In the US, socialism has historically been shunned and not represented in the political sphere, to the point that the right started using “liberal” derisively and associated the term with socialism. Internationally, the term retains more of its original meaning, for example, in the UK the “Liberal Democrats,” are more like libertarians.
Liberals are generally conservative, meaning they support the status quo or gradual change. US “conservatives” are sometimes more accurately called reactionaries or regressives, because they don’t just want to preserve the status quo but to actively roll back progress that has already been made.
Because leftism is a very broad term, it’s difficult to define exactly what leftists believe in an uncontroversial way, but generally speaking leftists support radical change away from capitalism.
Liberalism is also quite a broad term, which on its own can only really be said to constitute a belief in “equal rights for everyone including the right to private property”. The Liberal Democrats, for example, are so-called because they were formed from the merger of the (classically liberal) Liberal Party, and the Social Democratic Party. They are more like libertarians in the sense that they were broadly pro-market but less authoritarian than the tories, but their policy platform has always been more like something that would be described as social liberalism.
In my experience, the word liberal is generally not used so much in UK politics (outside of the name of the Lib Dems), but if someone self-described themselves as a liberal, I think it would be generally understood as socially liberal rather than libertarian.
I wouldn’t necessarily say that the left right spectrum is tied to economic views only, while economics are usually part of a political view judging only by that is a bit one dimensional (non us perspective)
Personally, I don’t draw a distinction between economic and social issues, because solidarity between oppressed groups is vital for building collective power necessary to confront capitalism economically and laws that make people more vulnerable also affect us economically. But admittedly there are people who do view them as separate issues.
Economics is merely the study of how scarce goods are distributed. There are many ways to do that. Capitalists argue that their system is the most efficient, but even taking that claim at face value, efficiency alone isn’t the only measure. It also says little about how control of those resources consolidates power.
That depends on what your goals, methodology, and material conditions are.
If you have static and predictable demand for something, like, everybody needs enough food to eat and a roof over their heads, then the state can effectively plan for and deliver on that. When you have something that just needs to be done for its own sake, then introducing a profit motive isn’t necessary or beneficial, and can lead to enshittification and cutting corners. There are also “natural monopolies,” like for example cable where it doesn’t really make sense to build another set of cable lines so the consumer is going to be left with one choice anyway, and it would be better for that to be run by the state where there’s at least some democratic input on how things are done. There’s also what’s called “externalities” where for example building a train line makes an area more accessible and brings value to the surrounding area, beyond what can be captured by the line itself - and conversely, there are negative externalities, such as a factory putting out smog or dumping chemicals, that will lower the value of the surrounding area but the factory won’t bear the brunt of the costs. There are also natural resources where the supply is inelastic so taxing them doesn’t make the economy less efficient, as the Nordic countries do with their oil.
There are situations where private industry can make sense. Like, say people want plushies made of different anime characters. There’s no real reason for the state to run that. There’s a low barrier to entry, and different companies can use different methods to predict which character will be in higher demand and whether people will want higher quality or lower price. Or with cars, they can design different models balancing all sorts of factors from safety to performance to aesthetics.
There’s also many cases where a state doesn’t have the freedom to implement whatever system they want. Some states are rich in natural resources, but they are owned by foreign corporations that have owned them since colonial times. If they try to nationalize them, or even tax them, it would be beneficial to the economy but it could lead to sanctions, coups, or invasions. But generally the people in the country don’t benefit from those situations and the relationship is parasitic.
Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism.
In the US, socialism has historically been shunned and not represented in the political sphere, to the point that the right started using “liberal” derisively and associated the term with socialism. Internationally, the term retains more of its original meaning, for example, in the UK the “Liberal Democrats,” are more like libertarians.
Liberals are generally conservative, meaning they support the status quo or gradual change. US “conservatives” are sometimes more accurately called reactionaries or regressives, because they don’t just want to preserve the status quo but to actively roll back progress that has already been made.
Because leftism is a very broad term, it’s difficult to define exactly what leftists believe in an uncontroversial way, but generally speaking leftists support radical change away from capitalism.
Liberalism is also quite a broad term, which on its own can only really be said to constitute a belief in “equal rights for everyone including the right to private property”. The Liberal Democrats, for example, are so-called because they were formed from the merger of the (classically liberal) Liberal Party, and the Social Democratic Party. They are more like libertarians in the sense that they were broadly pro-market but less authoritarian than the tories, but their policy platform has always been more like something that would be described as social liberalism.
In my experience, the word liberal is generally not used so much in UK politics (outside of the name of the Lib Dems), but if someone self-described themselves as a liberal, I think it would be generally understood as socially liberal rather than libertarian.
I wouldn’t necessarily say that the left right spectrum is tied to economic views only, while economics are usually part of a political view judging only by that is a bit one dimensional (non us perspective)
Personally, I don’t draw a distinction between economic and social issues, because solidarity between oppressed groups is vital for building collective power necessary to confront capitalism economically and laws that make people more vulnerable also affect us economically. But admittedly there are people who do view them as separate issues.
Although wealth distribution isgood, Socialism is not good for economics
Economics is merely the study of how scarce goods are distributed. There are many ways to do that. Capitalists argue that their system is the most efficient, but even taking that claim at face value, efficiency alone isn’t the only measure. It also says little about how control of those resources consolidates power.
That depends on what your goals, methodology, and material conditions are.
If you have static and predictable demand for something, like, everybody needs enough food to eat and a roof over their heads, then the state can effectively plan for and deliver on that. When you have something that just needs to be done for its own sake, then introducing a profit motive isn’t necessary or beneficial, and can lead to enshittification and cutting corners. There are also “natural monopolies,” like for example cable where it doesn’t really make sense to build another set of cable lines so the consumer is going to be left with one choice anyway, and it would be better for that to be run by the state where there’s at least some democratic input on how things are done. There’s also what’s called “externalities” where for example building a train line makes an area more accessible and brings value to the surrounding area, beyond what can be captured by the line itself - and conversely, there are negative externalities, such as a factory putting out smog or dumping chemicals, that will lower the value of the surrounding area but the factory won’t bear the brunt of the costs. There are also natural resources where the supply is inelastic so taxing them doesn’t make the economy less efficient, as the Nordic countries do with their oil.
There are situations where private industry can make sense. Like, say people want plushies made of different anime characters. There’s no real reason for the state to run that. There’s a low barrier to entry, and different companies can use different methods to predict which character will be in higher demand and whether people will want higher quality or lower price. Or with cars, they can design different models balancing all sorts of factors from safety to performance to aesthetics.
There’s also many cases where a state doesn’t have the freedom to implement whatever system they want. Some states are rich in natural resources, but they are owned by foreign corporations that have owned them since colonial times. If they try to nationalize them, or even tax them, it would be beneficial to the economy but it could lead to sanctions, coups, or invasions. But generally the people in the country don’t benefit from those situations and the relationship is parasitic.