-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 05:09:17 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Carnival Of Sound
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Political Discussions Threads: Definitions
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Political Discussions Threads: Definitions  (Read 9825 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« on: April 23, 2016, 06:46:08 PM »

For the first draft of our list, I will use alphabetic order. If it makes more sense to group in some other way (for example, to put left-wing and right-wing together, or whatever), we can do that. I'll plan to edit this post as we go. Also, my goal was to keep a relatively concise list of the most likely to be used terms. But by all means, if anyone wants to add to it, go ahead. Many of these words have many forms (capitalism, capitalistic; liberal, liberalism; etc.), but I stuck with one word per root word, barring situations where two were necessary, such as democracy and Democratic Party.

Definitions below are based on "Political Ideologies: An Introduction," by Andrew Heywood (4th Ed.). I figured a textbook is a good place to start.

Anarchism - A political ideology with the belief that political authority in all its forms, and especially in the form of the state, is both evil (as a repository of sovereign, compulsory, and coercive authority) and unnecessary (because order and social harmony arise naturally).
Authoritarianism - A political ideology with the belief in government exercizing authority over the population with or without its consent.

Capitalism - An economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange of wealth are not necessarily owned by the individuals engaged in the productive labor.
Chauvinism - Uncritical or unreasoned dedication to a cause or a group based on a belief in its inherent superiority.
Christian Democracy - Ideological tradition within European conservatism, based on Catholic social theory, characterized by a commitment to the the social group rather than the individual and stressing harmony over competition; favoring intermediate institutions such as churches, unions, and business groups bound by a social partnership; and supportive of the idea that decisions should be made by the lowest appropriate institution.
Collectivism - The belief that collective human endeavor is of greater practical and moral value than individual self-striving. Various, sometimes contradictory understandings within political ideologies: anarchists consider it self-governing associations of free individuals; sometimes linked to the state as mechanism through which collective interests are upheld (thus growing state responsibilities).
Colonialism - The theory or practice of establishing control over a foreign territory, usually by settlement or economic domination.
Communism - Economic and political ideology based on classless society and common ownership of wealth, or a system of comprehensive collectivization, generally supporting revolution to abolish capitalism to reach those ends.
Conservatism - Political ideology defined by resistance to, or at least suspicion of, change, typically with strong respect for tradition and social order. (Modern conservatism tends to combine economic libertarianism with social authoritarianism.)
Corporatism - Belief that business and labor are bound in an organic whole (influenced by Catholic thought that emphasized social duty and mutual obligation); and that the state must mediate relations between business and labor to ensure national interest takes precedence over narrow interests. Authoritarian corporatism may involve direct political control over industry and organized labor; liberal corporatism grants organized interests and institutions access to policy formulation.

Democracy - Political system in which the people have political authority to make decisions.
Democratic (Party) - One of two major contemporary political parties in America, tracing its heritage to the Jefferson-Adams "Democratic-Republican Party" and founded around 1828. The party supported classical liberalism initially, and especially in the south had a populist character. It moved leftward in the late 1800s, promoted a social-liberal platform since FDR (1932), and combined a more centrist economic with progressive social policy in the Clinton era (1992). (Wikipedia-based definition / history.)
Dictatorship - Government where one person or entity rules without limitation.

Elitism - Belief in the rule by an elite minority, either because they are desirable (superior talents or skills) or because it is inevitable (egalitarianism being impractical).

Fascism - Ideology based on a unified national community, strength through unity, in which the individual identity is not valued and should be absorbed into the community. The citizen should be motivated by duty to the nation, and values such as rationalism, progress, freedom and equality are rejected. Typically involves (requires?) ultra-nationalistic, charismatic, unifying leadership.
Federalism - An organization of governments in which several separate governments (e.g., local, regional) are coordinated by a central government.
Fundamentalism - Belief that certain principles are essential truths that have unchallengeable and overriding authority regardless of their content. Usually associated with the belief in literal truth of religious text, but can be found in political creeds as well.

