Labels...

[Ardsgaine]

it depends if you actually identify the term with yourself or not. you'd prefer not to be described a conservative, i see no reason not to extend the same consideration to those who prefer labels not added to them.

It's not that I prefer not to be called a conservative, I'm simply not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination. One can call me a capitalist, a classical liberal (19th century edition), a libertarian with a small 'l', a Jeffersonian, a free market advocate, an Objectivist...

My views do fall into certain categories that can be labeled. Some are more exact than others, but they all fit within a range. I'm not ashamed of those categories. If someone wrongly accuses me of being a fascist, my objection is to the accuracy of the label, not to labels as such.

Communism, socialism, modern liberalism, and welfare-statism are all left-wing philosophies which at one time were reputable things to believe in. The reason they're in disrepute now is because they failed miserably. People who believe in some form of state intervention in the economy don't want to be identified with them, so they say, "don't label me." It's an attempt to defeat a conceptual approach to political issues. "Don't try to connect us to all the other forms of statism that have failed in the past. We have to look at individual cases, take each proposal as a completely new phenomenon." They don't want to have to explain why anyone should think that their form of statism will work when every other form that's been tried has failed, or is failing.

 

[ris]

i think in part that the use of the terms in a derogatory way, often outside the context of discussion and frequently in a belittling and agressive manner is a reason why people don't like the terms applied to them.

i see no reason to use them beyond a discussion on the specific issue, sadly there are all too frequent times when the phrases similar to 'in your loony socialist world' or 'damn commies' gets bandied about for little or no reason.

 

[Ardsgaine]

i think in part that the use of the terms in a derogatory way, often outside the context of discussion and frequently in a belittling and agressive manner is a reason why people don't like the terms applied to them.

I can see that. I don't believe that's what I was doing in the post that started the discussion about labels, though. I simply mentioned in an off hand way that a certain attitude that I saw in Flavio's post was characteristic of socialists in general. The purpose of socialism is to control people's economic activity in order to prevent them from acting in a self-interested way. The attitude is that what is good for the individual doesn't matter. People qua individuals are incapable of making rational, moral decisions. We need either an elite group of people who are more capable of making those decisions, or (in some versions) those people who are incapable of making good decisions as individuals can somehow make good decisions by coming together as a group. In short, socialism is characterized by a complete disregard for the mind of the individual, unless that individual is a prominent part of the socialist elite. That's what I saw in Flavio's post: Seventy percent of the people support the war, but they're out of tune with the socialist elite-- obviously, they're the victims of reactionary propaganda. They're too stupid to see through the administration's lies, like Flavio does, so they've been duped.

 

[flavio]

People are influenced by propaganda. People are also influenced by advertising.

Many times purpose of advertising is to control people's economic activity in order to prevent them from acting in a self-interested way. Often to buy a lot of crap they don't need.

Does that make advertising socialist?

 

[Aunty Em]

Views change. I may be a complete facist in some of my views and totally marxist in others, or I may take the contrary view just to get up your nose. I don't see how one blanket label can accurately describe me - unless it's "changable". After all... it's just a game to entertain the masses between birth and death, isn't it?

 

[Gato_Solo]

I don't see how one blanket label can accurately describe me -

How about "rabble-rouser"?

 

[RD_151]

Labels are fine, but 'communist' and 'socialist' start to become used in a derogatory way here quite quickly. As they should be Just kidding! But as for the duped war supporters. Well, I don't think they are so duped, I think they wanted to get rid of this guy, and they don't honestly believe the propaganda, but rather use it to justify the actions, just like the administration. I'd be surprised if too many people were duped on this one. If they were, they would be pissed that there are no wmds, and I think we all know none will be found. People just don't care to much about the justification, they hate Saddam and want to stop thinking about the guy. Ok, maybe propaganda made him into the monster we know today, but that propaganda came from the left as well as the right. Nah, people aren't as blind as it may seem at times. They just want to pretend they believe the justifications because the believe in the end result. I don't think Gonz and any of the other strong war supporters believe anything different than the those against the war (at least with respect to the justifications for war). They just need to say something to defend their stance. I don't think they are duped, they just have different priorities. We all use excuses (justifications if you prefer) to defend what we believe in. I don't think that makes us duped. Look how quickly the excuses (justificaions) change when the primary and secondary ones don't make sense anymore. Nobody is pretending this war was about liberation, or wmds, it was about getting rid of Saddam plain and simple. These other issues are just the excuses we are using to justify our actions. If all of them fail to make the argument justifying the war, there will simply be new ones presented in an attempt to justify it. It doesn't mean those presenting the arguments actually believe them

 

[Aunty Em]

I don't see how one blanket label can accurately describe me -

How about "rabble-rouser"?

