The 5 differences between liberalism and socialism

The term "politics" comprises a set of ideals and activities that are associated with group decision-making and other forms of distribution of powers between individuals, such as the partition of wealth, social status, law-making, negotiation and many other acts subjective.

In a world with more than 7.7 billion people and 194 countries recognized by the UN, political organization becomes essential. Denying the organizational system in which we find ourselves is a chimera, because as the German writer Thomas Mann said in his work The Magic Mountain, "everything is politics." From the price of bread to the house we live in and our behaviors are dictated by the political, since the social organization defines us as individuals and conditions our actions, we like or not.

This concept has accompanied us from the very beginning of civilization, because according to Aristotle, we are political animals. Unlike other living beings, our species has the ability to organize and group civic activity in cities, “from all this it is evident that the city is one of the natural things, and that man is by nature an animal Social". If we get philosophical, we can say that man is by nature political; otherwise, we would be facing another animal.

With all this we mean that, no matter how disconnected the individual wants to show himself from the political world, he is already establishing his own politicized establishment by refusing to learn about the subject. Faced with these tirades, it is always better to learn than to ignore, since in knowledge lies the power to change things. Here we tell you the 5 differences between liberalism and socialism: stay with us and, step by step, you will see that understanding the political bases is not a difficult task.

• We recommend you read: "The 90 best phrases and reflections on Politics"

How are liberalism and socialism different?

First, we want to make it clear that our interest is not to indoctrinate anyone. In disclosure, we expose, while in opinion, we express our opinion. This establishment may sound obvious, but there is no shortage of sources in the network that will try to place the typical socialist as a murderous dictator, or the liberal as a shark in a suit who wishes to step on his entire environment to climb the top.

As philosophical, political and legal currents that they are, both rest on the shoulders of thinkers, economists and true experts in the social sciences.. Thus, trying to ridicule any of them with extreme arguments is, to say the least, a strawman fallacy (Strawman). With these clear bases, we present you the essential differences between liberalism and socialism.

1. Two opposite sides of the coin: individual freedom VS organization

We start by establishing key concepts and foundations. Liberalism is a heterogeneous trend with multiple aspects, but all of them reach a common port: defending individual freedoms. The first philosopher to address this term was John Locke, who enshrined private property as a right and the principle of equality before the law over all things.

Interestingly, the term "socialization" (from which socialism derives) began to be used in conjunction with the development of the first classical liberal ideas. To this day, the Royal Spanish Academy of the Language (RAE) defines this philosophical current as an organization system social and economic based on collective or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

As you can see, we are facing two opposite poles of the same idea. Despite sinning as reductionists, we can conclude that the liberal believes in self-determination to the end of its consequences (always within a legal framework), while socialism seeks the construction of a just and solidary society, although this implies depriving some entities in high social strata of certain powers.

2. Liberalism believes in the free market, while socialism advocates socialized means of production

Free trade is an economic approach in which we could entertain ourselves for hours, but we will be brief: it is the system in which monetary value of material (or non-material) goods is agreed upon by consent between sellers and buyers, through bidding mechanisms and demand. It is translated within a region as freedom of business and, abroad, as a capacity for free exchange with the minimum possible obstacles.

The free market, as its name suggests, is an idea supported by many liberal currents. On the other hand, socialism takes a completely different approach: the first principle on which it is bases this ideological current is to end the centralization of the means of production in entities private. In many cases, this implies the nationalization or nationalization of the industry, that is, always defending the existence of public entities by and for the people, where there is no clear benefactor beyond society itself as a collective and its members.

3. In ideal socialism, there are no social classes

Usually, liberalism is associated with a current in which the existence of "rich" and "poor" is defended, but initially this was not the case. The classical liberals advocated the establishment of a rule of law, where all people are equal before the law, without distinctions or privileges. In the liberal state, there must be a constitution that circumscribes the minimum laws for peace and equality, leaving the state relegated to tasks of security, justice and public works.

Anyway, liberalism believes in private property, contractual autonomy, and freedom of association. Inherently, a person with infinite wealth who has achieved it by legal means "has earned it", even if he is equal before the law when committing a crime. In socialism, things change: wealth should not fall on capitalist employers and, therefore, it is necessary to seek an equal distribution of assets. In this governmental model, social classes must fall.

4. Liberalism advocates private property

We have touched on this subject on tiptoe in previous sections, but it is one of the most differential elements between both political currents. Liberalism believes in private property, while socialism does not.

No, this does not mean that a socialist government is going to take a worker's house, no matter how much some media tries to convince us otherwise. The term “private property” refers to ownership over the means of production (labor, if you prefer), personal property being consumer goods that have been acquired or created by a individual.

Thus, “ending private property” implies not granting monetary power to institutions private, but instead opt for a public distribution of them (socialize the media production). In this model, the role of capitalist patron becomes redundant, since it is conceived as a passive owner.

5. Socialism supports State interventionism

Interventionism is conceived as the action of the public administration aimed at regulating the activity of another public or private sphere, setting certain norms based on current problems. Thus, socialism believes in the intervention of the State to solve certain social problems, such as It may be the limitation of the prices that are paid for basic elements in an economic crisis, for example.

As we have said before, the role of the state in classical liberalism is reduced to three pillars: this political organization must deal with security, justice and public works. It is not generally conceived that the State interferes in market dynamicsThis would be, inherently, an attack on individual freedoms and human self-determination.

Resume

With these lines, you will have verified that it is not so difficult to understand the bases of the most deeply rooted political currents in today's society. Anyway, it should be noted that, as with everything in life, a belief is not "white" or "black", a person may have socialist overtones in terms of social class, while liberal market models may appeal to him.

In addition, it is also necessary to clarify that there are multiple currents and slopes of each of these ideologies. We have been putting these political models into practice for centuries, so it is not surprising that their particularities depend on the time interval and social context in which they are applied.