Does the modern liberal theory believe in socialism or capitalism?
342798
Modern liberal theory can be best understood by reading Elizabeth Anderson's posts referred to below.  It is solidly grounded in capitalism, it is highly critical of central planning of every aspect of economic life, but it is far more intellectually sound than modern libertarian and conservative economic theory, which has an almost fundamentalist mindset when it comes to free-markets and taxation.  One may be right in accusing the extreme left-wing in American politics of flirting with profoundly anti-capitalistic sentiments, but one would be a fool to pretend that modern liberal theory is anti-capitalist.  If you wish to attack modern liberal theory, start by reading up on it.  There is a reason why the academic world is not dominated by libertarians and conservatives, and it has to do more with the relative value of their ideas--which have not done quite so well in the free marketplace of intellectual inquiry--and less to do with inherent bias in the academic system.  One way to learn about both liberalism and conservatism is to read Rawls, Nozick, Hayek (whom I actually admire quite a bit), Sen, Dworkin, etc.  And once you have read the careful and intellectually stimulating discussions between these people, it becomes incredibly silly to suggest that modern liberal theory believes in socialism.
199777
they are socialist democratic. it looks like capitalism has the best of them nowadays
398843
A socialist believes in capitalism, but only with heavy government intervention.  In otherwords, the right to own but with heavy taxes.  The right to profit, but with heavy taxes.\n\nA communist does not believe in capitalism.  Communists believe in no ownership, business or currency.  A completely government-run economy.
1086705
Thank you for asking the question I signed up to ask - which, of course means that I cannot answer it. I can only point to your one sided responses and the decrease of separation between church and state for an answer. Liberalism USED to mean that you believed in open-minded exchange and the right of everyone to do what they chose as long as it did not hurt others or infringe on their inherent rights. To me, this just seems elementary to our country's founding. It may be called a de-moc-ra-cy. Socialism means we all give our money away to the government and they give it away equally to all. We have something called cap-it-al-ism. Both the idea of capitalism and liberalism can, believe me, co-exist. Some of our best capitalists (Warren Buffet, Bill Gates) are, indeed, liberals. And, in my opinion, quite moral and benevolent. So I have to beg the question again - when did the term "liberal" which used to be a smart, intellectual, open-minded person become derogatory?
459286
Capitalism. America will either move towards Socialism or die under the weight of the insane amount of materialism we've created. Rich people want more and more and don't want to share, poor people want what the rich people have, and the middle class are only slaves to materialism. It's been proven the divide between upper and lower classes is quickly increasing. I can walk down any street in my city and see the dirt poor wiping the asses of the wealthy, it's sickening. It can't last much longer though. Just a matter of time before it crumbles.
290455
capitalism was not part of the constitution? Neither was socialism. Whats your point?\n\nI think to be considered a liberal you have to lead with your heart. Everything is emotional for you. You cry when you see starving kids on tv and raise your fist in anger that nothing is being done to help them, yet you are oblivious to the fact that if every child born into this world survived that human population would simply explode. \n\nYou see a tree being cut down and you shed a tear that its no longer this beautiful tree but will soon be used to make a house or a table or a chair...all of which are things you yourself own.
443078
The left wing is socialistic and views it as the government's responsibility to redistribute wealth to help the poor.  The right wing views capitalism as an important motivator for a productive economy and does not want the government to interfere with private business.  The left wing views the government as the solution to economic problems while the right wing views government interference in the economy as a bad thing and that economic problems are best solved without government intervention.  Of course nearly everyone is somewhere in between the two edges of the political spectrum.
119707
Just business.  If you believe in capitalism, this is it.  You cannot just support capitalism because the owners of the business are white American.  Our companies own many foreign companies.  Our oil companies work with many foreign countries.
910242
My understanding (from my college days), is that communism is a political system, and socialism is an economic system.\n\nSo socialism contrasts with capitalism.\n\nOnly those of us on the very far left in the US are socialists; most democrats and liberals are not -- though some believe in SOME socialism (such as Social Security and welfare for the poor, medicare, and other things).\n\nCompared to civilized countries, we don't really have much of a left here.\n\nWell, I guess the progressives are fairly left, and that's a growing group.\n\nBut most Americans, including liberals and democrats, are capitalists, with liberals and dems having slight socialist leanings.\n\nNo democrats or liberals are communist, as far as I know.\n\nThere is a communist party in the US, but it's tiny.
