Are you a Marxist

[seventh bullet]

You = nice, kind, unicorns riding on candy floss clouds farting rainbows. Socialists/communists/anarchists = not very nice, violent, extreme, what about STALIN?

 

[two sheds]

And what has that to do with social liberalism? You really think that being against homophobia, racism and sexism = nice, kind, unicorns riding on candy floss clouds?

You're making the point for me. You see the word 'liberal' and your mind closes down.

 

[emanymton]

Is it time to quote Mill? I think is is. A little passage that I think shows everything wrong about liberals. Note, there is no comment on the acts of the corn dealer.

An opinion that corn-dealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn-dealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard. Acts of whatever kind, which, without justifiable cause, do harm to others, may be, and in the more important cases absolutely require to be, controlled by the unfavourable sentiments, and, when needful, by the active interference of mankind

 

[brogdale]

And what has that to do with social liberalism? You really think that being against homophobia, racism and sexism = nice, kind, unicorns riding on candy floss clouds?

You're making the point for me. You see the word 'liberal' and your mind closes down.

I really think you're going to tie yourself up in self-defeating knots if you insist on this line of posting. Yes, most 'leftists'/anarchists have world views that are the opposite of socially conservative, but that doesn't in any way have an impact on their rejection of liberal ideology and its tenets.
Just accept that, and you'll find discussions more rewarding.

 

[seventh bullet]

And what has that to do with social liberalism? You really think that being against homophobia, racism and sexism = nice, kind, unicorns riding on candy floss clouds?

You're making the point for me. You see the word 'liberal' and your mind closes down.

I was demonstrating your own position. Notice I have to be against all the happy good stuff.

We've already been over this. You separate the social and political definitions (historically linked) then when it suits you, you deliberately and dishonestly mix them when dealing with others.

 

[two sheds]

I really think you're going to tie yourself up in self-defeating knots if you insist on this line of posting. Yes, most 'leftists'/anarchists have world views that are the opposite of socially conservative, but that doesn't in any way have an impact on their rejection of liberal ideology and its tenets.
Just accept that, and you'll find discussions more rewarding.

Yes I understand the point about political liberalism. I'm making a separate point about social liberalism.

I don't think I'm the one tying myself in knots.

I presume the hatred of political liberalism is central to Marx. Did he have much to say about social liberalism: homophobia/sexism/racism?

also the environment as I asked. How have societies set up along Marxist lines used their resources?

 

[brogdale]

Yes I understand the point about political liberalism. I'm making a separate point about social liberalism.

I don't think I'm the one tying myself in knots.

I presume the hatred of political liberalism is central to Marx. Did he have much to say about social liberalism: homophobia/sexism/racism?

also the environment as I asked. How have societies set up along Marxist lines used their resources?

Seriously, try this.
Political Ideologies by Andrew Heywood (Paperback)

 

[two sheds]

I was demonstrating your own position. Notice I have to be against all the happy good stuff.

We've already been over this. You separate the social and political definitions (historically linked) then when it suits you, you deliberately and dishonestly mix them when dealing with others.

I've clearly said how I feel about both social and political liberalism. The generally accepted definition of liberal in broader society would be a social liberal. If you say someone is 'liberal' in their views (social as opposed political 'a Liberal') then you generally mean they are against homophobia, sexism, racism ...

It's you (and seemingly Marxists in general which is why I think the point is relevant) who have co-opted it to mean politically liberal and that is the only definition you'll allow. And politically liberal seems to be redefined to mean 'is not in favour of violent revolution' (which as an aside I also don't think is the same thing at all).

You're confirming what I said before about there being a 'cult' edge to this. As soon as it's questioned the fundamentalists seem to start frothing at the mouth. Disagree and you'll end up with your testicles being electrocuted or Damned into the seventh layer of Hell.

 

[seventh bullet]

I am not a Marxist. The political side of it (which allows others to be all nice and fluffy n' shit) is very very violent. You're to be destroyed if you get in the way.

 

[two sheds]

Seriously, try this.
Political Ideologies by Andrew Heywood (Paperback)

Ta for the link but is there a summary somewhere?

