Keith: There is a difference between economic liberalism/neo-liberalism and social and political liberalism. I am a social and political liberal as well as a socialist.

You try and argue that the Nazis were 'Left' - but most people would find this idea ridiculous. For most poeople the 'Left' is socially and politically liberal: as well as egalitarian. Just because the Nazis supported relatively 'big government' does not mean they were 'Left' in most peoples' understanding of the word. There of much more to the 'Left' than that.

Finally: Many people think the 'Left/Right' opposition does not fully accomodate the full range of poltical positions. For instance: it is possible to be socially and politically liberal but not egalitarian: and vice versa. But the idea of 'Left' and 'Right' is deeply entrenched that we still think in these terms.

Tristan, your perspective is change from above. I believe in change from below. I think the failure of Copenhagen shows, as I wrote on my blog En Passant with John Passant recently when I described the Conference as the victory of environmental imperialism, that we need a mass movement prepared to undertake radical action - strikes, demonstrations, sit ins - to force radical solutions on governments around the world and away from the idea the market can solve the problems the market created. hose solutions appear to me to be renewable energy and millions of green jobs. Taxing the polluters,and not allowing them to increase prices, to pay for that makes perfect sense to me.

Passy - struggle for change is not a simple binary opposition between reform and revolution. It is the movement 'from below' - counter-hegemonic cultural struggle - that creates the conditions where governments can reform - or perhaps even forces them down that path.

But that said: there are also many who would like to legislate radical reform: but the movement 'from below' just isn't powerful enough: especially in the face of monopoly media, and the potentially disruptive power of the capitalist class.

Much of the 'moden left' in Australia doesn't emphasise class struggle in the Marxist sense - as the engine of change... I understand there are issues in electoral politics: managing the media cycle; not 'going out on a limb' when you need to hold as well gradually shift the 'relative centre' etc - but there is not enough emphasis - especially from the Labor leadership - on popular mobilisation as creating the real preconditions of change... (nb: holding and shifting the 'relative centre' is an issue affecting Labor especially - but we need political organisations - indeed parties - to the relative Left - who would enjoy more freedom in this regard...)

But nonetheless, there remains the prospect of popular mobilisation, and electoral politics in the sense discussed here - complementing each other. And I think that's what we ought be aiming for: this in the context of a long counter-hegemonic struggle - where electoral politics is just one of many critical fronts...