Changes

===contemporaneous corroboration===

===contemporaneous corroboration===

Ok, returning to Hayek, whom we use a 1945 quote, let's look at a 1940 quote from a Socialist publication during the [[Phony War]] which says virtually the same thing Hayek said after Hitler blew his brains out:

Ok, returning to Hayek, whom we use a 1945 quote, let's look at a 1940 quote from a Socialist publication during the [[Phoney War]] which says virtually the same thing Hayek said after Hitler blew his brains out:

<center>'''From 1905 to 1940'''</center>

<center>'''From 1905 to 1940'''</center>

'''Analysis of comparison;''' while Hayek uses the term "liberalism", the ''New International'' editorial uses "democracy."  In both, they are talking about the same thing, and they both make reference to the fact that Socialism survived the destruction of liberal democracy.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

'''Analysis of comparison;''' while Hayek uses the term "liberalism", the ''New International'' editorial uses "democracy."  In both, they are talking about the same thing, and they both make reference to the fact that Socialism survived the destruction of liberal democracy.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

I guess the highlighting is by you and not by the ''New International''. Where in the text by the socialist publication do they say that they destroyed liberalism or democracy? To the contrary, the article even suggests that without socialism democracy will be destroyed, and the writer even argues that socialists are the only movement capable of saving democracy. Take for example: ''Without socialism, the war of 1939 must inevitably mean the complete destruction of democracy''. No Socialism, no democracy. According the the ''New International''. The fragment that you quoted tell that democracy got destroyed, and then even claims that the Marxist Socialist are the only force that can reverse the process of disintegration. This quote shows clearly that even the Socialist disagree with your interpretation of the Hayek quote. I am not sure why you like to quote material that proves my point. [[User:Order]] 2 august 10:00 (AET)

:I guess the highlighting is by you and not by the ''New International''. Where in the text by the socialist publication do they say that they destroyed liberalism or democracy? To the contrary, the article even suggests that without socialism democracy will be destroyed, and the writer even argues that socialists are the only movement capable of saving democracy. Take for example: ''Without socialism, the war of 1939 must inevitably mean the complete destruction of democracy''. No Socialism, no democracy. According the the ''New International''. The fragment that you quoted tell that democracy got destroyed, and then even claims that the Marxist Socialist are the only force that can reverse the process of disintegration. This quote shows clearly that even the Socialist disagree with your interpretation of the Hayek quote. I am not sure why you like to quote material that proves my point. [[User:Order]] 2 august 10:00 (AET)

 

::The question simply is over blame.  Hayek says socialism destroyed liberalism; the Socialist publication says "The characteristic feature of the period 1918-39 was the destruction of democracy in country after country, with or without the violent defeat of the socialist movement."  Of course they are not going to take the same position as Hayek, i.e. that they caused it.  But they are observing the same phenomenea, that liberal democracy faded, and socialism survived.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:11, 1 August 2007 (EDT)