Maybe I’m just old, but I still don’t fully understand the difference. To me they’re synonymous, or at least overlapping such that liberal is a type of leftist.
Its not that you’re old or the meanings have changed - here’s Phil Ochs in 1966:
“In every political community there are varying shades of political opinion. One of the shadiest of these is the liberals. An outspoken group on many subjects. Ten degrees to the left of center in good times. Ten degrees to the right of center if it affects them personally”
Classic Liberalism overlaps with modern Libertarianism in quite a lot of ways. The emphasis is on personal freedom and restrictions on the power of the State. So, progressive in 19th Century terms, and theoretically anti-oppression (although in practise mainly for the white middle/upper class who benefited from free trade and markets).
This developed into Neo-Liberalism from the 70s/80s-ish, which goes fully all in on free markets and unregulated capitalism, and on essentially running a country centered around economic growth ideologies and private industry at the expense of, say, public services etc. Neo-Liberalism is the dominant ideology in the West, to the point where ‘left-wing’ parties like the UK’s Labour or the USA’s Democrats don’t challenge it.
From a 20/21st Century leftist PoV, the big problems with Liberalism are things like unregulated markets increasing wealth inequality, and things like opposition or indifference to welfare and public services, and a lack of reform/change from the state tackling systematic -isms etc.
So the kind of ‘Archetypal Liberal’ is someone who is ostensibly against oppression and injustice, but unwilling to address these issues in a meaningful way. Pro-status-quo, sometimes NIMBYs, very often white middle class. Wants more social justice, just not at the expense of the housing market.
are things like unregulated markets increasing wealth inequality
But one would think they don’t increase it really.
It’s cronyism coupled with regulations (as in patents and IP law) which increases it in case of big fish.
It’s also literal crimes not being prosecuted, like actual fraud (or selling not what you advertise, or pressing out competition by non-market means, or not paying your employees, or bribing officials, or …).
I don’t see this being connected with market regulations. Actually in case of IP and cronyism market regulations are present on the side of “the big fish” here.
I feel like actual Marxists are a pretty rare breed and the use of the term has become a dogwhistle for the alt-right the same way “Bolshevik” was used pre WWII. From my time talking shop in leftist circles I have drawn a few conclusions.
The average leftist usually is very personal freedom oriented on the vectors of expression of culture outside of anything attempting to assume a hegemonic role. Essentially - no state of being should be treated as a default.
On a personal property /economy axis Communism isn’t very common. Marxist Communism advocates for what would be personal property to be owned by the public /state and looks to the state to allocate resources…
What is actually way more common ground on the left is Market Socialism which has been sold in more right and centrist circles as “responsible capitalism” because branding anything as socialism tends to make anyone McCarthy poisoned shut down. Basically Market Socialism advocates for a high degree of publicly funded safety nets and services, tax code enforcement, anti-trust legislation, union power, a reinvestment in democratic selection policies and looks at potential conflicts of interest as matters of concern in government services…so less Marxist revolution and more Roosevelt New Deal. Market Socialism does still treat Capitalism as a given but where Liberalism tends to have a very hands off approach, Market Socialism is legislation heavy because it supposes that unchecked Capitalism will erode society and make it unstable. It also argues that certain spheres should not be the domain of private property. Where conflicts of interest intersect with a set of basic human rights those rights should not be treated as a market good.
While there are definitely a lot of other groups on the left they tend to not follow Marxist philosophy. Like. I have met actual Marxists… But it’s kind of like running across a unicorn. So rare that it stuns you. Leftist goups that advocate for indigenous re-patriation, foreign issue focused groups or ones that are more social philosophy based really aren’t looking to try and make a communist structure work. They are more just anti-imperialist and more about ethically engaging with different groups of people rather than trying to forcibly seize assets for government use.
