>>1278
>It´s nice to see that you have noticed them and make the separation between socialists and liberals, it´s really annoying to see that things go between black and white in the net.

Me too. Classic Liberals, Neoliberals, whatever you want to call them I have always thought were treated unfairly being lumped togather with either the left or the right. Whichever was convenient for partisan classification. It annoys me when people both become to obsessed with labels and misrepresent smaller groups that have their own distinct idealogical foundation and goals separate from the larger ones. Though I think your example of saying that you were like centrist in US terminology is good or political laymen I think it still misrepresents the group since it only implies they are in the middle of two sides rather then being a side on there own as a whole though there is some overlap

In the USA my own personal example of this frustration is how the Democratic Party was always portrayed as socialist by the Republicans early on when in reality they were extreme statist social liberals at worst. The real socialist ideas have only come recently with Bernie Sanders. Most of those people identifying as Progressive. ( note there is a distinct branch of hard core socialist who have also entered into the democratic party who even consider Sanders a softy ). Classic Liberals being in a completely separate corner that until recently was only the last remaining holdouts of the old liberal republicans who didn't hold elective office (they had a presence in some publications and think takes.)