Ideology - A set of political beliefs, a worldview.
Imperialism - The extension of control by one country over another, whether by overt political means or economic domination.

Left-Wing - Part of the "left-right" divide which originates in the French Revolution and the seating arrangement in the Estates-General in 1789, the divide came to be associated with the preference for equality and common ownership on one hand (the left) and support for meritocracy and private ownership on the other (right). The left is generally characterized by principles liberty, equality, fraternity, and progress.
Liberalism - Classical liberalism is a political ideology with commitment to the individual and the desire to construct society in which people can satisfy their interests and achieve fulfillment. Humans are individuals endowed with reason who should enjoy the maximum amount of possible freedom consistent with a like freedom for all; while entitled to equal legal and political rights, they should be rewarded in line with their talents and efforts. Modern liberalism evolved with the belief that government should be responsible for delivering welfare services such as health, housing, pensions, and education, and regulating or managing the economy to some extent. NOTE: We have a decision to make here what we're going to do with the confusion between uses of "liberal." Should we use liberal to mean the modern, colloquial use and "classical liberal" to mean that? Very open to ideas.
Libertarianism - Political ideology that values individual liberty over authority, tradition, equality, etc; seek to maximize individual freedom and minimize the scope of public authority / the state.

Marxism - Philosophy of history that outlines why capitalism is doomed and communism, via socialism, is destined to replace it.
Multiculturalism - Belief that a diversity of cultures, races, ethnicities, religions, etc., benefit a society, and thus distinctive cultures deserve to be protected and strengthened, particularly when they are a minority culture.

Nation - A group of people united by birthplace, culture, historically by race. Separate from the political-governmental entity of "state," not until the 18th century did the term acquire political overtones.
Nation-State - A political entity intended to combine a people (a nation) with political boundaries and a government (a state).
Nationalism - Political ideas based on the idea that nations are sovereign entities with the right of self-determination. Nationalism is expressed in various ways, from the belief that all sovereign nations are equal, to patriotism, to xenophobia and racism, to expansionism.
Neoconservatism - Also called the "conservative new right," a belief in the need to restore order and return to traditional values and revitalized nationalism, which developed as a reaction to the fear of perceived social fragmentation or breakdown of the 1960s. Domestic emphasis is on law and order; foreign policy emphasis is on the pursuit of (often interventionist) national interest abroad, often couched in terms of "good versus evil."
Neoliberalism - Also called the "liberal new right," a belief in classically liberal free market theories and argument for a minimal state.

Populism - A belief that popular instincts are the principle legitimate guide to political action, often reflecting distrust of or hostility toward political elites.
Progressivism

Republic - A form of government in which power resides in elected individuals representing the citizen body and government leaders exercise powers according to the rule of law.
Republican (Party)
Right-Wing

Socialism
State

Terrorism

Welfare State
« Last Edit: May 19, 2016, 03:30:56 PM by the captain » Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 23, 2016, 10:53:44 PM »

Good list. This should be interesting. I'll take a shot at a few tomorrow.

CSM posted this in another thread:

I'd be happy for the discussion.

Without using any serious definitions but, maybe, just to get the ball rolling I'll offer a few preliminary thoughts.

My sense of some of these definition has been, in some ways, informed by the good people over at political compass. When I think of the political spectrum from left to right, I tend to think of the right as being made of various different shades of thought that occur under the umbrella of private ownership while I consider the left to be made up of the various shades of thought that occur under the umbrella of public/common/collective ownership. Consequently, I see liberalism on the centre-right of the political spectrum, representing the interests of private markets as well as the concept of nationhood, with some emphasis on liberty, progress, etc. While a liberal is pro-private enterprise, he or she will also intervene in the market but not necessarily to only benefit the weak but also the powerful. If you are pro-private business but intervene almost exclusively to help the weak and to vigorously prevent a disparity between the rich and the poor, then that position puts you closer to the moderate centre of the political spectrum as a Social Democrat.

