Last week, I came across an article by Chris Whiting on Lib Dem Voice, which you can read here. Chris makes a compelling case for why liberals and socialists should collaborate, and I highly recommend it. Nevertheless, I would like to offer an alternative perspective.
I want to focus on a line from Chris’s article in which he states, “If you follow the principles of liberalism to their logical conclusion, you arrive at socialism.” I disagree. Socialism aims to establish a society where private property has been abolished, and the working class owns the means of production. In contrast, liberalism places less emphasis on who owns the means of production and more on issues such as freedom of speech, liberal democracy, freedom of the press, and, most notably, freedom of enterprise.
While socialism is primarily an economic theory, liberalism emphasises individual freedom. Both socialism and liberalism support economic freedom as one of the most critical forms. However, while socialism focuses intently on this area, liberalism views it as merely one aspect of a broader framework.
Another specific issue when rereading this line is the established history of liberalism and socialism. Although I was born in the UK, my cousin’s family is of Polish descent. My cousin’s family were hunted down and executed on Joseph Stalin’s orders. Those who managed to escape fled to the UK and made new lives for themselves. Those who did not were taken into a forest, shot in the back of the head, and buried in a mass grave in a series of mass executions now more commonly known as The Katyn Massacre.
Stalin’s theories, particularly “Socialism in One Country,” came at a significant cost: mass deportations, state-sanctioned murder, and the complete dismantling of civil society. One might argue, “But this is merely an extreme example.” In response, I urge you to consider China, North Korea, Vietnam, or Cuba. To uphold socialism, these nations abolished liberal democracy, committed crimes against humanity, and ignored any semblance of freedom. Where socialism has emerged as the dominant ideology, bloodshed has followed.
Of course, one can cite liberal democracies as examples where people have suffered: inequality in America is sky-high, with individuals compelled to pay for basic healthcare, often risking bankruptcy. Gun crime in America is a prevalent issue. Inequality in the UK is also excessively high to justify. The relentless demonisation of individuals with disabilities through benefit cuts is disgraceful. These, among others, are all examples of countries that claim to uphold liberal values yet are far from perfect and in need of reform. However, I do not believe this change can arise from socialism. Social democracy, yes. Yet an ideology that can so quickly devolve into authoritarianism is not one that liberals should associate with.
* Jack Meredith is a Welsh Liberal Democrat member. He is the spokesperson for Centre Think Tank on Social Security.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Labour councillor missing in action
New NHS cash will be wasted if social care is left untouched
Prince William's billionaire pal dies after swallowing bee while playing polo
Transition Dundee Ceilidh #dundeewestend
The Trinity made comprehensible.
A remarkable woman and a park
Lib Dems in the King's birthday honours 2025
Andy Daer
Simon R
John Waller
Geoffrey Payne
24 Comments
@ Jack Meredith,
“Socialism aims to establish a society where private property has been abolished, and the working class owns the means of production.”
No it doesn’t. You’re confusing socialism and communism.
Socialists aims to have a more egalitarian society than the one we currently have. Just how more egalitarian is of course a matter of opinion. Socialists will have different views on this.
Most socialists wouldn’t support nationalising all the means of production but they would support Nationalisation in sectors of the economy where there was a natural monopoly. Railways, the Utilities, Rail, etc. Hardly anyone is suggesting we nationalise the corner shop!
It’s fair enough for LibDems to discuss what Socialism is, particularly the kind of Democratic Socialism which has widespread public support in the UK, but please don’t resort to the ultra right wing tactic of trying to equate it with support for Stalinism or the Katyn massacre!
Co-operation, basic Socialists hate us.
I recall a socialist uncle once telling me that ‘Liberals are capitalists with a conscience, whereas Conservatives are just capitalists.’ In many ways that is not far from the truth.
Today’s Labour Party is not anything resembling socialist – it just seeks to use law and government regulation to try to allow capitalism to flourish but with some protections and controls. The Labour Party was set up with the goal of achieve socialism but Tony Blair managed to get clause 4, part 4 of the Party constitution rewritten to remove the central idea of ‘securing for the workers, by hand or by brain, the full fruits of their labour’ based on ‘the common ownership of production, distribution and exchange’.