176814
If you believe that "communism is as communism does," and you use those shoddy tyrannies as the only possible socialist models, than the answer is no. On the other hand, if you consider the basic proposals of communism (actually socialism), then it gets more interesting. \n\nFirst let's get rid of the sillyness that equates socialism with tyranny. That's a little like saying that because Pinochet was dictatorial and pro-capitalist, then capitalism is dictatorial. And even though it's true that the democratic socialist movements were invariably short-lived, it's also true that their lives were most often cut short by their opponents - e.g., from Allende to Pinochet,  from Arbenz to a succesion of military dictators, etc. In short, there is nothing in socialist theory that prohibits democracy - in fact, many of its proponents have made the case that democracy is necessary in order to have the deliberation necessary to create a productive society. And capitalism, the real opposition to socialism, has done very well under a plethora of dictatorial forms, thank you very much.  \n\nThat being said, I do agree with the writer who implies that perhaps our species is not ready to deliberate on its own economic future. As a whole, we may not be intellectually or ethically equipped to get much past our present dismal state of quasi-anarchy. There's the "rub." Just as the population of the Soviet Union was told, "don't worry about the economy ... the party will look after it," capitalist regimes say, "don't worry about the economy, the 'invisible hand' and the captains of industry will look after it."
694562
interesting answers.......i believe that capitalism runs by the dollar bill,there will always be the have and have nots of this kind of system,simple because one needs the other to survive,the biggest advantage is the random success that capitalism can produce,the biggest disadvanthge is the different classes of people that it produces in order for it to function,so i guess one just has to do the best they can.........
497169
Maybe Socialism is better, but capitalism is more human unfortunately.\n\nsocialism is a great idea, but it has to be everywhere for it to work because if there is a capitalist nation next door then it begins dragging the socialist down.\n\nsorry I had to be practical
402702
if by caring you mean, keep the politicians rich, and everyone else poor, then yes.\n\nCommunism has been proven not to work several times.  Free market is what works.  If you work hard, you are rewarded.  If you do not work, then you are not rewarded, unless some liberals get some things their way.\n\nedit*  the question asked about who cares about WORKING people.  Capitalism takes care of people who WORK.  If you are looking for a handout, or looking to have the government take things you worked hard for, and distribute them to the non workers, then socialism is for you.\n\nSocialism:  Study hard, work hard, become a doctor or start a business, and have everything you worked for given away to the people who chose not to study or work.
847791
Ok my theory on this is two things:\n1. Lack of education on the true meaning of both.\n2. A purpose-full intent to redefine communism as socialism because a lot of liberals are called socialist.
156556
You're not a Liberalist, if you know nothing about it.\n\nAnyway, I will try to simplify. Liberalism is the believe that the individual should be free of society and government restriction as long as he  (in the earlier liberalism was based on free men; women, children and slaves weren't included) respect and stop at the others' freedom. Liberty is postive freedom. Liberalism is in favour of individualism. Usually Liberalism is seen to include capitalism.\n\nHope that will help.
1177470
to the poster above me, communism and liberalism are polar opposites in the economic and political spectrum. Liberalism is supported by free market capitalism. Communism, as defined by Marx, is the successful outcome of Marxism when the need for the State ends and the state is destroyed.\n\nTo answer your question, they seem to come from all walks of life. They're not fascists, at least not all of them. They are for the most part followers and will never act on their own. This explains their need for rightwing pundits to tell them what to do and what to think.
52233
In America being a liberal means you think people should have a lot of personal freedoms (abortion, free speech, unions) and that the economy should be closely monitored and modified by the government.\n\nConservatives think that people's freedoms should be more closely monitored and controlled and that the economy should be free from government interference.\n\nNow, this is just what the trend is GENERALLY nowadays, because really the ideals change as time goes on for both types.