What is the difference between Socialism and Progressivism?
Socialism is a system where the government runs businesses, provides services and even products. It is not a type of government, it is a type of economy. And it is never found in its pure state, always in some mixture with capitalism. For instance, we in the US are a capitalist country, but we have socialized police and fire protection, roads and bridges, water projects and other infrastructure, schools, public health (disease control), etc. Progressivism is a political philosophy. The idea is that you judge the success of a system by how much it raises the standard of living of the average worker. You don't have to be a socialist to be a progressive, or even a liberal. A good example is Teddy Roosevelt who was about as conservative as people got in those days, but was probably the most progressive president we've ever had. Real progressives are not anti-capitalism, because we all agree that capitalism creates wealth the fastest. But under-regulated, captialism becomes unstable and crashes. When that happens, we move a little back towards socialism. It happened in 1933 and it's happening again now. Socialism produces stability. Once the system is stable again, we move back towards capitalism. But progressives will measure the success of capitalism not by the GNP or GDP, not by the compensation of Fortune 500 execs, but by how it raises the standard of living of regular working people. (I just have to say I am appalled at how conservatives today throw around words like socialism, communism, marxism, fascism, etc. etc., using them all interchangeably to mean anything they don't like or anyone they disagree with. What this really shows me is that right wing talk radio doesn't really inform or educate people, it only serves to make them more ignorant than they were before!)
What do socialism and liberalism have in common?
One obvious thing comes to mind, they both think the government should be appointed by the people and respond to people's needs. They also (should) believe in freedom of speech and equality of everyone before the law. Where they traditionally differ is on the question of economic equality. Liberalism holds that individuals should be free to pursue their own interests so long as it does not interfere with anyone else's. Of course, there are lots of very different liberalisms, which interpret this differently; modern American conservatism [Republican Party] and modern American liberalism [Democratic Party] are both forms of liberalism in the broad sense, and while both support free enterprise and a capitalist market, American liberals are more likely to agree that the government needs to provide assistance some members of the public than American conservatives do. Neither hold, however, that for a society to be free, everyone must be in the same economic circumstances. Freedom is about autonomy of the individual for liberals. Forcing economic equality undermines that autonomy. Socialists believe that true freedom is achieved when a society comes as close to economic equality as possible. Some socialists advocate radical reform through representative government to achieve something close to this (welfare provision, state control of industry, heavy taxation of the rich, etc). Other socialist advocate revolutionary overthrow of capitalist relations and democratization of the economy. In short, socialists believe freedom only really makes sense when we understand it as something shared with the fate of other members of our society, rather than just being free as atomized individuals. They argue that the problem with liberalism is that it tends to think of human beings as isolated individuals, when in fact we all inescapably exist within a society and rely on everyone around us.
What exactly is a "progressive", and how does it differ from a garden variety liberal?
Are liberals so ashamed of their warped values and general unpopularity that they have decided to abandon the tradtional term in favor of a new label so the uninformed won't know what they are? I'm a proud Conservative, and will happily tell anyone who happens to ask. If the day ever comes when I feel the need to hide that fact, it's time to re-examine my political philosophy. I guess our friends on the left aren't quite that intellectually honest.
Is it possible to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative?
Depends on how you define socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Back before Reagan, socially liberal meant that everybody owned their own body (I’m looking at you, anti-abortionists), and that what two consenting adults did with each other wasn’t anybody else’s business. It meant that you treated everybody the same, regardless of race, creed, national origin, etc. It meant that what someone chose to put inside their body wasn’t anybody else’s business, unless and until it affected other people around them.Yes, that’s an ideal, but that’s what socially liberal meant. Looking at some of these answers, I’m not sure what it means to anyone now.Fiscally conservative didn’t mean small government. It meant you paid for what you bought. It meant you tried to balance the budget. If you wanted to increase welfare benefits, you increased taxes. If you wanted to expand the military, you increased taxes. If you wanted to cut taxes on the wealthy, you had to cut spending.And, you know something, those two phrases, as I have defined them here, actually described an awful lot of the Republican party when I was young.Fiscal responsibility, and the desire for small government, are two different things. Since Reagan, the way the Republicans have been trying to drive small government is precisely through fiscal irresponsibility. Cut taxes, which people love, run up the debt, and then cry that we have to cut programs (everything but the military, of course) because we are in deficits created by the tax cuts.People in the U.S. don’t generally consider Sweden to be fiscally conservative. They are a socialist country, for crying out loud! (not really, but you get my point.) They bounce up and down between deficits and surpluses every year. [1] We haven’t had a surplus in the U.S. since the Clinton years. [2] Sweden is a lot more fiscally conservative than the U.S., in spite of their social safety net.Footnotes[1] Sweden Government budget deficit 2017[2] United States Federal Government Budget | 1948-2017 | Data | Chart
I grew up being told I was either a liberal democrat or a conservative republican, but I think I may be a libertarian. Can someone please try to break down the difference?
Okay, I will try my best. Before I do, go to this link and take the political compass test. This will give you an idea of where you stand amongst political ideologies. The Political CompassYou should obviously know that the term “liberal” has been abused, its used to describe the democratic left but the term liberal in the classical sense has more to do with libertarian think than democratic. The same goes for conservative, which in a way is more of an adjective of someone’s political philosophy of “moving slowly” or better yet, being highly reserved about making changes. Progressives are the opposite, making changes as time moves forward and being on the curve instead of behind it.So, we make this as simple as possible by defining the right and left portions of the political spectrum. The left, is generally supportive of socialist economic and social theory, whereas the right is more based on capitalism and free market economics. Modern conservatives are generally right leaning, progressives are generally left leaning, But this doesn't mean that progressive right and conservative left don't exist.The other dimension is up or down, authoritarian or libertarian. At the top of the quadrant, you have authoritarian, which is pretty much a dictatorship and the use of force to control the populous. The antithesis of authoritarianism is libertarianism, the utility of personal liberty and freedom. Authoritarians like the state, libertarians dislike the state. (state meaning government)When you hear the term libertarian, what you often might assume is that the person is fiscally conservative (economically right) and socially liberal (socially left) You believe in free-market economics but also believe people should be free to live however they want. smoke pot, be gay, trans, own whatever gun they want, and do so without interference from the state.When you get down to the bottom of the page where I am :) you become an anarchist- either siding with capitalism or socialism as your socioeconomic ideology. There is a lot of in-fighting but its quite unnecessary since both right and left libertarians are generally in favor of voluntarism- the ideological theory that people should only associate with others under their own will and without coercion.There is far too much to cover without writing an entire book on the subject. Take the test, then research whatever political quadrant you fall into. Good luck!
Politics: Is Seattle a racist city?
I'm sure there are some racist people but it's an extremely liberal city.