Liberalism and Socialism: Allies or Opponents?

H

Hume

Verified User
The victory of Zohran Mamdani in the 2025 New York City Mayoral election has propelled discussion of socialism to the front of the political agenda. Mamdani identifies his political outlook as a form of democratic socialism, and while he drew support from many who would have viewed themselves as liberals, he has also faced vociferous attacks from those who see socialism as a dangerous departure from the political center.

Are liberalism and socialism ideological opponents, or can they be allies in a broader struggle against injustice and unfreedom?

Liberalism and Socialism: Allies or Opponents? | Blog of the APA

The victory of Zohran Mamdani in the 2025 New York City Mayoral election has propelled discussion of socialism to the front of the political agenda. Mamdani identifies his political outlook as a form of democratic socialism, and while he drew support from many who would have viewed themselves as...
blog.apaonline.org blog.apaonline.org
 
Two canonical representatives of these two traditions: Karl Marx and John Rawls.

Marxists often view figures such as Rawls as apologists for the status quo, while many liberals associate Marx with political positions that have too often practiced oppression while preaching emancipation.

Liberalism and Socialism: Allies or Opponents? | Blog of the APA

The victory of Zohran Mamdani in the 2025 New York City Mayoral election has propelled discussion of socialism to the front of the political agenda. Mamdani identifies his political outlook as a form of democratic socialism, and while he drew support from many who would have viewed themselves as...
blog.apaonline.org blog.apaonline.org
 
They are opposed ideas.

Liberalism:
A willingness to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; openness to new ideas:
"One of the basic tenets of liberalism is tolerance."

The holding of political views that are socially progressive and promote social welfare. Equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.

The belief that many traditional beliefs are dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change.

A political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.


Socialism:

An economic system that holds that the group is more important than the individual. It is generally intolerant of new or opposed ideas and usually resorts to use of a dictatorship of one sort or another to impose that system on society.

It argues that humanity is altruistic and will willingly give or share the fruits of their labor without restraint to others regardless of what they get in return.

It expects government to be the fount of all wealth and distribution of that wealth to the people. In return, the people are beholden to the government and must follow all laws, rules, and edicts of that government in order to equally share in the wealth.

Diversity of thought, ideas, and speech are heavily regulated in a socialist society. Civil liberties are strictly controlled. This is necessary to enforce equality of outcomes across society. A socialist government is intolerant. If the individual can do as they please then they won't do what society, as a whole, demands much of the time.

Summing up:

Liberalism seeks:

Equality of opportunity
Freedom of speech and association
The freedom to succeed or fail on one's own efforts and merits.

Socialism seeks:

Equality of outcomes
Restriction on speech and association to ensure equal outcomes.
Success or failure is ignored in favor of everyone in society getting the same thing.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
They are opposed ideas.

Liberalism:
A willingness to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; openness to new ideas:
"One of the basic tenets of liberalism is tolerance."

The holding of political views that are socially progressive and promote social welfare. Equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.

The belief that many traditional beliefs are dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change.

A political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.


Socialism:

An economic system that holds that the group is more important than the individual. It is generally intolerant of new or opposed ideas and usually resorts to use of a dictatorship of one sort or another to impose that system on society.

It argues that humanity is altruistic and will willingly give or share the fruits of their labor without restraint to others regardless of what they get in return.

It expects government to be the fount of all wealth and distribution of that wealth to the people. In return, the people are beholden to the government and must follow all laws, rules, and edicts of that government in order to equally share in the wealth.

Diversity of thought, ideas, and speech are heavily regulated in a socialist society. Civil liberties are strictly controlled. This is necessary to enforce equality of outcomes across society. A socialist government is intolerant. If the individual can do as they please then they won't do what society, as a whole, demands much of the time.

Summing up:

Liberalism seeks:

Equality of opportunity
Freedom of speech and association
The freedom to succeed or fail on one's own efforts and merits.

Socialism seeks:

Equality of outcomes
Restriction on speech and association to ensure equal outcomes.
Success or failure is ignored in favor of everyone in society getting the same thing.
Click to expand...
Please cite where that text came from.
 
Hume said:
Please cite where that text came from.
Click to expand...
Nowhere. Those words are my own. Unlike you citing some academic Communist at Dunham, I can think for myself and I can, as easily as he, come up with coherent thoughts.

Jan Kandiyali just tries to make socialism / communism and liberalism (egalitarian as he notes and what I'm talking about) are opposed ideas, regardless of what he says. His thesis question was:

Are these two political traditions ideological opponents, or can they be allies in a broader struggle against injustice and unfreedom?

I argue, yes, they are ideological opponents and cannot be allies. He tries to make a case for their being allies. But in doing so, he unwittingly exposes the same arguments I make above only to hand wave them away as mirages or something.

He mentions "The Jewish question." Under socialism, Judaism is a problem. It doesn't hew to a societal norm of altruism and immersion in the group for the greater good of the group. Christianity is much the same. Islam on the other hand, does argue for socialism and socialist ideas in an oblique way. That's why the Left can tolerate Islam.

At one point, Kandiyali writes this:

The second point of comparison concerns issues of alienation and self-realization in work. In his 1844 manuscripts, Marx argues that capitalism alienates workers from their labor, depriving them of the good of self-realization in work.

This is completely untrue and shows a complete lack of comprehension of how capitalism works. Workers in a situation where they produce something in part, like factory work, do so in expectation and exchange for a wage or pay they negotiated with the owner. That compensation isn't necessarily fixed nor is it decided by a party not privy to the deal. That is, the government didn't arbitrarily set the wage, expectations of work, and compensation so the worker would get what all workers get in compensation.

In fact, in socialism, the worker is alienated from the self-realization of their work. The government / society takes their work and in return gives them a set amount of compensation in various forms, just like everyone gets. There is no incentive to work hard, or work at all. The worker must be altruistic to see satisfaction in that.

Kandiyali's article is a shallow dive into the pool of politics and mostly a waste of time. In a word, it is academic dreck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top