DOCSLIB.ORG

Liberalism Vs Socialism Compare the Core Features Core Features of Liberalism the Individual

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Liberalism Vs Socialism Compare the Core Features Core Features of Liberalism the Individual Liberalism vs Socialism Compare the core features Core features of Liberalism The Individual Following the enlightenment individuals started to be seen as “ends in themselves”. People have the opportunity to make themselves through the choices that they make. Individuals have personal and distinctive qualities. Each individual is unique. Each individual has rights Sometimes liberals have been accused of turning away from the idea of society- towards “atomism” where everyone inhabits a separate sphere. This can be criticised on the grounds of selfishness – egoism, self-seeking and self-reliant. Margaret Thatcher has been often misquoted as saying “there is no such thing as society, there is only the individual and the family”. Liberals are dedicated to creating a society where each individual is allowed to develop and flourish to the fullness of his/her potential. Freedom This follows on logically from the belief in the supreme importance of the individual. Liberty/Freedom is the underlying principle in liberal ideology. Liberty is the natural right, an essential requirement to pursue ones own interests by exercising free choice. One must have liberty to be able to develop skills and talents to their full potential. However – there is some acceptance that liberty cannot be unrestricted – goes back to the social contract idea – we have to give up some of our freedoms over other people in order for them to give up theirs over us. John Stuart Mill said that the “only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others” Classical and Modern Liberalism are separated by a different view of freedom. Classical Liberals believe in negative freedom – freedom from control. Institutions of the state should have a very limited impact on people’s lives. Low taxes, limited services apart from the “nightwatchman” security things like army, police and courts. Modern Liberal – like the Lib Dems, tend to believe in positive freedom – freedom to…. This means that people should be given equal opportunities. So a good state health and education system to try and equalise people’s opportunities – the freedom to develop skills and talents and be “one’s own master” – Isiah Berlin. Reason In order to accept that people should be allowed to be free to make choices, liberals have to accept that humans are essentially reasonable creatures. Not just governed by basic animal instinct. If humans are rational, thinking creatures, then they are able to define and pursue their own best interests. This means that they are against paternalism – people have to be able to make choices make mistakes and learn from them. Liberals also view human history as progress – a movement forward. The understanding of science meant that people could understand the world and shape it for the better. Each generation is able to move on from the last. This explains the liberal emphasis on education – it is a good in itself – it is a vital means of promoting self-development and achieving historical and social advancement. Reason is significant in highlighting the importance of discussion, debate and argument. Liberals may be generally positive about human nature, but they still recognise that humans can be selfish and prone to compete to get what they want, and this causes conflict. Liberals believe the best way out of these situations is debate and negotiation – not war. Liberals are against the use of violence and war. The use of force can only be for self-defence and only after the opportunities for reasoned discussion have been exhausted. Justice The liberal theory of justice is based on belief in equality of various kinds (equality is a very contested concept) Human beings are seen to be born equal in the sense that each individual has the same moral worth – same human rights. Each individual should have the same status in society – in terms of rights and entitlements Therefore there should be no privileges or discrimination based on colour, gender, sexuality, disability etc. All people are legally and politically equal Liberals believe in equality of opportunity – everyone has the same opportunity to rise or fall in society – this is called meritocracy. “Individuals should have an equal opportunity to develop their unequal skills and abilities” – so not equality of outcome – some will do better than others, but everyone had the same chance Most liberals accept that the market economy is the most efficient way of distributing resources to meet the needs of as many individuals as possible Toleration We should accept and encourage moral, political, cultural and religious diversity. This is all part of individualism – we are all separate and unique individuals. So we must tolerate difference – and this leads to free speech – “I detest what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it” – Voltaire. Toleration is necessary to ensure the health and progress of society, as new ideas are allowed to emerge – good ideas will displace bad ideas. Sympathy for toleration also shows that liberals believe in a balanced society – not one divided by fundamental conflict – we basically all have shared interests in building the best possible society for each person to develop their individual skills and talents. Core features of Socialism Community Socialism offers a unifying vision of human beings as social creatures, capable of overcoming social and economic problems by drawing on the power of the community rather than simply human effort. Socialists believe that people have a capacity to work collectively to pursue goals together, rather than striving for personal self-interest. Socialists have the most optimistic view of human nature. They believe very mush in nurture rather than nature – that we are formed completely by the experiences we have and the circumstances of social life. All human skills and attributes are learned from society. The individual is inseparable from society. We are not