 

[brogdale]

I've clearly said how I feel about both social and political liberalism. The generally accepted definition of liberal in broader society would be a social liberal. If you say someone is 'liberal' in their views (social as opposed political 'a Liberal') then you generally mean they are against homophobia, sexism, racism ...

It's you (and seemingly Marxists in general which is why I think the point is relevant) who have co-opted it to mean politically liberal and that is the only definition you'll allow. And politically liberal seems to be redefined to mean 'is not in favour of violent revolution' (which as an aside I also don't think is the same thing at all).

You're confirming what I said before about there being a 'cult' edge to this. As soon as it's questioned the fundamentalists seem to start frothing at the mouth. Disagree and you'll end up with your testicles being electrocuted or Damned into the seventh layer of Hell.

You've been told before; you're confusing usage from both sides of the Atlantic.

 

[brogdale]

Ta for the link but is there a summary somewhere?

No, you really need to do some proper reading on this; Heywood is a good, basic start.

 

[danny la rouge]

Ta for the link but is there a summary somewhere?

That is a book of summaries. You want a summary of a summary?

Jesus. Just read a book, ffs. Have your own opinion by all means, but base it on some actual groundwork.

 

[inva]

I've clearly said how I feel about both social and political liberalism. The generally accepted definition of liberal in broader society would be a social liberal. If you say someone is 'liberal' in their views (social as opposed political 'a Liberal') then you generally mean they are against homophobia, sexism, racism ...

that's so clearly not the case though is it? what would people regard as the liberal view on the EU for example, or immigration? Most would have an idea of what that means I reckon. I'd think the average person would have a more complex understanding of liberalism than what you've described there.

I'm not even sure it's really tenable to try and isolate out 'social liberalism' in the way you're trying to do.

 

[danny la rouge]

The generally accepted definition of liberal in broader society would be a social liberal.

The trouble with words like this is that one can't just assume that "generally accepted" is a factual description. You are asserting this. It may be true. But like many words, when you turn to dictionaries there are options. Definitions 1., 2., 3., and many more. Furthermore, dictionaries are not created by value-neutral organisations.

"Liberal" does have the meaning you refer to here as "socially liberal", but economically liberal (a term I heard used only yesterday by a BBC correspondant without providing a glossary) is a stance you'd probably associate with political conservatism. And so on.

The meaning of liberal I use - someone who sees individual behaviour and morality as the issue in any discussion of an instance of discrimination or whatever, rather than underlying structural analysis - does not preclude my being opposed to the discrimination or whatever under discussion. It is lazy, incoherent and obtuse to conclude that someone (e.g. someone on the left) is in favour of an instance of discrimination because they think another's (i.e. a liberal's) understanding of it is inadequate.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Really? So being against sexism, homophobia and racism (let alone the continuing rape of the earth's resources) is some "shitty liberal-left mash up"?

I thought socialists, communists and anarchists were against such things, but clearly not in you world.

Let me lead you through this in simple steps:

1) Socialism, communism and anarchism are "against such things".

2) Sometimes, individual socialists, communists and anarchists may express personal contrary views.

3) The latter (personal opinions) does not constitute the former.

4) You can be anti-sexist, anti-homophobia and anti-racist, and still be a whiny left-liberal, neoliberal consensus-approving shitbag. How? By supporting those issues individually, but maundering on about people having individual rights to express themselves as they like...you know, like most flavours of political liberalism do.

 

[two sheds]

I am not a Marxist. The political side of it (which allows others to be all nice and fluffy n' shit) is very very violent. You're to be destroyed if you get in the way.

Why are you not a Marxist? (honest question, interested to know - I'm happy to say why I'm not).

 

[Fozzie Bear]

should i not respond to someone who's distorted what I've been saying into a couple of shitty insults?

Incidentally, what did Marx say about the environment, anyone?

He said that unchecked capitalism will destroy the worker and the environment.

 

[two sheds]

That is a book of summaries. You want a summary of a summary?

Jesus. Just read a book, ffs. Have your own opinion by all means, but base it on some actual groundwork.

ok, I'll take a look at what he's saying but I presume it's ok in the meantime to carry on with the specific points I'm making.

 

[danny la rouge]

ok, I'll take a look at what he's saying but I presume it's ok in the meantime to carry on with the specific points I'm making.

I don't presume to give anyone permission or otherwise to do anything.

