On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 11:42:26 -0500 Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
writes:
> Charles Brown wrote:
>
> >Liberalism and socialism are not
> >consistent.
>
> Carrol's right - you're fighting over a word, not the underlying
> concepts. You & Justin mean different things by "liberalism."
Charles us using the word in the same sense that is used in Europe and most of the world, where a liberal is one who believes in free-market capitalism. Justin is using the word in its peculiarly American sense where liberal is practically a synonym for a social democrat. Using the term in Justin's sense, presumably the late Harry Magdoff, who spent years working in various New Deal agencies under Roosevelt and Truman would have qualified as a "liberal" despite his anti-capitalist views. For that matter, Charles, himself would probably qualify as being a "liberal" in Justin's sense as would have Marx.
After all these would probably agree with Justin:
"(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 authority."
However, Charles is correct in noting that this usage of the term is largely confined to the US and most people outside North America do not use the word in that sense.
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>