Utimately Karl Marx believed...

[Brian Shanahan]

Oh god... dictionary wars again...

And to think I was enjoying this thread.

Why do we waste so much bloody time on "oh that's not the meaning of x"? I commonly hear because common understanding is needed. No not really; it's not hard to recognise your opponent's usage and use it accordingly.

Labels are worthless anyway.

I'll be equally obnoxious: Americans use the right term; Everyone else just has corrupted them to try and distance themselves from us.

See? That's not very productive at all and it just encourages us all to beat eachother with trouts rather than focus on actual issues.

Let's discuss the usefulness of redistribution. Let's discuss the sustainability of universal healthcare. Let's, in the spirit of the thread, discuss what Marx' ideal system was, without having to apply some label to it.

We get a lot more done this way. But then again, that curbs post count.

Why do we ask you to use the non-American version of liberalism? Because the American version is a debased meaning created solely to denigrate anything that is not ultra-right wing. It is a lot easier to have a debate when words are given their proper meaning and not used solely to try and shut one side out of the arguement.

If you don't like that, then why are you in a thread which is talking about isms?

 

[Lone Wolf]

For all it's worth, in Russia the term "liberal" is associated with being economically right/right-ish + liberalism on these social issues that are not affected by the economy (e.g. anti-conscription). The usual antonym to the term "liberal" is not "conservative", but "patriot". Liberals vs. Patriots, how's that for ya?

 

[Tani Coyote]

It is a lot easier to have a debate when words are given their proper meaning and not used solely to try and shut one side out of the arguement.

If you don't like that, then why are you in a thread which is talking about isms?

You know you can use the American socialism and not be using it as a scare word, right?

Heck, some Europeans use the American lexicon. What now?

Meanings change with time and location. That's a simple fact. What's next, we force people to say chips instead of fries? Barbie instead of barbecue?

 

[aelf]

You know you can use the American socialism and not be using it as a scare word, right?

Heck, some Europeans use the American lexicon. What now?

Meanings change with time and location. That's a simple fact. What's next, we force people to say chips instead of fries? Barbie instead of barbecue?

Look, meaning isn't fixed, that's true, but it doesn't mean we have no responsibility over what we mean. This is in both senses of the word responsibility.

If you want to sound like you know what you're talking about and contribute quality material to discussion, it helps to use terms in the better way.

 

[Hygro]

I actually don't think you know what your talking about. Marx clearly stated he expected a revolution of the proletariat. Anyone who has read anything from Marx can't possibly miss that.

Hence the thread. Early Marx absolutely believed this. And while as Aelf pointed out the word "ultimately" lead to some confusion, there is clearly debate over whether Marx thought this later in life.

The actual question of this thread is what would free labor from capital, and not so much what would free labor from those who use capital to obtain social value (i.e. capitalists). So as Aelf pointed out more than once, this freedom could be preceded by a revolution.

However a violent overthrow or social democratic legislation is largely immaterial--there is still capital oppressing labor, or at least could be if we wish to maintain our quality of life.

So workers are not free, they will continue to be slaves to capital until they collectively make a decision that will not come from any one's homo economicus part of their brain, acting as an individual agent in an unchanging system, change the system together and free themselves from capital. This happens with advanced machinery able to provide for our needs (now greater needs than our predecessors because of what we are used to) can do so with increasingly fewer hours of work in the day. A 4-hour workday is a lot freer than the 12-hour workdays of Marx's time. It's also a lot freer than an 8-hour workday which ends up eating most the time and energy of your day, unlike 4 hours. a 2-hour workday would be ever better, etc. The point is, you reach a point at which the workday no longer dictates your life, and that capital serves people, not vice versa.

***
Wrt your housing thing, the most desirable property is in the thick of cities. These buildings cannot change size, but their value increases. Desirable urban-with-seperate-houses areas like the one I live in have old small houses. As their family has owned them for decades, they have added additions. It makes sense as you build up wealth, you no longer need present income to pay for it. Yes there are larger houses in desirable areas, though much suburbia contains large houses because home prices per square foot are cheap--i.e. not a desirable location. Now overall these houses might be expensive and with changes over time, might be more desirable places. Sure. But aside from that those houses have been afforded not just with debt (both of our points) but with past wealth from houses whose value rose, such ~million+ dollar houses are not the norm and the income of the upper 20% has been increasing just fine (though still much less than the previous epoch). Overall, these bigger houses could be considered a result in the accumulation of wealth (and debt), but not evidence of people actually being better off.

