Liberalism /= Democratic Socialism

[Michael]

Liberalism does not equal Democratic Socialism

This is a long running theme (or pet rant) of mine - the way our mass media is filled with examples of both conservatives and 'the left' attacking 'straw men' of liberalism.

Conservatives attack liberalism by critiquing some leftwing socialist ideas and then pretend those ideas are the same as 'liberalism'. Leftists tend to do the exact same thing - they critique some conservative, neoconservative or neoliberal idea and then pretend those are the same ideas as liberalism.

I certainly don't mind people attacking the ideas of liberalism - heck, that would be a refreshing change. Liberalism considers open debate and informed critique a virtue - and necessary in order for liberalism to function (or to prevail!). I love having a good debate defending liberalism. Unfortunately, these are extremely rare things because so very few modern or contemporary 'critiques of liberalism' actually attack liberalism at all - they attack only substitute straw men instead.

Here is a perfect illustration of the phenomena in question, coming from some confused British journalist or columnist or whatever it is these media talking heads like to call themselves these days...

Liberal over-sensitivity to the beliefs of others is undermining freedom of speech, so giving reactionaries an easy ride.

by Oliver Kamm

I attended an academic conference in late 1989 on the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe. Martin Jacques, editor of the now-defunct journal Marxism Today, put a brave face on the rejection of the ideals he espoused. He argued that these revolutions would expand the variety of left-wing views in Western Europe.

I recall arguing with him from the floor that the opposite was true. Of the two principal left-wing traditions in Europe, insurrectionary socialism and pro-Western social democracy, only the second retained credibility.

It is obvious now that we were both wrong. The revolutionary Left has made fitfully fruitful tactical alliances, such as the bleakly comic amalgam of Leninists and Islamists who formed and then rent apart George Galloway’s Respect party. But in its own name it remains a minuscule if variegated sect.

What has happened to the other wing of nominally progressive politics is more surprising. Liberalism, in its broadest sense, has become suspicious of its own ideals.

continued...
Source: Times UK (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6342632.ece)

Note how the ground of the European left is defined: on the one hand there is "insurrectionary socialism" (i.e. what I presume is 'old school Marxist-Leninists' and other authoritarian socialists) and on the other hand there is "pro-Western social democracy" (i.e. most of the center-left political parties of Western Europe). That's perfectly reasonable. I have no objection to this.

Then notice how in the last line quoted, the whole group of "pro-Western social democracy" is now is identified as "liberalism"? Where did that come from? One minute one is talking about "the left", even defining the two primary groupings of it in Western Europe, but then all of a sudden 'left = liberalism' becomes the conclusion. The semantic logic of this escapes me, though the political duplicity doesn't surprise. This is aggressive political partisanship in its most subtle form.

Democratic socialism is not the same thing as liberalism. There is a huge difference between these groups on the core issue of individual rights vs collective rights, to name just one key defining issue of ideology. Liberalism as a principle or ideology has always disavowed the idea of 'collective rights'. Collective rights belongs only to the 'conservatives' or the 'left' - it is only liberalism that considers the defense of individual rights and liberty to be a defining element - indeed, this is exactly how 'libertarianism' is understood to be 'an offshoot' from classical liberalism in origin - and in conflict with traditional conservativism which, like the left, tends to support some collective rights (as long as they aren't called that!).

So this thread is dedicated to defining (and defending) liberalism from confusion with the idea of democratic socialism and/or 'social democrats' as a political party. The point is not necessary that one is superior to the other, but rather that they represent two different ideological approaches.

Any comments or thoughts on this topic?

Or is this just another symptom of the 'death of ideology' in contemporary Western politics? :ummm:

[dilettante]

Any comments or thoughts on this topic?


I'd be interested in hearing what, by your definition, "Liberalism" does equal.
And perhaps how you distinguish "classical liberalism" from "libertarianism".

[partofme]

I'm curious also. Classical liberalism and libertarianism are treated as synonyms in the U.S.

[Michael]

I'd be interested in hearing what, by your definition, "Liberalism" does equal.