So TLDR : Focusing on Marxism as a leftist bogeyman generally instantly loses you respect in most leftist circles because most leftists agree that while Marxist philosophy is very good at spotting society based problems it is fucking terrible at actually solving any of them.
left doesn’t mean socialist, where i live anyways. we’re more of the “sure, let’s let people into the country. we need workers after all” and “maybe we should stop burning coal, it seems bad for the environment” people.
i’m what you could consider a “personal freedom, but if you run a company or government you bear responibility. we need to keep you in check” guy.
not really into socialism myself, but i do like the free healthcare and being able to survive while jobless for a while.
Liberal has always meant generally what most Western countries would currently describe as centrist, basically mainstream Democrats. Leftists are, broadly, socialists and communists.
Liberals are generally pro-capitalism. A Leftist might be pro-markets, but only in non-capitalist forms like worker-owned co-ops. Liberals believe in private property, i.e. resources that an individual can own in order to extract profit from use by others. Leftists reject private property, though generally believe in personal property, i.e. resources that an individual uses themselves.
It has become common lately on the right to use the terms interchangeably, but Liberal is center-right. It only looks like the Left when compared to far-right ideologies.
Most liberals fight for their freedom. E.g. trump supporters who were worried that the left wants to ban Christmas, probably identify with at least some “liberal” Agenda. Most of the left might not be communists but have a focus on freedom on the social scale. Enabling everyone to have a good life and most freedoms but limit some freedoms to protect the system from abuse. E.g. you are free to start your business but your business has to have safety measures to protect the worker. Less freedom for you, and even your workers, but a better life for the workers too. A extrem liberal might hold the position that you should regulate businesses as a poor work environment would lead to people working somewhere else and the business failing to produce the product and through that regulate the market better than with laws that might have loopholes.
In other words, there is a fundamental difference. They might support the same ideas once in a while but their motivation is different. Usually the leftist actively believes the market won’t regulate itself and therefore fails to produce the regulation. As leftist think is a flawed idea, saying that they believe in said flawed idea, is kinda insulting to them
Maybe I’m just old, but I still don’t fully understand the difference. To me they’re synonymous, or at least overlapping such that liberal is a type of leftist.
What do these words mean now?
Its not that you’re old or the meanings have changed - here’s Phil Ochs in 1966:
“In every political community there are varying shades of political opinion. One of the shadiest of these is the liberals. An outspoken group on many subjects. Ten degrees to the left of center in good times. Ten degrees to the right of center if it affects them personally”
Classic Liberalism overlaps with modern Libertarianism in quite a lot of ways. The emphasis is on personal freedom and restrictions on the power of the State. So, progressive in 19th Century terms, and theoretically anti-oppression (although in practise mainly for the white middle/upper class who benefited from free trade and markets).
This developed into Neo-Liberalism from the 70s/80s-ish, which goes fully all in on free markets and unregulated capitalism, and on essentially running a country centered around economic growth ideologies and private industry at the expense of, say, public services etc. Neo-Liberalism is the dominant ideology in the West, to the point where ‘left-wing’ parties like the UK’s Labour or the USA’s Democrats don’t challenge it.
From a 20/21st Century leftist PoV, the big problems with Liberalism are things like unregulated markets increasing wealth inequality, and things like opposition or indifference to welfare and public services, and a lack of reform/change from the state tackling systematic -isms etc.
So the kind of ‘Archetypal Liberal’ is someone who is ostensibly against oppression and injustice, but unwilling to address these issues in a meaningful way. Pro-status-quo, sometimes NIMBYs, very often white middle class. Wants more social justice, just not at the expense of the housing market.
(Sorry for the essay, i got a lil carried away)
Well said. Thanks
But one would think they don’t increase it really.
It’s cronyism coupled with regulations (as in patents and IP law) which increases it in case of big fish.
It’s also literal crimes not being prosecuted, like actual fraud (or selling not what you advertise, or pressing out competition by non-market means, or not paying your employees, or bribing officials, or …).
I don’t see this being connected with market regulations. Actually in case of IP and cronyism market regulations are present on the side of “the big fish” here.
Liberals support capitalism/ private property, leftists/Marxists don’t.
I feel like actual Marxists are a pretty rare breed and the use of the term has become a dogwhistle for the alt-right the same way “Bolshevik” was used pre WWII. From my time talking shop in leftist circles I have drawn a few conclusions.
