Give a man a fish...

Liberalism: anathema to anarchism, socialism, and communism.

From an unknown user on Reddit:

A liberal is an advocate of private property, capitalism and the state (albeit supporting a more benevolent system than conservatives). Anarchists unequivocally oppose all three so we do not like liberalism, it is as simple as that. 

Anarchists find themselves allied with liberals when they support strengthening state programmes / oppose cut backs as a short term goal in defending the interests of the working class. 

Chomsky famously claims that anarchism is a logical extension of classical liberalism, which was largely thought up before the rise of industrial capitalism. This is disputed though. 

I don't share the scorn for liberals that many here have, although I oppose the ideology. I'm not sure whether Chomsky is right or not historically, but in my experience many liberals are only one police baton strike away from anarchist thinking. I pour scorn only on totalitarian ideologies, such as communism or fascism.

Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie

 Liberal "Democracy":

Some Marxists, communists, socialists and anarchists argue that liberal democracy, under capitalist ideology, is constitutively class-based and therefore can never be democratic or participatory. It is referred to as bourgeois democracy because ultimately politicians fight only for the rights of the bourgeoisie. According to Marx, representation of the interests of different classes is proportional to the influence which a particular class can purchase (through bribes, transmission of propaganda through mass media, economic blackmail, donations for political parties and their campaigns, etc.). Thus, the public interest, in so-called liberal democracies, is systematically corrupted by the wealth of those classes rich enough to gain (the appearance of) representation. Because of this, multi-party democracies under capitalist ideology are always distorted and anti-democratic, their operation merely furthering the class interests of the owners of the means of production.

According to Marx, the bourgeois class becomes wealthy through a drive to appropriate the surplus-value of the creative labours of the working class. This drive obliges the bourgeois class to amass ever-larger fortunes by increasing the proportion of surplus-value by exploiting the working class through capping workers' terms and conditions as close to poverty levels as possible. (Incidentally, this obligation demonstrates the clear limit to bourgeois freedom, even for the bourgeoisie itself.)

Thus, according to Marx, parliamentary elections are no more than a cynical, systemic attempt to deceive the people by permitting them, every now and again, to endorse one or other of the bourgeoisie's predetermined choices of which political party can best advocate the interests of capital. Once elected, this parliament, as a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, enacts regulations that actively support the interests of its true constituency, the bourgeoisie (such as bailing out Wall St investment banks; direct socialisation/subsidisation of business – GMH, US/European agricultural subsidies; and even wars to guarantee trade in commodities such as oil).

Vladimir Lenin once argued that liberal democracy had simply been used to give an illusion of democracy while maintaining the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

In short, popular elections are nothing but the appearance of having the power of decision of who among the ruling classes will misrepresent the people in parliament.^[

What day is today?