The word liberalism stands for a wide variety of meanings, some of which go far beyond sociology, politics and economics. Here's a list of five key points or principles that I consider paramount to the definition of classical liberalism.

1. Habeas Corpus. That the government must be constrained by the rule of law, laws must never be arbitrary, no one can be held without due process, and that all must be equal before the law.

2. The idea that the human condition can (in some cases) be improved and that human suffering can (in some cases) be reduced.

3. The principle that the individual is ultimately held to be the best judge of their own best interests.

4. The idea that individuals ought to be free to pursue their own happiness, insofar as that does not interfere with others doing the same.

5. The idea that market allocation of resources is held to be the most efficient system for the allocation of scarce resources.

These seem to me to be the essential core principles of classical liberalism. I think libertarians tend to skip over point number two, while modern pseudo-liberals tend to skip over numbers three, four and/or five. I do think that skipping any of these five points means moving outside of the realm of 'liberalism'.

If one accepts all five points in theory, then there is lots is room for differences of opinion or emphasis on the relative merits of points two, three, four and five and still fall well within the realm of liberalism.

Beyond these core elements, I think liberalism also tends to focus heavily on the issue of free speech (free expression, free association, free press, etc.), property rights and the general benefits of 'liberal' educations primarily insofar as these all are conducive or supportive of the five principles listed above - not as core values in themselves. This tends to distinguish classical liberals from libertarians as a matter of degree, not necessarily in kind.

And perhaps how you distinguish "classical liberalism" from "libertarianism".

As noted in the OP, I consider libertarianism to be an 'offshoot' of classical liberalism (or bastard child if you prefer!). Liberty is of course the key element of commonality between classical liberalism and libertarianism. Both groups hold that liberty is one of the most important social values or goals. In this, they appear very similar.

The key difference between the two is thus one of degree. For classical liberals, liberty is held to be the highest value insofar as liberty is conducive to human happiness, which is always the ultimate goal of liberalism. Thus, classical liberalism holds that liberty is ultimately contingent or dependent upon the outcome of human happiness. This is essentially a pragmatic approach to liberty based on 'utility'.

Libertarianism on the other hand does not subordinate liberty to the utility of human happiness (or anything else) but instead holds liberty to be the 'goal in itself' - justified independently of human happiness. Libertarians generally speaking do not predicate the goal of liberty before anything. For libertarians, liberty, of and in itself, is held to be essentially or absolutely good and thus libertarians are much less willing to compromise on any issue of liberty.

Ergo, I'd say that 'pragmatism' is the essential difference between classical liberals and libertarians. Classical liberals are pragmatic about liberty while the libertarians are extremists (or purists) on the issue.

[partofme]

The word liberalism stands for a wide variety of meanings, some of which go far beyond sociology, politics and economics. Here's a list of five key points or principles that I consider paramount to the definition of classical liberalism.

1. Habeas Corpus. That the government must be constrained by the rule of law, laws must never be arbitrary, no one can be held without due process, and that all must be equal before the law.

2. The idea that the human condition can (in some cases) be improved and that human suffering can (in some cases) be reduced.

3. The principle that the individual is ultimately held to be the best judge of their own best interests.

4. The idea that individuals ought to be free to pursue their own happiness, insofar as that does not interfere with others doing the same.

5. The idea that market allocation of resources is held to be the most efficient system for the allocation of scarce resources.

These seem to me to be the essential core principles of classical liberalism. I think libertarians tend to skip over point number two, while modern pseudo-liberals tend to skip over numbers three, four and/or five. I do think that skipping any of these five points means moving outside of the realm of 'liberalism'.

If one accepts all five points in theory, then there is lots is room for differences of opinion or emphasis on the relative merits of points two, three, four and five and still fall well within the realm of liberalism.

Beyond these core elements, I think liberalism also tends to focus heavily on the issue of free speech (free expression, free association, free press, etc.), property rights and the general benefits of 'liberal' educations primarily insofar as these all are conducive or supportive of the five principles listed above - not as core values in themselves. This tends to distinguish classical liberals from libertarians as a matter of degree, not necessarily in kind.



