Skip to main content
10 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Aug 4, 2018 at 6:18 comment added Geoffrey Thomas @mavavij. 'Without specifying particular strains of liberalism or socialism.' But any relation to socialism necessarily involves some strain or other of liberalism. There is no abstract relationship between the two. Socialists of whatever variety don't criticise liberalism as such but liberalism as understood in particular ways - in your words 'particular strains' of liberalism.
Aug 3, 2018 at 8:00 comment added mavavilj @DavidBlomstrom Surely someone more knowledgeable can make it so that it means neo-liberalism. However, what I've heard is just liberalism.
Aug 3, 2018 at 0:50 review Close votes
Aug 9, 2018 at 3:05
Aug 2, 2018 at 19:59 comment added David Thornley There's also many different definitions of "socialism", if fewer than "liberalism", and the propagandists have been busy on both.
Aug 2, 2018 at 17:04 comment added Gordon When it is said ""Hegel and totalitarianism" I think of a philosopher such as Giovanni Gentile. Not so much Marx himself because Marx had a anarchical tendency.
Aug 2, 2018 at 16:58 comment added Gordon True liberalism says: we will take anybody's money. It is capitalism. In America, the usage of libertarianism most closely fits the idea. The Koch brothers, for instance. Laissez-faire across the board.
Aug 2, 2018 at 16:27 answer added Geoffrey Thomas timeline score: 4
Aug 2, 2018 at 15:34 comment added mavavilj @DavidBlomstrom But I've only seen liberalism opposed to socialism. So it's not more defined than that. What I'm interested in, what are the possible reasons for drawing such dichotomy.
Aug 2, 2018 at 12:23 answer added Chris Degnen timeline score: 0
Aug 2, 2018 at 11:56 history asked mavavilj CC BY-SA 4.0