>>426671

Excuse me, I don't have affiliation with any party.

Liberalism is a social thing.
Socialism and Communism are economic things.
Too tired to go into any more detail

shameless self bump

>>426752

The reason you're not getting a real answer is because the difference is negligible.

Not too familiar with actual definitions, op, just that they are all different so I make fun of republicans for using them interchangeably.

>>426778
>>426778
>>426778
>>426778
>>426778
>>426778
>>426778
>>426778
>>426778
>>426778
>>426778
>>426778
>>426778
>>426778

They're meanings with no difference.

It's the same difference between conservatism and fascism.

/thread

>>426839
>this is what conservative/republican/fascists actually believe.

see OP i can do that too

Liberalism embraces Capitalism, private ownership, yadda yadda.
Communism involves the rising up of the proletariat, in order to form one central class. The redistribution of wealth is also important. And basic humanities are offered; equality, right to affordable healthcare/education.
Socialism is more or less a more mild flavour of communism, and it is composed of many other flavours in and of itself (IE Democratic Socialism, National Socialism, Yellow Socialism, ever social democracy to some extent). Socialism is a hodgepodge of many different types of government, most notably communism.

>>426867

>Liberalism embraces Capitalism, private ownership, yadda yadda.

You can't honestly believe this, can you

>>426871
Inbred American idiot detected.

(coming from a leftist American)

>>426871
I'm a liberal and I embrace these things, so... yes. Yes I do.

>>426871
I'm not a connoisseur in the field of liberalism, for this I apologize. If you could perhaps explain it better? I think we would all love to hear your definitions.

>>426895

this

Liberalism believes that governments main function is to provide protection for its people. Social, Financial, Medical, Military, and Legal protection. A government of the people, all people, is a good government.

Socialism is an economic ideology that suggests the government should be the foundation of the economy. Though whole industries, corporations and companies can function freely and independently (with obvious regulations).

Communism suggests that the government should control everything. It is pretty vague in its definition so there can be dictatorship-esque communistic states, democratic communistic states, or even oligarchic communistic states. It's very tangible. Don't listen to anyone that says its synonymous with a dictatorship, because its not.

>>426895
see
>>426698

>>426895

So how is conservatism different from fascism?

>>426867
>Liberalism embraces Capitalism, private ownership, yadda yadda.
Your joking right? Every liberal that just went on a jihad for healthcare would like a talk with you.

>>426996

Don't be an Anglo-American fuckwit. Liberalism in Europe means precisely what it should mean: classical liberalism (free markets, limited government, etc.) only in the Anglosphere (with the exception of Australia) does it mean social democracy.

>>426895
>doesn't know there is a difference betwixt fascism and Nazism.

>>427026
Well most of us are in America so you should be clear as to what your speaking about rather then giving it the general name

>>426996
read a book you stupid motherfucker, liberalism is in reference to locke.

CLASSICAL Liberalism likes capitalism and private property. Today, the closest we have to Classical Liberalism is Moderate Libertarianism.

Today's American Liberalism is about people who want higher personal freedom ( and normally support things like gay marriage, abortion, etc), but want high control of the government over the economy ( "safety nets", Keynesian economics, etc) and want wealth to be distributed. They normally support government giving goods and services ( like... healthcare), and are a VERY moderate version of socialism ( "Social Democrats" are Liberals).

Socialism is the first step in the Commie revolution Karl Marx thought it would happen, Socialism is when the government owns all property & means of production, and distributed wealth among people. All countries that tried hardcore Socialism became authoritarian shitholes because it puts too much power in the hand of the government.

"True Communism" is what would follow Socialism, it is a Classless and Stateless society where the workers own the means of production and property publicly. Needless to say, this shit would not work.

>>427045
"liberalism" is clear, when was the last time you heard of the american left being referred to as "liberalism?" oh yeah you haven't

In the American Heritage Dictionary, liberalism is defined as:

"An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard."

>>426970

It's very different. GWB-ish neo-conservatism isn't that different, though.

>>426888

You are either a Classical Liberal or a Libertarian and doesn't know it yet.

>>427103
>>427026
>>426996

You guys are confusing Classical Liberalism, European Liberalism and America's Neoliberalism.

Classic Liberalism and European Liberalism = Moderate Libertarianism. This is the one that likes private property and free market capitalism.

American Neoliberalism = The "LIBERALS!!11!1" of /new/. Annoying hippis that don't understand economics.

>American Neoliberalism = The "LIBERALS!!11!1" of /new/. Annoying hippis that don't understand economics.

nigga just went full retard

Neoliberalism is a label for economic liberalism or (in older terminology) "Laissez-faire". The term "Neoliberalism" came into use in the 1960s by Marxists. The term refers to economic policies based on neoclassical theories of economics that minimizes the role of the state and maximizes the private business sector. The term is most often used on the left to criticise the policies and ideologies of modern governments and leading international economic institutions.[1][2].