The average leftist usually is very personal freedom oriented on the vectors of expression of culture outside of anything attempting to assume a hegemonic role. Essentially - no state of being should be treated as a default.
On a personal property /economy axis Communism isn’t very common. Marxist Communism advocates for what would be personal property to be owned by the public /state and looks to the state to allocate resources…
What is actually way more common ground on the left is Market Socialism which has been sold in more right and centrist circles as “responsible capitalism” because branding anything as socialism tends to make anyone McCarthy poisoned shut down. Basically Market Socialism advocates for a high degree of publicly funded safety nets and services, tax code enforcement, anti-trust legislation, union power, a reinvestment in democratic selection policies and looks at potential conflicts of interest as matters of concern in government services…so less Marxist revolution and more Roosevelt New Deal. Market Socialism does still treat Capitalism as a given but where Liberalism tends to have a very hands off approach, Market Socialism is legislation heavy because it supposes that unchecked Capitalism will erode society and make it unstable. It also argues that certain spheres should not be the domain of private property. Where conflicts of interest intersect with a set of basic human rights those rights should not be treated as a market good.
While there are definitely a lot of other groups on the left they tend to not follow Marxist philosophy. Like. I have met actual Marxists… But it’s kind of like running across a unicorn. So rare that it stuns you. Leftist goups that advocate for indigenous re-patriation, foreign issue focused groups or ones that are more social philosophy based really aren’t looking to try and make a communist structure work. They are more just anti-imperialist and more about ethically engaging with different groups of people rather than trying to forcibly seize assets for government use.
So TLDR : Focusing on Marxism as a leftist bogeyman generally instantly loses you respect in most leftist circles because most leftists agree that while Marxist philosophy is very good at spotting society based problems it is fucking terrible at actually solving any of them.
reminder: liblefts exist
Libertarian socialists are not considered liberals. In America anyway.
left doesn’t mean socialist, where i live anyways. we’re more of the “sure, let’s let people into the country. we need workers after all” and “maybe we should stop burning coal, it seems bad for the environment” people.
i’m what you could consider a “personal freedom, but if you run a company or government you bear responibility. we need to keep you in check” guy.
not really into socialism myself, but i do like the free healthcare and being able to survive while jobless for a while.
Big thanks to everybody helping me get with the times in this thread.
I suppose I need to put some thought into what I am politically. I don’t support capitalism, that’s for damn sure.
Liberal has always meant generally what most Western countries would currently describe as centrist, basically mainstream Democrats. Leftists are, broadly, socialists and communists.
Liberals are generally pro-capitalism. A Leftist might be pro-markets, but only in non-capitalist forms like worker-owned co-ops. Liberals believe in private property, i.e. resources that an individual can own in order to extract profit from use by others. Leftists reject private property, though generally believe in personal property, i.e. resources that an individual uses themselves.
It has become common lately on the right to use the terms interchangeably, but Liberal is center-right. It only looks like the Left when compared to far-right ideologies.
Mainstream Democrats are not ‘centrist’ from the PoV of most western countries. They are far-right. Republicans are ultra-extreme-far-right.
deleted by creator
Most liberals fight for their freedom. E.g. trump supporters who were worried that the left wants to ban Christmas, probably identify with at least some “liberal” Agenda. Most of the left might not be communists but have a focus on freedom on the social scale. Enabling everyone to have a good life and most freedoms but limit some freedoms to protect the system from abuse. E.g. you are free to start your business but your business has to have safety measures to protect the worker. Less freedom for you, and even your workers, but a better life for the workers too. A extrem liberal might hold the position that you should regulate businesses as a poor work environment would lead to people working somewhere else and the business failing to produce the product and through that regulate the market better than with laws that might have loopholes.
In other words, there is a fundamental difference. They might support the same ideas once in a while but their motivation is different. Usually the leftist actively believes the market won’t regulate itself and therefore fails to produce the regulation. As leftist think is a flawed idea, saying that they believe in said flawed idea, is kinda insulting to them