Talk:Liberalism and radicalism in Serbia

Why does this article exist. It doesn't add any information to the article about liberalism in Serbia. Furthermore, liberalism and radicalism are in Serbia completely different ideologies. The main radical party is a strongly nationalist party, not included in the article. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 18:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think someone just had the idea of creating a serie of "Liberalism and radicalism" articles (see the Category:Liberalism and radicalism by country I recently created for them), thinking both were synonyms. I strongly disagree with this view, as I've pointed out on Talk:Radicalism (historical). If you guess this one should be deleted because they are different ideologies, so be it. I've stumbled into the Liberalism and Radicalism in France, and it is pure factual error to identify both. They were very different, as French liberals in the 19th century were called Orleanists, and were thus supporters of constitutional monarchy, while French radicals were Republicans. Georges Clemenceau, a radical, was located at the far left at his beginnings, to show where French radicalism was located at the beginning of the Third Republic... Tazmaniacs 23:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between France and Serbia. In France contemporary radicalism is the more similar to European liberalism than other currents. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 08:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Electionworld,Vojislav Seselj Serbian Radikal Party politicians may call themselves radikals but they have nothing in common with radicalism in Serbia in XIX century and begining of XX century
 * I couldn't agree less, so there is no reason to have an article liberalism and radicalism in Serbia. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 12:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC). Sorry I read your comment wrongly. I am aware that there is a difference between Seselj and the historical radicals, but these Serbian historical radicals were as I understood agrarian populists without relation to liberalism. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 07:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Tazmaniacs,social-liberals and classical liberals are very different.So,your argument that in France liberals(orleanaists)and radicals(republicans)were very different is weak.
 * ? Of course social-liberals are distinct from classical liberals. This doesn't changes anything to the opposition between liberal (monarchist) and radical (republicans)... Supporting universal suffrage isn't the same as census suffrage... I'm not sure of what you're trying to show, but it's a bit like if you said, because we live in liberal democracies, liberalism & democracy are identical. This is forgetting, in the same way of liberalism vs radicalism, that democracy was for universal suffrage, and liberalism for census suffrage. That both traditions evolved in the 20Th century is, well, history of the 20th century, but it doesn't make less the difference in the 19th. And, of course, since human societies have a memory, the distinctions of the 19th century may still, in some cases, have influence today. That's why there's a Left Radical Party in France, which considers itself the true heir of republican radicalism and is thus at the left-wing, and a Parti radical valoisien (or, more simply, Parti radical, which legally gained the right to conserve the title) which is member of the right-wing UMP. One is left of center, the other center-right, and although both are in fact quite similar, there is a split in mentalities and else, which finds its source in the 19th century. Concerning social-liberalism, well, this didn't exist in the 19th century, so when some claim that radicalism is a sub-tradition of liberalism, basically they're just annexing radicalism republicanism to "liberalism". And thus all the 19th century becomes "liberal", and conflictual lines such as universal suffrage vs census suffrage, or Republic vs Monarchy, are simply erased. Tazmaniacs 12:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You reacted on an anonymous comment. I do not agree that liberals were necesarily monarchists. E.g. the nineteenth latin american or US american liberals were not monarchists. I do not know if monarchy versus republic is the main difference between liberalism and radicalism and I do not know if all radicals were in favour of universal suffrage and all liberals were in favour of census suffrage. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 13:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't say all liberals were monarchists, obviously this wasn't even a question in the US, for example. But in a number of European countries, such was the case. And the census suffrage was quite related to the question. Most liberals, however, finished by admitting democracy, i.e. universal suffrage. Tazmaniacs 00:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And democracy is now usually considered a conditio sine qua non for liberty by the mainstream of liberals. For me many radicals in the nineteenth century were liberals who integrated democracy in their ideology (with exceptions, Serbian radicals had nothing in common with liberalism or French radicalism). Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 07:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)