When did "Liberalism" and "Socialism" become dirty words....?

When I was younger, the the words "Liberal" and "Socialist" referred generally to ideas and beliefs that were all about everybody being treated fairly and equally in society.

Nowadays, however, if you read anything about American politics, you get the sense that these words have taken on a new, negative connotation.

"Liberals and Socialists" seem to be being marked out as the sort of people who you wouldn't want to leave your kids with and it seems to be fairly accepted (by the neo-Cons of the right at least) that Liberalism and Socialism are the work of the devil.

Is it simply that they're all thick and can't distinguish between Communism and Socialism?

I get that, to a point, but when did the idea that Liberalism is evil become so readily accepted?

I always thought that Liberalism (as in liberal democracy in a broad non party-specific way) was a good thing.

When Political correctness took the place of common sense, I would say.

I like to think of myself as being the sort of person were one or both of those phrases would seem to apply to me - I believe in being fair, honest and equal with those around me and I don't take advantage of those that are weaker than me such as exploit them financially or marginalise them in anyway.

The thing though is that there are two parts to most things and that includes people.

Yes of course we should help those who are in need of help - but when did we suddenly become the magnet for half the world to rock up and stick their noses in our benefits system without putting anything into the pot?

Course we should give safety to those who are religiously persecuted for their beliefs in their own country - but when did we say it was ok to preach hatred against us once they got here and let them get on with freely setting up their own communities and marginalising in our own backyards - Trojan Horse anyone?

Yes we should give opportunity for people to better there lives - but when did we say it was ok for half of eastern europe to flood the country, putting a strain on housing, Gp's, education, hospitals, etc, etc, for the rest of us to endure?

Being good is one thing - being exploited is another - and to be honest I think a great many people have now begun to think the same way too - hence the rise of UKIP and other 'reactionary' parties across the EU.

And that is why the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Fully agree with everything you've written there, Sluff.

But I'm still struggling to understand at what point "Liberal" became a term of abuse.

When I was learning about politics, "liberal" (with a small "l" ) meant being considered of thought, not rash, middle of the road, not extreme and generally tolerant.

Nowadays, Republicans in 'Murika scream "Liberal!" at anybody who doesn't agree with their fundamentalist Christian, right-wing agenda, in the same way that people shout "Pervert!" at dirty old men in macs hanging around outside primary schools.

It's taken on a whole new (negative) meaning, like it's a term of abuse.

That's the bit I'm struggling with.

As for "Socialist" being dropped by New Labour over here, I've still not forgiven the bastards for that one......

I see a liberal as someone who supports criminals, would prefer the UK to have no immigration policy, and thinks chavs are misunderstood.

Reebok Trotter, 1874 & Hipster are the main liberals on this board.

"liberal" used to have connotations like "liberated" i.e. without hang-ups - and by extension/inference promiscuous or flaky - the direct opposite of what the Whigs had tried to represent.

UK Socialism began as a middle class movement intent on promoting "respect for the working man" and universal suffrage (i.e. a say in how things are run via the vote) Early adopters were predominantly religious people and Socialism was viewed as being a "Christian" approach to politics which sought to end exploitation. The Fabians started off with best of intentions.
After years of respectable success, socialism was finished off as a popular political concept in the UK following Labour's defeat in the 1979 election but it had been tarred with connotations of being "left wing" and "extreme" for many years when the concept itself was centrist.
I guess that Socialism had also suffered from being associated with militancy and totalitarianism in the Eastern Bloc (although it was described as Communism despite having nothing to do with Marx's vision in practice) In the UK socialism was associated with Unions and strikes at the time.
Following the 1979 defeat and a brief surge to the left which lowered the vote even more the Labour Party under Kinnock started a witch hunt to try to regain the popular vote, marginalising groups like Militant and re-evaluating the historic ties with the Unions - culminating with "New Labour" in the 90s and Blair. After 4 successive general election defeats, Labour had dropped all links to socialism and had become a right wing party (or centrist in new money)
Socialism is a dangerous word and means different things in different parts of the world but with the common concept of being focused on "improving society for the benefit of all it's members and not just the privileged few."
Remember the National Socialist Party in Germany? The Nazis claimed to be for the benefit of society etc.

Did Liberal not become a term for abuse when that ' fuck off fatty' Cyril Smith croaked?

Good points Lusty,Socialism can certainly be twisted to mean just about anything,and to be fair it has been tainted in recent years. But for the modern day Labour Party to live in fear of the word is ridiculous. Like Bread,I've never really forgiven them. They won't even use the word 'comrade',and singing 'The Red Flag' is just an embarrassment to them. It's almost as if they're ashamed of their history.They've now become 'Labour Lite' following the whims of the electorate like a school of fish,twisting and turning with every change in the current. This isn't the party I joined 40 years ago,nor should it be,times and people change,but what it needed to retain was that solid backbone of Socialist ideals that have changed the lives of the people of this country for the better. Labour has become an effete parody of itself. Mind you,I've just had a winner on the dogs so la-de-da..........

This might sound like a bit of a naive view-point, but here goes:

(Yet again) I blame Thatcher.

We all know about the mess the country was in by the '79 election.

Strikes, 3 Day Week, power cuts, rubbish piling up in the streets, Winter of Discontent, Callaghan going to the IMF for a loan, all that stuff........

So it wasn't a real shock when the Tories got in.

Michael Foot, despite being a brilliant orator and thinker, looked odd and was an easy target for the media and this made Thatcher's job during the early years of government easier - there was no real, effective opposition.

So she set about changing British politics forever by convincing the traditional rank and file Labour voter that they were actually "aspirational Tories", who wanted to buy their council houses, go to Benidorm twice a year, buy shit they didn't need and start voting Tory.