self-sufficient nor self- contained. Individuals can only be understood as part of the social groups to which they belong. The way people behave tells us more about the society they have grown up in, than about their “human nature”. Socialists are not so concerned with what people are like now, but with what they have the capacity to become. Socialism is sometimes seen as Utopianism – a rose-tinted vision of a perfect society Cooperation As humans are social animals – the natural relationship between them should be co-operation rather than competition. Socialists see competition as very negative – encouraging people to deny their social nature. Competition promotes selfishness and aggression. Socialists believe that humans can be motivated by moral incentives, not just material incentives like money. Socialists believe that people would work for the good of the community, developing empathy, sympathy and bonds of responsibility for other human beings, especially the most vulnerable. Equality This is the most fundamental political value of socialism. Socialists believe in equality of outcome Socialists do not believe that inequality of oncome and wealth is a sign that some people have worked harder than others – they believe it is a sign of the fundamental unfairness of the system.. Socialists do not believe that we are all born the same with the same skills and capacities, but they do believe that most economic inequality in society is the fault of the economic system. Equality of opportunity legitimises the system, by making it seem like it is the poor person’s fault that they have not succeeded. Social equality is important because it helps a community to bond together and work together for the common good. Wealth should be distributed on the basis of need. Some vulnerable people have greater need than others. We should all have our needs met by the society we live in. We should all work together to meet those needs. Class Politics Social class is the most politically significant of social divisions. People tend to think and act together with others with whom they share a common economic position or interest. Marxists believe that historical change is the product of class conflict For Marxists in capitalist society there are two classes – the bourgeoisie and the proletariat – there is irreconcilable conflict between the two. There will eventually be a paradigm shift to the next stage of history. (you know all that stuff about how history moves along through dialectical materialism) Common Ownership Socialists blame private property for the competition and inequality in society. They see private property as unjust as all wealth is produced by collective effort (remember the sociological imagination stuff we did on a chair, or a table – how many different processes have gone into that) therefore all wealth should be owned by the community, not by private individuals. Property breeds greed and envy Property blinds us to the true nature of society – it keep sus all going out to work to get the next I-phone (I don’t know if I have mentioned this, but I really want it). We believe that happiness can only be achieved through stuff. Socialists believe that all wealth should be owned by communities and all services should be run for the good of communities, not for private profit Compare and Contrast Differences Similarities first of all the idea of the individual vs Both have a generally optimistic community, also the idea of class contrasts with individualism view of humanity – humans need not necessarily be greedy and Competition and meritocracy vs cooperation and empathy selfish (liberals through choice, Private property and meritocracy vs socialists through socialisation) Common Ownership Both see history as progress moving Differing views of Equality – outcome (s) or opportunity (l) forward to something better – but socialists see a need for revolution, Socialists would see there being no justice in an unequal society – the liberals say the whereas liberals see negotiation state protects us, socialists say it is the superstructure there to protect the rights and reasoned argument leading us of the rich on to better things.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Political Ideas and Movements That Created the Modern World
    harri+b.cov 27/5/03 4:15 pm Page 1 UNDERSTANDINGPOLITICS Understanding RITTEN with the A2 component of the GCE WGovernment and Politics A level in mind, this book is a comprehensive introduction to the political ideas and movements that created the modern world. Underpinned by the work of major thinkers such as Hobbes, Locke, Marx, Mill, Weber and others, the first half of the book looks at core political concepts including the British and European political issues state and sovereignty, the nation, democracy, representation and legitimacy, freedom, equality and rights, obligation and citizenship. The role of ideology in modern politics and society is also discussed. The second half of the book addresses established ideologies such as Conservatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Marxism and Nationalism, before moving on to more recent movements such as Environmentalism and Ecologism, Fascism, and Feminism. The subject is covered in a clear, accessible style, including Understanding a number of student-friendly features, such as chapter summaries, key points to consider, definitions and tips for further sources of information. There is a definite need for a text of this kind. It will be invaluable for students of Government and Politics on introductory courses, whether they be A level candidates or undergraduates. political ideas KEVIN HARRISON IS A LECTURER IN POLITICS AND HISTORY AT MANCHESTER COLLEGE OF ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY. HE IS ALSO AN ASSOCIATE McNAUGHTON LECTURER IN SOCIAL SCIENCES WITH THE OPEN UNIVERSITY. HE HAS WRITTEN ARTICLES ON POLITICS AND HISTORY AND IS JOINT AUTHOR, WITH TONY BOYD, OF THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION: EVOLUTION OR REVOLUTION? and TONY BOYD WAS FORMERLY HEAD OF GENERAL STUDIES AT XAVERIAN VI FORM COLLEGE, MANCHESTER, WHERE HE TAUGHT POLITICS AND HISTORY.
