====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
2009/12/27 Jeff <[email protected]> "For instance, one argument was over whether the proposed health care bill is worse than the status quo and should therefore be opposed. But I'm still waiting to hear a good discussion of the underlying principle: that any change for the better should be "supported" in some sense. That is a more general issue that obviously has widespread implications." "Also there might be some miscommunication due to the meaning of words. S. Artesian told Dogan exactly what "Liberalism" means. But Dogan is in Europe and here the word "Liberal" does not refer to the left wing of the ruling class but rather to the "moderate right" (the part that most strongly believes in free-market capitalism and privatization) of the ruling class. The Liberal party (VVD) in the Netherlands is the furthest to the right among parties which have been in a government coalition in recent times. Hence this use of name-calling may be raising the heat of the discussion while fogging the issues. (Of course I have some names myself for people like Dogan, but "liberal" isn't one of them!)." Jeff, First on the second paragraph: I do not use any term or conception that circulates around and I do not care about how people describe themselves. I rather look at what they say in the historical context, that it, in the light of the imperialist stage of capitalism. I use Marxist terms. According to Marx it does not make any sense to talk of liberalism to describe any idea or movement or proposal that comes after 1848. And according to Luxemburg's reading at latest after 1890s, indicating to the rise of the imperialist stage of capitalism. Both the statement of Marx and the statement of Luxemburg are universal statements. They apply universally. And my reference to Luxemburg should be taken in this sense. Therefore, the try to give a definition of "liberals" or "liberalism" by to describe any contemporary movement, fraction of a party or idea according to my approach is just wrong. Among academics people you describe are referred to as the new-right. That might be a better term. On the first paragraph: The issue you raise would involve a debate about the dialectic of reform and revolution. It is very much on the agenda of the left world-wide. But, I am afraid, I do not see any sense in going on with these blind debates. So I am sorry if I cannot contribute to your enjoying yourself. But do not hestitae to do so, even if at my cost. ----------- Dogan Göcmen (http://dogangocmen.wordpress.com/) Author of The Adam Smith Problem: Reconciling Human Nature and Society in The Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations, I. B. Tauris, London&New York 2007 ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
