Communism vs Liberalism

The Tragedy is the word Liberalism used to hold
rather positive connotations a century ago

How do you leave the economic aspect out of something that is as much economics as it is politics, if not more?

We trade with other countries not because we agree with their politics but because they have stuff we want.

“How do you leave the economic aspect out of something that is as much economics as it is politics, if not more?”
Because it was far more than just economics.One could virtually state that economics was the early twentieth century Means to the worse Ends. They were out to repudiate all previous held norms and Values
If this is too difficult, let us put it thus they a combo of pre-Marxist Jacobinism and[ as some eg Jordan Peterson terms them] “postmodern neo marxism”

One ostensible offical difference between communism and present Left was the Marxist scoffing at law,and the policy of Power justify every means. Though the difference is really on the surface rather than factual. They have figured out how to play the System better

In the US, being a Facist is very looked down upon

In the U.S., anything is very looked down upon, depending on one’s agenda du jour.

“offering us a stimulating analysis of May 1968 in France, Daniel Mahoney ..He recognizes that those actors who participated most influentially in “the events” were not of the same creed, but diversely Trotskyites, Maoists, aficionados of Che [Guevara], and anarchists..
I was a careful observer of sit-ins and building takeovers at my own University of Pennsylvania.. A small number of self-aware activists used specific issues to draw in a much larger number of students who had few deep political commitments. In the crucible of all-night plenary sessions in occupied buildings, however, the insiders worked their alchemy upon the far, far larger number. Votes at 9 p.m. to place more students on university decision-making committees became, by 2 a.m., votes to dismantle American capitalism in which almost all of them had wanted to prosper only a few hours before.. As in France, a goodly number of those who were truly absorbed by the politics and cultural politics went into academic life or into journalism, where they would later wield an influence far beyond their actual numbers.

Mahoney rightly argues, of course, the significant consequences of whatever changed in 1968 were less political in any immediate sense than they were cultural and attitudinal. Indeed, the spirit of May ’68 expressed its rejection of bourgeois life and values in a slogan ubiquitous at that time: “Métro, boulot, dodo.” This slogan (so contemptuous in its childlike rhyme and slang) means subway (that is, commuting to one’s job), work, sleep. That was the dreariness and human destitution of our condition under liberal capitalism. The phrase was derived from a line in a 1951 poem by Pierre Béarn, “Couleurs d’Usine.” Béarn, perhaps describing his father’s life in a factory, ended his poem this way (translation mine):
Au déboulé garçon pointe ton numéro
Pour gagner ainsi le salaire
D’un morne jour utilitaire
Métro, boulot, bistro, mégots, dodo, zéro
(Rush in boy, punch your time card
In order to earn the salary
Of a dismal utilitarian day
Metro, work, bistro, cigarette butts, sleep, zero.)

“Classical liberalism (today’s libertarianism) is socially liberal while believing in laissez-faire economics. ”
False
Adam Smith and the majority of later Classical Liberals were High minded and they weren’t libertarian nor socially liberal
There were though some exceptions such as John Stuart Mill

Ubi, are you a commentator on Engels? Marx said that the state will wither away. Of course, it could be that something was lost in the translation from the original German.

Ubi, I once read an article by someone who recalled that her German professor reprimanded her for her Yiddishisms. Assuming that the German word “nation” has the same as the English meaning (and English and German are also related) it does not mean “state” but is similar to the Hebrew word עם. This is contrary to fascism where control (although not nominal ownership) is in the hands of the state. Thus the Nazi party was correctly called National Socialist (and is still called that in Germany).

Health, actually there is a common thread between various movements that have attracted Jews. All seek tikkun olam. One can throw in Ayn Rand (born Alissa Rosenbaum), Paul Samuelson, Ludwig von Mises and Milton Friedman. In fact, the argument between Trotsky and Stalin ym”s was that the former wanted to foment world revolution and the latter wanted to concentrate on Russia and its sphere of influence. A Jew can never get away from his Jewish destiny although he can be totally non-observant. Rav Soloveichik referred to this dichotomy as “two covenants” – the Berit ben haBeitarim and Berit Chorev.

To be fully accurate,
One could often make the same claim across the spectrum [or for some the circle] including surely capitalism and even democracy

Hard to imagine throwing Ayn Rand in the same context as tikkun olam

Ubi, the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics defines fascism as socialism with a capitalist veneer. That is to say, nominal ownership along with profits is in private hands but the government makes the decisions.

Time, one can say that she was off-track but she intended for tikkun olam. Similarly, the ACLU, with if also often off-track was founded by a Jew (Arthur Garfield Hays). Aryeh Neier , who is observant, led ion from 70-78 when he founded Helsinki Watch, later renamed Human Rights Watch.

Time, the author of that quote, Edmund Burke, was not a classical liberal but a conservative who believed that societies must maintain their traditions and that change should be evolutionary (see his disciple Russell Kirk’s Ten Conservative Principles /em>. Classical liberals believe that government should be limited to preventing force and fraud (a.k.a. the “night watchman state”). See also the “non-aggression principle”. For further reading see Mill, On Liberty and Hayek The Constitution of Liberty.

The 18th Century Whigs were not classical liberals at all. While they supported individual freedom it was only because they saw it as an English tradition (and thus viewed voting as a privilege rather than a right) rather than Natural Law. This was echoed in the original demand of the Americans for their rights as Englishman, implying that Frenchmen, for example, had no rights.

Having said that, your statement is fair enough

J.S. Mill who wrote “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community [but explicitly not what he considered to be a barbaric community], against his will, is to prevent harm to others” . Friedrich Hayek is another example. Another is Robert Nozick (Anarchy, State, and Utopia ).

As for British political humor, when Lady Astor told Churchill that if he were her husband she would poison his tea he replied that if she were his wife he would drink it. When MP Bessie Braddock MP said “Winston, you are drunk, and what’s more you are disgustingly drunk.” he replied “Bessie, my dear, you are ugly, and what’s more, you are disgustingly ugly. But tomorrow I shall be sober and you will still be disgustingly ugly.” The Americans are also not slouches. Sam Houston said about an opponent “He has all the characteristics of a dog save loyalty”.

And what about Americans or Canadians?
Who?
Abraham Lincoln
?Wilfrid Laurier?