We often hear liberals calling for more government control of people's lives and that a communal approach to life is the key to universal happiness.  But if you start to argue with your average liberal and try to get them to defend their policy prescriptions with logic and facts rather than emotion, the defense of their positions is often weak and disjointed.  They seem to not know themselves why they are supporting a particular cause or position, just that it must be right.

I cannot say if the positions they take really are correct, but I do know that if we look at everything without passion.  Taking a view that an economist might understand.  We can show that much of the liberal "agenda" is backed by the same "self-interest and greed" that they so often cry out against.

So lets divide this into two possibilities and ask, could the "liberal" position be based on false promises born out of their own personal self-interest and greed?

Self-interest

This basically is the "What's In It For Me" factor.  We all have experienced it at some point.  We are offered an opportunity to help someone else and ask silently.  "Is this really worth it?"  or "Will I get something out of it."   Heck, I'm sure most of us has looked our significant other in the eye and asked "What do you want" after they are especially nice to us, based on the assumption that they are acting that way because they think they will be rewarded.  And in some cases the possible reward is obvious.

Professors clearly think they should be in charge, but in our current political and economic environment they lack the power to force others to listen.  But if they can create a communistic system, they will drain all the power from the "captains of industry" and vastly increase their power and influence. 

Environmentalists are also looking to gain power over others, and over land.  Long ago most wars would be fought over even the meanest least productive parcels of land available simply because the land itself was valuable.  Now in our post-industrial world the land is perceived by many to be less valuable, but there are still those who fight for control of the land, hoping that having such control will lead to greater economic and political power.

Even the politicans who push liberal dogma see opportunity for greater control and power.  If people are not free and independent of government than they have to listen more closely to those that represent the government, and I'm sure the thought of turning most people back into the serfs of the middle ages warms many a politicans heart when he thinks of the pure power that would represent.

Greed

Let's be honest, liberalism pays good money.  You can petition the government for grant money, or subsidies.  You have the opportunity to shake down corporations for blood money and scandal repair based on their lack of "empathy" for the common man.  You can even declare your organization a "non-profit" and take donations from
the masses.  Working to take advantage of their lack of understanding of the costs of your agenda.

Results

But in truth, most of this is poorly thought out.  I once read that more than nine out of ten people who lived in Europe during the middle ages were peasants.  Today, with the ability to centralize command and control functions through computers and telecommunications its likely that a cadre that represented less than 2% of the population would be capable of making all the relevant decisions necessary to run a communistic economy.  So most likely very few liberals would actually become members of the new Politburo.  Most would be thrown back into the mass of serf-slaves who would be nothing more than mouths and h ands to the completely inhuman machine that is a communistic government.  And that power would be fleeting.  Since 1900 there have been several "revolutions".  Of the nations that have overthrown their original government and established personality cults of communism, only North Korea, Cuba, Zimbabue, and Venezuela still have completely unchanged governments.  Cuba, Zimbabue and Venezuela still have their original Leader.  The man who founded the new government still reigns over a population that is kept disarmed and helpless.  North Korea has seen the power pass from the original leader to his son and again has a population that is kept helpless.  None of these nations is free, or open, and none is likely to survive the death of its current leader.

The other nations that changed over have all fallen away from true "communism" into a new government that is much less militant and controlling.

Russia - fell after the generation that conducted the revolution started to die off, government control has returned, but as despotism not communism.

China - after the passing of Mao and other leaders, the government implemented reforms intended to pacity the populace by raising the standard of living.  Despite this government control continues to suffer as corruption becomes endemic.

Vietnam - the communist government collapsed after a generation

Laos - the communist government collapsed after a generation

Eastern Europe - Once the Soviet Union stopped propping up their governments the nations of the Warsaw pact saw their governments fall to popular revolutions and reopened their markets and borders.

Communism and Liberal policy go hand in hand.  They are two sides of a coin that is dipped deep in the greed of personal power and political domination.  They rely on having people become slaves of the government rather than the government serving the people as an arbiter of justice and source of peace.

Until this false promise of communism is finally repudiated by all honest citizens, we will see the liberals attempt to push a bad policy on the world.