What is the difference between leftism and liberalism?

These answers are helpful. I’ll try to get at what they don’t, the scoop, what you’d find if you joined these groups as an activist. In practical terms for the last half-century, leftists feel they are opponents of liberals. And many anarchists do not see themselves as leftists, but non-aligned on the continuum of political ideology. In part this is because they share particular views outside right and left ideologies but some overlapping with liberal and conservative views. I find myself in this category.

Those who label themselves anarchists usually tend toward communitarianism, anti-authoritarianism (though this is also an independent stance) and anti-capitalism/corporatism. A surprising number of them are vegans in not wishing to subjugate or murder animals. They agree with leftists in opposing strong private property rights. Those who label themselves libertarians are usually pro-market capitalism (laissez-faire capitalism (though anti-monopolists) and governmental minimalists (minarchists) championing individual rights, especially the private property right, which they claim over their own bodies.

Why anarchists disdain liberals is because they’re compromisers with the things they oppose, moving too far toward centrism. They also mask the evils of capitalism thinking that reforms is all the system needs. The same with the state, the large state. Get a lot of large social programs going and the authoritarianism of the state is balanced. Get enough regulations in place as well, and serious authoritarianism is banned. This comes from a Marxist analysis as do many of their views at the source. However, they favor the early Marx humanist.

Real democracy must be direct democracy, within small groups say anarchists. Representative democracy where you vote the man, not the policy, is a joke. Politicians are in the pocket of large donors, especially corporations. Large politically democratic states, like the capitalist economies they serve, can not avoid the centralization and accumulation of power, nor will they avoid secrecy and propaganda.

Anarchists are surprisingly pacifist. But as Black Bloc has shown recently, too often confused with Antifa, they use violence in assertive self-defense and to some degree offense against fascists/Nazis/rabid racists. This is because they see these groups and their hate-ideologies and speech as delivering slow-motion violent blows against the rest of us, which have to be stopped along the way somewhere, before it is too late to avoid them striking, to avoid their blows. The same is true with the corporatist state. It always looks like it is stable, at most slightly infringing on our liberty, ignoring our will, but it is in slow-motion oppression of us. And while we sit passively apathetically by, feeling no particular policy merits violent fightback, we are actually losing a war. That it is a slow-motion war, winning by slow encroachment, indoctrination, letting us get used to oppressive changes, it is a war nonetheless. And often a slow-motion, tepid response alongside is not enough to compete, stopping its course.

The American public can not understand this, partly because anarchists especially do not explain it. Neither do socialists on the left, much less democratic socialists who are liberals to the left and to anarchists. This is largely because anarchists and liberal do not have a public voice beyond the Occupy Wall Street Movement for a moment. Even when they get one, they haughtily fail to use it, assuming the general population won’t be able to grasp their views or perspective-take their outlook. Black Bloc is especially dismissive this way and self-destructively unconcerned with their appearance to the public. They usually refuse to talk even to the press. Everyone seems their enemy.

The real left, socialists and communists are still considered enemies by Americans as polls show that ask “Would you vote for a socialist?” The answer is a resounding no. Conservatives try to sink proposals like Obamacare merely by saying they are socialist. This is why some see Bernie sander’s strategy of calling his reform capitalism and liberalism by its European name, democratic socialism, seemed a poor and misleading one. But it does serve to get the public used to these terms, developing positive associations. It might be a good longer term strategy.

There is a lively socialist community in the US but it is very small. And its voice can barely be heard except by searching it out. I agree with the answer that says equality is the key principle distinguishing it, just as equality is what distinguishes liberalism most, though its original tradition brought us individual rights. It is now champion of the large welfare state and strong social obligations, especially to the poor and disenfranchised. It remains the voice of social compact, the idea that we are all in this together as a society, each pulling for each other in a system of mutual respect.

In general “leftism” is whatever policies are current pursused in the name of dismantling existing hierarchies and bringing about more social, financial and political equality.

Liberalism is a broad political movement, ranging from some anarchists through social liberals who make up most of the political centre-left to market liberals who make up the center-right and has influence even on the far right. Its focus is on personal and political liberty.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, liberalism was identical with the left, but with the emergence of various kinds of socialism and anarchism in the late 19th and early 20th century the two are now clearly different.

Liberals think freedom is the goal, and inequality is sometimes a symptom of lack of freedom. Leftists thing equality is the goal and freedom is a means. There is quite a lot of overlap in political concerns, but the range of liberal responses to leftist ideas is very wide, philosophically, because different kinds of liberalism disagree heavily about how much inequality to expect if people were perfectly free.

The situation is somewhat confused in the US because socialism has never been particularly attractive to Americans, and at one point was almost politically unacceptable, so people who were broadly speaking leftists came to be called liberals and people on the center-right who were liberals abandoned the term. But things seem to be correcting themselves somewhat with the left generally calling itself “progressive” and leaving the term liberal to more mainstream social liberals.

Liberalism is an extremely broad ideology that straddles from the right (market liberalism and libertarianism) to the left (liberal egalitarianism). It puts the focus on liberty as a prime political value, that people are in some important sense equal, and that government both must be and can be justified to the governed.

Leftism is an umbrella term that encompasses multiple left of center ideologies. It’s appropriate to refer to most anarchisms as leftist. It’s not appropriate to refer to contemporary market liberalism as leftist. What unites leftisms tends to be a commitment to equality relative to the status quo and anti-hierarchy. The big name leftists include socialism, left-liberalisms, anarchism, and so on.

So, not all leftisms are liberal and neither are all liberalisms leftist.

Leftist are always argue to reduce the social inequality by Radical,reforming or by the socialist(party).They are not believe in natural laws.They always oppose social hierarchy and social inequality.

Unlike leftist Liberalists are always belive is natural laws.They say Social hierarchy are inevitable .So orthodox in their tradition.They said social differences are need for competition in the markets