    [Show full text]
  • Unit 5 Equality
    UNIT 5 EQUALITY Structure 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Equality vs. Inequality 5.2.1 Struggle for Equality 5.3 What is Equality? 5.4 Dimensions of Equality 5.4.1 Legal Equality 5.4.2 Political Equality 5.4.3 Economic Equality 5.4.4 Social Equality 5.5 Relation of Equality with Liberty and Justice 5.5.1 Equality and Liberty As Opposed To Each Other 5.5.2 Equality and Liberty Are Complementary To Each Other 5.5.3 Equality and Justice 5.6 Towards Equality 5.7 Plea for Inequality in the Contemporary World 5.8 Marxist Concept of Equality 5.9 Summary 5.10 Exercises 5.1 INTRODUCTION Of all the basic concepts of social, economic, moral and political philosophy, none is more confusing and baffling than the concept of equality because it figures in all other concepts like justice, liberty, rights, property, etc. During the last two thousand years, many dimensions of equality have been elaborated by Greeks, Stoics, Christian fathers who separately and collectively stressed on its one or the other aspect. Under the impact of liberalism and Marxism, equality acquired an altogether different connotation. Contemporary social movements like feminism, environmentalism are trying to give a new meaning to this concept. Basically, equality is a value and a principle essentially modern and progressive. Though the debate about equality has been going on for centuries, the special feature of modern societies is that we no longer take inequality for granted or something natural. Equality is also used as a measure of what is modern and the whole process of modernisation in the form of political egalitarianism.
    [Show full text]
  • Distributive Egalitarianism, the Complete-Life View, and Age Discrimination
    Thirteen SOCIAL INJUSTICE: DISTRIBUTIVE EGALITARIANISM, THE COMPLETE-LIFE VIEW, AND AGE DISCRIMINATION Richard Wagland There are “two different kinds of valuable equality” that might be distin- guished within contemporary political thought.1 The first kind is distributive in nature and specifies that justice requires benefits of a certain kind to be distributed equally. Equality of the second kind does not directly specify any particular distribution of benefits, but instead identifies a “social ideal” of “a society in which people regard and treat each other as equals.”2 These two forms of equality can be labeled “distributive equality” and “social equality.” It is equality of the first kind that has been the focus of much contemporary liberal political philosophy over the last three decades since the publication of John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice,3 and it is that form of equality that is the focus of this chapter. It might be argued that egalitarians should pursue both conceptions of equality simultaneously, perhaps because one is just an alternative expression of the other. Nevertheless, one of the main claims of this chapter is that these conceptions do in fact conflict, at least when it comes to the treatment of older persons. The reason they conflict is that for a distributive egalitarian theory to be plausible it must ensure that benefits are distributed diachronically between the separate complete lives of individuals, rather than at temporally synchron- ic moments within their lives. As we shall see, this in turn justifies age- discriminatory policies that are not compatible with the ideal of social equali- ty.
