).

(I'll address some of the other posts in this thread later on)

[evanescence]

Which part did you disagree with specifically, Michael?

And I can assure you that I have looked into this topic. However, Wiki makes for a nice..and accurate comparison; and it correctly made my point in this instance.

[Michael]

Which part did you disagree with specifically, Michael?
The definition of "modern liberalism" cited above. It is the definition of socialism, plain and simple (as I noted above).

And I can assure you that I have looked into this topic. However, Wiki makes for a nice..and accurate comparison; and it correctly made my point in this instance.
I outlined above precisely what is wrong with that Wiki article. It cites a core definition of socialism and pretends that is liberalism. That's nonsense.

And that definition is the entirety of the Wiki article's substance.

[WFCY]

I'm perfectly aware of why the US rightwing has a strong vested interest in pretending that American socialists are actually 'liberals' but this is pure partisanship and dishonest. I just don't see why the socialists play along with this game. That makes no sense, unless you accept the idea that socialism itself sucks (which is what the rightwing is arguing). And if you agree that socialism sucks, why are you asserting socialist ideals in the first place? Seems like ignorance and cognitive dissonance might be actively involved on this issue as much as it is with other similar issues (like the self-identification of conservatives).

Who specifically are you referring to- I mean those "socialists who play along with this game, etc", who? Angela Davis? I mean she's pretty screwed up but not that screwed up. What other Socialists do you have in mind. Give me some biography if it is not somebody well known. thanks.

[Michael]

In America in particular, the words "socialist", "liberal" and "conservative" and variations of these are thrown around so much that they have lost all original meaning to me. Maybe you could give a definition of "conservative", as all I can come up with is "opposed to change".

You are entirely correct that this definitional problem is found in America in particular, but I respectfully submit that the same problem is found in Europe and in Britain (OP's original citation is British).

If find Europeans misrepresent liberalism as much as American conservatives do. Probably the same partisan reasons in play. :shrug:

As for a definition of conservativism, that's a whole different topic. And I certainly don't claim to be an expert on conservative ideology.

Yes, 'conservative' and 'liberal' have common definitions. These definitions have little to do with the ideological ideas that people attach to them. And it is to be noted that Liberalism is indeed a political ideology. Conservativism is not.

Indeed, conservativism, often as not, means the same as "classical liberalism", though that's not the entirety of conservativism. Fact is, conservativism is not an ideology at all and thus has no ideological definition.

I am very much in favour of redistribution of wealth, as I can't help but regard it as a means of preserving equality of opportunity. Self-proclaimed conservatives - Americans anyway - often oppose redistribution of wealth (when it benefits others/everyone at least!), usually based on principles of individualism. In my eyes, they are generally not interested in a higher/fairer level of social mobility, where their children will have to bootstrap themselves to the wealth they themselves enjoy. Class is very much inherited, and the notion that "poor people are poor because they don't work as hard" is common, and nothing but a justification to prevent social reform. Social constructs decide what is rewarded, and access to these niches in society is kept less accessible to a majority of citizens. Wages and effort exerted are not in proportion. And they shouldn't be in total proportion. Competition is good, income inequality is necessary to nurture ambition, I suppose.
That you are "very much in favour of redistribution of weath" essentially identifies you as a socialist. I presume you are a democratic socialist, as is very common amongst Europeans.

I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem when people want to pretend that you are a liberal due to your support for socialist ideology. That makes no sense and serves only to play a propaganda game to attack liberalism.

I could be missing the point entirely here. Isn't some degree of redistribution necessary for equality of opportunity? I'm the first in my family that we know of to attend university. I got that opportunity because a redistribution of wealth is in place to promote social mobility. Not surprisingly, I am in favour of this compromise. While socialism =/= liberalism, is it not possible that a certain level of redistribution is necessary to have at least some level of equality of opportunity? You are saying that the two aren't one and the same, which is absolutely true. I'm just making the case that the one is beneficial for the preservation of the other.
As I noted above, liberals may accept or support some redistributionist policies, under some conditions, but the point is that those redistributionist policies must be efficient and effective to serve the higher goal of liberty, and cannot be justified an end in themselves.