... Then again it might just be a full-moon, or the wrong time of the month...

 

[Ardsgaine]

Labels are fine, but 'communist' and 'socialist' start to become used in a derogatory way here quite quickly.

Best I can remember, I've never called anyone a communist. I equate communism with Marxism, and that's a very specific philosophy. Unless someone was actually spouting Marxist doctrine, or praising the USSR, I wouldn't call them a communist.

'Socialist' is a broader term. Technically, it includes any form of government where the state claims control of the economy for the benefit of society as a whole, which includes everything from communism to fascism to welfare-statism. I generally use it to refer to non-totalitarian forms of state control, though, since the totalitarian forms have their own terms. I think that's the way it's generally used, although many people on the left probably think of socialism as something slightly to the left of them.

'Welfare-statism' is an intermediate form of socialism that tries to harness the productivity of capitalism for the benefit of certain segments of society. Welfare-statists advocate massive government programs for 'disadvantaged' groups: the poor, the elderly, minorities, etc. They depend on the productive power of an essentially capitalist economy to finance those programs, but their philosophy is necessarily hostile to private property, otherwise they wouldn't be able to justify its confiscation on such a massive scale. 'Welfare-statism' is, therefore, an unstable philosophy. It's advocates will tend towards the establishment of a completely socialist system by degrees, unless held in check by an opposing party.

'Statism' is a term that I use to refer to all forms of government that give the state the power to violate individual rights. It includes communism, fascism, socialism, welfare-statism, theocracy, feudalism, monarchy, etc.

 

[outside looking in]

If they were, they would be pissed that there are no wmds, and I think we all know none will be found.

Do you seriously believe that a madman didn't have chemical and biological weapons? Do you seriously believe that, in time, they will not be found?

About the rest of your post... instead of "summarizing" what the "war supporters" think (re: making broad and often erroneous assumptions), why don't you just let us speak for ourselves? My past posts clearly indicate why I thought we should go to war. This stance of mine does not depend on any momentary "justifications" as you like to call them to defend it.

 

[Ardsgaine]

Well, I don't think they are so duped, I think they wanted to get rid of this guy, and they don't honestly believe the propaganda, but rather use it to justify the actions, just like the administration.

There's no disagreement on whether Saddam was developing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. One can question whether the inspectors had found all of them, and stopped him from working on them. But that's not the real issue. In truth, no one with any knowledge about the situation believes that he is in compliance. The real disagreement is over whether Iraq should be forced to disarm or not.

 

[flavio]

Did you miss my post Ards?

I think your economic terms are a bit off, probably because you're an extremist.

What kind of work do you do and what kind of company do you work for that lets you comfortable with this extremist view?

 

[Ardsgaine]

Did you miss my post Ards?

No. How can I miss them, if you keep posting them?

 

[RD_151]

OLI, I'm not really summarizing what 'war supports' think I'm merely stating what supporters of any position do. I can tell you, I've made arguments against the war that I don't neccesarily support. It just makes for a good argument. Everyone does this, to deny this is only to lie to yourself. I do it, I admit it, we all do it at one time or another. That's just how it works. You try to make your point one way, if that doesn't work you take another approach to the matter.

As for whether he has them or not, I'm not really sure. I'm not really sure what they are looking for now. I know I heard the ambassador for Iran speaking the other day on Cspan and I think he made some really good points. Not about Iraq, but about Iran's right to build and develop nuclear plants etc etc. I'm not sure what's going on, I don't pretend to have answers. I only think a lot have people have been looking for a reason to take him out for a very very long time. And I don't disagree with that in theory. In practice, well...

Disarming the world is gonna be tough though, and a very difficult sale to justify it as well.

 

[Ardsgaine]

Disarming the world is gonna be tough though,

Yeah... If this war is any indication, it could take months...

 

[Aunty Em]

Actually I was wrong... if you want to call me anything you can call me a sceptic.

 

[PT]

If you want to attach a label to me, I prefer Macho, Studly, Sexy, anything along those lines will do.

 

[RD_151]

Disarming the world is gonna be tough though,

Yeah... If this war is any indication, it could take months...

Indeed, its looking much different than it did the 3rd or 4th day into it. I was really overestimating the resistance at that point. However, there is still Iran, Nk, and any other nation we choose to label a 'rogue state' to go.

 

[freako104]

Labels are fine, but 'communist' and 'socialist' start to become used in a derogatory way here quite quickly.

yea but they are just terms there is no reason that they should be used in a derogatory manner. but they are. however i see jizlick use it more often as an insult than anyone else on here.








and to be honest





LABELS ARE SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! thank you have a nice day

 

[Aunty Em]

If you want to attach a label to me, I prefer Macho, Studly, Sexy, anything along those lines will do.

Based on you avatar?