Collectivism and the New Liberal

The Relationship between Socialism, Liberalism, and Democracy.


“Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom”, noted Tocqueville, “socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude”.

Why does socialism seek restraint and servitude? In that, we must examine the nature of the relationship between individual and state. A socialist state will attempt to co-opt the functions of the market and industry. It will centrally plan and dictate occupations and income to persons based on merit. The “merit” class is the “in” group. Those who have not submitted individuality to the common good, are left in the “out” group, and receive less. Isn’t this just planned capitalism? Workers and Capitalists? Out group and In group becomes In group and Out group as Socialist group and Individual Liberty group. The Liberty group has not transferred liberty yet in exchange for In group status yet.  So isn’t Collectivism/Socialism/Communism just a way to reorganize the wealth within the different classes?

Liberalism seemed to find its way forward during the Enlightenment through Democracy as a way to take the power from the ruling elite and give the power back to the people. Liberalism is known as the ideology for ultimate individual freedom and the abrogation of civil liberties from the state. It is commonly understood as the freedom from coercion, freedom from arbitrary power of other men, and the capricious work of feudal lord from serf servitude.

What are the equalities that each sphere of thought offers? Democracy is the equality in liberty, whereas socialism is the equality of individual abilities in order to have equality in material. That usually means restraint, see John Stuart Mill, Bastiat, or Locke on some different interpretations of the governments role as far as restraining it's people. Equality of liberty is the freedom to explore one's own abilities to their best effort. Equality of Material requires some to be lifted and some to be restrained in order to reach full equality.

Socialism offered economic freedom as the ultimate freedom. This ultimate freedom is to be exchanged for the other, individual freedoms. In order to achieve the economic freedom of socialism, one must relinquish the other individual freedoms. Because a key factor in socialism is the idea of central economic planning. In order to have a successful central planning plan, the economic freedoms of the individual must be subjugated to the greater good of society. Socialism makes the case that economic freedom ultimately leads to other freedoms. In order to offer economic freedom, it must release individuals from responsibility of economic activity. In order to do that, the state must assume all economic activity for the society. Each individual must hand over his economic means and be at the mercy of the state and the common good before his own needs and freedoms are met.

How did socialism become the liberal’s choice ideology to be the one to succeed liberalism? It would appear that international intelligentsia has come to see socialism as the natural evolution of liberalism. How can classic intelligentsia reconcile this idea of relinquishing freedoms with freedom itself? Many liberals assumed that as the original freedoms found under liberalism became realized, then the next freedom should be economic freedom? Did the Intelligentsia feel that economic freedom (socialism) was the successor to liberalism? But shouldn’t socialism and its requiring of individual freedoms be considered the antithesis of liberalism? Can a government have central planning without requiring a single measure of individual sovereignty? It would seem that in order to strive for the common good, then the individual rights must submit to the will of the majority. So then socialism can clearly be defined as the ideology that benefits the common good over the individual.

This does not then equate capitalism to a complete opposite stance, one where it is the individual over the common good. This is not to assume that complete unchecked capitalism is the only alternative. Many people would agree that guidelines are important. Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, explains that the role of the government in the free market includes laying the ground work for fair trade and a clean market. In his words, the government is the one to set laws like child labor, working hours, or safe work environments. The dichotomy of absolute free market vs absolute central planning is not inevitable. Some will say that capitalism, in its importance on individual opportunity and social mobility leads directly to the common good, through the invisible hand.

Socialists have offered the freedom from economic hardships, as a way to free people from the hardships of competition. People also have a way to be freed from choices, responsibility, and accountability. Socialism offered economic equality which just amounted to taking from the haves and giving to the have-nots, redistributing the wealth.

What is the key to enforcing true liberalism? I believe it is real liberalism which is real free choice, lawful and out of the reach of the state. So Opportunity, set equally at birth is immediately set upon by difficult circumstances and bad luck. Through natural attributes and good real free decisions, people can overcome any obstacles and bad circumstances, and pursue happiness. When collectivism is involved, real free choice is taken away, and the person may not pursue their happiness and the world will be poorer for it.