Like Chomsky, I don't think the term conservative can be properly applied to Republicans or exclusively to the right. I think the farther to the right you get from liberalism, you move towards being reactionary. The Republican party is now, in my opinion, further to the right of even that and are, by and large, reactionary extremists. But I think that you could be conservative on all sides of the political spectrum since, for me, conservatism typically means being free from power. On the right, for that, you have the US-style libertarian movement which means being free from government control. On the left, you have everywhere else's style of libertarianism which means being free from the more powerful agents in the world - multinational corporations and private enterprise. Back in the 19th century, this meant being free from religious power.

On the left you get the various shades of socialism, collective ownership, common ownership, etc. which are worth discussing too but rarely within a conversation about US politics where, in my view, the left has been completely disenfranchised and eliminated entirely from political power.

I understand and agree with 99% but we'd need to tighten things up for concise definitions of the terms addressed here. But, I mainly brought this over to ask CSM about one statement: "conservatism typically means being free from power." This is not a definition I've seen before. I don't challenge it, because I know CSM is rigorous, but I wonder if you, CSM, would be willing to elaborate and give a little etymology/history of this.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2016, 10:55:28 PM by Emily » Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: April 24, 2016, 06:17:01 AM »

I wondered about that same description of conservatism.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 24, 2016, 06:19:30 AM »

The ideology of that is in huge flux right now...
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: April 24, 2016, 07:51:59 AM »

In terms of my comments about conservatism, I am largely informed by Chomsky, as I noted in the above quote. Here are a few videos that explain better than I could:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujDltzATwk0


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVQJHfiAMDc

Here, interestingly enough, Chomsky aligns conservatism with classical liberalism.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: April 24, 2016, 08:30:40 AM »

Thanks for clarification. I see conservatism as more fluid, because it is mostly a hesitation to change. (By the way, I am rejecting outright modern Republicans' and Tea Party/libertarian self-styled conservatives' definitions, since I absolutely agree that is a perversion of the term.) But at any given moment, I think a conservative may well hold entirely different specific views than at any other given moment, since the status quo itself always changes. Conservatism (like many other political ideologies) isn't a set of policy positions in my opinion, but rather a way of thinking about how to craft policy.

Anyway, as you can see, I've begun plugging in draft definitions above and am open to feedback.

(I am trying to keep them as objective as possible, by the way, so we can use them in discussion without excessive bias.)
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: April 24, 2016, 01:38:31 PM »

I have a bit of an issue with the definition of capitalism. Inherent in the idea of capitalism is that the capitalist, the owner of the resources and means of production, is not the worker who makes the product. In modern times the word has been manipulated to be related to free markets and lack of government interference so as to link capitalism with liberalism, with the consequence that the oligarchy, the capitalists, are buttressed in their elite positions by the very people they exploit, because the workers believe that capitalism is inherently related to their "freedoms."

Anyway, ignoring my opinion about the motives of the connection, it's not inherent, so I would separate them into two definitions:

Capitalism - Economic regime in which capital, the source of income, does not generally belong to those who make it work through their labour.
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

Economic Liberalism – An ideology emphasizing the concept of the free market and laissez-faire policies, with the government's role limited to providing support services.
http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=liberal-economics


« Last Edit: April 24, 2016, 01:39:09 PM by Emily » Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: April 24, 2016, 02:09:23 PM »

Thanks for the suggestion, and I'm not opposed to alteration. I feel like the suggested definition (even by use of the term "regime") includes critique rather than just definition. I must admit the idea that relatively free markets not inherent in the concept of capitalism is somewhat surprising to me. (While I didn't take any economics courses in my life, so take that for what it's worth.) But I'd always understood it to include a belief in markets, albeit with regulation, even back to Adam Smith. If the idea of (relatively) free markets and liberalism really wasn't inherent in its early stages, I'll certainly defer. Just wanted to double-check before changing the definitions. Three somewhat respectable (I think) dictionary definitions are below, for comparison and possible use in drafting our working definition.

