What's the difference between a "liberal" and a "leftist," if there is one...

[matmar]

[Scuba]

1. Since neither term can be finitely defined, there are an infinite number of differences.

[SecurityManager]

2. My own look at the two words

Liberal = Liberal outlook on political view points.

Leftist, leftist liberal, etc. to me are the hard left same as the hard right "no compromise" on any political view point.

[PragmaticLiberal]

3. Agree completely with your definitions.

[Romulox]

4. Those definitions are idiosyncratic. They don't match with any real-world use of the terms.

"Leftist" has nothing to do with "no compromise", but rather refers to the Right-Left continuum of political positions. That's all.

Nothing about "compromise".

[obamanut2012]

20. "Hard Left" woulod be a Communist

I can tell you for a fact I am not a Communist, nor do I think the huge majority of DU Lefties are, either. I do have "no compromise" on many views, which I think every DU should: civil and equal rights including marriage equality, no war on women's reproductive health, single-payer healthcare, etc. I know our President hasn't been perfect on any of these, but the progress made since 2000 is something to cheer.

Also, do you know that the Communist Party of the US supports President Obama? Including his re-election?

[Swede]

21. I disagree with your defination of left.

I am liberal,by the way. Leftist have a socialistic outlook,they are as willing to compromise as anyone. It's when you get farther out to the left (or right) that you find the hardliners.

[Cal33]

27. The very fact that a leftist is interested in improving the conditions of all the people, shows

that they can and do want the good for themselves, as well as for others. To do this
they have to be capable of compromising.

The rightists are for themselves only. For them other people exist merely as tools to
be used and discarded. There lies the big difference.

[Honeycombe8]

94. I would agree with these definitions. nt

[Puzzledtraveller]

96. That about sums it up for me.

Due to the extremism I find myself squarely in the middle. Having become a social worker my eyes were opened that things are much more compicated than the simplistic views and no-solutions of the intractable far right. However, I have also become weary of the far left, from which it seems some adherents are perfectly okay with mandating intelligence tests to earn the right to vote, it is absolutey appalling.

[Starry Messenger]

5. Liberal: believes that Capitalism can be made to work with regulation.

Leftist: believes that even with reforms, Capitalism is itself the source of economic crisis and cannot be made to work.

[LeftyMom]

41. This.

[limpyhobbler]

87. This sounds about right.

[Lasher]

6. A liberal south of the border is called a leftist.

Our corporate news media consistently follows this convention.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. Liberals are scared of the socialist label, leftists embrace it. Nt.

[treestar]

12. Maybe they are not scared. Maybe they are just not socialists.

[Warren Stupidity]

36. the ones that aren't socialists aren't liberals

they are center-right democrats who advocate against democratic socialist reforms and for market based solutions to the issues that liberals and leftists both agree should be addressed by government programs.

For example: market based health care as in ObamaCare and RomneyCare vs single payer medicare for all. If you are a liberal or a leftist you will in almost all cases prefer extending the democratic socialist program of medicare to all citizens. If you are a center-right "new democrat", like Obama, you prefer market based solutions instead.

Of course you can call yourself anything you want. The OP asked for opinions, and that is mine.

[treestar]

40. That is exactly what right wingers say

And that is why they insist Obama is a socialist.

A liberal is a capitalist who agrees the government should do some regulation. Normally it is right wingers who insist on conflating them with socialist. A socialist believes the government should own the means of production - to a right winger, anyone who wants any regulation at all is restricting the free market and is therefore "socialist." They refuse to get the difference between the government owning the factories and the government just enforcing laws that regulate businesses.

Centrists are going to be a majority in any society. Of course the "centrists" will be elected to office - why would average people vote for extremists? As for the labels, just be honest. It is silly how both left and right try to deny the center exists and that people left or right of center but not at the extremes don't exist.

[Warren Stupidity]

72. yeah that's it, I'm a right winger.

Obama is center right on economic issues. As in my example, health care, he supports market based solutions. Liberals and leftists support democratic socialist approaches, for example extending medicare to everyone.

When rightwingers claim Obama is a socialist, they ignore the obvious fact that on economic issues he is neither left nor liberal. That is not because they have any point, it is because they are bald-faced liars of the worst sort.

