Comment by hsitz | Hacker News Reader

Comment by hsitz | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

"There's this odd commingling of the concepts of socialism and liberalism in the general populace's minds, for some reason. The two could not be more antithetical."

The reasons for this are historical. What you call the "socialist" elements result from the idea that part of being truly "free" (i.e, liberty) requires that people be treated equally, thus liberals in this sense have a focus on social justice. (See this on "positive liberty": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty .) You can get good summary of differences between meanings of "liberal" in other Wikipedia articles:

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism#Classical_and_modern

Because of the way the word's meaning has developed historically, you really need to be aware of the context where it's being used. But there are nevertheless strands connecting all the meanings, namely focus on "freedom" and "equality".

Indeed - perfectly familiar, have read my share of Tocqueville, Hayek, Hobbes and all the rest, but the fundamental point that divides socialism and liberalism is that of freedom of people, vs. freedom of the people - i.e. individualism vs. socialism.

Liberalism has always been about social justice, and the idea that each and every human should be free to run or ruin their own lives (Positive vs. Negative freedom), with a slant towards the positive through regulation and the rule of law.

It is individualism vs collectivism.

Socialism is a set of collectivist policies desired or in force while a capitalist society is being consumed (i.e., distribution of goods and services by society's collective dictates).

Capitalism "solves the problem" of production by producing what returns profit (in a market of demands and supplies). Once profit is stamped out, production is unguided except by "society" commanding it (i.e., a command "economy"). Even if this guidance were democratic, it would still be subject to the tyranny of the majority (the bulk of the collective).

Aye, meant collectivism, not sure how I managed that, sorry!

Agree that the tyranny of the majority still applies in the case of democracy - see the UK EU in-out referendum impending mess.

Yeah, wasn't so much a rebuke, more of a clarification. Know thine enemy's nature, not just its current appearance :-)

Alas, individualism will never be a mass movement!

Classical liberalism (what you call "true" liberalism) focused on negative freedom. Modern liberalism (what you call "socialism" although it's not: modern liberals are still in favor of regulated but mostly free markets) focuses on ensuring positive freedom. Again, no big deal as long as we understand what each person means when they're talking about being a "liberal". In contemporary world, however, calling yourself a "liberal" in sense of classical liberalism tends to indicate you're that you're an academic, a libertarian, or some variety of free-market capitalist. In contemporary world, the usual meaning when someone says they're a "liberal" is that they're socially liberal, focus on equality and positive liberty. And the usual meaning is entirely correct, even though you apparently want to restrict use of the world to its meaning in classical liberalism.

No, I think people that call themselves Classic Liberals believe freedom (liberty) only means "free".

Couldn't agree more. However I would also add that from a truly liberal perspective the logic behind government intervention is market-driven as opposed to primarily humanitarian. Recognising that markets have failures is a key part of capitalist liberalism, and it is that failure of recognition that makes libertarianism such an unstable and unworkable political philosophy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com