01-17-2004, 03:10 AM
Way too far, Occhi.
Socialists believe in state ownership and wage equalization, and not the weak versions either. Socialism is taken no more seriously in mainstream US politics than Fascism. And Neo-Marxism? That's just dreaming. Historical determinism? Forcible redistribution of wealth through revolution? Dictatorship of the proletariat? Nobody in the mainstream is even close to these ideas.
Classic Liberalism had Imperialism and Monarchy as its opponents, so of course the arguments sounded different from that perspective. The basic view has changed little, though, considering the amount of time that's passed. Free education has always been a part of liberal theory. It's not too far a stretch to include health care in the same vein. What else is there? Roads? Utilities? Pension plans? I don't think any classical liberal philosopher would have objected to any of that.
What else is there? Welfare? The reasons for liberals supporting welfare systems are entirely within the original philosophy. It exists to prevent people from reaching a level of economic dependence that would result in their unfair exploitation, therefore depriving them of liberty. That's straight from the grand road of liberal thought. You might say that new-deal type plans represent socialism, but this has largely passed from the world since the war, except in the form of armaments production. That could legitimately be called "socialist", although in a sense that no self-respecting socialist would support. Unfortunately for your comment, weapons spending is greater on the right than the left. Is Reagan a socialist then?
Sorry, Occhi, I don't buy it. I've read a fair number of Marxists, and a lot of Socialists. Nothing in the US mainstream resembles either in more than minute ways.
Jester
Socialists believe in state ownership and wage equalization, and not the weak versions either. Socialism is taken no more seriously in mainstream US politics than Fascism. And Neo-Marxism? That's just dreaming. Historical determinism? Forcible redistribution of wealth through revolution? Dictatorship of the proletariat? Nobody in the mainstream is even close to these ideas.
Classic Liberalism had Imperialism and Monarchy as its opponents, so of course the arguments sounded different from that perspective. The basic view has changed little, though, considering the amount of time that's passed. Free education has always been a part of liberal theory. It's not too far a stretch to include health care in the same vein. What else is there? Roads? Utilities? Pension plans? I don't think any classical liberal philosopher would have objected to any of that.
What else is there? Welfare? The reasons for liberals supporting welfare systems are entirely within the original philosophy. It exists to prevent people from reaching a level of economic dependence that would result in their unfair exploitation, therefore depriving them of liberty. That's straight from the grand road of liberal thought. You might say that new-deal type plans represent socialism, but this has largely passed from the world since the war, except in the form of armaments production. That could legitimately be called "socialist", although in a sense that no self-respecting socialist would support. Unfortunately for your comment, weapons spending is greater on the right than the left. Is Reagan a socialist then?
Sorry, Occhi, I don't buy it. I've read a fair number of Marxists, and a lot of Socialists. Nothing in the US mainstream resembles either in more than minute ways.
Jester