Radical and pragmatic?

Question

HiWhat is the difference in the usage of radical and pragmatic?Does pragmatic approach and radical approach, both have same meaning?

AlpheccaStars · Accepted Answer

Hi Thomas:
Most of the radicals I know of are not pragmatists. Successful radicals are pragmatic, but much of the time pragmatism is against their nature.

Avangi · Answer

I don't think of them as capable of being compared.

There's the real vs. the ideal. In this sense, pragmatism is real, practical, down-to-earth. Let's do something that's going to work.

Radicalism, however, is not necessarily at the other end of that spectrum. That is, radicals do not necessarily have their heads in the clouds. Communism is idealistic, but Marx taught that the end justifies the means - a pragmatic approach to a radical goal.

People often equate "radical" with "extreme." A radical cure would be one which most people would consider impossible, or dangerous, or rediculous, or unheard-of. (But it might work.)

In the 50's they taught us that in the political spectrum we have moderates in the middle, liberals on the left and conservatives on the right - and then we have the extremely conservative "reactionaries," and the extremely liberal "radicals."

Many considered Bill Clinton pragmatic. Whom would we call "radical"? I dunno. Maybe Fidel Castro?

Thomas_Anderson · Answer

First of all thanks to AlpheccaStars and Avangi for explaining the difference.
I got the meaning that pragmatic is more about a practical and possible way while radical is some unheard idea.

But I can't understand the meaning of radical in following contexts.
Please help me with it.

Excerpt I

"If China’s growth rate were to fall to that level, it would be regarded as a disaster at home and abroad.
The country is this month celebrating the 30th anniversary of the event seen as marking the launch of its policies of “reform and opening”, since when its economy has grown at an annual average of 9.8%.
The event was a meeting of the Communist Party’s Central Committee at which Deng Xiaoping gained control.

Tentatively at first but with greater radicalism in the 1990s, the party dismantled most of the monolithic Maoist edifice—parcelling out collective farmland, sucking in vast amounts of foreign investment and allowing private enterprise to thrive.

The anniversary may be a bogus milestone, but it is easy to understand why the party should want to trumpet the achievements of the past 30 years.
They have witnessed the most astonishing economic transformation in human history. In a country that is home to one-fifth of humanity some 200m people have been lifted out of poverty."

Excerpt II

"One worry is that China’s rulers will try to push the yuan down to help exporters.
That would be a terrible idea, not least because the government has the resources to ease the pain in less dangerous ways: it is running a budget surplus and has little debt. Last month it announced a huge 4 trillion yuan (nearly $600 billion) fiscal-stimulus package.

Some who have crunched the numbers argue that this was all mouth and no trousers—much of it made up by old budget commitments, double-counting and empty promises.

It was thus mainly propaganda, to convince China’s own people and the outside world that the government was serious about stimulating demand at home.

That may yet prove to be unfair: what matters is when infrastructure money is spent, not when it is announced.

Yet there is little sign that the regime is ready to take radical steps in the two areas that would do most to persuade the rural majority to spend its money rather than hoard it: giving farmers better rights over their land; and providing a decent social safety-net, especially in health care."

Both these excerpts are from The Economist Dec 11th, 2008 "Suddenly Vulnerable". http://www.economist.com/opinion/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=12773135
Pardon me for posting such long excerpts, I posted so that the context stays clear.

In excerpt II especially I think "pragmatic steps" makes more sense.
What do you say?

Thanks for your time and patience.

Avangi · Answer

As I tried to suggest before,"radical" has a traditional political meaning, and a sort of generic meaning.

IMHO both your excerpts use it in the generic way, meaning something like, "extremely contrary to existing practices."

There's a certain irony at work here. According to my 1950's US public school definition, Communism is Liberalism radicalized to Socialism radicalized to Communism. The state owns everything and takes care of everybody. This is about as opposite from Capitalism as it's possible to get.

But China has achieved its miracle growth in its economy through privatization, borrowing a page from the capitalist economists. From the point of view of a Communist idealist, this is an extremely radical thing to do - in the generic sense.

Perhaps I'm being too simplistic. He's saying that industry and farmland were privatized in the 90's but suggesting that the government needs to go even further in that "radical" direction by giving the farmers clear title to the land. The "health care" thing puzzles me, as I didn't realize the farmers don't have it. So that move would represent a radical change from the present, but I don't think it would be contrary to the Comunist ideal.

Please understand that I'm not advocating anything here, just trying to explain the terms as I understand them.

- A.

Thomas_Anderson · Answer

AvangiAs I tried to suggest before,"radical" has a traditional political meaning, and a sort of generic meaning.
IMHO both uses in your excerpts are used in the generic way, meaning something like, "extremely contrary to existing practices."

Avangi But China has achieved its miracle growth in its economy through privatization, borrowing a page from the capitalist economists. From the point of view of a Communist idealist, this is an extremely radical thing to do - in the generic sense.

Now I got the meaning of radical more clearly.
Thanks a lot Avangi. I was so confused in these excerpts.
I really appreciate your help.

AvangiPlease understand that I'm not advocating anything here, just trying to explain the terms as I understand them.

No need to mention, it is quite obvious.

Radical and pragmatic?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions