Liberalism or socialism?

Post Reply New Topic

That is only one of a number of definitions of science. The notion of falsification itself is increasingly being questioned in various scientific communities.

It is a significant point to a person like me, who genuinely believes in a leftist ideology.



It is important to me for ideological reasons. I am a leftist. I promote leftist causes and leftist approaches to solving social problems. I don't want to see those causes confused with liberalism.



I am far left from an American standpoint. Globally, I am just a leftist.

Not really given that left is not an ideology like libertarianism or socialism or something of that nature but rather a comparative term for a group. I mean, leftists use other ideological terms to describe themselves and have sub-ideologies within that group such as libertarian socialists, anarchists, plain socialists, and stuff like that. Leftist is really about as meaningful as the term conservative when it comes to absolutes of ideology. I mean, leftist is not so much of a perfect descriptor as neoconservative or fascist or paleoconservative or any number of other terms.

Leftist isn't the term for the political ideology though, it is the lay term for a basic alignment known for egalitarianism, liberality towards personal behavior, and few hierarchical or divisive structures between individuals. It is measured by comparison and not an absolute ideology as you seem to think.

Liberalism.

Most of the other definitions stem from people trying to save verificationism and the Baconian myth of induction, are from New Age or Fundamentalist crazies who desire to denigrate science by calling it a religion, or are from PoMo social constructivists that treat science as just another element of the "white heterosexual male power structure."

I suppose the reason why a lot of leftists (as I define the term) care about these issues is because of a frustration with living in a society which has reduced leftism to liberalism. We are mostly ignored by the popular press, too. The television media almost never even mention us.



I agree that leftism is not an ideology per se. It is a rubic. However, the rubric is much different in the U.S. than, say, in most of Europe.

With that last one, you came pretty close to my objection. I am a social constructionist, and my methodological philosophy is post-positivist or neopragmatist. However, I don't treat the sciences as simply an element of the heterosexual male power structure. To me, scientific methods are useful if they work. If not, then we need to find a better language game.

Because you are considered a bunch of crackpots mostly. The only reason why libertarians get mentioned is because of Ron Paul, and I am sure that those who are self-consciously national socialist feel rather neglected as well. I recognize that the left is more than FDR but can extend so far as to radical egalitarianism and rejection of conservative morals. Really though, those who are on the right of those on the left, see that as the difference between them and those who are more leftward.

Yes, and both of us live in America. If you had lived in Europe then perhaps I would be more tolerant and tried to unentangle the differences more, but really, the fact that America is further right than most of the world means that what we consider to be left will be bigger. It is a natural thing and really to focus on that in basic internet discussion is pointless. Just recognize the differences in the use of the term, you are a nominalist anyway, "left" doesn't exist in the first place.

We are in the U.S., yes, and that is unfortunate. The status quo is, IMO, not working.



Sure, but the Internet is not America; and, aside from the lectures I give to my students, most of my discussions are on the Internet.



Most nominalists, at least educated ones, are very cautious about the use of languages. Because we recognize that words have no essential meaning - that there is no fixed relationship between words and meaning - we take great care in how we express ourselves.

Not really that unfortunate, I think your political ideas suck and would likely lead to a society that *truly* doesn't work. Then again, like I said, I think that most forms of socialism have been pretty well discredited and this is based upon issues with the pricing mechanism. Market socialism makes the most attempt to get past this and is perhaps the best, but there are some who attack Lange's work on this, I really haven't studied Lange enough to say much on the theory. I really haven't studied the depths of market socialism enough to really see why it would be better or worse, especially given that market socialists are rarer and very few attempts have been made. The status quo does currently provide social order, it just has ups and downs, however, it seems relatively stable. I dunno, I usually consider systems to work unless they are dystopic or in a state of civil war, and the US is in neither from all but the most deranged or strange of views.

I know, but you live in America. When you talk about the politics where you are from you speak about America. I recognize that you have internet discussions but many English boards are filled with various Americans. We can relate this back to the European standard, but there is little point because it is not the standard that directly applies to our own political system and is merely an abstraction like the word for rice in China would be.


I was messing with you, it seemed like you were being stubborn on a point that really didn't have much value from my perspective.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 22 Dec 2007, 8:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

socialism!! !

I am a socialist. I am also quite the liberaltarian.
Socialism though, not being popular, still has more benefits in my opinion than liberalism because someone/somewhere has to maintain control over the populace and regulate it's citizens. Anarchy isn't far from liberalism, though i like the brochure.

Not really that unfortunate, I think your political ideas suck and would likely lead to a society that *truly* doesn't work.[/quote]

That is speculative. My ideas have never been tried (especially in the U.S.).



The varoius market socialisms are really accommodations with capitalism. Some, IMO, are little different from capitalism, even allowing first-generation private ownership. I support mandatory collectivization of major industries.



As far as this discussion is concerned, we both "live" on the Internet - as does everyone else who reads this message. From the standpoint of message boards and email, physical location is largely irrelevant.



Semantics are important to me, for the reasons I already mentioned.

That is speculative. My ideas have never been tried (especially in the U.S.).



The various market socialisms are really accommodations with capitalism. Some, IMO, are little different from capitalism, even allowing first-generation private ownership. I support mandatory collectivization of major industries.



As far as this discussion is concerned, we both "live" on the Internet - as does everyone else who reads this message. From the standpoint of message boards and email, physical location is largely irrelevant.



Semantics are important to me, for the reasons I already mentioned.

Yeah, it is speculative, but I tend to doubt that you have seriously studied enough economics to actually overcome most of the pitfalls of most collectivist schemes. We can argue about the validity of logic as an epistemological tool as to generalize from theory or certain practices, but that would be pointlessness given that we both inherently use logic and could not conceive a world without logical relations. Socialism theoretically fails though due to a failure in a pricing mechanism, which is a necessity in economics due to the subjective nature of value, which is especially important in developed societies. Many socialists schemes try to go by as economic totalitarianism without recognizing the harms or blindnesses caused by a totalitarian society in any sense of the word.


Yes, I know, and they were considered to be the best attempts by socialist planners to overcome the difficulties that would be found in a socialist system. Most economists today really don't think that a noncapitalist system is possible with modern technology and many of the former socialists during the Cold War already recanted and admitted the theoretical failing of their ideas, and some would extend that to say that it will never be possible but I don't know how mainstream that group is. Yes, collectivization, a step towards failure.


Not really given the fact that I have already introduced Americanized concepts and appealed to an American view of left and right. From the standpoint of communication, nothing is irrelevant unless we try to make it thus. You are trying to push for something, and I really don't care about how globalist I seem. I know about politics in other nations, but I still work within a framework based upon my own nation.


Ok, they are important to you. They really aren't important to me. Get a grip. It is not as if I am referring you to a word definition you are completely unfamiliar with. Besides, if you haven't noticed too much concern about semantics really tends to piss me off more than anything else. You have my terms and language and you know the logic behind the usage as I have explained it to you.

Am I an economist? No. I am a sociologist of religion. However, I know some economists who have come up with specific proposals in line with what I am suggesting.



Collectivization is, as I conceive it, worker ownership, not government ownership. It has nothing to do with the statism of the USSR.



Well, because I can see you are an American from the notation next to your avatar. However, most of the people I chat with on listservs, etc. are not. They are Europeans.



I know what you are saying, but you seemed to express some surprise about my interest in language, semantics, etc.