Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (82288)	6/20/2000 9:40:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Hear, hear, Steven! I second every last one of your motions... In fact, I would go even further. It is absolutely silly to turn to an Encyclopedia for a definition of either "liberalism" or "conservatism." A summary of the historical development of the terms, fine. But a definition?! One term has fallen out of use almost entirely: "reactionary." Too bad. Many people who call themselves "conservatives" are really "reactionaries," in that there seems to be NOTHING in the present, in the status quo, that they wish to conserve/preserve. What they appear to want is to go back to some Golden Age or other. And that is "reactionary." Joan

To: Dayuhan who wrote (82288)	6/21/2000 4:24:00 AM
From: nihil	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Historically, of course, the Liberal Party in UK was a party of free trade and international peace and friendship. The Conservatives in the latter half of the 19th Century were imperialist (Disraeli). When the Liberals took over in the early 20th century under Campbell-Bannerman and later Asquith and Lloyd George and Churchill -- they adopted the foundations of the welfare state (old-age pensions, unemployment insurance, medical insurance, public housing etc) that 30 years later formed the foundation of the U.S. New Deal. The Liberals were never socialists or social democrats (although Labour cooperated in much of the legislation). They were totally committed to capitalism, the welfare state, collective bargaining, and free trade (exactly like the New Deal). The economic question was always whether these objectives were compatible. Marx and the Social Democrats denied the possibility. Conservatives usually doubted the compatibility. The world-wide economic collapse in the 1930's destroyed capitalism in most of the world. It is useless to argue that capitalism caused the collapse. The collapse was over-determined. The bare survival of capitalism even in mangled form in the US and UK and their victory in World War II was remarkable. The failures of the US and UK to prepare for war in contrast to the success of the Nazi and Soviet preparations suggest a serious deficiency in the foresight of democratic capitalistic governments. The action of the US government in rescuing Europe and Japan, and their astounding economic recovery in capitalistic form dominated the last half of the century. The drive for economic cooperation and trade, the defensive alliances of the west, the drive for human rights which eliminated many of the most objectionable parts of colonialism and capitalism provide some hope that countries with capitalistic production, welfare state, free collective bargaining, and openness to trade could provide a high degree of personal freedom and security, international cooperation and peace, and prosperity. In this sense, the program of the early 20th century liberals seem to have come close to fruition for the world.