>>427221

Modern Liberals of America are Keynesian Leftist teenage hippies. "Liberalism" was about private property & laissez faire for centuries before 1960's and centuries before modern Liberalism came along and made it into Leftist Keynesian crap.

If American Liberalism isn't called "Neoliberalism", what is it called then? Faggotry?

>>426867
>liberals
>embrace capitalism

>>427261

i usually just call them progressives

Nothing. All isms are incredibly stupid.

>>427128

Stop reading John Piliger.

>>427103
>when was the last time you heard of the american left being referred to as "liberalism?"
Just about every day bro. Maybe if you actually came over here and saw what we see you would understand.

sup

>>427379

Sorry, bro. The statists on the Left have successfully framed fascism as a "right-wing" phenomenon. They push back as hard as they can against changing the spectrum, because they know the current one suits their agenda. Libertarians and Anarchists are just out of luck.

Not very informed on these things but I'm going to answer anyways because it's the Internet and I have opinions.

Liberalism:
An older political philosophy based around individualism and liberty, with some egalitarianism. In America, it's also a blanket word for the left leaning side of the political spectrum, which as actually significantly over the years and has a lot of mixed ideas in it.

Socialism:
A large and more modern political philosophy that which communism could technically be considered a subset of, but usually isn't these days. Instead it usually means the more reformed and less revolutionary branches of old socialism, democratic socialists that are okay with working through the government for incremental reform, and most of all, European style Social Democracy (Scandinavia). By it's own proponents, it's usually considered an improvement upon or more modern answer to liberalism, generally accounting for perceived oppressions in a post-industrial society. It focuses on equality of all people and the equal distribution of resources.

Communism:
Marxism–Leninism. The old soviet model or countries/movements that have been significantly influenced by it. Usually involves Bolshevik like vanguard parties and dramatic fast revolution through all corners of society to push the end goal of egalitarian socialism.

>>427261
Fun fact 1:
Classical liberals/euroliberals are monetarist derived from keynsianism
Fun fact 2:
Nobody outside Ron Paultards takes austrian economics seriously It's not taught as an independent theory in any economic school

>>427402
I raged, if you had had brain and reading comprehension you might understand why facism is classifed as right wing. Btw statism is a made up anarchist term and essentially useless

>>427505
You know that classical liberalism predates lord Kaynes by alot?

>>427543
lol so much asspain

>>427505

so you're basing you're false sense of superiority ad populum fallacy? seems appropriate for such a fail economic school

>>427546
Do you know it's 2010 and economic theory develops over time?

>>427379
so many things wrong with this. what is this even from?

>>427592
So you're saying that the economic school most widely used in the world the last 50 years which has proven itself again and again is fail.
You do realize that economy isn't political philosophy but a science trying to describe economy. Fuck let's go back to Newton's theories all that Einstein is retarded anyway.

>>427645
>So you're saying that the economic school most widely used in the world the last 50 years which has proven itself again and again is fail.

yes i am, have you taken a look at modern economies? especially america's? if you could bet past your hivemind circle jerk you would realize nothing about these policies makes sense.

All of those ideologies are way too complex in their depth to be written about here. Just use wikipedia or google it.

>>427671
>I don't understand how economic theory works and what it is

Capitalism on its own doesn't work. Socialism on its own can't work. You need a good mix of both. The issue isn't a hybrid system, it's what needs to be mixed into said system. I think all we need is the police, fire departments, EMS, maybe roads. Everything else can and should be privatized which would equal dramatically lower taxes, so you could pay for all of the privatized stuff.

It would work if implemented, but never will be, because you bastards just repeat every talking point from whatever party you affiliate yourselves with, regardless if you agree with them completely or not.

>>427701

>i am too blinded by my self important elitism to see why our economic policies don't make sense.


i'm sure the dollar won't spiral out of control forever :)

>>427718

>i believe capitalism is exclusive to anarchism

>doesn't grasp the concept of a republic

>>427718

Welcome to Moderate Libertarianism.

>>427755

>has no reading comprehension

>>427720
Okay then I'll get off my high horse
Yes economist today have in reality fuckall understanding of the economy but still they got a better idea than everyone else.
The reason why Austrian economics are shunned is because of flawed methodology. It's a usefull tool but it doesnt take account of human behavior, It's idealist "how things should be" account of things. Keynesianism is realist it tries to describe whats actually going on.
And no the dollar will stabilize

>>427773

THIS MOTHER FUCKER SUPPORTS FIAT CURRENCY

>>427796
Yes and if you understood how the world works you would atleast see why the fed ain't gonna abolished anytime soon

>>427800

enlighten me, kind sir.