Merriam-Webster: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Dictionary.com: an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

oxforddictionaries.com: An economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: April 24, 2016, 02:28:02 PM »

I'm not married to the Proudhon language, but the meaning is accurate. In economics circles the word 'regime' is just used to mean 'the system in place' without further implications. But if it has politicized implications to others, it's OK with me to drop it. Perhaps 'regime' needs to be added to the list.'

The word 'capitalist' predates democracy and the concept of 'free markets.' It used to refer to the owner of the live stock and fields and stuff under manorial systems. Of course, then, most of the capitalists were, by definition, the government. And the markets under those governments were not particularly free. In many instances they were micromanaged by the nobility, with governmental price-setting, dictation of what will be grown where, etc. (this is fact)

They scrambled in the 1800s to find ways to incorporate their continued ownership of the means of production into modern accepted political philosophies so tied it to free markets and 'liberty' in general. But in this instance, it's about their liberty to own, not other's liberty to not be their wage-slave laborers. (this is my opinion)

I fully agree that modern definitions will ignore the true meaning of the term. All of the writers of all of those dictionaries were raised since the practice of capitalism was wedded to the philosophies of libery (and are most likely trained in linguistics or literature rather than the history of economics or political philosophy) with the loss of the ability to even refer linguistically to capitalism without the market implications. It breaks language and negates the ability to critique capitalism separately from criticizing free markets or laissez-faire policies.

So what term would you use to define a system in which capital is controlled separately from labor, without reference to governmental policies concerning distribution, production planning, price-setting, etc.?

edit to add:"...includes critique rather than just definition" A 'capitalist' (a word that predates and is the precursor to 'capitalism') is a person who owns the stuff. A 'laborer' is a person who works with the stuff. The basic idea of capitalism is just that divide. That's it. No more. What, other than the implications that you feel the word 'regime' has, is critical about the Proudhon definition? It seems very matter-of-fact to me.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2016, 02:41:04 PM by Emily » Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: April 24, 2016, 03:16:26 PM »


I fully agree that modern definitions will ignore the true meaning of the term.


The challenge, I think, will be that we'll be referring to both from time to time. I don't think we can be either originalist or revisionist, or we'll likely either be using terms that nobody uses in that way, or ignoring the historical meanings, respectively.

What I didn't like about the Proudhon definition was that the way it was stated seemed to focus on the negative from labor's perspective: source of income does not belong to those who make it work. To me this seems to have an implicit bias that it should belong to labor, or that capitalists don't deserve that income as profit for their investments. I'm totally open to that perspective, but just think it's starting from an analysis. an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

Anyway, how about the following combination of the dictionary.com and Proudhon definitions?

An economic system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth are owned and controlled by private individuals or corporations, i.e., capitalists, not by labor, and as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: April 24, 2016, 03:34:45 PM »


I fully agree that modern definitions will ignore the true meaning of the term.


The challenge, I think, will be that we'll be referring to both from time to time. I don't think we can be either originalist or revisionist, or we'll likely either be using terms that nobody uses in that way, or ignoring the historical meanings, respectively.

What I didn't like about the Proudhon definition was that the way it was stated seemed to focus on the negative from labor's perspective: source of income does not belong to those who make it work. To me this seems to have an implicit bias that it should belong to labor, or that capitalists don't deserve that income as profit for their investments. I'm totally open to that perspective, but just think it's starting from an analysis. an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

Anyway, how about the following combination of the dictionary.com and Proudhon definitions?

An economic system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth are owned and controlled by private individuals or corporations, i.e., capitalists, not by labor, and as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.


OK, I see where the 'make it work' clause is biased.



