Liberalism excludes and attacks socialism, yet embraces and defends libertarianism and authoritarianism.
Bait and switch- it is fine to be a socialist, but advocating socialism is strictly forbidden. At the same time, libertarianism and authoritarianism may not be challenged.
It is important that we understand exactly how this works.
By "libertarianism" I mean "my" unfettered freedom as an individual to pursue personal enlightenment and success. By "authoritarianism" I mean the calls for using armed agents of the state to suppress neighbors who are not enlightened or successful and who may be annoying or bothering "me", whether or not they are actually doing anything to "me", or whom make "me" feel threatened or fearful in some way, if only in "my" imagination.
Liberalism is a cobbled together set of causes each based on one of two positions on a limited number of issues. Some causes require authoritarianism to advance, some libertarianism, and all are subject to debate within the liberal community to some extent between libertarian and authoritarian points of view. Both are portrayed as "freedom;" freedom to pursue enlightened and progressive paths of self-actualization on the one hand without any interference or even questioning, and freedom from having to co-exist with less enlightened individuals.
Socialism is the recognition of class struggle and the consistent application of class analysis to political problems. It is important to note that the debate between liberalism and socialism is not a debate between two coherent theories. Liberals suppress socialism not so much because it is the wrong theory, but rather because they are resistant to any theory being applied to politics. Political theory interferes with the cult of personal growth and self-actualization.
When liberals talk about freedom, a socialist would ask freedom for whom, and freedom from whom, and would point out that in all cases the winning hand in any argument will be that view that best supports the interests of the ruling class. That socialist view is quite literally not permitted and will be ruthlessly suppressed. If expressed, it will be characterized as either authoritarian or libertarian, depending upon which of the two poles is prevailing in the particular liberal cause that is being debated.
All of the arguments among liberals are between authoritarian and libertarian points of view. Challenge authoritarianism, such as gun control, and you will be accused of advocating that people not be protected from bad guys - how could you??? Challenge libertarianism and you will be accused of advocating the suppression of individual freedom - how could you??? In other words, ironically, should you challenge authoritarianism you will be accused of being a libertarian; challenge libertarianism and you will be accused of being authoritarian. Of course, as a socialist, your arguments are neither, but since those are the only possible two alternatives permitted for consideration, you will be accused of one or the other, depending on the context.
Liberalism is of course both authoritarian and libertarian - maximum freedom is to be granted to enlightened individuals and maximum restrictions and punishments are to be meted out to unenlightened individuals. Since enlightenment is a function of privilege, and privilege is a function of class, the ruling class and its most committed sycophants win, and the rest of us lose. The hidden agenda behind all of the bitter arguments among liberals are about which of the two contradictory positions - authoritarian and libertarian - will best advance the interests of the ruling class. Since that must be disguised, there is tremendous confusion in liberalism, and any hint of socialist point of view must be exterminated by any means necessary.
So the liberal, using resources that few have access to, buys an acre or two and sets up an organic garden. This is seen as a form of personal expression and as acting on personal (spiritual) values. The federal government is then seen as authoritarian if it tells the liberal that using manure for fertilizer carries an E. Coli risk, or tells the liberal that their cider or milk must be pasteurized or carry a warning label, or says that the animals must be tagged to track various livestock diseases. But the liberal has no problem calling on the federal government to harass and persecute his neighbor, the so-called conventional farmer with 100 acres, farming safely, and contributing to feeding the public rather than indulging in an expression of personal values. In the first case the liberal will scream “are you saying that I (a good enlightened progressed individual) shouldn't be completely free?” while in the second case the liberal will say “are you saying that my neighbor (a bad unenlightened red neck) should not be suppressed?” The liberal has unpaid slave labor on his garden in the form of “interns” doing the harvest – all young people of privilege who can afford to give up a summer for an experience - while calling for prosecution of his neighbor for giving jobs to people for whom the farm work is an unambiguous and otherwise unavailable opportunity. The liberal will set up a CSA, forcing people to pay in advance for their food and then accept whatever the garden might produce, yet look at the neighbor with disdain for “only being motivated by profit” because he doesn't charge the public until they actually have the produce in hand.