As noted in the OP, I consider libertarianism to be an 'offshoot' of classical liberalism (or bastard child if you prefer!). Liberty is of course the key element of commonality between classical liberalism and libertarianism. Both groups hold that liberty is one of the most important social values or goals. In this, they appear very similar.

The key difference between the two is thus one of degree. For classical liberals, liberty is held to be the highest value insofar as liberty is conducive to human happiness, which is always the ultimate goal of liberalism. Thus, classical liberalism holds that liberty is ultimately contingent or dependent upon the outcome of human happiness. This is essentially a pragmatic approach to liberty based on 'utility'.

Libertarianism on the other hand does not subordinate liberty to the utility of human happiness (or anything else) but instead holds liberty to be the 'goal in itself' - justified independently of human happiness. Libertarians generally speaking do not predicate the goal of liberty before anything. For libertarians, liberty, of and in itself, is held to be essentially or absolutely good and thus libertarians are much less willing to compromise on any issue of liberty.

Ergo, I'd say that 'pragmatism' is the essential difference between classical liberals and libertarians. Classical liberals are pragmatic about liberty while the libertarians are extremists (or purists) on the issue.

This description of liberalism fits me very well. The problem is that here in the U.S. if I say I'm a liberal people will assume the wrong thing just like your first post in this thread describes. If I call myself a classical liberal then that causes confusion because for some reason some libertarians use the phrase without nothing the distinction.

[The Drunk Guy]

1. Habeas Corpus. That the government must be constrained by the rule of law, laws must never be arbitrary, no one can be held without due process, and that all must be equal before the law.

2. The idea that the human condition can (in some cases) be improved and that human suffering can (in some cases) be reduced.

3. The principle that the individual is ultimately held to be the best judge of their own best interests.

4. The idea that individuals ought to be free to pursue their own happiness, insofar as that does not interfere with others doing the same.

5. The idea that market allocation of resources is held to be the most efficient system for the allocation of scarce resources.

These seem to me to be the essential core principles of classical liberalism. I think libertarians tend to skip over point number two, while modern pseudo-liberals tend to skip over numbers three, four and/or five. I do think that skipping any of these five points means moving outside of the realm of 'liberalism'.


I would also say that libertarianism excludes point five. Hording and allocating are two different things. ;)

[dilettante]

The word liberalism stands for a wide variety of meanings, some of which go far beyond sociology, politics and economics. Here's a list of five key points or principles that I consider paramount to the definition of classical liberalism.

1. Habeas Corpus. That the government must be constrained by the rule of law, laws must never be arbitrary, no one can be held without due process, and that all must be equal before the law.

2. The idea that the human condition can (in some cases) be improved and that human suffering can (in some cases) be reduced.

3. The principle that the individual is ultimately held to be the best judge of their own best interests.

4. The idea that individuals ought to be free to pursue their own happiness, insofar as that does not interfere with others doing the same.

5. The idea that market allocation of resources is held to be the most efficient system for the allocation of scarce resources.

These seem to me to be the essential core principles of classical liberalism.
...
Beyond these core elements, I think liberalism also tends to focus heavily on the issue of free speech (free expression, free association, free press, etc.), property rights and the general benefits of 'liberal' educations primarily insofar as these all are conducive or supportive of the five principles listed above - not as core values in themselves. This tends to distinguish classical liberals from libertarians as a matter of degree, not necessarily in kind.

That seems like a fair enough description, though I'm surprised that there isn't anything about "natural rights" in there. As best I can tell "natural rights" are a defining aspect of "Classical Liberalism", and I certainly associate the notion with (what I think of as) classical liberals like Locke and Paine. I also thought property rights would have been a "core" element as well.

Anyway, I suppose I'm really more interested in your own views than in what does and does not fit under a particular political label. As such, I'm curious on two points:
(A) in point #5, what does "efficient" mean? Efficient for what purpose? Creating more resources? Wasting the least? Equalizing distribution? Making distribution "just"? Or promoting human happiness?
and
(B) What role does government play? Based on the 5 "core" points, I see little or no room for government. Point 1 constrains it directly, and points 3, 4, and 5 constrain it indirectly, but none of them empower it with authority.