So I don’t see any overlap between Liberalism and socialism – Liberals believe in capitalism and free markets…socialists don’t.
Peter Martin:
With all due respect, I take offence at your assertion that my reference to a very serious tragedy committed by a monster is an “ultra right-wing tactic”, particularly when it affected a close member of my family.
We both have opinions on the matter, but to reduce an entire piece to sludge throwing such as that is uncalled for.
Many thanks,
Jack
Jack Meredith.
I don’t think Peter reduced your piece to sludge. He correctly pointed that your basically linking Socialism in general to Stalinist Communism. Bernie Saunders would never advocate for Stalinism. And he’s right to point out that this is a right-wing talking point. It is literally THE right wing argument against Socialism. The whole ‘it always leads to bloodshed’ thing, which is not true, is literally all I used to say about socialism when I was a Conservative. I would expect that point to be made by a Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro or Jacob Rees-Mogg.
Where we agree with socialists is on the need for economic fairness; where we disagree with them is how to get there.
Conservatives don’t believe in economic fairness, not really, but where we agree with them is on free markets and curbing centralised state power.
Both conservatives and socialists aspire to take power away from the people, with socialists reducing the accountability of the state and conservatives eroding the accountability of the holders of capital.
While the Conservatives give yet more power to capitalists and Labour pursues greater centralisation of state power, we understand that this rarely yields good results at the community level.
What we need is an economic model, built on free markets for goods, services and labour, coupled with economic fairness and accountability. This is essential not just for the alleviation of poverty but for the very survival of democracy itself, because an unfair society is an unstable society.
@Tom Reeve
‘Free markets’ and ‘economic fairness’ are contradictory ideas. Free markets decide the allocation and use of resources, good and services on the basis of who can most afford to pay for things. For example, the concept of ‘demand’ only includes demand that is backed by ability and willingness to pay at that particular price – starving poor people may not have an economic demand for food despite their obvious need.
Of course, Economic fairness is consistent with free markets if you believe that it is fair that resources, goods and services should go to those who can most afford to pay, and that it is economic fairness for those with no ability to buy food to starve, but I assume you don’t.
@ Peter Martin (and others)
“Socialists aims to have a more egalitarian society than the one we currently have.”
According to Wiipedia socialism is “an economic and political philosophy ………. characterised by social ownership of the means of production”
And according to Marxists it is an intermediate state between capitalism and communism.
@ Tristan,
Most socialists would put it as “social ownership of some of the means of production.” Libdems on this forum have expressed support for the renationalisation of some sectors of the economy too. Socialists would argue for a progressive system of taxation. Lib Dems too. Both would argue for free education up to a certain level. Both Socialists and LibDems support the principle of free healthcare and the NHS which was clearly set up as a socialist construct.
Chris Whiting does make a valid point. There’s a lot that, at least most, LibDems and Socialists have in common. It’s far too simplistic to quote a Wikipedia definition of either socialism or liberalism.
The State Pension, too, is a socialist construct which is supported by nearly everyone. I doubt many see it as being some halfway house on the way to a system of Stalinist inspired Marxist -Leninist Communism.
@Mike Peters – thanks for taking the time to read and respond to my comment.
Your critique would be true if I had, like you, assumed that the free market was the only thing that exists in society. And yet, in my comment, I addressed the concentration of wealth and state power under the opposing ideologies that are, all too often, presented as a binary choice for the electorate. I’m a Lib Dem because I believe there may actually be a ‘third way’.
I also discussed accountability and how the lack of it in the capitalist and socialist frameworks disempowers people. I take our philosophy of localism seriously and believe that there is not enough accountability in society.
In the reductionist view of economics, the economy is often taken as the only salient factor in personal choices. When it becomes a political axiom, it tends to sterilise debates by removing the human element. I find that intellectually and emotionally unsatisfactory.
