Philosophically, I tend to be a nominalist - I tend to believe that abstract concepts not only do not correspond to anything in reality, but often obscure reality - or human agency more specifically. People waste endless time talking about "systemic logic" when as the history has demonstrated, chopping a few heads off can alter that "systemic logic" quite dramatically. To paraphrase one Margaret Thatcher - there is no such a thing as society, markets or any other 'social system" - only people who manipulate these concepts to their own advantage. Thus is not to say that people are not by nature social, but rather that abstractions tend to hide human agency, which is typically a bad thing.
Wojtek
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 11:57 AM, c b <cb31450 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> From: "Jim Farmelant"
>>
>>
>> That's because you're originally from Europe and
>> you're thinking of the label the way that most Europeans
>> do. Friedrich Hayek always insisted on calling himself
>> a "liberal", and he was alway clear that meant supporting
>> free-market economics. In the US, the term "liberal"
>> is generally used in place of the term "social democrat."
>> Prior to the 1980s, an American liberal was someone
>> who generally supported a relatively generous welfare
>> state.
>
>
> ^^^^^
> CB:Roughly speaking.... in the US , FDR and the New Deal changed the
> meaning from its classical meaning to equivalent of social democrat.
> Classical Liberals had been the original bourgeoisie (laissez faire)
> in opposition to conservatives who represented the ancien regime.
> Reaganites succeeded in making "liberal" unpopular in US, as they were
> seeking to overthrow New Deal regime. "Neo-liberal" is not used in
> mass discourse, but is confined to left intellectuals, pretty much.
> Tea-Republicans may help revive popularity of the New Deal sense FDR
> for the term, hopefully.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>