A 'liberal' might be a capitalist, for example Warren Buffet is both an actual capitalist and a 'liberal'. Obama is neither, he is a center-right politician, by which I mean he supports a neo-liberal ideology (which is what you probably meant by 'capitalist'), as opposed to the center-left democratic socialist reformist New Deal politics of FDR, Truman, JFK, and LBJ. Obama, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton were all distinctly not in the center-left mold of the New Deal democrats. Some here would like to paper over that divide, but it is very real and has very much to do with why I claim that Obama (and Clinton and Carter) are not liberals.

Liberals are indeed reformists who shy away from overt democratic control over the private sector, (which is why I noted that they are scared of the 'socialist' label) except when they do of course, such as the (to me) defining issue of our health care system. Liberals and those more to the left all generally agree that we should run the 'health care finance and insurance industry' as a public institution merged into the same public institution that currently operates medicare. Democrats who oppose single-payer are across the divide between left and right.

[treestar]

99. You may not be one, but are arguing like one

They too don't admit the difference between the liberal and a socialist, the way you're not allowing for the difference between a liberal and a conservative.

These things could be labeled based on people's positions and admitted. I don't know why people insist on using the more extreme label for people they don't agree with. It undermines their arguments from the start - if I can't figure out how I disagree with someone, I just label them a "corporatist" or a "communist." Well the liberal is not a communist and by calling them one, a right winger shows they can't figure out what the argument is. Likewise for leftists who refuse to get the difference between socialists and even centrists and the conservatives.

I can admit even Rmoney is not as Randian as Rand Paul or others of the far right. That doesn't mean I agree with Rmoney. It just means I admit there is a difference between Rmoney and those farther to his right.

[Warren Stupidity]

102. Did I attack you personally?

Have a nice day.

[treestar]

106. How is that responsive to my post?

[Puzzledtraveller]

97. Thank you, very well said.

[randome]

8. Liberals are ambidextrous.

Liberals are afraid Ronald Reagan will return from the dead and call them 'liberals'.

[Marr]

9. I would say "liberal" describes a fairly specific set of positions, while a "leftist" is anyone

on the left side of the political spectrum.

[Romulox]

10. The historical use of "liberal" actually meant a rightwinger--a believer in laissez-faire economics.

The modern American usage is beginning to regain some of this lost sense of pro-business, anti-regulation.

Rather convoluted history of the term at wiki:

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

[Douglas Carpenter]

11. I would tend to follow the classic European model in defining those terms

Although the steady drift to the right even in left-wing European parties has altered the meanings of such words over time.

Traditionally in Europe on the right you had the conservative parties supported by business interest. On the left you had the socialist parties supported by the unions. In the middle you had the liberals who were pro-business and pro-capitalist but who believed in a certain amount of socialist type social reform. Classically, although it is no longer really the case, the socialist or leftist held as an eventual goal the complete social ownership and democratic control of production and economy -while liberals supported a permanent capitalist system tempered by social reform.

Since very few people any longer support the complete social ownership and democratic control of production and economy - really almost all so-called leftist are now in fact liberals. If there is any difference left at all - it is purely in theory – does one have a class analysis of how society operates. Does one agree with Marx that “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle”. If they do agree with that statement then they probably can be defined as a leftist. If however they believe that capitalism with its many imperfections is still the best of all possible systems –as long as it is properly reformed and regulated – then they are probably a liberal.

[socialist_n_TN]

13. This is the definition I always use.......

Which is why I'm a leftist.

Liberals ultimately will side with the fascists against the socialists because the fascist would at least keep the system in place, whereas he socialists would tear it down and construct something new.

[geek tragedy]

14. Except when leftists themselves become fascists.

USSR
Mao
Pol Pot
Iron Curtain

etc

[socialist_n_TN]

17. That's totalitarian, not fascist..........

I always use Mussolini's definition of fascism. A merger of business and government.

And BTW, ALL of those governments were Stalinist.

[coalition_unwilling]

18. Oh, FFS. Mao did not become a 'fascist.' The counter-revolution

took place after Mao's death. Likewise, until Gorbachev, no way was the USSR anything other than Communist. Even with perestroika and glasnost, the means of production in the USSR remained publicly owned.

