Entry details

Curzon
Author

Curzon

Date

February 26th, 2006

Tags

Comments

7 Comments so far.
Add yours.

On Socialism v.s. Liberalism

This requires a little interpretation for those of you who equate Liberalism with Leftism, but it shouldn’t be too tough to figure out.

“Socialism seeks to pull down wealth. Liberalism seeks to raise up poverty.

Socialism would destroy private interests; Liberalism would preserve private interests in the only way in which they can be safely and justly preserved, namely by reconciling them with public right.

Socialism would kill enterprise; Liberalism would rescue enterprise from the trammels of privilege and preference.

Socialism exalts the rule; Liberalism exalts the man.

Socialism attacks capital, Liberalism attacks monopoly.”

Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

Comments to this entry

Dan
February 26, 2006
1:20 pm
Indeed, however, a confusion exists: the British Liberal party was, by modern definitions, economic conservative.
Jorge Azevedo
February 26, 2006
5:17 pm
Nice quote you discovered,I always laugh when I read something like this. "Liberalism would rescue enterprise from the trammels of privilege and preference" oh really? and ppl still call anarchy an utopian ideal, when it's movements like these that ignore that power corrupts man and balbla...
Given the fact this must have been said to favor liberalism, it's really hilarious.
Kirk H. Sowell
February 26, 2006
6:33 pm
It would be helpful if you could note the date of this quote; Churchill's political views evolved quite a bit during his long career; he started as a conservative, became a liberal, went back to being a conservative with the rise of Labour (in the 1930s that meant being pro-imperialism and pro-free trade), and then post-WWII became a Blairite before Blairism was cool.

(A famous quote: "Anyone who isn't a liberal at 20 hasn't got a heart; anyone who isn't a conservative at 40 hasn't got a head.")

Dan: I don't see what the confusion is; "liberal" only took on the connotation of statism in the 1950s in the U.S., traditionally it did mean free trade and laissez-faire. In Europe it still has that meaning; when Kickback Jacques wants to demonize someone, he calls them "neo-liberale." There is a party in France, not very large, that uses the word "liberale" in its name; they are free marketeers.

The potential danger here - again the date is necessary for context given Britain's changing economic policy during the relevant period, Churchill's life - would be in saying that "private interests" are preserved by "reconciling them with the public right." That really opens the gate to a lot, allowing the right to private property to be preserved in name while being whittled away by one regulation after another, few of which have anything to do with something that might be objectively called a "public right."
Chief Wiggum
February 27, 2006
7:17 am
From Wikipedia:

_Liberalism is an ideology, broad political tradition, and current of political thought, which holds liberty as the primary political value. Broadly speaking, liberalism seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on the power of government and religion (and sometimes corporations), the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports private enterprise, and a system of government that is transparent. This form of government favors liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law, and an equal opportunity to succeed. Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Fundamental human rights that all liberals support include the right to life, liberty, and property. In many countries, modern liberalism differs from classical liberalism by asserting that government provision of some minimal level of material well-being takes priority over individual rights. Liberalism has it roots in the Western Enlightenment, but the term now encompasses a diversity of political thought, with adherents spanning a large part of the political spectrum, from left to right._
Dan
February 27, 2006
12:52 pm
Chief Wiggum,

The definition confuses two very different things: Lockean freedom from of the state and John Stuart Mill superempowerment of the state.
Dan Nexon
February 28, 2006
2:58 pm
Dan: JSM is a transitional figure in the evolution of liberalism, but the picture you paint is far too stark.

On the larger note: it is far too easy to overdraw the philosophical differences between classical and contemporary (American) liberalism. The break has more to do with assessments about whether, in practice, the "self-regulating" market is (1) sustainable and (2) free of of coercion. Contemporary liberals believe, rightly or wrongly, that a free market system must be protected from itself if it is to survive, i.e., that monopolies must be broken up, that market failures need to be compensated for, and that some basic forms of welfare need to be implemented to maintain political support for a larger market system. Here, the experiences of the industrial revolutuon and the Great Depression play crucial roles. I suppose this is an awkward way of saying htat Churchill's quotation is actually pretty useful.
Alec
February 28, 2006
5:51 pm
So a guy stood on a bunch of rubble in London and he gets treated like a political god? He folds worse than Roosevelt to Stalin and is responsible for one of the worst military blunders in the history of war (the battle of gallipoli), but for whatever reason, is still treated as some infallible character in history. Sorry, thats my Churchill rant, and I'm sticking to it.