obsrvr524 wrote:But I'm not hard set on any particular usage. No matter what I say it will be misconstrued and objected to. So you tell me -
When I want to express the distinction between constitutionalism and authoritarianism and the only people involved are not calling each other by those names but instead - "socialist, right wing, left wing, liberal, libertarian, centrist, communist, marxist, conservative, extremist,..." and usually avoid identifying themselves as anything, exactly which few simple labels would you suggest?
You could do a couple of things. This is off the top of my head: 1) focus on the problems with any specific policy or law or what is put forward as moral. If as you say earlier democrat choices lead to reduced democracy, point that out. You con't have to label them communists, you can focus on what they are doing, the problems it will lead to (especially any where you might have common ground), the faulty thinking/evidence/arguments that they support this with, and so on. 2) at the wholistic level, iow when you are referring to them in general, I don't, I guess I focus more on what I see their thinking as being like. Things like the way they dismiss things without knowing anything about it: essentially appeals to incredulity - what how could there possibly be a conspiracy? No way they could keep that secret. So, I guess for me patterns of poor research, poor thinking, poor intuition, poor memory. For example when the Left attacked Trump for being willing to appoint Surpreme court justices late in his term. Well, some of their presidents did that. Of course, that issue cuts both ways, since when Dems appointed or wanted to late in term, then the republicans objected. No memory on either side, or hypocrisy on either side.
I can see an in group use for labeling the enemy or opposed camp. I think that can give one strength and sometimes things just need to be said. But when interacting with others, I am not sure hit helps anyone or anything.
I also see for example both the republicans and dems as being in the hands of the puppeteers. So if we call dems communists and are silent about republicans, I think that is misleading. I'm guessing you, from what I have read, that you are critical of republicans also. But if the dems are communists, well, the republicans are communists but not quite as committed. Though they are more committed to drug wars and the like (though right now the dems are more hawkish than Trump) and, I think, naive about the communism/fascism of corporations. Here we might disagree, perhaps regarding degree. But I think it makes more sense to be specific when attacking people's behavior and arguments and thinking. If you want to label them, then by the patterns of their idiocy, rather than labeling them as in that camp B and the only other camp is my Camp A, the good guys.
And this is not because I want us to be nice. I am not a particularly nice poster as you've probably noticed. It's not so we can all hold hands and stand in a circle together.
I just think the labels are actually misleading. I mean God knows what kind of society the religious right would create if they were the Right and they got power. I would likely be a weird combination of communism and fascism. The neo cons supposedly on the right are not interested in rights to bear arms, rights to private, rights to assembly, freedom of the press, and love corporate subsidy via wars, corporate welfare, bailouts and do not believe in one law for all. The are not democrats, though of course someone like Hilary is a neocon.
I think labeling people communists when they would never identify that way shuts the discussion down, because it becomes the focus. If you say to them, you may not intend this but it leads to communism, that's a different approach. It keeps the focus on the policy or argument.
And then I think it presents a false image of the situation.
I appreciate your explanation. It was clear and its not like I think is all situations simple global labels are wrong to use. I think there are discussions when whipping it out might be useful or at least, there is no reason for you to hold it back. But in general here, I have noticed a trend and it seems to both misrepresent and mislead AND head more quickly to shut down.
Anyway, maybe we should take this to another thread. I think issues like the ones in this thread you raise are important. One really has to wonder what the point of Biden is. I mean, both Obama and Man Clinton, whatever one thinks of their politics, were very smart on their feet and charismatic, even if it was a negative charisma for people who hated them. These were talented people as politicians. Biden is a strange gray blob. Even if you love the policies (if he is even clear about these) this is really the best the dems could pull out of their team?
Harris does seem to be on the Left end of the Dems - oooh. Just read that she is a hawk.
https://jacobinmag.com/2019/09/foreign- ... rea-russiaBut this campaign branding doesn’t mean Harris has no “foreign policy.” Just looking at war (without getting into other critical foreign policy issues, from climate to trade agreements to covert operations), Harris has discernable stances. A close look at her record shows that, to the extent she has taken positions, they are defined by her close relationship with the right-wing lobby outfit American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), bellicose rhetoric toward North Korea and Russia, and reluctance to cosponsor key pieces of legislation aimed at preventing war with Venezuela and North Korea. On issues of militarism, she’s squarely in line with — and sometimes to the right of — a hawkish Democratic establishment.
This is just the sort of shit that gets glossed over even more nowadays. The old left would have been worried about this. And damn well would have made noises. They know the neocons want more war and want to use war to shuffle more power to corporations and government. Hilary was definintely in place to do that. And a black woman calling for war undermines a good chunk of left criticism.
Yes, she might move things domestically in directions what might be problematic, but this is first thing that stands out to me. A facade of outward liberal left care and policies, trojan horsing in more war at taxpayer expense, shuttling more money to neocon Haliburton type corps, more power to the intelligence community, more enemies abroad leading to more terrorism, more war on terror to go with the drug war and war on the 'sick'.....