You might want to read up a bit on your definitions of 'fascism' before throwing the word around.

Leftists never become fascists (except, possibly, Mussolini and it is arguable whether he was originally leftist). It's like the sun rising in the west. Leftists can be authoritarian, but that's an entirely different matter from 'fascism.'

[tralala]

91. Everybody knows Mao was a tool of the Chinese corporations

[Starry Messenger]

31. Fascism is capitalism in total control of all branches of government.

It's pretty much the textbook definition.

Those countries were not capitalist.

[DBoon]

34. Fascism is violently nationalistic

believes "stronger" nations have a duty to subjugate "weaker" nations

Communists are internationalist, and believe in eliminating nation states

Fascism believes in a natural hierarchy of authority on societies, and is opposed to equality

Communists believe in equality (eventually) and see the rule of the party as a temporary measure to usher in equality.

Fascists worship warfare as a crowing human achievement. Communists see the triumph of their system as leading to an end to all war.

These are very important differences. Most pundits who gloss over these differences by calling violent communist dictatorships "fascist" are deliberately obscuring their own fascistic agenda.

Unfortunately, someone executed by a fascist regime is just as dead as someone executed by a communist regime

[Starry Messenger]

38. Well, if Communists were executing Nazis, and Nazis were executing Communists...

if I had to pick a side, I know which side I am on. I would never say that Communist countries were some kind of Utopia, because they were never meant to be. They are states to sever capitalist exploitation of their people. There are critiques of whether they do a good job or not, but that is their purpose.

I think we both (mostly) agree on the definition of Fascism.

[Puzzledtraveller]

98. Are you certain about your definitions?

Nazi Germany was fascist and socialist. Is that incorrect?

[patrice]

67. "always" use? How free, and hence valid, is that? If you always use it, there is at least a 50:50

probability that it is not valid.

[socialist_n_TN]

81. Yep.always. I figure if it's good enough for.........

Last edited Mon May 28, 2012, 10:59 AM - Edit history (1)

One of the original founders of fascism, it's good enough for me.

[patrice]

68. & There is at least a 50:50 probability that you just proved my points down-thread. nt

[redgreenandblue]

24. That is a very good definition IMO.

[coalition_unwilling]

15. All liberals are leftists, but not all leftists are liberals. Standard

set theory, where liberals are a sub-set of the larger leftist set.

I've also seen (can't remember where) a Cartesian-like grid with two axes, the x-axis being liberal-conservative . the y-axis libertarian-authoritarian, the idea behind the grid is that everyone can be plotted in one of the four quadrants. So Repigs fall in either conservative-libertarian (Rob Paulites) or conservative-authoritarian (NeoCons), and so on.

[patrice]

25. That's good. But what are the differentiating traits? I suggest they have

something to do with inclusion:

Since "Left" puts itself on somekind of POLITICAL continuum with Right, there are things that Left only indirectly shares with Right, if only as the negation of something that is Right.

Liberals, oth, have an essential trait that has something to do with freedom, libertas, which is a human trait, not a political one and which at minimum implies that free people who have freely come to self-identify as Right or Conservative have a right to do so, as long as they are authentically free, since freedom is an essence of Liberality.

Thus, Liberals contain "the seed of their own destruction" since their requirement that they must include in order to be Liberal makes them also vulnerable to including Leftists, Rightists, Libertarians, Conservatives, and all others who might not actually be free enough to be inclusive themselves and, in the case of Conservatives especially, there is a trait for EXCLUSION.

To me Liberals are much more about freedom than any of the others, so yes, all Liberals are Leftists, but not all Leftists are Liberals.

[coalition_unwilling]

30. Everyone on the left-hand side of the liberal-conservative spectrum believes

there is and should be a role for the government in managing the ecoonomy and intervening in it. Liberals tend to accept the virtues of capitalism (private ownership of the means of production) while also insisting to varying degrees upon governmental management of same. Those further to the left may believe that capitalism needs to be replaced by a different economic system, like socialism (public ownership of the means of production). Both liberals and their leftist brethren and sisters believe the government should be involved in the runnning of the economy but tend to disagree on the extent of the government's role.