Regarding the definition you offered: If it's what people want, I'll go with it. But the comingling frustrates me because we lose the power to be specific and because it brainwashes. It takes a concept - 'capitalism' - and restricts its usefulness to modern western 'representative' state structures. It renders it useless in other contexts, though its original meaning is from another context and would still be a useful word for other contexts. People's thinking is constricted by the language that they use. When you do that to words - define them to exclusively be useful in one context - people start to think that that context is necessary and natural and inevitable. They lose the ability to see other constructions. So if 'capitalism' - the word - is restricted to the context of modern western state structures, people start to think that capitalism - the practice - is inherently tied to modern western state structures, and it's not.
For instance, if you have a dictator or non-representative oligarchy who are the state and own all the means of production, they are capitalists practicing capitalism. State ownership is only not capitalism in representative systems in which the state is thought to be a stand-in for 'the people' at large, in which case state ownership is interpreted as common ownership.
For me, it's important to be precise and narrow. Otherwise, words imply things they do not inherently contain.

You see why I thought this thread would be difficult?

eta: my specific concern is that these definitions assert a distinction between the capitalist and the state, which is not an inherent, original, or on-going aspect of the term.

More positively, can I suggest using - An economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange of wealth are not necessarily owned by the individuals engaged in the productive labor?

« Last Edit: April 24, 2016, 03:56:34 PM by Emily » Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: April 24, 2016, 04:24:35 PM »

I understand your points and they make sense to me.

What term can we use, if any, for who does "own the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth": I'd like to include that, rather than just say who doesn't (labor). You omitted the private individuals or corporations because you say the state could be the capitalist in other systems. Can we be as simple as saying "capitalists?" Or does that become meaningless? I am fine with your definition either as-is, or with an amendment if you can think of one for the above question.

And it's not so bad! One day, one point of mild contention. Nobody even brought Mike Love into it yet.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: April 24, 2016, 04:26:22 PM »

Good work so far guys! Cool
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: April 24, 2016, 04:39:23 PM »

I understand your points and they make sense to me.

What term can we use, if any, for who does "own the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth": I'd like to include that, rather than just say who doesn't (labor). You omitted the private individuals or corporations because you say the state could be the capitalist in other systems. Can we be as simple as saying "capitalists?" Or does that become meaningless? I am fine with your definition either as-is, or with an amendment if you can think of one for the above question.

And it's not so bad! One day, one point of mild contention. Nobody even brought Mike Love into it yet.
Thank you for the understanding. Regarding who does "own the means...," I don't think you can define the capitalist further than "the one who owns the capital." The definitions of capitalists and labor are necessarily oppositional. They only exist because they are distinct from each other.
So a definition that says, basically, 'a system in which the individuals who own the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth are not necessarily the individuals who work those means," maybe? It's awkward. Perhaps we need to get Bubbly to do the final wording!

I've got a few other comments on other definitions- but I need to get dinner ready.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2016, 04:40:05 PM by Emily » Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: April 24, 2016, 04:44:34 PM »

Fair enough. Edit happening and we'll see whether anyone else wants to weigh in further.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
alf wiedersehen
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2178


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: April 24, 2016, 04:58:22 PM »

Perhaps we need to get Bubbly to do the final wording!

It appears I have been summoned.
I'll let you know if I come up with anything useful.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: April 25, 2016, 04:21:21 AM »

Fair enough. Edit happening and we'll see whether anyone else wants to weigh in further.

I have a few suggestions but I need a bit of time to respond. But good work by everyone so far.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: April 25, 2016, 08:07:42 PM »

OK. A few more comments:

Federalism - An organization of government including different levels of government that share authority somewhat equally. – I’m not sure about the word ‘levels’ here. Maybe “An organization of governments in which several separate governments are coordinated by a central body” or something like that?

Neoliberalism - Also called the "liberal new right," a belief in classically liberal free market theories and argument for a minimal state.  - mmm - this one's hard as the definition has shifted around pretty dramatically. I'm used to hearing it related to the 'Austrian economic school' which is substantially more radical than classical liberalism and really focuses on the idea that competition is at the heart of all human behavior and that, given no shackles, our naturally competitive spirits will lead us soaring to new heights.

