It might just be me, but I think some more words need defining.
I always thought of 'Liberal' as not being weighed down with tradition while leaning towards reform. Is this correct?
If so, I would never consider Maoism in China or Stalinism in Russia to be Liberal. Also, I don't think 'keeping up with the Joneses' would pose any civil unrest.
I also think that none of the scandies are socialist enough to be classed as such.
My point on liberalism before Napoleon should have ended with a question mark. I am still not on track with my understanding of the French revolution and the rise of Napoleon, but my ignorant mind somehow thought that liberalism came from France at around that time. Sorry.
The 'socialism' that was Pre-Stalinist Russia was pro-reform. Lenin used land reforms to appeal to the peasants and co. (Peace, Bread, Land - these are the things the people wanted, this is what they were given, nothing mentioned about the end to capitalism or taking over the means for production.) In the fleeting moments of there actually being 'All Power to the Soviets', a very small fraction of industry was nationalised, and the Bolsheviks, while not as 'liberal' as other 'workers parties' who were allied with the bourgeois (Mensheviks, SR's, SD's), they clearly had a reformist policy. This is where the Permanent Revolution comes in and it all gets a bit complicated.
By the way, Ror has done an amazing job of explaining himself.