>>427773
libertarians base their entire philosophy on human behavior. have you done any serious research on it at all?


>Keynesianism is realist it tries to describe whats actually going on.
...

>And no the dollar will stabilize
i would enjoy an explanation of this

I don't know if it's been answered in the thread, but:

- Liberalism : Political and economic freedoms for everyone.
- Socialism : Worker-controlled means of production and distribution.
- Communism : A class-less, state-less society.

That's it in a nutshell. Ignore idiots who say it's all the same, because that's just what they are; idiots.

>>427800

you will never actually solve our economic issues until you attack the fed. anything until then is basically wasted effort. you're making it worse because you're allowing this system to drag on. this system is not sustainable and should be completely scraped at this point.

>>427827

Based on what the current AND previous administration have been doing with our liberty and our money, how can you really believe that.

>>427827
>- Liberalism : Political and economic freedoms for everyone.

>>427813
First ask youself why America went off the gold standard in the first place and why you should hate the french
Second imagine the shitstorm when america tries to fundamentally restructure the entire planet's monetary system without consulting any other nation
Third ask yourself why every nation today has fiat currency and why most governments dislike your ideas

>>427860

because modern economics benefits the rich more than the working/middle class

>>427827
Essentially flawed tbh the concepts are too complicated to be described on a imageboard. People should really look into the history of those idealogies and how they affected each other.
Here's a challenge find the passages where Marx defines the classless, stateless society

>>427893
I'm sorry
so is that whole redistribution of wealth thing a-okay with you then?

>>427819
"lol ppl r selfish" is not fucking explanation of human behavior I'm talking stuff like irrational behavior, herd mentality that sort of thing
The dollar will stabilize when US gets out of the crisis and no inflation isnt a never ending spiral It's the fed job (although it fail atm) to control it. Look at the European Central Bank and their inflation policies

>>427923

>implying the redistribution isn't for making the ruling class richer

>>428021
pls explain that one

>>427838
>>427851
Hey, I just said that that's what those ideologies are. Democrats aren't liberal and Republicans aren't conservative by any formal political definition.

>>426671
You're asking here? Most of these kids don't understand a thing about the differences

>Liberalism : Political and economic freedoms for everyone.

>>428105
They should ask this guy

>>428026
>implying tyrants in power give a shit about the poor
read: soviet russia

>>428147
It doesn't actually count if you dont redistribute but just keep the dough for yourself

>>428118
That's the classic definition of liberalism anyway. Recently it's come to mean something different.

Just thought I'd contribute by putting in something from a recent interview with Tony Benn (respected former UK Labour politician)

"I turn to a subject about which Benn is known to be prickly. There is an immoral equivalence between fascism and communism, I argue, because of the genocide committed in the name of both. Yet while the BNP is rightly vilified for its association with fascism, Socialist parties are not vilified for their association with communism. Why is that, does he suppose?

He stares at me indignantly. ‘Socialism? Socialism is a democratic idea. The most socialist thing we ever did was the most popular thing we ever did, the NHS.’ But isn’t socialism just a polite version of communism? ‘Oh that’s just the media. The two attempts at socialism in my lifetime have failed because the communists weren’t democratic, and the social democrats adopted capitalism. Margaret Thatcher said Tony Blair and New Labour was her greatest achievement, and she was right,’ he says."

>>428211
Benn quotes Mein Kampf, a passage in which Hitler writes that democracy leads to Marxism. Yes, I say, but doesn’t Marxism always lead to dictatorship? ‘Good heavens no. Marx was a philosopher. Think of the things that have been done in the name of Christ. The Pope stole Christianity from Jesus and Stalin stole Marxism from Marx. All Marx said was the world is divided between the 95 per cent who create the wealth and the five per cent who own it. That was an explanation, like Darwin.’

Last autumn, when the banks were part nationalised, did that seem like a Marxist moment to him? ‘Not at all. A classic case of the state funding capitalism. If it were Marxism you wouldn’t have this continuation of the bonus culture. The economic crisis we have now is a product of Thatcherism and Blairism applied to the economy. No one has said the trade unions are responsible for the credit crisis.’

Does he now accept that the unions abused their power though? ‘Well they used to be described as the barons of the TUC, but barons don’t get elected. Emperor Jack was elected, unlike Rupert Murdoch. I think we do live in a one-party state in that all three parties believe socialism has failed and capitalism has somehow got to be made to work, and it hasn’t worked.’

>>428180
Hence the whole "only works on paper" thing