Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 00:50:11 +0100
From: hariette-AT-easynet.co.uk (hariette spierings)
Subject: Re: definition please


>List,
>
>    I have refrained from asking this question in the past because I am
>somewhat embarassed that I do not know the answer already.
>
>   What is a liberal?  Why am I, as a socialist, not liberal?
>
>   Sorry for wasting your time,
>
>                  ---Mike Dean
>
>


The question of liberalism is not exclusively connected to the question of
socialism.  You can be in favour of socialism in the abstract, and still be
a liberal in regards as to what you understand as socialism, or, more
commonly, in regards as to what is your understanding and your praxis in
reference as to making socialism a reality.

Most people, within Marxism, use the term "liberal" in relation to Marxism.
There are those who would interpret Marxism either in a "liberal", as well
as those who would interpret it in a "rigid" way.  

But to poise the problem in these terms is not very illuminating either.  An
extremely "rigid" position, for example is also a form of "liberalism",
while a flexible interpretation of Marxism can in fact be the only one in
full (and "rigid") accordance to principle in a concrete situation, just as
well.

A "liberal reading" of what Chairman Mao once said may serve the purpose of
illustrating this: "The utmost flexibility combined with the utmost fidelity
to principle, is, paradoxically, a principle of Marxism in full accordance
with dialectical materialism".  

Now, since I am quoting this passage from memory, because, in the one hand,
there is here nothing so controversial as to require absolute fidelity to a
"scientific formula", and, on the other, the rendition I am giving, whether
in the same formulation or not, does actually reflect Mao's point of view
rather exactly, this "liberal" action on my part of quoting "liberally"
(which normally is contrary to the strictly scientific method of Marxism),
in this concrete case accords well with its spirit.

Why?, because while acknowledging frankly the fact that one is to lazy (or
"liberal" with one self) to search for the exact quotation, one at the same
time is trying to explain a concept like "liberalism" with a concrete
example.  Therefore we can conclude that in fact, this explanation and the
actions undertaken to make it come across in a lively fashion, fall well
within what we (also in a certain "liberal" fashion) can call the "palium"
of Marxism, as therefore, this "liberal" action is not in fact the action of
a "liberal".

Hopefully I made myself clear???  If not.  I may have been too liberal! (Or
too "rigid"). Let me know!

Adolfo



     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---