I think you are conflating 'liberal' with 'libertarian' somewhat when you way that 'liberals are much more about freedom than any of the others.' What Socialist_n_TN wrote upthread is salient here, though. A liberal will almost always choose fascist when forced to choose between fascist and socialist, because a liberal's core values center around private ownership of the means of production (same as fascists').

At the risk of triggering Godwin's Law, the end of Weimar illustrates this point nicely, as the liberal, centrist and moderately conservative parties all went along with Hitler's smashing of labor and the socialists and communists, rather than build alliances with socialists and communists to stop Hitler.

[patrice]

37. The Libertarians I know have no regard for how lack of appropriate regulation produces slavery.

Or if they do, it is only to the extent that they are the ones in danger of being "enslaved" and they are not responnsible for how their own "free" behaviors affect others in ways that those others identify as enslaving, but that are not shared with them. They have no regard for how what they claim as free empowerment can be in fact DEPEND upon the weaknesses of others. Their response to that argument, TTE that they are not in fact free, is that the disempowered must be responnsible for themselves, even if they can't actually do that BECAUSE of some manifestation of Libertarian power/oppression. This is how Libertarians have become associated with Social Darwinism.

Liberals call this situation what is, not freedom, but vampirism. As humanists, instead of politicists, they want to conserve freedom for all, not only for its human values, but also for how ALL of those conserved human values enhance/contribute to all systems. They act to prevent the losses that Libertarians, and some Leftists, are telling us are insignificant.

[patrice]

42. BTW, spectrums are too linear for me. There's too much that must be eliminated in order to

get that line.

I'd prefer somekind of event(s) that occur within a sphere with trait-axes, in order to avoid over-simplifications such as "Liberals choose fascism."

.... although I suspect that that the circumference, the out-lyers, of that sphere is not actually equi-distant from all/any axes.

[patrice]

53. Because Liberal core values center around authentic freedom, not the means of production,

they seek the ability to choose either, neither, or both capitalism or socialism, the opportunity to be free enough to choose to obey or not to obey whatever power construct is relevant. The potential for choices is affected by others, i.e. the power struggle known as politics, which is more of a Leftist endeavor than it is a Liberal effort.

To the extent that a Liberal is involved in political power struggles, their concerns about those who are affecting the potential for free choice can be affected by their perception of others' freedom to choose. When it appears that some "choices" are not in fact choices, not free, but rather motivated instead by a lack of choice, e.g. a compulsion to anger; the need to express power through destruction; ignorance; dishonesty, or any of a myriad of other enslaving motivations, it is likely that a free Liberal will move toward the Conservative position in order to avoid enslaving others, some of whom are completely unaware of the struggle and therefore disempowered as to choice, anymore than they already are through the propagation of what is being called freedom, but may in fact not be free, but rather an inability to choose, i.e. another form of slavery with hot power-labels on it.

Another difference between Liberals and Leftists is that Liberals know and will openly admit the possibility of their own enslavement by some/any/all of the e.g.s I suggested above and a Leftist, being politically motivated for power, can/will-not, which makes a Liberal at least possibly more free than a Leftist.

Whatever anyone is saying about Liberals and "the means of production", they should ask themselves if they are describing symptoms or possible root causes.

[rrneck]

28. political compass

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

[coalition_unwilling]

32. Yeah, that site alludes to that Cartesian grid I mentioned. I'm a bit

reluctant to click on their links though, for obvious reasons. (Don't want to get any viruses or malicious spyware.)

Can you vouch for the site?

[rrneck]

33. I've used it to no ill effect.

AVG didn't squeal. But I'm not very sophisticated about That sort of thing.

[coalition_unwilling]

35. Cool. I'll check it out later. I'm no guru on this sort of stuff either, but

have gotten burned in the past by blindly accepting a supposed "Java update." Tricked Norton and Microsoft Security Essentials and I had to do a complete Windows 7 re-install. Grr!

[whatchamacallit]

39. My score (coords) is pretty much what I expected

Economic Left/Right: -5.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.67

[rrneck]

47. Me too.

Most of DU probably is probably about the same.

[GoCubsGo]

58. That's almost exactly what mine looks like.

I'm half astep to the left of you, and half a step more libertarian. I always refer to myself as "Liberaltarian".