The socialist would step back and look at this situation differently. The socialist would say that there should not be two tiers of agriculture – one for the privileged and another for the rest of the population. The socialist would see the need for uniform regulations and consistent standards for the benefit of the entire public. The socialist would say that only the elite can afford to pay for their food in advance and then be forced to accept the output from the farm whatever that may be. The socialist would say that we will never be able to feed the population with these models, and that the poor people will suffer for the cause of the wealthy having more “personal choices” and that the real farmers will suffer for the cause of a handful of spoiled and privileged people being free to indulge in whimsical activities that advance their personal values and lifestyles. But liberalism will not tolerate a socialist point of view being expressed or heard.
There is another good example of this in a debate that is unfolding this weekend about the health care proposals of one of the candidates, John Edwards. He has taken the position that “we need universal health care.” So far so good. Over the weekend, in an interview, he dropped the idea that this health care would carry with it some mandatory features – that visits and checkups would be mandatory for the public.
Immediately a libertarian versus authoritarian argument broke out. On one side, we had people arguing that they had the right to determine their own health care and that the government could not mandate what treatments they had to accept. The usual Kevin Trudeau, Dr. Mercola alternative health ideas and conspiracy theories were trotted out. “Aspartame is poisoning us!!!” and “microwaves cause cancer!” Pure libertarianism. On the other side of the argument, people said things such as “we can't be taking care of people with taxpayer dollars who won't take personal responsibility, follow doctor's orders, and stop doing things that are a health risk! If people want health care, they must submit to the rules.” Back and forth the argument went. Then someone said “well it is no big deal. Those who don't like the rules are free to opt out of the plan.” Which side of this argument will prevail? Both. Libertarianism will apply to the wealthy, authoritarianism will apply to the poor.
A socialist would look at this and notice that what is being advocated is a two tier system. “Follow the rules” means that poor people will be saddled with more and more restrictions and difficulties, and when they still can't get health care will be told “well you wouldn't follow the rules.” And “opt out?” Opt out means that the wealthy will not participate, will still have access to a better quality of health care, and the right wingers will start yapping about “free rides” and “irresponsible people” and the “burden” being caused by “their” behavior. For poor people “opt out” will mean “tossed out” of the system.
Look at all of the liberal causes and it is easy to see that the same pattern holds again and again. Observations (and despite the complete absence of a political Left in this country, a few observations of abuse and injustice are still heard and cannot be completely suppressed) are assessed as to whether they can or cannot be seen as an important issue, and how important that issue might be. The more directly it threatens personal choices for liberals, or the more it reflects their personal values, the more important it is deemed. Once in a while this is in response to injustice, but more often it is in response to right wing propaganda. That means that what is and isn't an issue, and what the two – and there are always only two - available positions on the issue are for one to take as part of their personal growth and self-expression. The official liberal side of the issue then becomes a cause, and the only debate is about whether libertarian or authoritarian methods are to be applied to advance the cause. It always resolves into libertarianism for “us” and authoritarianism for “them.”
Gun control – some argue that they should be able to have guns without government interference, others argue that the public should be disarmed for their own good. Once again, libertarian versus authoritarian. The socialist would ask “whose guns?” and say that the wealthy will keep their armed body guards and gated homes without interference, that the upscale liberals will live behind a wall of heavily armed hirelings in the suburbs, protected from the riff raff, and that it will be the poor people most impacted by gun control. The police will have yet another excuse for stopping and imprisoning poor people and minorities. But the socialist point of view will be suppressed by the simple expedient of denying that it exists. One can only be for or against guns in the liberal world. No other opinion will be heard or acknowledged.
Choice – the argument will be between those who say that it is my body and none of the government's business – the libertarian argument – and those who say “they” shouldn't use abortion as birth control and should take personal responsibility for their own behavior. “Why should 'we' pay for abortions for 'them' who engage in stupid behavior?” The socialist might say “choice for whom, exactly?” and point out that the wealthy women will always have access to birth control and abortion, and that the choice movement does not address the issue of access to health care for poor women. That socialist point of view will not be heard. You are for or against choice, end of story, and that means that anything you say will be aggressively characterized as though it were one of those two positions. You will then be seen as absolutely no different from the most extreme people taking the wrong side on the issue.
What I am describing is not a minor and lamentable feature of liberalism, rather I am describing the entire purpose of liberalism ; first and foremost the complete suppression of socialism, and secondarily the promotion of libertarianism for those with means and the application of authoritarianism to those without means. It is an airtight system for excluding socialism fro political discussion. You can be a socialist with relative impunity, you can cite theory - “old books” and “old thinkers” - but you may not apply socialism to current politics or you will be destroyed.