Liberalism - Classical liberalism is a political ideology with commitment to the individual and the desire to construct society in which people can satisfy their interests and achieve fulfillment. Humans are individuals endowed with reason who should enjoy the maximum amount of possible freedom consistent with a like freedom for all; while entitled to equal legal and political rights, they should be rewarded in line with their talents and efforts. Modern liberalism evolved with the belief that government should be responsible for delivering welfare services such as health, housing, pensions, and education, and regulating or managing the economy to some extent. NOTE: We have a decision to make here what we're going to do with the confusion between uses of "liberal." Should we use liberal to mean the modern, colloquial use and "classical liberal" to mean that? Very open to ideas. - I'm comfortable using 'classical liberalism' for classical liberalism and 'modern liberalism' for modern liberalism, but I need to think about the definition here for 'modern liberalism'. I'm not sure I agree with it. But maybe I do. I think you'd need to add a workers' rights/union-supporting thing to it. This is what used to be called a 'Hubert Humphrey liberal'.

One thing that I've noticed is happening is that, in trying to find ways to differentiate those who are very particularly concerned with social justice issues from traditional 'modern liberals,' the word 'progressive' has a shifting meaning. People are starting to use 'progressive' to mean the former and are using 'liberal' to mean Democratic Party types who they don't think are on-the-nose with social justice issues.

Interestingly, I think when 'liberalism' meant 'classical liberalism', 'progressivism' meant 'modern liberalism'. Now that 'liberalism' means 'modern liberalism,' 'progressivism' is moving on to mean 'social-justicism without much of an economic component except the 1% are ridiculously advantaged'.
 m
eta: this article is obviously expressing an opinion about neoliberalism but I think also gives a pretty good idea of one of the meanings.  http://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot
« Last Edit: April 25, 2016, 08:15:26 PM by Emily » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: April 29, 2016, 08:06:21 AM »

HELLOO! (hello hello hello hello hello hello)
« Last Edit: April 29, 2016, 08:06:55 AM by Emily » Logged
Magic Transistor Radio
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2974


Bill Cooper Mystery Babylon


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: May 06, 2016, 06:37:57 AM »

Republic -  A sovereign state or country which is organised with a form of government in which power resides in elected individuals representing the citizen body and government leaders exercise power according to the rule of law.

I thought I would add this because so many people confuse the United States as a democracy which would be majority vote. It is not.
Logged

"Over the years, I've been accused of not supporting our new music from this era (67-73) and just wanting to play our hits. That's complete b.s......I was also, as the front man, the one promoting these songs onstage and have the scars to show for it."
Mike Love autobiography (pg 242-243)
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: May 06, 2016, 09:52:17 AM »

Republic -  A sovereign state or country which is organised with a form of government in which power resides in elected individuals representing the citizen body and government leaders exercise power according to the rule of law.

I thought I would add this because so many people confuse the United States as a democracy which would be majority vote. It is not.
'
Thanks for adding this. People do get confused about 'democracy' and 'republic'. Which is fair enough because it's a vague area as are so many of these terms. 'Democracy' may mean popular rule, but it may also mean only that representatives are popularly elected, in which case our republic is a democracy and vice versa. Also, some states considered 'republics' - for example the 'Roman Republic' - may have representatives that aren't elected.
Given the squishiness of these terms, it's a great idea that add them!
« Last Edit: May 06, 2016, 05:04:42 PM by Emily » Logged
KDS
Guest
« Reply #21 on: May 06, 2016, 12:30:06 PM »

HELLOO! (hello hello hello hello hello hello)

Uh oh.  Somebody shrunk Emily. 
Logged
Magic Transistor Radio
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2974


Bill Cooper Mystery Babylon


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: May 06, 2016, 04:51:42 PM »

Republic -  A sovereign state or country which is organised with a form of government in which power resides in elected individuals representing the citizen body and government leaders exercise power according to the rule of law.

I thought I would add this because so many people confuse the United States as a democracy which would be majority vote. It is not.
'
Thanks for adding this. People do get confused about 'democracy' and 'republic'. Which is fair enough because it's a vague area as are so many of these terms. 'Democracy' may mean popular rule, but it may also mean only that representatives are popularly elected, in which case our republic is a democracy and vice verse. Also, some states considered 'republics' - for example the 'Roman Republic' - may have representatives that aren't elected.
Given the squishiness of these terms, it's a great idea that add them!

