Hi

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

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?

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.