[patrice]

46. Such things are limited meaning unless we know AND understand their method of CONSTRUCTION.nt

[rrneck]

48. True.

I read the site a year or two ago and it looked interesting. It made some sense.

Its fun to play with but generally I think much more than a nod to labels of any sort are too much. They quickly tend move the focus away from people to ideology, which to my mind is counterproductive and dangerous.

[patrice]

54. I actually like it too! But I am frustrated by its limitations.

[Art_from_Ark]

108. I gave up on that quiz

There were just too many gray areas, and no "no opinion" or "other" option.

[Hatchling]

89. http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Hell, I'm to the left of the Dalai Lama!

[MineralMan]

16. No difference, in this regard:

Whichever one you call yourself, someone will be along shortly to tell you that you are not that. Both words mean whatever the person using them thinks they mean. Humpty Dumpty words, both of them.

[patrice]

26. Relativity is not absolute.There are points of commonality, acquired from perspective/perception AND

Last edited Sun May 27, 2012, 12:05 PM - Edit history (1)

motivation.

Necessity IS a mother-of-invention.

[FarLeftFist]

19. Leftists are people to the Left of Libs/Progressives.

Such as Socialists, forms of Anarchism, Communism.

[jberryhill]

22. $50,000 a year, give or take a few

[redgreenandblue]

23. I'd go with Chris Hedge's definition: In America "classic liberals" are the political center.

People who want to reform capitalism to make it more stable and fair, like what Roosevelt did, but not do away with capitalism. The classic liberal institutions are unions, colleges, liberal churches and more.

One could argue that the word "liberal" also implies a belief in personal liberty, which would imply equal rights for everyone etc.

People who would want to replace capitalism entirely by a different type of economy would be the political left.

In todays America however, the "traditional liberal" is framed as "far-left", which he isn't.

[Marr]

50. I'd agree with all of that. /nt

[TBF]

29. A Discussion About The Differences Between Liberals and Leftists

A Discussion About The Differences Between Liberals and Leftists (with thanks to my friend "chlamor&quot :


I offer this a starting point.

A Leftist says that the fundamental organization of our society is intolerable because it leads directly to war, poverty, oppression, and environmental destruction. The Leftist argues that a new and different framework is necessary.

A Liberal says that the basic organization of our society is reasonably good, and should therefore be accepted, and that any efforts at further improving society should come from working within the already-established framework. IOW, the liberal wants slight modifications to what already exists, believing that its basic structure is reasonably sound.

________________________________________________________________________________

Liberal- will blithely be assimilated.

Leftist- will promptly be assassinated.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Liberal- possesses a quaint notion that one can Re-Form hierarchical power structures.

Leftist- desires to completely unravel and eliminate the functions and forms of hierarchy.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Liberal- wishes to turn The Bank into The People's Credit Union.

Leftist- sees the need to turn the tables of the moneychangers and smash the marketplace.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Liberal- feels a warm fuzzy feeling inside while intoning "Share the Wealth", "Dissent is Patriotic", "Save Tibet" and on and on...

Leftist- desires to redefine concepts of wealth particularly as it relates to large metal objects and recognize 'patria' as inherently oppressive.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Liberal- says "Living Wage".

Leftist- says "Solidarity".
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Liberal- willingly shells out $3 for a glass of carrot juice.

Leftist- sees Root Vegetables as sustenance and metaphor.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Liberal- outside the coffee shop talks daily about the need for the Cappuccino Revolution but balks at acting out for fear this would endanger his/her daily cappuccino.

Leftist- reuses the same coffee filter, paper towels or odd socks when all other options have been exhausted in an attempt to squeeze one more cup from yesterday's grounds.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Liberal- wants to 'get out the vote'.

Leftist- recognizes voting as a nominal form of political activity meant to validate the Democratic State and convince the political consumer that they are a participant in governance.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Liberal- can often be seen mouthing the "education is the answer" mantra particularly in the rarified atmosphere of the Citadels of Expertise. Revels in being near theory or people 'doing theory' in the academy.

Leftist- sees education as social engineering and cultural imperialism. Education Academies seen as the proving grounds for the future ruling class.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Liberal- users of 'all natural' deodorant. The armpits are fresh particularly during commercial breaks.

