> Jim Farmelant :
> *
> 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.
>
> ^^^^^
> CB: Did I note that ? :>)
>
> I'm trying to think of a liberal in the U.S. who is for socialism and
> ending
> capitalism. In the U.S. , the liberals are the Democrats aren't they ?
> Not
> too many Democrats for socialism and for ending capitalism
>
> In the U.S. ,as I said, it is only rightwing demogogy that labels liberals
> as socialists. Liberal big government is socialistic, and the like.
>
> In Canada they have the Liberal Party. The NDP is the social democratic
> party.
------------------------------------
In fact, there's nothing much to choose between liberalism and social
democracy these days. The fundamental dividing line between socialists and
liberals used to be public ownership of the commanding heights of the
economy. There was broad unanimity in both camps - even extending to the
Stalin Constitution of 1936! - that there should be individual political and
religious freedoms. But the socialists saw themselves as building on the
Enlightenment by extending its political conquests into the social sphere.
The Enlightment liberals drew their energy (and financing) from the rising
bourgeoisie; the later socialist movement was based on the growing
industrial proletariat.
With the issue of ownership of the economy removed - or at best shelved - during this historical period, there are no apparent differences remaining between the programmes and leadership of New Labour in Britain, the European social-democratic parties, and the US Democratic party, for example.
Likewise, the main difference between the NDP and Liberals in Canada is not programmatic, but sociological. They are both urban-based liberal parties, but the NDP still commands the support most of the labour and other social movements and is not favoured by large and small propertyholders; the opposite is true of the Liberals. But in power, as the experience of NDP governments in Ontario and elsewhere shows, the NDP responds identically to the imperatives of a privately owned economy - to the point of imposing austerity programs - although it often but not always acts more promptly than the Liberals in regards to social insurance programs, which is why they are popularly described as "liberals in a hurry." But it long ago dropped any references to "socialist ownership of the economy."