I agree that all these terms are complex and contested. But really we weren't talking about terms, were we? I mean, if I said, as I do, that I don't call myself a Marxist, but I think Marx is a realy important thinker who was right about a lot of things, including socialism (not the word he'd use, he called it communism!) what's the big deal? You say tomayto and I say tomahto.
I thought the issue was about substance. The critics of liberalism (Carl, Carrol, Doug maybe?, certainly Charles and Yoshiem others) were saying that the political institutions and practices I called liberal were exhausted or inextricably bound up with something bad. I was challenging them to explain what they had that was better. If you want to call it "radical democracy" or "political freedom" or something else, I don't care, just as long as we are clear what we are talking about.
--- Robert Wrubel <bobwrubel at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Liberalism and socialism are both philosophies, or
> abstract theories. And both have political
> histories in the real world. Some of the
> disagreements on this thread come from comparing the
> ideal theory of one with the practical history of
> the other.
>
> 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
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/