> I never said that Luxemburg was a liberal, just that
> she was right about the direction the Russian
> revolution was taking. I never presumed to compare my
> eloquence with hers. I'm not a "beautiful soul" who
> disdains to make moral compromises, but I repeat that
> at present I do not think it is useful to think about
> who we would shoot if we had power. Please explain why
> you think otherwise.
========================
But you were the one who introduced the subject of who would shoot whom. And
you did so because you seem to regard this as the great historical divide
between rights-loving liberals and bloody-minded socialists. You've been
reminded - and not only by myself - that respect for democratic rights is
not an inherent characteristic of liberalism, but an elastic one, depending
on how stable are the foundations on which parliamentary regimes rest.
Where the line has been more clearly drawn is over whether modern economies function more efficiently and fairly under public or private ownership. This is a more complex and important debate and, despite appearances, a still unresolved one, and will be for so long as capitalism remains vulnerable to crisis. The widespread exposure to a mountain of shadowy and untested new debt instruments is the latest chapter in the ongoing saga of whether the system, which has so far proven to be extraordinarily productive and resilient, will keep managing to overcome its "internal contradictions". Here all sides agree.