Paul, Carl, Jim C. and Daniel have valid perspectives, but I want to add another angle:

in the history of political theory, a "liberal" is someone who believes that there exists a "public interest" (reflecting an underlying consensus), which differs from individual interests or particular (or special) interests. The purpose of liberalism is unite the various particularistic interests to attain the public good (serve the public interest). There are different types of liberalism: _laissez-faire_ or neo-liberals emphasize the role of the market (and business) over the state, whereas new or New Deal liberals emphasize the need for a well-informed technocratic state in order to attain an optimal private-public mix. The latter are more likely to emphasize the need for a well-informed and active public (voters).

Rather than seeing an underling consensus the way the liberals do, a radical sees conflicts of interests based in structural inequalities of power. Marxists emphasize the conflict between classes, while some feminists see conflicts of interest between patriarchy and the collective interests of women, etc. In this view, the difference is not just about the radical's emphasis on structural change but also the idea that a significant power-block benefits from the structure and will fight to defend it. A mass movement of those getting the short end of the stick is needed to engineer structural change.

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine



> -----Original Message-----
> From: PEN-L list [
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Frank,
> Ellen
> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 11:10 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PEN-L] Radical Economics
>
>
> I write a Q&A column for Dollars and Sense Magazine and the Q for the
> up-coming issue is ths:  what's the difference between a radical
> and liberal economist (or a progressive vs liberal)?  Naturally I have
> my own thoughts on this, but I'd love to hear what pen-lers have to
> say.
> Ellen Frank
>
>

Reply via email to