Leftists- recognize deodorant as one of the essential pillars of Empire. Will often raise their armpit in tight quarters due to quixotic impulses.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Liberal- write lengthy position papers on the plusses of developing more efficient killing machines (See Amory Lovins for more details).

Leftist- sees the Techno Warfare State as one of the great life destroying mechanisms in the history of Mankind and understands the relationship between war and oppression. The "Health of the State" being that which kills everything else.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Liberal- true believers in the New Economy and Seattle (the city) home of Microsoft, Boeing and Starbucks.

Leftist- true believers in a different Seattle (the Amerindian prophet)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Liberal- incessantly complaining about their leftist rentors.

Leftist- incessantly complaining about their liberal landlords.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Liberals- have recently been experiencing a population explosion which seems to have been caused by a grey form of technocratic inbreeding. Liberalism is now a major growth industry much like Cancer. Much of this exponential proliferation of this well-groomed disease seems to emanate directly from Academia.

Leftists- an endangered species. Said to be only 723 remaining in the contiguous 48 states of the United States of America. For years they have been scooped up and exiled to the Periphery. To date all efforts to exhume the spirit of Eugene Debs have fallen on deaf ears.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Both liberals and socialists empathize with the suffering of society's weaker members, and are sensitive to "man's inhumanity to man." However, the liberal is basically at peace with the socio-economic system that produces this suffering, while the socialist recognizes that the system itself is a core cause of the suffering.

A liberal might get upset by militarism, but happily invests in Martin Marietta Corp, and rejoices when it increases its dividend. Liberals are also often susceptible to nationalist propaganda appeals, & thus can easily be persuaded to support wars like the NATO war in Kosovo, simply because it was cleverly marketed as a "humanitarian intervention." A socialist would never fall for this sort of ploy.

A liberal might be properly horrified by pollution, waste, hypercommercialism, and many of the ills of modern society, but pays little conscious attention to the underlying issue of corporate power that allows such things to dominate our lives. A liberal will vote for Democrats, despite the obvious fact that these contemptible worms are nothing but bought servants of corporate monopolies or oligopolies. The liberal sleeps easily, figuring, "Well, at least the Dems are better than Bush!" as though this really implies some sort of resistance to rampant corporatism.

Basically, the liberal tut-tuts disapprovingly at some of the blatantly horrible end-effects of policies, politicians, and economic philosophies that, for the most part, he accepts. A socialist, on the other hand, is conscious of where the roots of these disasters lie....

[treestar]

44. I see an incipient authoritarianism in this statement:

Leftist- recognizes voting as a nominal form of political activity meant to validate the Democratic State and convince the political consumer that they are a participant in governance.
_______

So the leftist doesn't really care what the majority of the people want?

[TBF]

51. Not sure why you interpret it that way -

In my experience leftists can be either libertarian or authoritarian. On this site the few leftists you find will likely be more libertarian in their philosophy.

Voting (and it's degree of authenticity) is going to vary from place to place. I do believe leftists are going to be more likely to question whether the results are meeting the needs of the people. Sometimes it's a matter of degree. For instance, in 2000 there were quite a few liberals who also realized voting isn't always what it seems - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore. How do you feel about that election?

[treestar]

56. That was a very close election

I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories about it, just that it was close enough for the Florida system to be looked at minutely and that the courts got hold of it and the court made an interpretation favoring the Republicans.

But whether the results meet the needs of the people - we can disagree with the people (I have, in 2004 and 2010) but the people still get to decide. If the people don't know what's good for them in our opinion, I don't even think we should be able to supersede that (except for the Courts being able to find a law unconstitutional - if the people want an established religion, they can't have it). Though we can disagree with the courts, too.

[socialist_n_TN]

73. People don't decide. Money decides........

Even before the Citizen's United decision, money played a HUGE role in elections. You've always had to be wealthy or have access to wealth to run effective campaigns in bourgeoisie "democracies".

When money is totally out of politics, they you might see elections that mean something. And there's too many examples to count of issues where the people think one thing and BOTH bourgeoisie parties DON'T CARE! Because the people that OWN those politicians don't want what the people want.