 

[two sheds]

that's so clearly not the case though is it? what would people regard as the liberal view on the EU for example, or immigration? Most would have an idea of what that means I reckon. I'd think the average person would have a more complex understanding of liberalism than what you've described there.

ok I see what you're saying. I'd still hold that if you asked people in the UK what 'liberal values' meant in general they'd say being against sexism, homophobia, racism and the like.

I'm not even sure it's really tenable to try and isolate out 'social liberalism' in the way you're trying to do.

Why not?

 

[danny la rouge]

Why not?

Because neoliberalism has co-opted identity politics.

 

[two sheds]

The trouble with words like this is that one can't just assume that "generally accepted" is a factual description. You are asserting this. It may be true. But like many words, when you turn to dictionaries there are options. Definitions 1., 2., 3., and many more. Furthermore, dictionaries are not created by value-neutral organisations.

As a general point I'd agree but not in this case.

1. Willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.‘liberal views towards divorce’

• 1. 1Favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms.
     ‘liberal citizenship laws’
• 1.2(in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform.
  ‘a liberal democratic state’
• 1.3 Relating to Liberals or a Liberal Party, especially (in the UK) relating to the Liberal Democrat party.
  ‘the Liberal leader’
• 1.4Theology
  Regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change.
• 2[attributive] (of education) concerned with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training.
• 
  ‘the provision of liberal adult education’
• 3(especially of an interpretation of a law) broadly construed or understood; not strictly literal.
  
  ‘they could have given the 1968 Act a more liberal interpretation’
• 4Given, used, or occurring in generous amounts.
  
  ‘liberal amounts of wine had been consumed’
  1. 4.1(of a person) giving generously.
     ‘Sam was too liberal with the wine’

Definition 1 is normally (I presume) the most common and that gives liberal as meaning social liberal. Political liberal has two meanings and given as a subset of that.

I think that reflects common speech from people who are non political. And I think this is important to make as a point because we (i.e. broadly on the left) need to talk to people who are non political. All this "liberals are responsible for millions of deaths" - unless you know the background - comes across as a little bit, you know, rabid.

"Liberal" does have the meaning you refer to here as "socially liberal", but economically liberal (a term I heard used only yesterday by a BBC correspondant without providing a glossary) is a stance you'd probably associate with political conservatism. And so on.

Yes politically liberal.

The meaning of liberal I use - someone who sees individual behaviour and morality as the issue in any discussion of an instance of discrimination or whatever, rather than underlying structural analysis - does not preclude my being opposed to the discrimination or whatever under discussion.

Yes fair point, but that's politically liberal again isn't it?

It is lazy, incoherent and obtuse to conclude that someone (e.g. someone on the left) is in favour of an instance of discrimination because they think another's (i.e. a liberal's) understanding of it is inadequate.

It certainly would be if someone were to do that.

 

[two sheds]

Because neoliberalism has co-opted identity politics.

In that case people on the left need to explain that to people who see themselves as socially liberal rather than going down the liberals-are-scum route.

A route which is shared with the far right, by the way, which can't be healthy.

What I think I'm trying to get at is that in a belief system things look different from the outside looking in than they do from the inside looking out. I think the demonisation of the word 'liberal' without making clear that you mean 'politically liberal' is counterproductive and is so far from most peoples' idea of the word that it makes those doing it look slightly unhinged.

Fuck I hate these threads, post about fluffy kittens and you come in to 'you have 3 likes' - post on one of these and you get '6 people have quoted you' and your heart sinks

 

[brogdale]

Fuck I hate these threads, post about fluffy kittens and you come in to 'you have 3 likes' - post on one of these and you get '6 people have quoted you' and your heart sinks

As I said...

 

[inva]

ok I see what you're saying. I'd still hold that if you asked people in the UK what 'liberal values' meant in general they'd say being against sexism, homophobia, racism and the like.

by shifting it from 'liberalism' to 'liberal values' you might be more likely to get the answer you want, but I don't think it's particularly reflective of how people use the term or understand liberalism more broadly.

Why not?

for a start, these are political questions. If you keep it as vague as being 'anti racism' etc then you can maybe just about maintain the distinction, but go any further and it quickly breaks down. What does it mean to be anti racist, why does racism exist, what's the role of the state, how do we oppose it, how do we end racism? These are issues that are wrapped up in 'anti racism', and people understand that.

