To what extent is Marxism a liberal ideology?

Question

It's been asserted in another answer here that:

Marxism is, of course, part of the spectrum of Liberal ideologies, though it is often maligned as being something 'other.'

Looking at the SEP page on Liberalism it does indeed start with spectrum-like notion:

Liberalism is more than one thing. On any close examination, it seems to fracture into a range of related but sometimes competing visions.

But Marxism is only mentioned once on the page, and not in an inclusive manner:

During and after the Second World War the idea that liberalism was based on inherently individualist analysis of humans-in-society arose again. Karl Popper’s The Open Society and its Enemies (1945) presented a sustained critique of Hegelian and Marxist theory and its collectivist and historicist, and to Popper, inherently illiberal, understanding of society.

So, in what sense is Marxism liberal and who considers it so? (By "who" I mean to ask if there any notable thinkers/theorists/movements etc. that hold such a view, i.e. classify Marxism as part of liberalism spectrum in some fashion.)

Clarification: since liberalism is a contested term, I'm being very liberal here in the sense that answers can pick their your favorite sense of "liberal" that might make the opening statement true. I.e. this isn't a "is Y an X: true or false?" kind of question, but "since by my choice of X I'm flummoxed by this statement that, I let you chose an X for which you think this is true, but please explain your reasoning." Of course, I expect an answer to still choose an X that is not completely idiosyncratic to this question, like say X = Marxism, making the statement trivially true, but some that is verifiable use of the term outside this question. I.e., if the answer is "it's true on Fox News because of the US usage of the terms", then that's a valid answer as far as I'm concerned, although a bit boring.

Answer 1

Marxist humanism is a very liberal (in American way) interpretation of the work of Karl Marx, especially the Paris Manuscript and his early theory of alienation.

Most of the authors whose books inspired liberal 1968 student revolt self-described themselves as Marxist humanists, e.g. Herbert Marcuse or Wilhelm Reich. Their new political movement called New Left shifted Marxists' attention from class struggle towards social issues such as civil and political rights, feminism, gay rights, abortion rights, gender roles and drug policy reforms.

Freudo-Marxism borrowed from Freud the theory of conflict between the individual and civilization. Marxists attempt to liberate people by creating a non-repressive society.

Also, some liberal feminist movements are inspired by the unfinished book of Karl Marx published by Engels. The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State

Marxism attempts to liberate people from work, culture, religion, and morality therefore it is a liberal ideology.

Answer 2

The answer to this question is one of those 'hiding in plain sight' things: obvious to the point that it's almost invisible. But to the point...

The heart of Classical Liberal theory — 16^th to 18^th century Liberal philosophy, from a variety of well-known thinkers — is that individual human beings have intrinsic rights and liberties that should not be transgressed upon by powerful, politically-dominant groups. First among these rights and liberties was the concept of 'property'. Classical Liberal theorists all held that government — in that era, this meant monarchies and aristocracies — was illegitimate if it unjustly taxed or otherwise expropriated the property and wealth of the then-burgeoning 'commercial' sector (financiers, economic adventurers, colonialists, early industrialists, and other wealthy commoners...). People should be able to reap the rewards of their efforts, not see their profits and property whisked away to serve the interests of nobility.

The often-overlooked point, though, is that property was generally defined (after Locke, in his second treatise on government) by the investment of labor. To Locke's mind there was a great bounty of nature which was owned by no one, and ripe for the taking. Any man who went out and began harvesting, collecting, mining, processing, or otherwise investing labor in the extraction of some portion of nature's bounty was by that very act establishing that as his property, to do with as he would. If I dig a hole in a field and find a potato, that is my potato; if I find gold that is my gold. I own those things by right of my labor.

Shift forward to the mid-19^th century. The feudal landscape is well on its way out; colonialism is at its peak, with political, social, and economic power shifting to the very commoners that Classical Liberalism was trying to defend. It seems as though Liberalism has won the day. But then Marx notices something odd and unfortunate. The very people who do the physical labor of growing, manufacturing, mining, or otherwise extracting and processing the bounty of nature — i.e., the ones who by right ought to be able to claim the final product as their property, to do with as they would — are instead sent home with a wholly inadequate wage. The end product is instead claimed by industrialists and capitalists, those who fund and develop the industry, but do no other labor. To Marx's mind this 'Liberal victory' has merely supplanted one expropriator for another. The noble class no longer violates the property rights of wealthy commoners; now the financier/industrialist class violates the property rights of poor laborers. Why should laborers settle for a flat, minimal wage while capitalists take the product of the laborers' efforts and sell it for what the market will bear?

In this sense, Marx was merely developing Locke's Liberal argument to a more universal understanding of property rights. It's not as though Locke wasn't aware of or concerned by this issue — he does worry about the nature of money and the problems of collective labor — but Locke doesn't resolve that issue or offer a comprehensive solution.

Marx is clearly developing Liberal theory in the proper sense of the word. The confusion develops because the term 'Liberal' (at that time and beyond) had come to be associated with capitalism, and capitalism had developed some extremely anti-liberal, exploitive features. Further, Marx's idealized philosophy of universal rights degraded over time (and through the typical paranoia of revolutionaries) into a number of oppressive authoritarian regimes. It's difficult to see the liberal thrust of Marx's philosophy through the problematic lens of Stalinism or Maoism.