While it may be true that free markets and economic fairness act in opposite directions, humans have a rich history of harnessing the dynamics of opposing forces to invent new things. This gives me hope.
@ Tristan Ward I’m afraid Wikipedia isn’t the most reliable peg to hang your historian’s coat on, Tristan.
You beg the question of why a substantial number of prominent and highly capable Liberal M.P.s defected to Ramsay Macdonald’s Labour Party in the post WW1 years, including Asquith’s Best Man Richard Burdon Haldane, Charles Trevelyan, Arthur Ponsonby and William Wedgwood Benn……. all of whom could be described as rather on the posh side.
Equally, a fair number defected to the Tories on the pretext that Reds would be hiding under their beds (including Winston Churchill). The Zinoviev letter was a famous motivator for many middle class Liberal voters to make an anti-socialist switch to the right. My guess is that could probably linger on in Tunbridge Wells.
Personally, as someone who joined the Liberal Party in 1962 after hearing Jo Grimond, and fifty years later became Chair of a food bank, I have no objection to “a more egalitarian society than the one we currently have.”
This is all very interesting, but even the founding father of capitalism, Adam Smith, recognised its likely failings. He said from the start that the government must ‘hold the ring’ and that the natural tendency of business owners was to conspire against the public. In other words government rules and regulations were necessary for capitalism to provide a fair system.
Those of us who have been around for more than a few years can trace the decline of equality and the rapid increase of income and wealth differentials to the government of Mrs Thatcher. The lifting of regulations in the city (Big Bang) allowed the most outrageous profiteering by city slickers that ultimately led to the crash of 2008. The slow drip drip of poison into our ears about the evils of tax stems from then as well and even the Lib Dems seem to believe it too, Labour are enacting it right now.
Liberalism wants to free up the creative abilities of the many and stop the excesses of the few and that means abandoning the economic consensus and developing economics for the many, not the few. The howls of outrage from the rich will be utterly predictable.
Socialism does not want people to have freedom, preferring instead the building hand of the state. ‘When I do good to you, you WILL be done good by’ sums up all the socialists I have ever known and I want none of it. It’s not remotely like Liberalism.
Bloody predictive text. Guiding hand of the state, not building hand of the state.
@Tom I’m not sure it’s fair to say that conservatives don’t believe in economic fairness. Pretty much everyone believes in fairness – it’s just that what is fair is very subjective, and different people have different ideas of what constitutes fairness. Social liberals and socialists tend to see economic fairness in terms of equality, and everyone having a minimum standard of living. Conservatives (and also classical liberals, who are perhaps getting forgotten in this discussion) tend to see economic fairness more in terms of being rewarded proportionately to the work you have put in and the wealth you have created. In practice, both of those forms of fairness are important at least to some extent, so it’s more a question of where you draw the balance between them.
@Simon
Perhaps it is hard to define “fairness” but I think we all know it when we see it. Studies have shown that even dogs recognise “unfairness”.
However, I’m interested to know what you believe, Simon. You say it’s subjective. I’ve told you what I think, what do you think? Should we prioritise equality or business incentives? As you say, it’s a matter of where you would draw the balance, so where would you draw it?
As I’ve said, thinking purely in economic terms is sterile, but if you want to put it in economist speak, there are many “externalities” to consider, and I consider reducing the Gini coefficient of income inequality (which rose steadily in the 80s, 90s and early 2000s and then levelled off since the financial crisis) to be one of them.
Conservatives speak of creating a society that incentivises people to get ahead, but then (to cite one example) they pursue policies that relegate so many children to poverty while providing advantages to the children of the rich, so it’s pretty much a nonsense.
So, in answer to your question, no, I don’t believe conservatives really believe in economic equality.
And finally, why is this so important? Partly because I believe the economy should work for everyone, but also, endemic economic inequality leads to public disaffection and political instability. Need I say more?