    [Show full text]
  • The Relationship Between Capitalism and Democracy
    The Relationship Between Capitalism And Democracy Item Type text; Electronic Thesis Authors Petkovic, Aleksandra Evelyn Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 01/10/2021 12:57:19 Item License http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/625122 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CAPITALISM AND DEMOCRACY By ALEKSANDRA EVELYN PETKOVIC ____________________ A Thesis Submitted to The Honors College In Partial Fulfillment of the Bachelors degree With Honors in Philosophy, Politics, Economics, and Law THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA M A Y 2 0 1 7 Approved by: ____________________________ Dr. Thomas Christiano Department of Philosophy Abstract This paper examines the very complex relationship between capitalism and democracy. While it appears that capitalism provides some necessary element for a democracy, a problem of political inequality and a possible violation of liberty can be observed in many democratic countries. I argue that this political inequality and threat to liberty are fueled by capitalism. I will analyze the ways in which capitalism works against democratic aims. This is done through first illustrating what my accepted conception of democracy is. I then continue to depict how the various problems with capitalism that I describe violate this conception of democracy. This leads me to my conclusion that while capitalism is necessary for a democracy to reach a certain needed level of independence from the state, capitalism simultaneously limits a democracy from reaching its full potential.
    [Show full text]
  • A Critique of John Stuart Mill Chris Daly
    Southern Illinois University Carbondale OpenSIUC Honors Theses University Honors Program 5-2002 The Boundaries of Liberalism in a Global Era: A Critique of John Stuart Mill Chris Daly Follow this and additional works at: http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/uhp_theses Recommended Citation Daly, Chris, "The Boundaries of Liberalism in a Global Era: A Critique of John Stuart Mill" (2002). Honors Theses. Paper 131. This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the University Honors Program at OpenSIUC. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of OpenSIUC. For more information, please contact [email protected]. r The Boundaries of Liberalism in a Global Era: A Critique of John Stuart Mill Chris Daly May 8, 2002 r ABSTRACT The following study exanunes three works of John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, Utilitarianism, and Three Essays on Religion, and their subsequent effects on liberalism. Comparing the notion on individual freedom espoused in On Liberty to the notion of the social welfare in Utilitarianism, this analysis posits that it is impossible for a political philosophy to have two ultimate ends. Thus, Mill's liberalism is inherently flawed. As this philosophy was the foundation of Mill's progressive vision for humanity that he discusses in his Three Essays on Religion, this vision becomes paradoxical as well. Contending that the neo-liberalist global economic order is the contemporary parallel for Mill's religion of humanity, this work further demonstrates how these philosophical flaws have spread to infect the core of globalization in the 21 st century as well as their implications for future international relations.
    [Show full text]
  • Rule Over None II: Social Equality and the Justification of Democracy
    NIKO KOLODNY Rule Over None II: Social Equality and the Justification of Democracy What is to be said for democracy? Not that it gives people what they want. Not that it realizes a kind of autonomy or self-government. Not that it provides people with the opportunity for valuable activities of civic engagement. Not, at least not in the first instance, that it avoids insulting them. Or so I argued in the companion to this article.1 At the end of that article, I suggested that the justification of democ- racy rests instead on the fact that democracy is a particularly important constituent of a society in which people are related to one another as social equals, as opposed to social inferiors or superiors. The concern for democracy is rooted in a concern not to have anyone else above—or, for I am grateful for written comments on this article and its companion (as well as on their distant ancestors) from Arthur Ripstein, Japa Pallikkathayil, Samuel Scheffler, Jay Wallace, Fabienne Peter, Adam Hill, Dylan Murray, Joseph Raz (and his seminar), Jerry Vildostegui, Amanda Greene, Alan Patten, Liz Harman, Peter Graham, Samuel Freeman, Joseph Moore, Mike Arsenault, Mike Diaz, Dan Khokhar, Dustin Neuman, Ben Chen, Nick French, Daniel Viehoff, and two anonymous referees for Philosophy & Public Affairs. I am also grateful for responses from participants at BAFFLE at Berkeley in fall 2010; Ronald Dworkin and Thomas Nagel’s Colloquium in Legal, Political, and Social Philosophy at NYU in fall 2010; my graduate seminars at Berkeley in spring 2011 and 2014; Joseph Raz’s seminar at Colum- bia Law School in fall 2011; a Political Philosophy Colloquium at Princeton in fall 2011;a colloquium at the Ohio State University in 2011; the Darrell K.