To hold that redistribution of income is a good thing, in itself, that is socialism plain and simple.

And no matter how much one admires redistribution of income for the purpose of fostering opportunity or equality, this is fundamentally anti-liberty and thus cannot be fundamental to liberalism which is founded upon the principle of liberty above all.

[Michael]

Who specifically are you referring to- I mean those "socialists who play along with this game, etc", who? Angela Davis? I mean she's pretty screwed up but not that screwed up. What other Socialists do you have in mind. Give me some biography if it is not somebody well known. thanks.
Fox News. USPO. dKos. Take your pick. There is no shortage of this.

There are endless examples in the media of socialist policies being called "liberalism" and liberal policies being called "socialism".

dKos is a perfect example of the 'reverse' form. There, if you poll the membership, you will find the vast majority are indeed 'democratic socialist' supporters. And they call themselves the "liberal wing of the Democratic Party".

Indeed, on the American left, the term "progressive" is essentially identical to "liberal" - and its meaning is entirely identical to the meaning of the term "social democrat". This viewpoint is commonly contrasted with "conservative Democrats".

[Michael]

If you had a look at that formal debate thread I had about Nazism/Socialism, my opponent's line of argument has always been that liberals are socialists and vice versa. That in fact, is a very common view amongst the American right wing, whether they are educated or not.

It serves a few very convenient purposes. First it helps them paint their political opponents, liberals, as supporters of Stalinism- a common cliche about Socialism, and ultimately enables them to make Nazi associations- since being pro-choice and advocating gay rights don't really sound all that bad, you cannot defame your opponent based on their platform right off the bat. But calling them "socialists" suddenly gives you an arsenal of attacks, from name association (National "Socialism"), to discussing welfare programs under the Nazis, instituted with the help of "big (Nazi) government"- a "big government" liberals also tend to advocate etc.
Yes, that's the general pattern of how and why the American rightwing likes to call socialists "liberals". It serves their partisan purposes to demonize their enemy.

Btw, "big government liberals" are social democrats, plain and simple. And that's the reverse side of the same game that I find equally annoying. It is bad enough that American rightwingers want to play partisan games, that's expected. What is annoying is the way the American leftwingers are so cowed by the rightwing attack that they have taken it to heart and thus apparently need to pretend that they are "liberals" and not the dreaded "socialist" despite the fact that their political philosophy is entirely identical to that of the social democrats in Europe and not based on liberalism in any way, shape or form.

There is not a trace of truth in any of that, ofc. But the masses don't care, so it is a powerful propaganda weapon. With a population as indiscriminate and indoctrinated, mainstream media is only too happy to exploit it to the fullest.

The other reasons, well, it simply changes the subject in any debate on serious issues- you could be discussing the war in Iraq, or health care, and suddenly be confronted with questions like "why do you support the Pol Pot?", "don't you know your hero, Che, is a mass murderer?" etc. Any possible debate with the right wing degenerates very quickly this way, and a liberal always gets forced into the defensive, which is exactly what they want. They do not want to talk about issues, they want to throw slime at you.

It also shifts the whole political spectrum towards the right. I mean, if you have to advocate the abolishment of all New Deal achievements, favor the right to segregate on private properties, wave the bible and march around wraped in the American flag to the rhythm of Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman's banters to be considered "not a socialist" (aka Stalin), well, there cannot be a middle ground can there? You had better stay on the right of Mussolini if you want to be treated as a normal person.

Whole bunch of reasons, that's only a few from top of my head.
As I noted above, I understand how and why the rightwing wants to play this game (as do you obviously).

It is far more interesting to explore why the American leftwing plays along with this rightwing propaganda game. That's a bit more complicated, but a far more interesting question. That's what the OP example is all about.

[WFCY]

Fox News. USPO. dKos. Take your pick. There is no shortage of this.

There are endless examples in the media of socialist policies being called "liberalism" and liberal policies being called "socialism".

dKos is a perfect example of the 'reverse' form. There, if you poll the membership, you will find the vast majority are indeed 'democratic socialist' supporters. And they call themselves the "liberal wing of the Democratic Party".