And enough of them fell for it, that Labour lost a massive amount of core vote.

I know loads of people my age who grew up in terraced houses with working class parents, who have always classed themselves as Tories because they had a colour telly and went abroad twice a year as kids.

It's fucking ridiculous.

So what do Labour do now to try and re-engage with these people?

They morph into Tory-Lite, as Bonce says, in a desperate attempt to try and win back votes.

It's bollocks and it's why I struggle to vote for them nowadays......

Certainly the ethos that was promoted under Thatcher was to be selfish and not give a monkey's about anyone else regardless of how disadvantaged they might be or lucky you might be - a sort of twisted meritocracy but without the checks and balances to protect the weak.

This effectively persuaded a lot of working class voters to shoot themselves in the foot as it was based on the premise that "if you work hard you'll be rewarded fairly" which is patently untrue as society isn't a level playing field - a fact that can be put out of people's minds by appealing to their inherent greed and prejudices.

The reality in the UK is if you come from a privileged background, get a good education (Eton wouldn't do your career any harm) have rich parents who can give you the start up capital to launch your own business, have strong nepotistic family connections or have any other distinct advantage by birth you will have to be a complete tosspot not to get rewarded by society.

It was a great trick to dispel any lingering thoughts about class inequality.
Nowadays the same "haves" are using xenophobia to distract the "have nots" from recognising who is really undermining their financial position.

I guess it's a lot easier to convince some people that "foreigners taking their jobs" is a bigger factor in their position than corporations driving for efficiency gains and tax avoidance to maintain shareholder dividends leading to salary caps, increased immigration, redundancies and poverty. 

Racially motivated war is easier to sell than class war these days apparently.

Fair comment up to a point, but........

.....this isn't as black & white as people simply being fooled into blaming all their ills on "bloody foreigners coming over here and taking our jobs" by the political elite, to deflect attention from their own efforts to keep us subjugated.

If I wanted to live in Australia or Canada, I'd have to go through an application process to ensure that I: (A) wouldn't be a burden on their society and (B) I'd actually make a positive contribution to their economy.

I can't just get off a BA flight in Adelaide or Calgary and say "Right, I live here now. Where's the Benefit Office? I need some money and a house....."

Rightly or wrongly, that's the current perception of a lot of immigrants coming to the UK nowadays.

It's not that they're taking our jobs, it's more the fact that they can just pitch up uninvited and start demanding that we, the British tax-payer, have an obligation to subsidise their existence.

Two Bob Tories have been the scourge of this country since the 80's. Thatcher claimed she cared about all her 'subjects' and used that as an excuse to bash the Argies. Rightly or wrongly what happened in the Falklands is history now but that cunt Thatcher was central in promoting selfishness and disrespect for your fellow human.
Now I know that doesn't fit in with Liberalism and Socialism but that witch has a lot to answer for. 
Purely my opinion of course.

My parents bought their council house under Thatcher but I didn't agree with some of the stuff she did. As far back as I can remember the Liberals were always a poor third. Jeremy Thorpe and his little peccadillo's didn't do them any favours. The SDP under Woy, Shirley and Dave didn't appeal to the voters either. Most voters saw them as disgruntled Labour supporters.

Nowadays the word Liberal is always linked with Lily livered. I think that the original Liberal values were well intended but they have no place in modern society. ( Especially the likes of that fat bastard, Cyril Smith )

Labour's traditional support base has dwindled as the workplace has changed. Mass unionised industry has all but disappeared, trade unions have seen a massive reduction in membership as have the political party's themselves. The Labour and Conservative party both had memberships of over a million in the 80's but it is no more than 2-3 hundred thousand now. To survive they have almost met in the centre ground Conservative is almost what is termed a social democrat party in Europe and Labour has moved to the right abandoning much of its socialist ideology.

In my opinion the reason Ukip has done so well recently is that those that still bother to vote no longer identify themselves with Labour or Tory.

NickFazer wrote:

In my opinion the reason Ukip has done so well recently is that those that still bother to vote no longer identify themselves with Labour or Tory.

Spot on, Nick.

That's me in a nutshell.

And probably a damn sight more of us as well.

Breadman wrote:
If I wanted to live in Australia or Canada, I'd have to go through an application process to ensure that I: (A) wouldn't be a burden on their society and (B) I'd actually make a positive contribution to their economy.

I can't just get off a BA flight in Adelaide or Calgary and say "Right, I live here now. Where's the Benefit Office? I need some money and a house....."

Rightly or wrongly, that's the current perception of a lot of immigrants coming to the UK nowadays.

True but if you were a Kiwi or an national from some of the independent islands that surround Australia then they can just land at an airport and ask directions for the nearest benefits office because of the trade and social links that Australia has with New Zealand and the various islands and even with a couple of the "Asian" countries.

It is the inward looking perspective that has grown in this country, very akin to how the US is, that has damaged our own outlook on the world and we have become very paranoid!  We can no longer see what is happening with other countries and realise it isn't as and as we think it is for our island!

And yes I could be classed as a "liberal socialist"  or a "socialist liberal"!!  As in I always keep my mind open to new ideologies and new ways but, as there has to be a but being any form a liberal, it has to work or revert back until another ideology can be tried and tested, to see if it can work.

bwfc71 wrote:And yes I could be classed as a "liberal socialist"  or a "socialist liberal"!!  As in I always keep my mind open to new ideologies and new ways but, as there has to be a but being any form a liberal, it has to work or revert back until another ideology can be tried and tested, to see if it can work.

At some point though, you've got to stop looking for the answer in someone else's ideology and decide what works for you.

Or maybe that's the whole point of being a liberal with a big L.

You don't ever have to decide what you firmly believe in, you just keep trying to pick out the bits that you agree with from other peoples' convictions, without ever setting out your own.