Liberalism or socialism?

Page 2 of 4 [ 61 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Odin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2006
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,475
Location: Moorhead, Minnesota, USA

22 Dec 2007, 3:59 pm

nominalist wrote:

Odin wrote:

Which is why most Sociology is not science, it's ideologically motivated pseudoscience. It is to the PoMo Left what Supply-Side Economics is to the Corporatist Right. I am an ex-Marxist (thanks to reading Popper) and have no use for such nonsense.

There is no such thing as "science." There are only diverse fields which use modifications of a method which originated in physics (with Aristotle and then Newton).

Science = method of investigation based on creating and testing falsifiable hypotheses.

_________________
My Blog: My Autistic Life

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

22 Dec 2007, 4:19 pm

nominalist wrote:

Not a very organized one, no. However, I intentionally do not use the term "left" for "liberal" in order to emphasize it. When I refer to the American left, I have in mind a tiny segment of the general population. A lot of us probably end up in sociology departments or the like.

Yeah, a very very small portion of the population. I really don't see the point in even referring to them with such a commonly used term. Especially when I consider the folks who support socialism to be the far-left already given that I consider most of the ideas of socialism hopelessly discredited in mainstream thought.

Quote:

Jesse Jackson and Dennis Kucinich are left liberals. The Clintons are right liberals or even left moderates.

We define terms differently, I am still working within the American framework rather than yours because I don't see the reason to invoke a world or universal ideological framework.

Quote:

There is an American left, albeit quite small. However, no leftists I know would consider liberals to be a part of it.

You define the term differently. I really don't care about your definition. Get over it.

Quote:

A lot of conservative pundits call people "leftists" who, to me, are right conservatives. I have given up on trying to figure out how self-defined conservatives classify others.

You are far left. Some of this is of course just ideological nonsense, but still.

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

22 Dec 2007, 4:49 pm

Odin wrote:

Science = method of investigation based on creating and testing falsifiable hypotheses.

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

_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

22 Dec 2007, 4:53 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

I really don't see the point in even referring to them with such a commonly used term.

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

Quote:

We define terms differently, I am still working within the American framework rather than yours because I don't see the reason to invoke a world or universal ideological framework.

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.

Quote:

You are far left. Some of this is of course just ideological nonsense, but still.

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

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

22 Dec 2007, 5:00 pm

nominalist wrote:

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

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Reodor_Felgen
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Sep 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,300

22 Dec 2007, 5:55 pm

Liberalism.

Winston Churchill wrote:

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Frank Zappa (Explaining how he knew Communism was doomed to fail) wrote:

People like to own things.

_________________
WP doesn't have a working first amendment.

Fuck. This will override the swear word filter.

Odin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2006
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,475
Location: Moorhead, Minnesota, USA

22 Dec 2007, 6:04 pm

nominalist wrote:

Odin wrote:

Science = method of investigation based on creating and testing falsifiable hypotheses.

That is only one of a number of definitions of science.

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."

_________________
My Blog: My Autistic Life

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

22 Dec 2007, 7:02 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

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.

Quote:

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.

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

22 Dec 2007, 7:07 pm

Odin wrote:

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.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

22 Dec 2007, 7:09 pm

nominalist wrote:

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

22 Dec 2007, 8:19 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Because you are considered a bunch of crackpots mostly.

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

Quote:

Yes, and both of us live in America.

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.

Quote:

Just recognize the differences in the use of the term, you are a nominalist anyway, "left" doesn't exist in the first place.

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.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

22 Dec 2007, 8:29 pm

nominalist wrote:

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

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

Kilroy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Apr 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,549
Location: Beyond the Void

22 Dec 2007, 8:34 pm

socialism!! !

Averick
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Mar 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,709
Location: My tower upon the crag. Yes, mwahahaha!

22 Dec 2007, 8:46 pm

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.

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

22 Dec 2007, 9:18 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

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

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.).

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

I know, but you live in America. When you talk about the politics where you are from you speak about America.

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.

Quote:

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.

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

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

22 Dec 2007, 9:18 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

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

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

I know, but you live in America. When you talk about the politics where you are from you speak about America.

Quote:

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.

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

Page 2 of 4 [ 61 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Jump to:

Liberalism or socialism? Post Reply New Topic

Liberalism or socialism?