Indeed, on the American left, the term "progressive" is essentially identical to "liberal" - and its meaning is entirely identical to the meaning of the term "social democrat". This viewpoint is commonly contrasted with "conservative Democrats".

Wait a minute, maybe we have misunderstood one another.

FOX, USPO, are "Socialists"?

Do you mean people who simply call themselves "Socialists"? Without any kind of actual credentials? Well, there is a big problem there if you are serious about criticizing Socialists...

I do not recall any actual Socialists I know of, in person or not, who held "Liberal" views that contradicted their Socialist principles. That is what I am asking. Do you mean ANSWER? or some Marxist Leninist groups? I am not sure if we are on the same frequency here.

BTW, "democratic socialists" are liberals. They are not Socialists, or, they are as "Socialist" as National Socialists. It's not the Socialist's fault that they are bunched up with liberal/democratic socialists. The non-Socialists did it on purpose without asking the Socialists.

[WFCY]

It is far more interesting to explore why the American leftwing plays along with this rightwing propaganda game. That's a bit more complicated, but a far more interesting question. That's what the OP example is all about.

American left wing, take the most predominant and genuine ones, are socially liberal, fiscally conservative, and believers of market capitalism. They would vote for FDP or SPD in Germany, for example, or say, vote for the Labor party in UK. They are middle, upper middle, coordinater class types, from teachers, managers, engineers, to professors, lawyers and doctors. They read NY Times, Newsweek, WSJ, etc. Despite their effort at PBS and NPR, none of which tunes into Democracynow or Z Magazine, ever. I am not even talking Indymedia or IWW.

They do not want to collectivise the means of production. They do not want to abolish the market. Not in the reformist to revolutionary sense, not in the slighest sense. They are not interested in bottom up democracy, or trade union, worker self management in general. They are by definition, not Socialists in any way what so ever. And btw, actual Socialists were big in the US at one point, back before WW2, they were the mainstream. So "liberals" were not always the mainstream left in the US. They only got big after WW2.

We can go on and on about whether the mainstream left in the US right now, who are "Social Democrats", are actually "Socialists", I will simply say they are not, far from it. They are textbook "liberals" or to the right of liberals. We have them here in Europe too, in fact they constitute the majority of the electorate. So I think your criticism above is misdirected. I mean, If I am a mainstream Liberal, I would fall for the right wing trick too, and distance myself from Socialism. Socialism is a plague to be avoided at all costs due to the Soviets and the misconceptions about the Soviets in our day and age.

[evanescence]

The definition of "modern liberalism" cited above. It is the definition of socialism, plain and simple (as I noted above).


I outlined above precisely what is wrong with that Wiki article. It cites a core definition of socialism and pretends that is liberalism. That's nonsense.

And that definition is the entirety of the Wiki article's substance.

It is "Modern Liberalism". The definition that wiki cited is how the word liberal is used in the US. It is cultural.

[Michael]

It is "Modern Liberalism". The definition that wiki cited is how the word liberal is used in the US. It is cultural.

Yes. And I'm pointing out that is pure rightwing propaganda.

Very damn successful propaganda by the looks of this thread.

But never mind, I'm obviously wrong and so I'll just shut up now.

[Michael]

Wait a minute, maybe we have misunderstood one another.
Clearly.

FOX, USPO, are "Socialists"?
No, just places where you will find endless amounts of evidence of rightwingers calling liberal policies "socialist".

The dKos is an example of a place where you will find endless amounts of evidence of leftwing socialists calling themselves "liberals".

Do you mean people who simply call themselves "Socialists"? Without any kind of actual credentials? Well, there is a big problem there if you are serious about criticizing Socialists...
No, not at all.

I'm pointing at all the socialists who pretend to call themselves liberals.

The OP cited specifically the leftwing American blogger Kevin Drum. He provides a perfect example of re-defining socialism as liberalism entirely through [apparent] ignorance of the actual meaning of the word.

I do not recall any actual Socialists I know of, in person or not, who held "Liberal" views that contradicted their Socialist principles. That is what I am asking. Do you mean ANSWER? or some Marxist Leninist groups? I am not sure if we are on the same frequency here.
Actual socialists who call themselves socialists are not part of this discussion.