    [Show full text]
  • The Restless Liberalism of Alexis De Tocqueville
    FILOZOFIA ___________________________________________________________________________Roč. 72, 2017, č. 9 THE RESTLESS LIBERALISM OF ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE JAKUB TLOLKA, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK TLOLKA, J.: The Restless Liberalism of Alexis de Tocqueville FILOZOFIA, 72, No. 9, 2017, pp. 736-747 This essay attempts to contextualise the purported novelty of Alexis de Tocqueville’s particular brand of liberalism. It regards the author not as an heir or precursor to any given political tradition, but rather as a compelled syncretist whose primary philosophical concern was the moral significance of the democratic age. It suggests that Tocqueville devised his ‘new political science’ with a keen view to the existential implications of modernity. In order to support that suggestion, the essay explores the genealogy of Tocqueville’s moral and political thought and draws a relation between his analysis of democracy and his personal experience of modernity. Keywords: A. de Tocqueville – Modernity – Liberalism – Inquiétude – Religion Introduction. Relatively few authors in the history of political thought have produced an intellectual legacy of such overarching resonance as Alexis de Tocqueville. Even fewer, perhaps, have so persistently eluded ordinary analytical and exegetical frameworks, presenting to each astute observer a face so nuanced as to preclude serious interpretive consensus. As writes Lakoff (Lakoff 1998), ‘disagreement over textual interpretation in the study of political thought is not uncommon’. However, ‘it usually arises around those who left writings of a patently divergent character’ (p. 437). When we thus consider the ‘extraordinarily coherent and consistent nature’ of Alexis de Tocqueville’s political philosophy, it appears somewhat odd that the academic consensus surrounding that author relates almost exclusively to the grandeur of his intellectual achievement (Lukacs 1959, 6).
    [Show full text]
  • Law, Liberty and the Rule of Law (In a Constitutional Democracy)
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2013 Law, Liberty and the Rule of Law (in a Constitutional Democracy) Imer Flores Georgetown Law Center, [email protected] Georgetown Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 12-161 This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1115 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2156455 Imer Flores, Law, Liberty and the Rule of Law (in a Constitutional Democracy), in LAW, LIBERTY, AND THE RULE OF LAW 77-101 (Imer B. Flores & Kenneth E. Himma eds., Springer Netherlands 2013) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, Legislation Commons, and the Rule of Law Commons Chapter6 Law, Liberty and the Rule of Law (in a Constitutional Democracy) lmer B. Flores Tse-Kung asked, saying "Is there one word which may serve as a rule of practice for all one's life?" K'ung1u-tzu said: "Is not reciprocity (i.e. 'shu') such a word? What you do not want done to yourself, do not ckJ to others." Confucius (2002, XV, 23, 225-226). 6.1 Introduction Taking the "rule of law" seriously implies readdressing and reassessing the claims that relate it to law and liberty, in general, and to a constitutional democracy, in particular. My argument is five-fold and has an addendum which intends to bridge the gap between Eastern and Western civilizations,
    [Show full text]
  • Socialism in Europe and the Russian Revolution India and the Contemporary World Society Ofthefuture
    Socialism in Europe and II the Russian Revolution Chapter 1 The Age of Social Change In the previous chapter you read about the powerful ideas of freedom and equality that circulated in Europe after the French Revolution. The French Revolution opened up the possibility of creating a dramatic change in the way in which society was structured. As you have read, before the eighteenth century society was broadly divided into estates and orders and it was the aristocracy and church which controlled economic and social power. Suddenly, after the revolution, it seemed possible to change this. In many parts of the world including Europe and Asia, new ideas about individual rights and who olution controlled social power began to be discussed. In India, Raja v Rammohan Roy and Derozio talked of the significance of the French Revolution, and many others debated the ideas of post-revolutionary Europe. The developments in the colonies, in turn, reshaped these ideas of societal change. ian Re ss Not everyone in Europe, however, wanted a complete transformation of society. Responses varied from those who accepted that some change was necessary but wished for a gradual shift, to those who wanted to restructure society radically. Some were ‘conservatives’, others were ‘liberals’ or ‘radicals’. What did these terms really mean in the context of the time? What separated these strands of politics and what linked them together? We must remember that these terms do not mean the same thing in all contexts or at all times. We will look briefly at some of the important political traditions of the nineteenth century, and see how they influenced change.