The key difference between the two is thus one of degree. For classical liberals, liberty is held to be the highest value insofar as liberty is conducive to human happiness, which is always the ultimate goal of liberalism. Thus, classical liberalism holds that liberty is ultimately contingent or dependent upon the outcome of human happiness. This is essentially a pragmatic approach to liberty based on 'utility'.

Libertarianism on the other hand does not subordinate liberty to the utility of human happiness (or anything else) but instead holds liberty to be the 'goal in itself' - justified independently of human happiness. Libertarians generally speaking do not predicate the goal of liberty before anything. For libertarians, liberty, of and in itself, is held to be essentially or absolutely good and thus libertarians are much less willing to compromise on any issue of liberty.

Ergo, I'd say that 'pragmatism' is the essential difference between classical liberals and libertarians. Classical liberals are pragmatic about liberty while the libertarians are extremists (or purists) on the issue.

Ah. I find that distinction persuasive, and it seems to jive with my experience of libertarianism in general. Thank you.

[Michael]

That seems like a fair enough description, though I'm surprised that there isn't anything about "natural rights" in there. As best I can tell "natural rights" are a defining aspect of "Classical Liberalism", and I certainly associate the notion with (what I think of as) classical liberals like Locke and Paine. I also thought property rights would have been a "core" element as well.
I don't consider property rights to be a 'core' value of classical liberalism since it functions almost identical to the idea of 'free speech' (and other similar freedoms). Free speech, like private property, are not ends in themselves and thus cannot be 'core values'. They are valued because they are necessary to support/protect the higher goal of liberty.

Though, reviewing my list above, point #5 does seem to be a similar "support" liberty argument as well, so I'll have to grant you this point in theory. Indeed, I'm inclined to 'bump' #5 off the 'core' list and move it to the secondary list of 'things favored' by classical liberalism because of this.

As for "natural rights" (or "natural right"), that's much more difficult to deal with. From a pure theoretical standpoint, I don't see this is part of classical liberalism. That it often has been included and associated with classical liberalism, I don't dispute.

The point I'd make here is that the idea may be held by many classical liberals, but the idea itself originates outside of the conception of classical liberalism and is not necessary to it or required to define it. I believe that the idea of "natural rights" or "natural right" is religious in origin (predicated entirely on 'faith') and is just passed along with the set of ideas of classical liberalism because many classical liberal theorists have held it. Thus, the idea of "natural rights" is common to the history of classical liberalism without being an integral part of it.

Anyway, I suppose I'm really more interested in your own views than in what does and does not fit under a particular political label. As such, I'm curious on two points:
(A) in point #5, what does "efficient" mean? Efficient for what purpose? Creating more resources? Wasting the least? Equalizing distribution? Making distribution "just"? Or promoting human happiness?
I should have said "efficient and effective" in place of "efficient" since that's the way I usually describe the concept because 'efficiency' isn't sufficient.

As noted above, I'm inclined to demote point #5 off the 'core' list and move it to the 'support' list since capitalism, free markets and free trade are all exactly the same status as 'private property' or 'free speech' - things that are highly valued because they support/defend liberty in principle, not ends in themselves. If treated as ends in themselves, these elements can become problematic and tend to interfere with liberty of 'the greatest many'. This is closely related to the line drawn with libertarianism - the 'extremism' of assuming a free market, private property or free speech are ends all by themselves.

and
(B) What role does government play? Based on the 5 "core" points, I see little or no room for government. Point 1 constrains it directly, and points 3, 4, and 5 constrain it indirectly, but none of them empower it with authority.

I think "small government" is the default conclusion from the 'core' list and this is consistent with classical liberal principles.

I think point #5 opens the door to the traditional field of government providing those 'necessary' services that the private market is unable or unwilling to do and this is again, a traditional principle of classical liberalism.

However, I think point #2 also opens the door to a slightly more expansive role for government in the provision of social services and reinforces the 'regulatory' obligation that might be understood as implied by point #5.