@Tom: Well we think we know fairness when we see it but that doesn’t mean we agree on what it is. Example: Many people who write on LDV seem to think that taking a portion of one person’s wages away in tax in order to give it to someone who has chosen not to work is fair. But many (most?) voters are likely to think it’s profoundly unfair if the recipient could work if they wanted to (Most of us would agree it’s fair if the person wants to work but genuinely can’t).
An interesting question you ask. Potentially off-topic for this thread, so I’ll answer very briefly. I err towards classic liberalism. I think social liberals often over-emphasize equality, forgetting that a degree of inequality is an inevitable consequence of giving people freedom to build their own lives. I’m totally comfortable with inequality that arises from people creating wealth in a free market and I think the UK has the balance about right there, but I am concerned that a lot of today’s inequality arises from people owning and monopolizing our limited supply of land: That’s a problem that does need addressing.
btw I don’t think thinking in economic terms is sterile: It’s essential because without a strong economy, you don’t have the resources to enable people to have decent lives (and getting back on topic, that is one reason socialism fails).
Mick Taylor…..Socialism does not want people to have freedom, preferring instead the GUIDING hand of the state. ‘When I do good to you, you WILL be done good by’ sums up all the socialists I have ever known and I want none of it. It’s not remotely like Liberalism…..
Perhaps you should meet more ‘socialists’…
BTW, What is wrong with the guiding hand of the state? I have lived and worked in the USA and the lack of such ‘guidance’ manifests itself in their working conditions, healthcare, sickness and paid maternity leave and holidays..
expats.. What is wrong with the guiding hand of the state?
In my extensive experience of Labour-controlled councils, I think Mick is referring to the habit of treating (adult) people like children who can’t be trusted to know or do the right thing themselves: “We know what is best for you, so we will enforce it upon you.”
And any differing views get dismissed out of hand – and not always politely!
Expats, Cassie, Mick Taylor, I think you are all right. Mick is talking about Socialists (or possibly more accurately people who are in politics in power who say they are Socialists).
Expats is talking about nice Fabian type Socialists who believe, but haven’t been trampled underfoot by the Labour Machine yet. Cassie is alongside Mick and the only bit I’m not sure of is that I have never yet met a Labour machine politico who is polite with anyone who disagrees with him or her. Perhaps Cassie is more lucky than me.
I am not sure that the current version of the Labour Party can be described as socialist, so talking about cooperating with them is premature.
In addition, recent evidence suggests that the Labour Party would prefer to see the Conservatives returned to power rather than have to “lower” themselves to cooperating with the Lib Dems.
@Cassie 3rd Apr ’25 – 4:51pm/David Evans 3rd Apr ’25 – 5:12pm..
So you prefer the US ‘small government’?…Improvements in employment rights, health, holidays, pensions, etc. have ALMOST ALL been delivered by ‘Socialists’..
In all my time in the UK I have only lived under Tory run councils and my experience is that they are a mixture of good, average and bad; lumping socialists into just one category (BAD) seems rather lazy thinking …
Before criticising socialists, you might try remembering this party’s performance between 2010/2015 and ED Davey’s involvement with the Post Office scandal was certainly no better than his Labour/Tory counterparts..
expats: ‘So you prefer the US ‘small government’?
I didn’t say that. What I prefer is councillors who accept other people’s opinions might have some validity. It’s why I joined the Lib Dems in the first place!
As for whatever the Tories have done or Ed has done or Uncle Tom Cobley has done – that doesn’t make the Labour councillors I had to work alongside any nicer.
Two wrongs (or three or four) do not make a right.
@cassie 4th Apr ’25 – 5:02pm..
My initial response was to Mick Taylor’s rejection of the ‘guiding hand of the state’; you chose to ignore that and introduce a strawman argument about ‘Labour Councillors’ (aka ‘nasty Labour councillors I have known’)…
Do you think that the state should be involved in regulating business/social issues?
Even if liberalism and socialism are far apart from an academic view point, in the world of practical politics they have much in common. Both are against authoritian top-down approaches to policy making and favour more colllaboration and consultation. They might have different priorities but their end points in the modern world are strikingly similar.