Many would take liberal anti racism to mean something different to their own anti racism. There are lots who describe themselves as not racist or against racism, yet that can mean quite a range of things. The liberal approach to the social issues you mentioned is often characterised as being a top-down, statist, sort of finger wagging (PC stuff) - that's an understanding some have, and already demonstrates the depth of political meaning as soon as you apply some context. Maybe on a political compass internet test you can seperate everything out into neat little boxes - in reality, there's too much bound up together for that to work.

Another example is that I consider there to be a racist element to liberal anti racism, and top-down multiculturalism is an illustration of that - representing 'communities' as homogeneous masses. Once these things are examined they reveal a whole lot of other political ideas.

 

[two sheds]

As I said...

Yes, but I don't think it's me that has the problem. Co-opting words and changing their meaning without telling people is what cults do. I'm pointing this out and people are having none of it - won't even consider that I could be right.

I'm hesitant to bring it up but since it's a thread on Marxism I'm not keen on the word 'exploitation'. I'm led to understand on a previous thread that 'exploiting' as in 'bosses exploiting the workers' should be read as simply 'using' with no moral value attached to the word but that is just dishonest - it's just not how it's used when you're talking about exploiting people.

From Oxford again:

make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource).
"500 companies sprang up to exploit this new technology"
synonyms: utilize, make use of, put to use, use, use to good advantage, turn/put to good use, make the most of, capitalize on, benefit from, turn to account, draw on; More
profit from/by, make capital out of;
informalcash in on, milk
"platinum was originally exploited by the Indians of Colombia and Ecuador"

1. 2.
   make use of (a situation) in a way considered unfair or underhand.
   "the company was exploiting a legal loophole"
   • benefit unfairly from the work of (someone), typically by overworking or underpaying them.
     "women are exploited in the workplace"
     synonyms: take advantage of, make use of, abuse, impose on, prey on, play on, misuse, ill-treat, bleed, suck dry, squeeze, wring, enslave, treat unfairly, withhold rights from; More
     manipulate, cheat, swindle, fleece, victimize, live off the backs of;
     informalwalk (all) over, take for a ride, put one over on, cash in on, rip off
     "a ruling class which exploited workers"
     antonyms: treat fairly

 

[seventh bullet]

Why are you not a Marxist? (honest question, interested to know - I'm happy to say why I'm not).

It's easy to call yourself a 'Marxist.' It's much harder to actually be one. That means serious study. I have to get the serious part right.

 

[two sheds]

fair play.

 

[danny la rouge]

Definition 1 is normally (I presume) the most common and that gives liberal as meaning social liberal.

Well, you haven't said which dictionary that's from (is it a US dictionary, for example? That makes a difference). But let's say it's the OED for the sake of argument. Are we saying that the OED is outside of civil society and neutral from the ongoing manufacture of consent? That it is an institution with no interests in shoring up the elite? I don't think we can assume that definition one is necessarily what and only what the general population understands by "liberal". I don't think we can assume that st all.

I think people are perfectly capable of, and indeed do, use words with a variety of meanings in a variety of circumstances. People tend to be quite adept at dealing with the catholic nature of meaning in our language. People are aware of context.

All this "liberals are responsible for millions of deaths" - unless you know the background - comes across as a little bit, you know, rabid.

I'm not aware I ever said that. (Though actually I'm sure most people are perfectly capable of working out that western parliamentary democracy is far from being free from bloodstains).

Yes politically liberal.

No, economically liberal, in the instance I'm referring to. But the correspondant just said "liberal". You'd need to tell me whether this is a subset of your "politically liberal" or not. I'm not convinced. I'm imagining quite a mess of venn by now, and I don't think it's up to me to draw it.

Yes fair point, but that's politically liberal again isn't it?

No, actually it isn't. It's a subset of your "socially liberal".

I've just had a look at my copy of Keywords by Raymond Williams (something I haven't done for a while, so thanks), and actually his entry under "liberal" is well worth reading. It contains more history and etymology than my post on another thread that was linked to earlier. I wish it was online somewhere because it's very useful.