Written by Bob Maschi   

Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

‘Love me, I’m a Liberal’ by Phil Ochs


Liberal is not a synonym for socialist any more than conservative is a synonym for libertarian. Socialists and liberals share some positions so confusion over their differences is understandable. The confusion is made even more understandable as many people benefit from this confusion. (Note that Barack Obama is not a socialist, though calling him one performs two political tasks. For people on the right, it insults Obama. For people on the left, it insults socialism).

Socialists and liberals share similar positions on many social issues. They are for civil rights, gay rights and gender equality (did I miss anyone?). They oppose racism and sexism and are wary of religions’ participation in government. On a superficial level they also share some similar economic views. They all support Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, minimum wage and other laws and regulations aimed at helping poor and working people.

The big difference comes in with their contrasting views on the economic system known as capitalism.

Liberals wish to reform capitalism―to put a smiley face on it. They want to offer a safety net to catch the poor before they hit bottom while regulating the wealthy and their corporations so that their quest for profit does not cause a lot of undue societal and environmental harm.

Socialists, on the other hand, wish to end capitalism and replace it with a more just and equitable economic system. An economic system controlled by the people and based on the needs of the planet and its population rather than on the greedy whims of the richest few. Socialists understand, and have witnessed many times, that when people (whether American or Russian) acquire great wealth, they use those riches to corrupt any existing political and economic system that constrains them. The safety nets and regulations promoted by liberals, while certainly better than an unfettered free market, are short-lived patches that will be weakened and discarded by the wealthy ‘class’ as quickly as they are able.

On the sidewalk level, within our communities, socialists and liberals can get along with each other quite well. Heck, from a distance, it’s usually hard to tell them apart (there are even rumors out there, unconfirmed, that they sometimes intermarry). They wear the same blue jeans. Listen to the same folk music. Carry the same hand-scrawled signs. But not-so-deep down there is a huge chasm between them. Socialists view liberals and the reforms they advocate as diversions that dilute the anger of working people so that they choose to alienate themselves from the political system—rather than take control of it. Are individual liberals honestly concerned with the planet’s health and the betterment of the human race? Of course! But, in the end, their combined efforts at half-assed solutions only help perpetuate the for-profit economic system by “saving capitalism from itself.”

“Saving capitalism from itself” is an important phrase to understand when discussing the differences between socialists and liberals. The term is often used to describe FDR’s (President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s) efforts to combat the Great Depression through, among other socialist inspired programs, massive government spending on safety nets and jobs for poor and working Americans. Liberals view these successful efforts as proof that capitalism can be restrained enough to work for all of us. Socialists view them as using pieces of socialism to bolster a failed capitalist system at the expense of the actual and long-term transformation of the economy. While the term is used pretty freely nowadays, originally, “saving capitalism from itself” was not a liberal brag but a socialist complaint!

Of course, since FDR’s presidency, the right wing and their wealthy patrons have worked tirelessly to abolish all the progressive reforms put into place before, during and after the Great Depression. Today, while this country has greater wealth than anyone could have even imagined 80 years ago, everything from Social Security to the 40-hour-work week, from the ability to collectively bargain to the most basic rights of minorities, are under constant assault. Even more, the corporate drive for obscene profits is threatening to privatize our post offices, our prisons, our public schools and even our highways. And this all proves that socialists are correct: liberal reforms are temporary patches that, at their very best, assist only a few generations before the wealthy regroup and steal even more than they had before.

Another way to see the differences between socialists and liberals is to watch the economic solutions presented in the mainstream media (which is owned, entirely, by the wealthy). Liberal opinions are usually presented as ‘extreme’ positions, as far to the left as one can go without smacking into a brick wall. Socialist positions are, typically, completely ignored. After the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression, caused solely by wealthy greed, why was there no talk of the socialist position of nationalizing the banking system? With unemployment so high, why is there no talk of providing the socialist solution of government jobs to everyone who wants to work? With student-loan debt crippling a generation, why is the socialist view of free education through college for everyone who is able, being shut out of the debate?

The truth is that the wealthy use liberals to strengthen their own positions. As Noam Chomsky has pointed out, “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....” Thus, liberals can spend their days energetically debating and debasing conservatives without, actually, challenging the system that supports those few who have amassed almost all of the wealth and power.

While liberals and socialists share many of the same positions and, usually, wave to each other at rallies, there are many differences, great and small. But the largest difference is that liberals attempt to strengthen capitalism (to save it from its own greed) while socialists wish to eventually abolish it. Does this mean that socialists oppose efforts to strengthen the social safety net, combat pollution and empower minorities? No. They support these actions because they provide people with the tools and attitudes needed to defeat the wealthy’s economic system and to replace it with one of their own. But, for the socialist, these are not long term solutions to our real problems. They are only a start.