The Mises Community
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

When did liberals first become statists/socialists?

rated by 0 users
Answered (Not Verified) This post has 0 verified answers | 27 Replies | 7 Followers

Top 150 Contributor
227 Posts
Points 7,655
SilentXtarian posted on Tue, Apr 21 2009 8:58 PM

I've been reading Omnipresent State and Total War (I've put it down for a while) and it looked like in the old days liberals would fight for freedom and for less oppression and smaller government.  I think there is something admirable about old liberals.  Now liberals are statists who want massive government regulation.  What happened might I ask to cause this drift between modern liberals and old liberals?

  • | Post Points: 110

All Replies

Top 10 Contributor
Male
7,643 Posts
Points 132,720
MVP
SystemAdministrator
Suggested by Daniel

There was no drift.  The same people who believed in liberty, still believe in liberty.  The label was stolen.

If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
4,669 Posts
Points 81,345

I think Mises said that J.S. Mill caused it.

"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"

Bob Dylan

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
9 Posts
Points 210
Bodia replied on Wed, Apr 22 2009 8:52 AM

In Europe liberalism still means classical liberalism. In USA our name was stolen by socialists.

Liberalism is from "liberty" .As football is from "foot". It is something wrong with american english.

About the history of the term "liberal" see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_term_%22liberal%22.

 

 

 

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
78 Posts
Points 1,530
Suggested by garegin

FDR was the one who really pushed the "Democrat" party to mean "big government, welfare programs, state guarantees"; originally, he wanted to run as a Republican (which, they generally supported those kind of things, at that point in time), but he kept failing because nobody liked the idea of higher taxes and such...so, he ran as a Democrat to pick up the "low tax, low regulation, small government" crowd....I presume, with no intention of every making due on those promises.

 

 

Resident Christian Minarchist.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
237 Posts
Points 4,175

socialists consider themselves to be for liberty too. for them economic liberty is abolition of private property

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
214 Posts
Points 3,555

garegin:

socialists consider themselves to be for liberty too. for them economic liberty is abolition of private property

Agreed. Most "soft" statists are angry about what they perceive to be great social injustices. Typically they blame the free market and ignore what damage the state does.

We need to keep the anger but change the target...

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Female
160 Posts
Points 4,725
Vichy replied on Sun, May 3 2009 1:37 PM

There was no drift.  The same people who believed in liberty, still believe in liberty.  The label was stolen.

No.  The values of 'liberty, equality, brotherhood' were found in English radicalism as far back as the levelers (who many libertarians like to claim as anscestors).  These values are, if interpreted consistently along a certain line, lead (more or less) to some kind of communism.  Marxism is a hair-brained attempt to realise these values, but it is more consistently 'libertarian' - in the sense of ideally minimizing coercion and maximizing personal freedom - than Propertarians.

The welfare liberals and the libertarians are basically the cousin of communism and the like, but not nearly as radicalized and (understandably) recoiling from the actual outcome of communist and radical (IE, French) movements around the world.  But welfare liberals have more claim to the 'liberal' ideology than 'american' libertarians do.

I think that much of the libertarian economic, sociological and historical arguments are more accurate than those supposed by the welfare liberals.  But there is no 'essential' definition of liberty.  And of what use is liberty?  Rather power.

"Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned." - Avicenna

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 150 Contributor
237 Posts
Points 4,175

vichy are you a libertarian socialist who appeared here copla of months ago?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Female
160 Posts
Points 4,725
Vichy replied on Sun, May 3 2009 4:45 PM

Nope.  I'm not a libertarian or a socialist.  I have no political philosophy - I reject the premises.

"Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned." - Avicenna

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
92 Posts
Points 2,020

Vichy:
No.  The values of 'liberty, equality, brotherhood' were found in English radicalism as far back as the levelers (who many libertarians like to claim as anscestors).  These values are, if interpreted consistently along a certain line, lead (more or less) to some kind of communism.  Marxism is a hair-brained attempt to realise these values, but it is more consistently 'libertarian' - in the sense of ideally minimizing coercion and maximizing personal freedom - than Propertarians.

The welfare liberals and the libertarians are basically the cousin of communism and the like, but not nearly as radicalized and (understandably) recoiling from the actual outcome of communist and radical (IE, French) movements around the world.  But welfare liberals have more claim to the 'liberal' ideology than 'american' libertarians do.

I think that much of the libertarian economic, sociological and historical arguments are more accurate than those supposed by the welfare liberals.  But there is no 'essential' definition of liberty.  And of what use is liberty?  Rather power.

I admit that I'm generally confused by your propositions but one thing I completely disagree with is "But welfare liberals have more claim to the 'liberal' ideology than 'american' libertarians do. I think that much of the libertarian economic, sociological and historical arguments are more accurate than those supposed by the welfare liberals."

I just dont see how can welfare liberals follow the liberal ideology in the original sense more that libertarians.

Unless I completely misunderstood the reason why classic liberalism was born.

 

 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Female
160 Posts
Points 4,725
Vichy replied on Sun, May 3 2009 5:39 PM

Felipe:

 

I admit that I'm generally confused by your propositions but one thing I completely disagree with is "But welfare liberals have more claim to the 'liberal' ideology than 'american' libertarians do. I think that much of the libertarian economic, sociological and historical arguments are more accurate than those supposed by the welfare liberals."

I just dont see how can welfare liberals follow the liberal ideology in the original sense more that libertarians.

Unless I completely misunderstood the reason why classic liberalism was born.

Perhaps you have - the abolition of status is logically entailed by liberal (that is, egalitarian moralism); but the equalization of positive material freedom and individual well-being is also naturally entailed - or, at least, isn't obviously contradictory.  Libertarians are not really classical liberals, though they are 'stuck in the 1880s' forever.

I think that the liberal/libertarian/radical paradigm is nonsensical and doomed altogether.  And where libertarianism retains it, it fails, because its opponents have at least as much and probably more a claim to the name than they do.

"Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned." - Avicenna

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Male
92 Posts
Points 2,020

Vichy:

Perhaps you have - the abolition of status is logically entailed by liberal (that is, egalitarian moralism)

So according to you classical liberalism sought the abolition of status to replace it with imposition of a status forced by the state?

I dont believe that at all.

 

Vichy:

Libertarians are not really classical liberals, though they are 'stuck in the 1880s' forever.

I respectfully disagree.

Libertarians are the true liberals in the classical sense, even european social-democrats admit so and I would also say that socialists are stuck in 1850s forever.

 

Vichy:

I think that the liberal/libertarian/radical paradigm is nonsensical and doomed altogether.  And where libertarianism retains it, it fails, because its opponents have at least as much and probably more a claim to the name than they do.

Nonsense

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Male
428 Posts
Points 7,840

SilentXtarian:

I've been reading Omnipresent State and Total War (I've put it down for a while) and it looked like in the old days liberals would fight for freedom and for less oppression and smaller government.  I think there is something admirable about old liberals.  Now liberals are statists who want massive government regulation.  What happened might I ask to cause this drift between modern liberals and old liberals?

William Jennings Bryan, although he was at first controversial and more orthodox Democrats nominated an opposition candidate in 1896 ('Gold Democrats').

Populists -> Progressives -> FDR Liberal Democrat. 

 

Semper Fidelis

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
237 Posts
Points 4,175

i think that the socialists essentially eclipsed the liberals as the 19th century progressed. eventually they called themselved liberals. according to rothbard, the socialists are the confused, middle of the road, liberals.

  • | Post Points: 20
Page 1 of 2 (28 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS

Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528

Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119

contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises

Mises.org sitemap