3 ms·

I feel like your definition of "left" and my definition of "left" aren't even remotely equivalent. It seems that much of our public debate is hobbled by an out

I feel like your definition of "left" and my definition of "left" aren't even remotely equivalent. It seems that much of our public debate is hobbled by an outstanding lack of consensus regarding what is meant by many political terms: right, left, conservative, progressive, liberal, capitalism, fascism, democracy, socialism, and so on. I don't mention this as a way to suggest your definition is incorrect but just to point out how difficult it is to have a coherent discussion when basic terms are ill-defined.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
But the terms are not ill-defined. They've been deliberately obfuscated by those with power and wealth, particularly in the USA since the Progressive period (roughly 1880-1920), when US capital got scared shitless that actua leftist politics might assume power in this country. It is absolutely in the interest of existing power and wealth that these political concepts be fuzzy, misunderstood and hard to apply. Political scientists don't have much problem defining them in unambiguous ways, but our political culture is full of attempts to obscure their meaning. I would agree that there's a legitimate argument about whether or not 1-dimensional axes are a useful way to talk about political ideas. There's a lot of merit in the 2D approach that many libertarians like to use. But that doesn't change the fact that these terms are well quite well defined by those who understand the subject matter, and deliberately obfuscated by those who see problems if people were to really understand the differences and purposes of the ideas described by these terms.
- Wolfenstein98k 5y ago
  No, I think it's just you. The American centre is much more libertarian than the centre in other democracies, but there isn't some weird cabal redefining leftism - it just isn't as popular there. "They've been deliberately obfuscated by those with power and wealth" - how? By whom?
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    You're right that left politics are not as popular here. But in the Progressive period (1880-1920 as I mentioned), the US was possibly the home of the most popular, most powerful leftish movement anywhere on the planet. So what happened ... > how? By whom? Goodness. There are so many books on this. You could start with something obvious like Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent", which is about a somewhat different issue but covers the way that the power structures in the US moved the Overton window in various ways to make leftish politics appear out of the mainstream. This book does a reasonably good job of covering both how socialism itself shot itself in the foot in the US and how it was shot in the other foot by the existing power structures use of propaganda/media: https://www.amazon.com/Didnt-Happen-Here-Socialism-Failed/dp/0393040984/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=0393040984&qid=1628034079&sr=8-1 https://www.amazon.com/Didnt-Happen-Here-Socialism-Failed/dp...
- gwright 5y ago
  > But the terms are not ill-defined I'm asserting that if there is no rough agreement on definitions then you can't have a coherent conversation. You seem to be asserting that there is an effort to actively obscure the meaning of these terms, which doesn't negate my assertion. It doesn't matter why there is no agreement (deception, lack of education, laziness, etc.) without the agreement you can't really have a coherent discussion. Your assertion that there are some who are knowingly obfuscating language is worthy of discussion but seems like a different (but related) point. I tend to agree with you regarding muddled language, but I'm not so sure about "those with power and wealth" being the cause.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

But the terms are not ill-defined. They've been deliberately obfuscated by those with power and wealth, particularly in the USA since the Progressive period (roughly 1880-1920), when US capital got scared shitless that actua leftist politics might assume power in this country. It is absolutely in the interest of existing power and wealth that these political concepts be fuzzy, misunderstood and hard to apply. Political scientists don't have much problem defining them in unambiguous ways, but our political culture is full of attempts to obscure their meaning. I would agree that there's a legitimate argument about whether or not 1-dimensional axes are a useful way to talk about political ideas. There's a lot of merit in the 2D approach that many libertarians like to use. But that doesn't change the fact that these terms are well quite well defined by those who understand the subject matter, and deliberately obfuscated by those who see problems if people were to really understand the differences and purposes of the ideas described by these terms.

Wolfenstein98k 5y ago
No, I think it's just you. The American centre is much more libertarian than the centre in other democracies, but there isn't some weird cabal redefining leftism - it just isn't as popular there. "They've been deliberately obfuscated by those with power and wealth" - how? By whom?
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  You're right that left politics are not as popular here. But in the Progressive period (1880-1920 as I mentioned), the US was possibly the home of the most popular, most powerful leftish movement anywhere on the planet. So what happened ... > how? By whom? Goodness. There are so many books on this. You could start with something obvious like Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent", which is about a somewhat different issue but covers the way that the power structures in the US moved the Overton window in various ways to make leftish politics appear out of the mainstream. This book does a reasonably good job of covering both how socialism itself shot itself in the foot in the US and how it was shot in the other foot by the existing power structures use of propaganda/media: https://www.amazon.com/Didnt-Happen-Here-Socialism-Failed/dp/0393040984/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=0393040984&qid=1628034079&sr=8-1 https://www.amazon.com/Didnt-Happen-Here-Socialism-Failed/dp...
gwright 5y ago
> But the terms are not ill-defined I'm asserting that if there is no rough agreement on definitions then you can't have a coherent conversation. You seem to be asserting that there is an effort to actively obscure the meaning of these terms, which doesn't negate my assertion. It doesn't matter why there is no agreement (deception, lack of education, laziness, etc.) without the agreement you can't really have a coherent discussion. Your assertion that there are some who are knowingly obfuscating language is worthy of discussion but seems like a different (but related) point. I tend to agree with you regarding muddled language, but I'm not so sure about "those with power and wealth" being the cause.