For a long time, I simply considered myself a liberal. I believed in personal freedom, a strong but fair economy, and the power of government to create opportunity. I wanted a system that worked for everyone, but I also thought markets, when properly regulated, could be a force for good. But over the years, I’ve come to realise that these values of equality, fairness, and a society that serves all its people are not just liberal values. They are socialist ones too.
This isn’t about abandoning liberalism. My liberal resolve has never been stronger. But, I have been forced to recognise that if you follow the principles of liberalism to their logical conclusion, you arrive at socialism. If you believe in fairness, then you have to acknowledge that an economy where billionaires accumulate wealth while millions struggle is inherently unfair. If you believe in democracy, then you have to ask why it stops at the ballot box. Why workers don’t have real power in their workplaces, or why people don’t have a say in the essential services they rely on.
For too long, liberals have sought to mitigate capitalism’s excesses rather than confront the system itself. They have pushed for fairer taxation, stronger public services, and better protections for workers. But these are reactive measures that attempt to manage inequality rather than prevent it. And the problem with inequality is that it isn’t just an unfortunate byproduct of capitalism. It’s a feature.
The post-war liberal order was built on a simple promise: that capitalism, when properly managed, would deliver prosperity for all. But that promise has been broken. Wages have stagnated, homeownership is out of reach for many, and public services are being eroded. Meanwhile, the wealthiest in society continue to accumulate staggering amounts of money and power, insulated from the crises that affect everyone else.
Liberals and socialists both recognise this as a problem. But where liberals tend to believe that capitalism can be reformed, regulated, taxed, or softened, socialists argue that its flaws are fundamental. It’s not just that extreme wealth inequality is bad; it’s that the very existence of billionaires means the system promised by liberalism is failing. Capitalism does not create prosperity for all – it extracts wealth coproduced by the many to enrich the few.
If you believe that a society should be judged by how it treats its poorest members rather than its richest, then you’re already questioning capitalism’s moral legitimacy. And if you take that belief seriously, you’re already halfway to socialism.
One of the biggest misconceptions about socialism. one that liberals, in particular, have been conditioned to believe is that it’s about state control. But modern socialism isn’t about bureaucracy; it’s about democracy. Not just political democracy, but economic democracy. The idea that workers should have a say in the businesses they power, that housing should be a right rather than a speculative asset, and that essential services should be run for public good rather than private profit.
Many liberals already support universal healthcare, free education, and worker rights. But these policies aren’t just compassionate and liberal, they are socialist in principle. The moment you acknowledge that certain things should not be left to the market, you’re recognising that capitalism is not the best way to organise society. And if capitalism is not the best way to organise society, why should liberals accept it as the default?
For too long, liberals and socialists have treated each other as opponents rather than allies. Liberals accuse socialists of being unrealistic; socialists accuse liberals of being complicit in capitalism’s failures. But the real divide isn’t between liberals and socialists, it’s between those who want progress and those who seek to entrench the status quo.
The idea that socialism is too radical has been one of the most damaging narratives in modern politics. What’s truly radical is allowing a handful of individuals to hoard unimaginable wealth while millions struggle. What’s radical is accepting an economic system that treats housing, healthcare, and education as commodities rather than rights. What’s radical is believing that billionaires should exist at all in a world where people can’t afford to heat their homes.
If liberals and socialists can agree that the current system is unsustainable, then they must also agree that working together is the only way to change it. Because in an era of rising inequality, climate crisis, and authoritarian resurgence, the left cannot afford to be divided.
Realising I’m a socialist doesn’t mean abandoning liberal values, it means recognising that they only make sense when paired with socialist solutions. It means acknowledging that a fairer society won’t emerge from tweaking capitalism at the edges but from fundamentally rebalancing power.
Liberals must accept that regulated capitalism has failed, and socialists must work with liberals to make radical change electorally viable. The biggest political shifts in history have come not from ideological purity but from broad, united movements. That’s what’s needed now.
Because at the end of the day, the battle isn’t between the artificial differences of socialism and liberalism. It’s between those who believe society should serve the many and those who are determined to keep it working for the few.
* Chris Whiting is a Lib Dem member and former Communications Officer of the Young Liberals
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
21 Comments
I spent 30 years in the socialist movement and have PTSD as a result!
