--- turbulo at aol.com wrote:
> >Carrol's right - you're fighting over a word, not
> the underlying
> >concepts. You & Justin mean different things by
> "liberalism."
> >
> >Doug
> >
> >^^^^^
> >CB: Any thoughts on what the underlying concepts
> are ?
>
> That's between the two of you.
>
> Doug
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Yes, but if words are to have any meaning, you can't
> define them arbitrarily; they must be employed
> within a framework of common usage. "Liberalism" may
> be defined differently in Europe and the US. But
> both definitions denote acceptance of private
> property in major economic institutions. Socialism
> seeks to abolish it. There's simply no getting
> around this. This isn't simply an argument over
> words. Those who would blur the verbal distinction
> probably seek to blur the political distinction.
> They want simply to ask how things can be improved
> in the present, and tend to regard the entire
> question of private property as meaninglessly
> abstract. In this optic there is little difference
> between what socailists fight for and what liberals
> fight for. Both, for instance, would defend the
> welfare state against privatization and austerity
> measures. So (they think) why all the fuss over
> names?
> > ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com