Are we all liberals?

[minionofmidas]

Lewis, now I understand why you attacked me like that in the Sweden thread...

Uh no, not related at all. Anyways that attack in the Sweden thread was mostly a joke.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your social science teacher was either an ardent supporter of the Soviet Union or a spirited reactionary hater of Socialism. Actually if he was the first then he was the second as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, that wasn't my point at all. You'll notice I basically didn't care much about what you wrote about classical conservatism, otherwise I might have pecked on that as well. I just used it as a model in that part of my reply.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is simply because socialism grew out of liberalism. Study the history of the revolutions of 1848, for example, and of what later happened to those who took part in them. What did all the radical liberal revolutionaries become later on? Either sellouts or socialists.
This is hyperbolic, but one might describe socialism as liberalism with the taboos broken. Your division into three philosophical stems is wrong.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...you mean, like Tim Brown? "They only win because they steal the vote. It can't be true."? As to a psychological inability to come to terms with the fact that you've lost, that this isn't just your country, that's something I've often observed in right-of-centre partisans (and the CDU's wins in state elections in this country are to a large part fuelled by that spirit ), but seldom on the left.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not your deductions that are wrong - just the base you're working from. Hey, reminds me a lot of economic liberal theory!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We got to you first.

[Gustaf]

I think my teacher is left-of-centre though it's hard to tell.

I agree that socialism and liberalism have many intersections during the time period 1850 to 1920 (very roughly). If you want to view them as intertwined like that, I guess it works as well. The division into those three idelogies is standard textbook stuff, at least in Sweden.

It's true that conservatives often are bad at coming to terms with election losses, largely because property rights and stuff like that are more important to them than democracy. In my experience liberals are often better at this. Of course, bad losers exist in all parties. Most socialist and Greens in Sweden, including both current party chairs, prefer Castro over Bush, for instance.

I guess that any division into idelogies is somewhat arbitrary, but this one seems pretty good to me. It seems to me that there is a sliding scale from moderate, reformist social democrats with a very firm belief in democracy and tolerance towards private ownership to radical Communists with complete disdain for empty "borgouise democracy" and demands on the abolition of private ownership. Generally, this seems to work. The more socialist the less liberal, and vice versa. The same goes in the other direction, between liberals and conservatives.

[minionofmidas]

I think my teacher is left-of-centre though it's hard to tell.

I agree that socialism and liberalism have many intersections during the time period 1850 to 1920 (very roughly). If you want to view them as intertwined like that, I guess it works as well. The division into those three idelogies is standard textbook stuff, at least in Sweden.

It's true that conservatives often are bad at coming to terms with election losses, largely because property rights and stuff like that are more important to them than democracy. In my experience liberals are often better at this. Of course, bad losers exist in all parties. Most socialist and Greens in Sweden, including both current party chairs, prefer Castro over Bush, for instance.

I guess that any division into idelogies is somewhat arbitrary, but this one seems pretty good to me. It seems to me that there is a sliding scale from moderate, reformist social democrats with a very firm belief in democracy and tolerance towards private ownership to radical Communists with complete disdain for empty "borgouise democracy" and demands on the abolition of private ownership. Generally, this seems to work. The more socialist the less liberal, and vice versa. The same goes in the other direction, between liberals and conservatives.

Ah, maybe you should rework it into a triangle? You know, find the point where hardcore commies start sliding into being Conservatives.
And yeah, I do have a certain disdain for private ownership.

[Gustaf]

Haha. Socialists and conservatives don't really connect all that much, since there is really no room for it. A more marxist analysis of the idelogies is of course to say socialism=working class, liberalism=middle class and conservatism=upper class. Regardless, liberalism is somewhat in between the two other.

You and I might have different definitinos of democracy, since I'm using the liberal definition. I know many socialists view a democracy with private ownership as a false one. I should perhaps say liberal democracy instead of democracy, if that's what's bothering you.

[minionofmidas]

Really? All that paternalistic "benevolent dictator" crap certainly appeals to Conservatives. And to a Stalinist. Ever heard of "subordinate equality"?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

You and I might have different definitinos of democracy






Of this, there is no doubt.