All forms of socialism are deeply authoritarian with democratic centralism with an emphasis on the latter as the key driver for decision making. In contrast Liberalism is an empowering philosophy which celebrates the freedom of the individual.
I just wish I’d discovered it sooner!
David, I am old enough to remember people talking about libertarian socialism.
I’m also ancient enough to remember arguing (in a friendly way) with an extreme socialist contemporary who complained “But liberals don’t have any good slogans”.
She was good enough to back down when I reminded her of “Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite”
(She now works in the United States of North Mexico. I hope she is keeping her head down)
“All forms of socialism are deeply authoritarian with democratic centralism with an emphasis on the latter as the key driver for decision making. In contrast Liberalism is an empowering philosophy which celebrates the freedom of the individual.!”
Seconded.
Chris –
“If you believe in fairness, then you have to acknowledge that an economy where billionaires accumulate wealth while millions struggle is inherently unfair”
If a billionaire accumulates wealth by honest means (I can think of some eceedingly well known ones who I might not put in this category) who are you to say they should not do this?
They may have created, using their own money, an organisation employing many thousands of people which provides services wanted and needed by the wider community.
On the other hand they may have used their wealth for other purposes. I’d call such people libertarians, not liberals. They almost certainly do harm to others – please don’t forget J S Mill.
I regard myself as a social democrat who believes his values are better reflected in the Liberal Democrats than the Labour Party.
Socialism appeals to me no more than Toryism.
But then the current Labour Party as per it’s actions in government are not Socialists.
Hasn’t the old antithesis between socialism and capitalism been superseded in the new Trumpian world by that between autocracy and liberalism? I’m very pleased that the Lib Dem leadership are speaking up for liberalism against the mafia politics of the hard right.
It’s not possible to be a socialist and a liberal at the same time. Socialists put the collective first collective. Liberals always put the individual first.
Might Social Liberalism suit?
“Social liberalism is a political philosophy and a variety of liberalism that endorses social justice, social services, a mixed economy, and the expansion of civil and political rights. Social liberalism based on the social market economy and views the common good as harmonious with the individual’s freedom.”
(From Wikipedia)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism
@Neil Hickman
In my journey I came across orthodox communists, the 57 varieties of trotskyism, democratic socialists of both the left and right but never any libertarian socialists. If there are any they must be in a very small minority or as you say keeping their heads down!
“If a billionaire accumulates wealth by honest means (I can think of some eceedingly well known ones who I might not put in this category) who are you to say they should not do this?”
I’d argue the bigger problem is less about accumulating wealth, and more with hoarding it. Indeed they’ve added value to society by creating the company to begin with, but from that point onwards, the only value they’re bringing to society as a whole is choosing which companies to invest in. Surely at that point the reward is disproportionate to the contribution?
I once thought I was a socialist. I’m not sure I ever really was.
I have since discovered I am a philosophically liberal social democrat, but it took a bit of a journey to recognise this!
Where I definitely agree is your final statement: “the battle is between those who believe society should serve the many and those who are determined to keep it working for the few”. The question is how to do this when “the Left” is so politically fragmented and frustratingly tribal.
I agree with David, Nonconformistradical, and Tristan, that socialism as an economic system is authoritarian and fundamentally incompatible with liberalism. But to be fair to Chris Whiting, I don’t think what he is describing is really socialist. The paragraph, “modern socialism isn’t about bureaucracy;…” makes me think that @Chris, you’re actually a social democrat and you’ve mistakenly described that as socialism.
I do though disagree with your characterisation of capitalism. Capitalism hasn’t failed: It’s certainly suffering problems and needs tweaking, but let’s not forget that, even with the current cost of living crisis, the vast majority of people in the UK have a standard of living incomparably better than what was typical 70 or 100 years ago – and that’s almost entirely the result of capitalism. Also, “people can’t afford to heat their homes” is mainly because we don’t have sufficient energy production capacity now that we (rightly) don’t want to buy it from Russia. That’s a failure of energy planning, not a problem of capitalism. If there isn’t enough of something for everyone then someone is going to end up going without – whatever your economic system: That’s basic maths!
I don’t share most contributors certainty about the clarity of labels and associated definitions.
Chris’s thoughts have a lot in common with J S Mill’s “Socialism”.
