No, I'll do it again. I''m a liberal. I always have been.
> ^^^^
> > ^^^^
> CB: Then you are making up your own esoteric meaning
> for the word "liberal".
What is esoteric or idiosyncratic about associating liberalsim with:
(a) A defense of a political system characterized by reprersentative government, competitive elections and extensive social and political liberties, and
(b) a philosophical acknowledge that in a free or even a not free but divided society differences on ultimate values run too deep for them to the basis of political action -- political decisions have to be decided on the basis of political accommodation or conflict, not philosophical or religious authorirt
> How many other people, besides extreme rightwingers,
> equate liberalism with
> anti-capitalism or socialism ?
I didn't say liberalism is the same thing as socialism, I said they're consistent. How many people besides sectraian leftists equate liberalsim with pro-capitalism? (In America -- in Europ and S. AMerica the term hasa different meaning.)
If you don't know
> that your themes and theses
> in posting to these list over the last 7 years or so
> put in question whether
> or not you support retaining capitalism then you
> need to go look in the
> archives.
Call it what it you like, then. I advocate the abolition of private property and the control of the means of production by the workers. You may call it capitalism. I doubt if the capitalists would.
Or maybe you should go ask some of the
> other socialists around
> here.
>
That's part of why I'm not a Marxist anymore, aside from not seeing the point in the label, I got tired of arguing about who's a real Marxist. However, let's ask: what do you think, Doug? am I real socialist? Does it matter?
>
>
> ^^^
> CB: Is liberalism consistent with abolition of
> private property in the basic
> means of production , i.e. historical materialism ?
That's not what HM is, in my view, although I do advocate the abolition of private property. HM is roughly a view about social explanation, that the economy has some sort of explanatory primacy in accounting for social phenomena.
>> CB: Lets just keep track of this. You are claiming
> that there is some kind
> of historical materialism that does not imply
> communism.
Right.
You do know that
> historical materialism is the theory of _The
> Manifesto of the Communist
> Party_ , don't you ?
Yeah, the document where Marx talks about class conflicts leading to the "revolutionary transformation of society or the common ruin of the contending classes," that one?
Any "historical materialism"
> that does not aim to win
> communism is no longer historical materialism.
>
> ^^^^^^
Well, it's a weaker HM, and, btw, yours is an even weaker HM -- "imply" suggests an inevitability thesis, that history must produce communism. You say here just that HM aims to win it. Depending on what you mean by communism, I might agree with that. As an aspiration, anyway. In fact I'd subscribe to a stronger HM: that the predominance of the economic in history makes socialism or communism possible.
> As for revolution, so
> one has the faintist idea what that means today. I
> support and particpate in socialist struggles as
> much
> as I can, though again it is hard to know what to do
> in the circumstances.
>
> ^^^^^
> CB: Speak for your self. Check out Cuba and
> Venezuela to regain, maybe, a
> faint idea of what revolution is .
Third worldist fantasies. I wish the Venzualians and Cubans lots of luck and am pleased to see them do well. I support their struggles. The news from Bolivia seems good too. How does that translate into any useful prescription for action in the advanced industrial countries?
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com