I'm talking about A) socialists who call themselves liberals (when they are not liberals), and B) rightwingers who call all socialist policies, liberalism.

Both are common errors repeated endlessly in US media to the point that people seem to believe the propaganda. Liberalism doesn't equal socialism. But in the USA it does? That's absurd and Orwellian.

BTW, "democratic socialists" are liberals. They are not Socialists, or, they are as "Socialist" as National Socialists. It's not the Socialist's fault that they are bunched up with liberal/democratic socialists. The non-Socialists did it on purpose without asking the Socialists.
Huh?

Many American socialists call themselves "liberal".

Just like the American rightwing calls socialism "liberalism".

Despite the fact that I've been told that this issue is pointless, I happen to think this is very interesting phenomena.

This thread has nothing to do with real socialism or real socialists at all.

[WFCY]

A) socialists who call themselves liberals (when they are not liberals), ....

Huh?

Many American socialists call themselves "liberal".


So it goes back to my question:

Who specifically are you referring to?

[evanescence]

So it goes back to my question:

Who specifically are you referring to?

This thread is circular. But then again, semantics tends to be. :lol:

Yes. And I'm pointing out that is pure rightwing propaganda.

Very damn successful propaganda by the looks of this thread.

But never mind, I'm obviously wrong and so I'll just shut up now.

ok. :shrug:

[Michael]

So it goes back to my question:

Who specifically are you referring to?
Cited in the OP.

[WFCY]

Cited in the OP.

eh, I am looking for names, like Angela Davis or somebody well known and vocal, who is acknowledged as a Socialist but are in fact a liberal, or liberal but claim to be socialist.

I look over again and there is no such names.

[Michael]

eh, I am looking for names, like Angela Davis or somebody well known and vocal, who is acknowledged as a Socialist but are in fact a liberal, or liberal but claim to be socialist.

I look over again and there is no such names.

That looks like a 'no true Scotsman' type argument. :shrug:

This is not about famous or well known socialists pretending to be, or claiming to be, or actually are, liberals.

This is not about liberals claiming to be socialists either.

This is about the American phenomena of redefining socialist principles as liberalism. It is about 'leftwing' Americans who believe they are liberals, claim to be liberals, but don't actually hold to liberalism - rather they are socialists or social democrats and believing that is identical to liberalism.

Edited to add: One point I certainly will agree with you on is that in the USA actual liberalism has always been in short supply and darn near an endangered species in US politics. The right/left extremes seem to be far more popular. This is probably the reason why the right and left find it so easy to misrepresent liberalism.

[WFCY]

That looks like a 'no true Scotsman' type argument. :shrug:

This is not about famous or well known socialists pretending to be, or claiming to be, or actually are, liberals.

This is not about liberals claiming to be socialists either.

This is about the American phenomena of redefining socialist principles as liberalism. It is about 'leftwing' Americans who believe they are liberals, claim to be liberals, but don't actually hold to liberalism - rather they are socialists or social democrats and believing that is identical to liberalism.

Edited to add: One point I certainly will agree with you on is that in the USA actual liberalism has always been in short supply and darn near an endangered species in US politics. The right/left extremes seem to be far more popular. This is probably the reason why the right and left find it so easy to misrepresent liberalism.

It's not a no true scotsman fallacy. I am asking for some specific examples of those who you are talking about- "socialists who call themselves liberals". You have not even came up with one such names.

I asked for a clarification of your point, all you are telling me is "some socialists", or "certain leftists" etc, does this and that. Well, I am trying to zoom in on who here, if you know someone well-known who fits your description, you may just help me understand your point better by naming him/her. I am just not satisfied about you making this particular point by simply referring to some faceless, abstract group unknownest to me, just as your op. With the last replies, I could almost say those are examples of "begging the question" fallacy you are making- You: "some socialists claim to be liberals", Me: "Who are these socialists?", You: "Those who claim to be liberals".

Well, duh.

A "no true sctosman" fallacy would be something like if you said "so-and-so is a socialist who clled himself a liberal", and I reply "but no real socialist would do that".

But I did not. Because you have not even answered my question in the first place!