[TBF]

93. ...

[treestar]

101. We still don't have to vote as the money directs

I'm a big believer in our power to ignore slick ads and such. If the people chose to be uninformed and influenced by shallow spending of money, it's on them. We get the government we deserve. The answer is to pay attention. And tell other people they need to pay attention, not consider themselves victims of the Monied.

[ZombieHorde]

43. Good question. nt

[kestrel91316]

45. "Leftist" is almost exclusively used by the RW as an epithet on

par with "commie".

[GoCubsGo]

60. Yep.

One should note that there really isn't a right-wing equivalent to this word. Nobody refers to them as "Rightists". It's just another of their derogatory names for people who are not like them.

[Egalitarian Thug]

49. Since both terms have been twisted into meaninglessness through misuse

there is as much or as little difference as you choose to assign.

The remaining definitions as I see it are authoritarian vs. egalitarian.

[tralala]

80. Authoritarianism and egalitarianism are in no way mutually exclusive

[Egalitarian Thug]

92. Huh?

au·thor·i·tar·i·an
adjective

1. favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom: authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.
2. of or pertaining to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.
3. exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others: an authoritarian parent.

noun
4. a person who favors or acts according to authoritarian principles.

e·gal·i·tar·i·an
adjective

1. asserting, resulting from, or characterized by belief in the equality of all people, especially in political, economic, or social life.

noun
2. a person who adheres to egalitarian beliefs.

[DonCoquixote]

52. the better term is liberal and hard leftist

A liberal would love to see the policy of FDR put back.

A hard leftist thinks Stalin was great.

[white_wolf]

57. "A hard leftist thinks Stalin was great." This is completely false.

Only Marxist-Leninists approve of Stalin. Trotskyists,Luxemurgists, all forms of anarchism, Left Communists, Democratic Socialists (real ones, not Social-Democrats), and others all strongly disagree with Stalin.

[TBF]

62. +1 Interestingly,

I found this interpretation of where certain folks would fit on the spectrum -



Interesting as to where they put Marx - what do you think?

This is the link for the blog it came from: http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/a-better-political-spectrum-share-with-those-who-dont-know/blog-130933/?link=ibaf&q=&imgurl=

[white_wolf]

79. Strange to see Marx and Engles so far away on that scale.

They worked together for many years.

[DonCoquixote]

76. They disagree with some of what Stalin does

But even they all bristle when Stalin is criticized. However, let me offer this:

A Liberal sees wants leftist ideals, but believes that there must be individual rights, as well as group rights, as a safeguard, a "check and balance" from those who would sacrifice blood for political power.

A hard leftist does not care about that. If Che Guevara has a few innocent people shot, it is all for the cause.

Oddly enough, the people who talk as if they were the rigth wing are actually radicals, people wanting to sacrifice proven mothods of keeping the peace (like social welfare programs, the new deal) for their ideals. No wonder they read Alinsky so much.

[white_wolf]

77. You confuse individual rights with private property rights.

That is the difference. Liberals believe in maintaining capitalism, whereas leftists realize you can't fix the system. You have to replace it. Also, groups I mentioned don't bristle at all when Stalin is criticized. Some of the harshest criticisms of Stalin came from socialists to his left.

[DonCoquixote]

86. can't fix the system

Funny, before they tried to make the Euro grow too fast, Europe was doing quite well at mixing socialism and capitalism. And when I "confuse" individual rights with property rights, I say that you need some property rights to have individual rights. Now, I am not talking Wall Street, where the yuppies have much more than most can earn in seven lifetimes, but the home they sleep in. The problem with the Trotskys, the Ches, The Moas, is that if people know that some elite can take away everything they have worked for at a whim, they will not feel secure at all. It does not matter whether a Wall Street/Walmart blueblood or Communist Nomenklatura does the taking, or even the reason they feel they can take, everyone from the farmer to the shoemaker will feel the hit.

I realize the Centrists have hollowed out the meaning of the term center, as have conservatives ruined the term conservative.

