Socialism, as it worked out and was aborted under Russian communism, became a nightmare. But liberalism, as a tradition that includes, at least, the administration of FDR, maybe Kennedy, and the style if not the substance of Clinton, can be seen as just the nicer face of a different kind of oppression.
In fact, liberalism, as an ideal, has been very convenient for, and mostly appeals to, the middle class. Its stated goal is always the highest development of human capabilities, and who can argue with that? As a political program, its practical result has been to ameliorate the status quo so as to keep the status quo. White middle class liberals (professors, eg) may be all for equal rights and affirmative action, while inwardly trusting that they will not lose their priviledged position as a result.
Socialism is often misunderstood by being equated with a national state government, but there is no reason why socialist forms of government shouldnt begin at the local level, in city councils, neighborhoods, even apartment buildings. Both socialism and liberalism make sense (and may be almost the same thing) at the local level.
Liberalism on the national level has many contradictions. Its reforms depend on a strong central authority, which most of the time is serving other, very un-liberal, interests.
Ben Jackson <nonplus.plus at gmail.com> wrote: On 7/3/07, andie nachgeborenen wrote:
> I agree with you about the history of liberalism and
> the reason it has the content it does now. But it does
> have that content now.
[snip]
> In ordinary parlance, liberals in America suppose
> social liberalism, a welfare state, and a mixed economy.
On 7/3/07, andie nachgeborenen wrote:
> ... Do you think we should give up that
> term -- socialism -- and find an expression that no
> one has sullied -- until _it_ gets dirty?
Andie, observing this exchange, I'm not sure I understand your position here. On the one hand, we should use the term "liberalism" because of what it expresses to Americans today. But then why _shouldn't_ we pragmatically abandon the term "socialism", when in the same context its received meaning to most people is, as you put it, "one-party dictatorship, cults of personality, mass murder, secret political police and torture.... etc."
On what basis would you retain the former because of its local associations with what you value, and not reject the latter by corollary? Or do you think socialism isn't quite as maligned as that?
Ben ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk