Then there should be no issue in using the term liberal without anyone getting confused. But yet…
Like I said, you’re using a wildly heterodox definition of liberal. When you use a definition of a word that is different from its general usage, people are going to get confused.
Liberalism let it’s guard down to capitalism for too long
Letting the guard down to capitalism is a core part of liberalism. In order to not let your guard down to capitalism, you would have to abandon liberalism.
I posted a Marxism.org link to quote a Marxist philosopher I told you to read and you replied
Letting the guard down to capitalism is a core part of liberalism. In order to not let your guard down to capitalism, you would have to abandon liberalism.
Yes I understand you want me to believe that.
I have my guard up and describe myself as a liberal. You see my guard up and say I’m not a liberal.
At the end of the day these are just labels. Losing our minds at someone describing themselves as “socialist” or “liberal” is not worth it to me if we agree on the concepts.
So many people here seem to be more focused on the label than the concept.
To make what point?
Read the original context. It all makes sense if you read what I was quote responding to.
You said, to paraphrase cause I don’t want to go find it, “if liberalism means that then the US isn’t liberal” or something, so I quoted a Marxist who described the development of the frontier less as a liberal democracy and more as primitive Libertarianism.
Yes, I’m glad you understand how a discussion works. Presumably you then don’t want people to believe what you say?
I have my guard up and describe myself as a liberal.
Is it? Because capitalism has rolled over the top of you none the less. My whole point was that liberalism ideologically compels itself to hand over material power to capital. That’s why, even though ‘your guard is up’, you can’t do anything about it; because you’re just a random person with no power. Having your guard up is meaningless when they’ve already stormed the fortress and thrown you in the dungeon.
So many people here seem to be more focused on the label than the concept.
That’s because we communicate using words, we can’t just directly transmit pure concepts to each other. If people can’t understand your labels they can’t understand you concepts.
Marxist who described the development of the frontier less as a liberal democracy and more as primitive Libertarianism.
So not as socialism. I’m sure hoping you don’t think mob rule by bands of genocidal settler colonists is socialism?
Yes, I’m glad you understand how a discussion works. Presumably you then don’t want people to believe what you say?
Is this how you want the conversation to go? Are we gonna both just play dumb and ask loaded questions back and forth?
Is it?
Yeah? (You called me a Socialist earlier)
Because capitalism has rolled over the top of you none the less.
How exactly did you expect me to have predefeated the system I was born into?
That’s why, even though ‘your guard is up’, you can’t do anything about it; because you’re just a random person with no power
You’re not pointing out anything new to me.
That’s because we communicate using words, we can’t just directly transmit pure concepts to each other. If people can’t understand your labels they can’t understand you concepts.
EXACTLY!!! Yes! Love this.
So not as socialism.
No, as primitive Libertarianism. It’s right there.
I’m sure hoping you don’t think mob rule by bands of genocidal settler colonists is socialism?
You told me my definition of liberalism implies the US wasn’t liberal.
I agreed and quoted a marxist who described the US as primitive Libertarianism.
Now you think I’m saying the US has secretly been socialist this whole time?
Is this how you want the conversation to go? Are we gonna both just play dumb and ask loaded questions back and forth?
Seems like it already was, given that I was replying to you doing it.
Yeah? (You called me a Socialist earlier)
Really? Your guard doesn’t’ seem up, based on the fact that you’ve been completely dominated by capitalism.
How exactly did you expect me to have predefeated the system I was born into?
Oh I’m sorry, I thought your guard was up.
You’re not pointing out anything new to me.
Really? Because it contradicts what you previously said.
No, as primitive Libertarianism. It’s right there.
Ok. So once again. What. Is. Your. Point?
I agreed and quoted a marxist who described the US as primitive Libertarianism.
Why? What is the relevance of that quote? And no, he described early US as that, not the current one. He also, remember, doesn’t’ subscribe to your unique definition of liberalism.
Now you think I’m saying the US has secretly been socialist this whole time?
No, I think you don’t have a coherent definition of liberalism.
Like I said, you’re using a wildly heterodox definition of liberal. When you use a definition of a word that is different from its general usage, people are going to get confused.
Letting the guard down to capitalism is a core part of liberalism. In order to not let your guard down to capitalism, you would have to abandon liberalism.
To make what point?
Yes I understand you want me to believe that.
I have my guard up and describe myself as a liberal. You see my guard up and say I’m not a liberal.
At the end of the day these are just labels. Losing our minds at someone describing themselves as “socialist” or “liberal” is not worth it to me if we agree on the concepts.
So many people here seem to be more focused on the label than the concept.
Read the original context. It all makes sense if you read what I was quote responding to.
You said, to paraphrase cause I don’t want to go find it, “if liberalism means that then the US isn’t liberal” or something, so I quoted a Marxist who described the development of the frontier less as a liberal democracy and more as primitive Libertarianism.
Yes, I’m glad you understand how a discussion works. Presumably you then don’t want people to believe what you say?
Is it? Because capitalism has rolled over the top of you none the less. My whole point was that liberalism ideologically compels itself to hand over material power to capital. That’s why, even though ‘your guard is up’, you can’t do anything about it; because you’re just a random person with no power. Having your guard up is meaningless when they’ve already stormed the fortress and thrown you in the dungeon.
That’s because we communicate using words, we can’t just directly transmit pure concepts to each other. If people can’t understand your labels they can’t understand you concepts.
So not as socialism. I’m sure hoping you don’t think mob rule by bands of genocidal settler colonists is socialism?
Is this how you want the conversation to go? Are we gonna both just play dumb and ask loaded questions back and forth?
Yeah? (You called me a Socialist earlier)
How exactly did you expect me to have predefeated the system I was born into?
You’re not pointing out anything new to me.
EXACTLY!!! Yes! Love this.
No, as primitive Libertarianism. It’s right there.
You told me my definition of liberalism implies the US wasn’t liberal.
I agreed and quoted a marxist who described the US as primitive Libertarianism.
Now you think I’m saying the US has secretly been socialist this whole time?
Seems like it already was, given that I was replying to you doing it.
Really? Your guard doesn’t’ seem up, based on the fact that you’ve been completely dominated by capitalism.
Oh I’m sorry, I thought your guard was up.
Really? Because it contradicts what you previously said.
Ok. So once again. What. Is. Your. Point?
Why? What is the relevance of that quote? And no, he described early US as that, not the current one. He also, remember, doesn’t’ subscribe to your unique definition of liberalism.
No, I think you don’t have a coherent definition of liberalism.