The difference between liberalism and socialism (yes, there really is one)

[thatcrazycajun]

The New Republic notes the recent spate of rightie pols and newsmag covers calling the Obama Administration's program "socialism" and undertakes to enlighten those responsible on what socialism really is...and isn't:
Obama Vs. Marx: Hint—One of Them Isn't A Socialist
Money quote, right off the bat in graf #3:
"...socialism is not a natural outgrowth of liberalism. Liberalism is a political philosophy that seeks to extend personal autonomy to as many people as possible, if necessary through positive government action; socialism, by contrast, seeks as much equality as possible, even if doing so curtails individual liberty. These are differences of kind, not degree-- differences that have historically placed the two philosophies in direct competition."
Now if only it had a snowball's chance of convincing Rush, Glenn, Ann and Sean et al.... Given this latest example of conservative attitudes toward liberalism in print (just out this week from notorious right-wing publishing house Regnery Press), I don't hold out much hope.

Comments

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

The Right Wing Mighty Wurlitzer doesn't need convincing (as it never will be, anyway). Its audience, though, needs to hear this.

However, if you want to do something about the noise machine, have you sent email on behalf of Think Progress to O'Reilly's sponsors about his ambush tactics?

[lemmozine.livejournal.com]

Well, I never call those people fascists or nazis, because real fascists and nazis are just slightly worse - I don't THINK Limbaugh has slaughtered anyone in mass numbers recently, as much as he might drool at the thought - but some people do call them that, so perhaps this is their way of trying to get even.

Fortunately, their side is up against the ropes, and I think we may win the next few rounds.

[maugorn.livejournal.com]

I'm not so sure I agree completely with the author.

He brings up an excellent point that a two percent increase in govt usage of the GDP is hardly a basis of changing a govt label from conservative to socialist.

IMHO, tho, all forms of govt have the potential of being functional or dysfunctional, with positive or negative results.

For me, living in a benevolent monarchy would probably be vastly preferential to living in a dysfunctional socialist millieu.

None of these "isms" are the real, ultimate solutions to our world's problems. All of them are *tools* that can be used to *affect* solutions to the problems.

All are subject to failure (Hence St Pete's mighty prophesy:
"Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss" (Coda on electric guitar)

That said, I think tho that right now we really could use a whole lot more liberalisms pulled out of our social toolbox, and if some of them happen to look like socialisms as well, my response is "So what?"

[scs-11.livejournal.com]

Excellent quote, excellent article. Thanks.