Talk:Liberalism/Archive 1

message: After a recent edit, the paragraph that begins, "With the Depression of the 1930's..." now ends, "In Soviet Russia, a government arose which imposed collectivism on agriculture and took state command of every aspect of the economy, and promised to 'export revolution'." The latter part of this seems quite wrong. Enforced collective farms are indeed a Stalinist program; exporting revolution really isn't. Stalin was (especially at this time) precisely the champion of "revolution in one country"; exporting revolution was far more the plan of Lenin and Trotsky. I'll leave this for a bit to give the author of the passage a shot at editing to indicate what (if anything) he/she actually meant, but if no one modifies this soon, I probably will. -- Jmabel 05:51, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
The graf is badly written, I didn't intend to imply that Stalin himself supported export of Revolution in the 1930's (though many in Russia did, as did the Trotskyites) Let me see if I can rewrite it. Stirling Newberry 09:10, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Exporting revolution" 

message: Stirling, from what I can tell, you've made some rather sweeping edits. It's hard to work out exactly what you've changed, because you've moved a lot around. It looks to me like you've cut some material, and not followed the common policy of moving the cut material to the talk page to highlight what has been removed.
Could you try at least to provide us with a summary of any cuts you have made? -- Jmabel 05:00, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
No.  Stirling Newberry 05:13, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Sweeping edits

message: Rewrote or dleted most of it, since I felt it was inaccurate. Not particualry happy with my version either. Perhaps the whole section should be simply deleted. Is it needed? Davidweman
:I think a paragraph is needed to make clear that liberalism and social democracy are not the same but opponent ideologies (as are liberalism and conservatism) --Gangulf 07:25, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  But the point is, what is the key difference between social democrats, democratic socialism, and social liberalism? Is there any key text that makes this clear? Lucidish 19:11, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberalism vs. social democracy 

message: Don't forget that in Italy there was, expecially in the years of fascism (which was both antiliberal and antisocialist), a group of philosopher which tried to establish a syntesis between the apparently opposed doctrines of liberalism and socialism. I'm referring for example to Piero Gobetti, Carlo Rosselli, Gaetano Salvemini, Norberto Bobbio. But even british such as Bertrand Russell and John Maynard Keynes where in a certain sense partly liberal and partly socialist!--150.217.180.122 11:10, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This kind of synthesis is called 'modern', 'new', or 'social' liberalism, included in the article. Lucidish 19:09, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Liberalsocialism

message: First I'd like to thank everyone who's worked on this article. It's way more NPOV than when I last read it.  I have a little grumble about the sentence that begins:
:Both European liberalism and American liberalism see their tradition...
This commits a sin committed all over Wikipedia, the presumption that the world has two continents Europe and the United States. It seems to me that the New Zealand and Australian use of the term liberal is broadly in line with the European use, the sentence needs to be reworked to demonstrate this. Problem is I don't know how to do that without spoiling the prose.
Ben Arnold 10:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a change in his paragraph. Ben is completely right and this even counts for Canadian liberalism, which is quite close to the progressive variant of European liberalism. Gangulf 11:14, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Europe/US false dichotomy