[Catherina]

95. Are you just making this stuff up as you go? n/t

[DonCoquixote]

104. No

There are some leftists that want a leftist ideal, and some that frankly do not care who gets hurt, or how they have to hurt people in order to do what they want. The Shining Path in Peru started off as the former, but then they willfully targeted peasants. In India, there are leftists, even communists, who are alright, and then those that even Ahudrunti Roy admits went too far.

I just grow wearyu when people blithely say "total revolution, kill all private property" then have nothing to say for the fact that they will get a lot of people HURT.

[MrScorpio]

55. Liberals are part of the general Left, but not everyone on that side

Leftists is a much more inclusive description, including but not limited to liberals.

[patrice]

59. Leftists say Liberals areFascists because Leftists are motivated by political power &Liberals aren't

[TBF]

63. What? lol

Seriously, do you have any sort of cite for that?

[patrice]

65. It's as legitimate as #13 above. & though cites are useful, people CAN think about their experiences

themselves, or is that not permitted in your world.

[TBF]

69. Why the hostility?

I just asked how you formed that view. It doesn't even make sense to me so I was trying to figure out what you meant.

[patrice]

66. Must we always have someone tell us what we think? nt

[TBF]

70. I don't understand this response either. Who is "we"?

nt

[tralala]

88. Liberals already have power

[patrice]

61. Liberals do not think the ends justifies the means and some Leftists do. nt

[tralala]

90. Consequentialism came out of liberalism

The only people who think the ends never justify the means are ... Christians of some type. People who are too good for this world.

[TBF]

64. Now I'd like to ask you something in return -

What prompted your question?

[TBF]

71. And, crickets. Somehow I'm not surprised. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

74. SDS saying about liberals.

"The Fascists will shoot you.
The conservatives will applaud the Fascists.
The moderates will watch the executions on TV.
The Liberals will cry over your grave and feel guilty for turning you in to the Fascists."

SDS saying.

[TBF]

75. ...

[socialist_n_TN]

85. As good of a definition of liberals as I've ever seen..........

I've used it myself numerous times.

[Douglas Carpenter]

78. Phil Ochs on the Liberal

[LeftyMom]

82. A lot of people on this thread have demonstrated that they don't know the answer,

or that they're willing to make one up in order to run down people with whom they disagree.

Please note that this behavior is transparent and does not win anybody to your side.

[randome]

83. You...you...lefty!

Why not LiberalMom? Huh? Huh?

[cthulu2016]

84. Simple answer

Liberalism is a reformed version of capitalism based on reason (as opposed to religion or tradition), strong defense of individual liberties and broad human equality. "Mixed" economies (pragmatically mixing capitalist and socialist elements) are liberal in character.

Leftism involves a more hostile critique of capitalism and seeks it's replacement as central organizing principle, rather than its reform. Not all leftists agree on what should replace capitalism and how that should come about, but to really be a "leftist" requires, in my mind, a fundamental opposition to capitalism.

That is, to me, the distinction. (And I think it's a usable one because those distinctions have a lot of history to them.)

[randome]

100. The fact that this thread has continued this long...

...is proof that you are all staring into your navels too much!

Labels? Bah!

[Fumesucker]

103. The order in which they will be sent to the camps when the Fourth Reich takes over? n/t

[TheKentuckian]

105. Liberals believe in the magical ability to re-create the nostalgia of an economic exception.

Leftists seek solutions centered around dealing with the rule of the economic system.

I have never heard a reasonable explanation of why folks believe capitalism is expected to behave as it did during the short span between about 1949 and about 1970 when the wheels started coming back off and sweep the vast majority of time under the system under the nearest rug.

Even the reformation era that lasted a generation at the most is viewed through rose colored glasses that skip over a time of vast and relatively accessible resources, that women and minorities were largely out of the picture of the "success" (meaning many more looking for their piece than before), and a lack of viable global competition both in terms of manufacturing capacity and a competing economic system.

Capitalism's natural state is what we saw over the majority of the last two or three hundred years or more and ever works to return to such a state. "Reforms" begin to be undone the moment they take effect.

[WriteWrong]

107. Where? America is wacky right-wing extremist and not a good reference point.

A leftist is anyone whose values are to the left of the middle of the bell curve. A rightist is someone whose values are to the right of the middle.

The bell curve in America is radically biased to the right wing compared with either America before Bush, or with Europe.