what in heck is a "liberal"? I'd say that this question can be answered by first defining the Marxian analysis and critique of capitalism. There are two major dimensions of this view:
(1) class domination (and other sorts of domination, such as racist & sexist insitutions and imperialism). This is the vertical dimension of power and subordination. (2) the horizontal dimension is that of the competition amongst capitals, often seen in politics as the competition amongst "special interests." In this view, "liberalism" _forgets_ (or never knew) the vertical dimension and/or conflates it with the horizontal dimension (so that workers, women, "minorities" and other dominated groups are a special interests). This is true of both "neoliberalism" (laissez-faire) and FDR/New Deal liberalism (what US observers call "liberalism"). Social democracy is a kind of liberalism, one that is even more statist than New Deal liberalism. Social democracy that has political efficacy has a base in an actual mass labor movement, which can affect its liberalism, importing elements from the Marxian world-view. Liberalism lacks the understanding of capitalism as a social institution created by people that constrains our choices, so they see its negative aspects as mostly or entirely a matter of special interests' power. Often, rule by technocrats (rather than deepening democracy) is seen as the cure for special-interest politics. In the rich countries, liberalism also tends to see the system as being pretty close to attaining the liberal ideal, so that only reforms are needed. In poor countries, the "special interests" can have dictatorial power, so that liberals may be "revolutionary." ------------------------ Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > -----Original Message----- > From: Doug Henwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 9:28 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L] liberals > > > Sometimes it seems that liberals attract more fire on PEN-L than does > the bourgeoisie. I could understand this if we were in a period of > proto- or quasi-revolutionary ferment, when they'd be the co-opters > and/or betrayers. But right now, anyone in public life who stands up > for vaguely egalitarian social values and the defense of civil > liberties is rare and almost precious. It sounds like people are > replaying scripts from 30 or 40 years ago. > > Doug >