The range of socialisms is very wide. There is, for instance, a long history of co-operative socialism which is not necessarily centralised. However, it’s difficult to find a distinctive core which includes everybody who claims the label – unlike liberalism.
That is our great advantage at a time when allegiances are shifting and re-aligning.
Is there any particular reason why we all can’t be socialist and liberal?
I’d claim to be both! 🙂
Gordon,
The real problem is that everyone has their own definition as to what they mean by the terms “liberal” or “socialist”. For most of Europe (and Latin America), the term “liberal” is defined as a centre-right supporter of capitalist values. In the USA, it is used by the Right as a term of disparagement for what it believes are a form of centre-left or even leftist politics. Such is the real gulf between European and American political values (of which Trump is a strong example). Hence the disparate descriptions of “liberalism, “social liberalism” and “neo-liberalism”, which cover an incredibly wide range of views, and to a more or less limited extent all these views are represented with the ranks of the Liberal Democrats (as is evidenced by the contributions to Lib Dem Voice).
As you may remember from when you personally approved me as a Liberal candidate in 1979 (!), I’ve always perceived myself as a radical on the left spectrum of the Liberal Party, and unlike many people age has not shifted my stance in any way. I have always seen the Labour Party as a prisoner of Democratic centralism, unable to tolerate dissent within its own ranks, and thus innately opposed to the basic human right of freedom of expression (however much it might deny the situation). That’s why I resisted an appeal from Peter and Simon to join their defection to Labour, and how I have never regretted that decision.
The Labour Party includes some socialists but it is not a socialist party. Indeed I could argue that Labour is its own worst enemy because it devotes so much political energy to internal struggles that could be better spent helping to create a fairer, more productive and happier country. Meanwhile I have doubts about labelling as socialist elements of the public realm that in many other countries are uncontroversial and supported by party political consensus – e.g. public transport run by the state, regions or municipalities.
Might the article below be of interest?
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/glossary/mixed-economy/
The problem is human nature. I used to be an anarchist until I realised that fact. There are always those who are going to game the system, whatever system they are in, always those who will exploit and bully others. Socialism doesn’t eliminate those people. For me, a liberal democracy with state owned essential services makes the best sense. OK, not working out that well at present and we do need radical change, but outright revolution always ends in tears. Change achieved gradually is more likely to stay in place.
An excellent article Chris, concisely relating many of the imbalances in society but the labels of liberalism and socialism (especially socialism) confuse it somewhat. Your ending about serving the many not the few is almost spot on; the aim should be to serve all.
It’s also about power, which corrupts and centralised control which can harm individuals. Tories have shown centralisation tendencies recently when they condemned the judges who ruled against their behaviour. They often do this when supporting a system that benefits the wealthy often trying to claim the current system is the only one that works.
However, I also sometimes feel that liberals put so much on the individual they forget the need for more working together across society which requires the right kind of leadership from those in power. Rights come with responsibilities is another feature that we liberals sometimes forget.
Defining the political spectrum as a single left–right axis is too simplistic and does not distringuish between authoritarian versus Libetarian. The axes of popular biaxial spectra are usually split between economic issues (on a left–right dimension) and socio-cultural issues (on an authority–liberty dimension). Liberalism means different things in different contexts, being sometimes on the left (social liberalism) and other times on the right (conservative liberalism or classical liberalism). Those with an intermediate outlook are often described as centrists.
Liberal Democrats encompass all these groupings being itself a merger of the old Liberal party and social democrat party.
The constitution speaks of the need to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community. This makes us all centrists and party policy tends to reflect these basic tensions.
@ Neil Hickman @ David Warren
Libertarian socialism isn’t the same thing as liberal socialism in the same way that liberalism and libertarianism isn’t the the same thing in a more right wing context.
Nevertheless it is worth looking up what Libertarian Socialism means which I’d associate with the kind of Anarchism than was reached a peak of popularity in Spain in the 30s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
“ Many liberals already support universal healthcare, free education, and worker rights. But these policies aren’t just compassionate and liberal, they are socialist in principle.”
That’s a highly questionable claim since, if I recall correctly, in the case of the latter two, the first laws relating to them were introduced before the formation of socialist parties, much less their achieving of power anywhere in Europe. Likewise, I believe most European countries have some variation on universal healthcare even if they were introduced by non-socialist parties.