    [Show full text]
  • National Honor Society Liberty High School Chapter LHS Chapter of The
    National Honor Society Liberty High School Chapter 1115 Linden Street Bethlehem, PA 18018 LHS Chapter of the National Honor Society A pplication Criteria and Requirements Criteria to Receive an Application: Students must have a 3.75 cumulative GPA at the end of their Sophomore or Junior year to receive an application at the beginning of their Junior or Senior year, respectively. How to Apply: Students will receive an application packet at the beginning of the school year in which they are eligible (Junior or Senior year). The application must be completely filled out and returned on the due date in September. The sections are as follows: Section I - Community Service Juniors applying must have at least 30 hours of community service completed (ie: 15 hours/year). Seniors applying must have at least 45 hours completed It is recommended that students complete all 60 hours of community service prior to applying at a minimum Section II - Essay Statement Demonstrate how you plan to incorporate the four pillars of the National Honor Society into your future experiences and endeavors: F our Pillars: I. Scholarship II: Leadership III: Service IV: Character Section III - Leadership Positions List any/all leadership positions you feel may be appropriate. The more positions listed, the better Section IV - Structured Extracurricular Activities/Work List any/all activities you feel are relevant. The more activities listed, the better. Section V - Teacher Recommendations Requirements Once Accepted: Attendance ALL meetings are mandatory unless otherwise noted. If you fail to come to a meeting without an excuse, you will have a meeting with Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • 5. What Matters Is the Motive / Immanuel Kant
    This excerpt is from Michael J. Sandel, Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?, pp. 103-116, by permission of the publisher. 5. WHAT MATTERS IS THE MOTIVE / IMMANUEL KANT If you believe in universal human rights, you are probably not a utili- tarian. If all human beings are worthy of respect, regardless of who they are or where they live, then it’s wrong to treat them as mere in- struments of the collective happiness. (Recall the story of the mal- nourished child languishing in the cellar for the sake of the “city of happiness.”) You might defend human rights on the grounds that respecting them will maximize utility in the long run. In that case, however, your reason for respecting rights is not to respect the person who holds them but to make things better for everyone. It is one thing to con- demn the scenario of the su! ering child because it reduces overall util- ity, and something else to condemn it as an intrinsic moral wrong, an injustice to the child. If rights don’t rest on utility, what is their moral basis? Libertarians o! er a possible answer: Persons should not be used merely as means to the welfare of others, because doing so violates the fundamental right of self-ownership. My life, labor, and person belong to me and me alone. They are not at the disposal of the society as a whole. As we have seen, however, the idea of self-ownership, consistently applied, has implications that only an ardent libertarian can love—an unfettered market without a safety net for those who fall behind; a 104 JUSTICE minimal state that rules out most mea sures to ease inequality and pro- mote the common good; and a celebration of consent so complete that it permits self-in" icted a! ronts to human dignity such as consensual cannibalism or selling oneself into slav ery.
    [Show full text]
  • Bevir the Making of British Socialism.Indb
    Copyrighted Material CHAPTER ONE Introduction: Socialism and History “We Are All Socialists Now: The Perils and Promise of the New Era of Big Government” ran the provocative cover of Newsweek on 11 Feb­ ruary 2009. A financial crisis had swept through the economy. Several small banks had failed. The state had intervened, pumping money into the economy, bailing out large banks and other failing financial institu­ tions, and taking shares and part ownership in what had been private companies. The cover of Newsweek showed a red hand clasping a blue one, implying that both sides of the political spectrum now agreed on the importance of such state action. Although socialism is making headlines again, there seems to be very little understanding of its nature and history. The identification of social­ ism with “big government” is, to say the least, misleading. It just is not the case that when big business staggers and the state steps in, you have socialism. Historically, socialists have often looked not to an enlarged state but to the withering away of the state and the rise of nongovern­ mental societies. Even when socialists have supported state intervention, they have generally focused more on promoting social justice than on simply bailing out failing financial institutions. A false identification of socialism with big government is a staple of dated ideological battles. The phrase “We are all socialists now” is a quo­ tation from a British Liberal politician of the late nineteenth century. Sir William Harcourt used it when a land reform was passed with general acceptance despite having been equally generally denounced a few years earlier as “socialist.” Moreover, Newsweek’s cover was not the first echo of Harcourt’s memorable phrase.
    [Show full text]