Your own arguments about debt--made more than mine which were similar--make this point incredibly clear.

 

[aelf]

So as Aelf pointed out more than once, this freedom could be preceded by a revolution.

Heh, sorry for repeating myself. Sometimes I forget what I've said

 

[Brian Shanahan]

You know you can use the American socialism and not be using it as a scare word, right?

Heck, some Europeans use the American lexicon. What now?

Meanings change with time and location. That's a simple fact. What's next, we force people to say chips instead of fries? Barbie instead of barbecue?

1) But Americans rarely use words like liberal and socialist (and related words) unless they want to denigrate other points of view.

2) Why would they in this case? Oh, I know they do, but there is no reason to adopt a meaning for a word which is less valid than the proper one.

3) Yes meanings change. But adopting bad meanings is still stupid and leads to a coarsening of the discourse and vilification of valid points of view. It would be like me coming on here and calling everything to the right of Keir Hardie Thatcherite (well OK I do call some things Thatcherite but that's just a statement of {pretty derogatory} fact).

And on your chips/fries thing the original is fries from Vlaamische Fritters.

Frankly, the main reason why I dislike anything thats not free market fundie. being called liberalism is because liberalism is the original free market fundamentalism. It was only when Keynes realised that the free market doesn't solve everything in the 20's that the Liberal party dropped that plank of their existance, long after the Tories had supplanted them economically.
I am no closer to being a liberal than Dommy is (though from an opposite end of the spectrum) while in reality you are pretty close ideologically to being a liberal.

 

[Tani Coyote]

1) But Americans rarely use words like liberal and socialist (and related words) unless they want to denigrate other points of view.

I know plenty of Americans who identify as liberals...

Liberal may be used as an attack by their rivals, but liberals probably do the same thing to conservatism. "Reactionary" anyone?

I am no closer to being a liberal than Dommy is (though from an opposite end of the spectrum) while in reality you are pretty close ideologically to being a liberal.

I'd be a liberal in much of the First World, but in America, I'm more of a center-libertarian.

It changes with borders, and that brings up another good point: Why bother arguing about terms considering none of us can vote in eachother's elections?

 

[Hygro]

Heh, sorry for repeating myself. Sometimes I forget what I've said

Yeah well I committed my biggest sin of OT hypocrisy by repeating my arguments after you pointed that out

 

[Brian Shanahan]

It changes with borders, and that brings up another good point: Why bother arguing about terms considering none of us can vote in eachother's elections?

Because the imprecise use of terms is a sign of fuzzy logic and badly thought arguements. And as the American use of liberal is basically an attempt at being derogatory and the wrong use it should be discouraged in order to facilitate strong logic and well thought arguements.

 

[Cutlass]

1) But Americans rarely use words like liberal and socialist (and related words) unless they want to denigrate other points of view.

2) Why would they in this case? Oh, I know they do, but there is no reason to adopt a meaning for a word which is less valid than the proper one.

3) Yes meanings change. But adopting bad meanings is still stupid and leads to a coarsening of the discourse and vilification of valid points of view. It would be like me coming on here and calling everything to the right of Keir Hardie Thatcherite (well OK I do call some things Thatcherite but that's just a statement of {pretty derogatory} fact).

And on your chips/fries thing the original is fries from Vlaamische Fritters.

Frankly, the main reason why I dislike anything thats not free market fundie. being called liberalism is because liberalism is the original free market fundamentalism. It was only when Keynes realised that the free market doesn't solve everything in the 20's that the Liberal party dropped that plank of their existance, long after the Tories had supplanted them economically.
I am no closer to being a liberal than Dommy is (though from an opposite end of the spectrum) while in reality you are pretty close ideologically to being a liberal.

But that opens up yet another can of worms. Because now you are defining a word, liberal, in terms of a phrase, free market fundie, that is in itself open to the debate of its meaning. Laissez-faire, where governments simply do not intervene in markets, is not a sufficient condition for markets to be free. So why is it that the meaning of a word, in this case liberal, cannot evolve with the understanding of the situation that it describes?

 

[Hygro]

start a new thread plez -.-

 

[Arakhor]

Why bother communicating at all?

 

[Angst]

I actually approve of the idea of starting a new thread on the subject matter.