Compare and Contrasting Liberalism and Communism
Essay Preview: Compare and Contrasting Liberalism and Communism
Report this essay
Compare and contrasting Liberalism and Communism
Within politics different political parties base their ideas around certain ideologies, which are ideas that lay out a person/ parties: goals expectations and actions and will often shape their beliefs about the world around them. There are many different types of ideology such as; Liberalism, Communism, Realism, Socialism etc. however the author has picked out two (communism and Liberalism) to focus on more directly and outline both the similarities and differences between the two ideologies and ultimately fall on the side of that which offers a more realist view of the world, can offer the most in terms of advancement and which can be implemented best in a modern society. Obviously both will have their individual strength, as well as combined strengths but they will also have individual and shared weaknesses which will prevent them from being implemented within society, there is also the issue of whether the general populous will agree with the ideas laid out by a party.
Liberalism is an ideology that is founded on the idea of individual freedom, meaning that individuals are responsible for taking care of themselves with limited or no input from the government, this view is only taken from those who support traditional liberalism. Liberalism aims to create according to Rick Vilford a nation of free, responsible, law-abiding, and self-reliant men and women (Vilford, 2004, Pg. 18). Liberalism as an ideology has not real core, other than simply the idea of freedom. Liberalism in everyday usage, often stands for little more than a collection of values and principles which no decent person would reject (Vilford, 2004, Pg. 18). meaning that it has been adapted to fit different partys agendas and ideas (much in the same way that communism was adapted by different countries/ regimes), this is highlighted in the works of Bob Jessup. Liberalism rarely, if ever, existed in pure form; it typically coexists with elements from other discourses (Jessop, 2002, Pg. 453). This however is not necessarily a weakness of liberalism (though there are those that would argue, that because it can never be implemented purely it will always be consigned to fail), as it allows it to be flexible and fit with different situations and within different cultures. The whole premise of a liberal society is to enhance the drive and ambitions of the individual, though it is recognised in more modern liberal societies that the traditional liberalist view of the government is outdated and that the government should provide some help to the less fortunate and take more control in everyday situations, such as with health care. The idea, seems to have become an interpretation for democracy rather than the political ideology it is, as many countries state that they have a liberal democracy or a liberal state, simply because they offer elections within their political structure even though by traditional liberalist views this is required but by no means the only requirement for a government to be recognised as liberal, Bob Jessup points out that there are Recurrent limitations of liberalism as a general discourse, Strategy and regime (Jessop, 2002, Pg. 453). Similarly to communism was in the later twentieth century it seems to have been accepted as the main acceptable ideology that countries must work to, though it could be argued that the soviet union forced communism on many of its satellite states, it still lead to a period within history where there were more communist states than capitalist. Joe Grimond (former leader of the British Liberal party) describes liberalisms core as to behave generously, it implies lavishness, It evokes ideas of breadth and lightness, reason and beauty (Grimond, 1963, Pg. 33). This would suggest as to why liberalism would be seen as more popular than other ideologies as it gives the impression of a better more lavish lifestyle, which is more appealing in todays society.
Communism which is the ideology based on the ideas of Karl Marks is more of a dead or defunct ideology since the fall of the soviet union who were one of the main states to take on the idea, though countries such as china and Vietnam (though again both could be argued to be more one party states rather than communist). This idea of a communist demise is summed up in the Sunday times on November 26th 1989, It is the end of the road for the communist system. Stalinism is dead Leninism has had its day. We are witnessing the defeat of socialism. (The Sunday Times, 1989, Pg. 9). Communism at its core speaks of the idea of a society that is not separated by class or money and that all those within it are equal. The main way this is set to happen is due to an uprising of the workers to overthrow the elites, however it is never perceived or stated how this uprising would occur in the works of marks, simply that it would. Marks wrote in his book Hegel Critique that consequently the whole history of mankind.has been a history of class struggles, contests between exploiting and exploited ruling and oppressing classes (Szporluk, 1988, Pg. 19). This again as mentioned above links with liberalism as it allows communism to be adapted for use in different cultures or states, as long as aims to follow the basic principles involving nationalising the means of production giving it back to the people. Marks believed that his socialist/ Marxist view would show the world how to change and adapt, the philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it (Karl Marx, Fredric Engels, 1973, Pg. 15). This idea that the world would be able to adapt/ change its capitalist ways in order to create the perfect society in which all were equal, will be viewed by some as far-fetched and impossible, as the wealthy were unlikely to simply throw away the wealth they had earned or the life styles they had become accustomed to in order to accept communism. Though there are those who believed that communism has not completely failed and there will be another pure communist state, foolishare present Western excitements about the “death of communism” and the myopic gloating over the “break up” of the Soviet Union (The Sunday Times, 1989, Pg. 3)
The links between communisms are small if any at all apart from both are simply adapted to fit different regimes/ policies in name only with only certain areas of each of their main ideas being used within these countries by parties. With countries such as America claiming to be liberal but