[Michael]

This tidbit of information seems rather relevant to this thread.

Poll: 55% Of Likely Voters Think Obama's A Socialist

The poll (PDF) from Democracy Corps finds that 55 percent of likely voters believe that the word "socialist" describes the president either "well" or "very well."

Source (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/shocking-poll-55-percent-of-voters-think-obamas-a-socialist.php?ref=fpa)

[Zarquon]

This tidbit of information seems rather relevant to this thread.
Source (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/shocking-poll-55-percent-of-voters-think-obamas-a-socialist.php?ref=fpa)
That's immaterial, the point of contention is about socialists who claim to be liberals, and not the perception of REAL Americans; I agree with WFCY that you're wrongly accusing him of committing a "No true Scotsman" fallacy, while failing to answer his specific question with a specific answer.

[Michael]

That's immaterial, the point of contention is about socialists who claim to be liberals, and not the perception of REAL Americans; I agree with WFCY that you're wrongly accusing him of committing a "No true Scotsman" fallacy, while failing to answer his specific question with a specific answer.

I've been talking about liberalism and socialism here, not Liberals and Socialists. The topic I've been addessing is all about the definitions of these terms and how the definitions are commonly being morphed/merged together (as outlined in the OP).

For example, the "extreme" leftwing of the Democratic party is routinely identified as the "liberal wing" of the Democratic party. That is what I'm talking about. That's nonsense because the views of the "extreme" leftwing of the Democratic party are far more accurately defined as 'social democrats' (and even outright socialists).

I've not specifically been talking about specfic individuals which is why I've not been going along with the "name one" game. Getting into a pissing match arguing about the political views of any given individual person doesn't interest me. I'm interested in the world of ideas, not the politics of particular people. It is the definition of the terms that interests me.

And lastly, I didn't "accuse" WFCY of using the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, I only said it looks that way. My point being that no matter who I might name, it will be open to the counter-argument that person isn't a "true" socialist. Hence, the reason I pointed to the Scotsman fallacy. Specifically, WFCY offered a definitional hurdle for a "true" socialist that is quite likely unable to be met...

These are the paragraphs what I was referencing:

BTW, "democratic socialists" are liberals. They are not Socialists, or, they are as "Socialist" as National Socialists. It's not the Socialist's fault that they are bunched up with liberal/democratic socialists. The non-Socialists did it on purpose without asking the Socialists.

They do not want to collectivise the means of production. They do not want to abolish the market. Not in the reformist to revolutionary sense, not in the slighest sense. They are not interested in bottom up democracy, or trade union, worker self management in general. They are by definition, not Socialists in any way what so ever.

That sets up the potential for a "no true Scotsman" counter-argument and is why I mentioned it.

As it stands, I've not been very interested in following up this thread discussion because it appears that everyone wants to talk about an issue that strikes me as rather different than the one I offered. I'm just not interested in talking about famous socialists and what they might or might not call themselves. I'm interested in the topic of how the definition of liberalism is being actively redefined by propaganda. There probably are some good issues raised in this thread for discussion, but I feel the thread has been pulled in so many directions that it is no longer possible to coherently address it, hence my lack of substantive replies.

[WFCY]

I wasn't asking you about what I had in mind are the Socialists- I was asking you who you are refering to, your idea who those socialists who call themselves liberals are, in order to better comprehend your point here. Therefore my descriptions you quoted are entirely immaterial here, because I don't want a specific name which goes by my definitions, I want one which goes according to your descriptions.

I guess you would categorize Jimmy Carter or even Bill Clinton as that sort of "Socialists", truth be told, they have never self identified themselves as Socialists and no serious pundit would classify them in any way as Socialists.

[MetallicaFan]

In both fundamental origin, premise and goal, socialism is not liberalism. However socialism can be liberal, and a liberal person can be a socialist. But if you follow liberalism, that doesn't include socialism.

I personally am a social liberal / left libertarian. The problem is there are so many variants of either it they can cross over. Classical liberalism is retained on the right, but social liberalism is the main American philosophy of the Democrats, and is the most appealing. However social liberalism IS NOT socialism, because it still allows for free, private enterprise with some but limited restrictions on actions of trade.