Thank you! Good topic! The problem I have with a democracy is that sometimes 5 wolves and 4 sheep vote on what's for dinner! Of course I know the United States has a history of treating minoritys poorly but that is because authorities often deny all people their constitutional rights. In that case the Federal government stepped in and told local governments to allow blacks to vote. In other cases states have had to step up against Federal laws that are unconstitutional. Personally I don't believe there is a perfect system because imperfect, and often corrupt people are in charge. I can see on paper for instance how Marxism/Socialism looks good except often corrupt governments keep all the money, or lazy people live off of welfare. Same problem with Capitalism in America is that wealthy people have been able to lobby for leaders to pass laws that help them.
Logged

"Over the years, I've been accused of not supporting our new music from this era (67-73) and just wanting to play our hits. That's complete b.s......I was also, as the front man, the one promoting these songs onstage and have the scars to show for it."
Mike Love autobiography (pg 242-243)
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: May 06, 2016, 05:03:22 PM »

Republic -  A sovereign state or country which is organised with a form of government in which power resides in elected individuals representing the citizen body and government leaders exercise power according to the rule of law.

I thought I would add this because so many people confuse the United States as a democracy which would be majority vote. It is not.
'
Thanks for adding this. People do get confused about 'democracy' and 'republic'. Which is fair enough because it's a vague area as are so many of these terms. 'Democracy' may mean popular rule, but it may also mean only that representatives are popularly elected, in which case our republic is a democracy and vice verse. Also, some states considered 'republics' - for example the 'Roman Republic' - may have representatives that aren't elected.
Given the squishiness of these terms, it's a great idea that add them!

Thank you! Good topic! The problem I have with a democracy is that sometimes 5 wolves and 4 sheep vote on what's for dinner! Of course I know the United States has a history of treating minoritys poorly but that is because authorities often deny all people their constitutional rights. In that case the Federal government stepped in and told local governments to allow blacks to vote. In other cases states have had to step up against Federal laws that are unconstitutional. Personally I don't believe there is a perfect system because imperfect, and often corrupt people are in charge. I can see on paper for instance how Marxism/Socialism looks good except often corrupt governments keep all the money, or lazy people live off of welfare. Same problem with Capitalism in America is that wealthy people have been able to lobby for leaders to pass laws that help them.
I thoroughly agree. Unfortunately, in any system, the people who seek and gain power are often the worst people to have it. And, of course, even if they were good people on their way to the top, power itself corrupts.
I agree that a pure democracy would be a scary place. Having basic rights defined and defended, whatever the mood of the people, is essential to a civilized society.
Logged
Magic Transistor Radio
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2974


Bill Cooper Mystery Babylon


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: May 06, 2016, 06:02:23 PM »

Republic -  A sovereign state or country which is organised with a form of government in which power resides in elected individuals representing the citizen body and government leaders exercise power according to the rule of law.

I thought I would add this because so many people confuse the United States as a democracy which would be majority vote. It is not.
'
Thanks for adding this. People do get confused about 'democracy' and 'republic'. Which is fair enough because it's a vague area as are so many of these terms. 'Democracy' may mean popular rule, but it may also mean only that representatives are popularly elected, in which case our republic is a democracy and vice verse. Also, some states considered 'republics' - for example the 'Roman Republic' - may have representatives that aren't elected.
Given the squishiness of these terms, it's a great idea that add them!

Thank you! Good topic! The problem I have with a democracy is that sometimes 5 wolves and 4 sheep vote on what's for dinner! Of course I know the United States has a history of treating minoritys poorly but that is because authorities often deny all people their constitutional rights. In that case the Federal government stepped in and told local governments to allow blacks to vote. In other cases states have had to step up against Federal laws that are unconstitutional. Personally I don't believe there is a perfect system because imperfect, and often corrupt people are in charge. I can see on paper for instance how Marxism/Socialism looks good except often corrupt governments keep all the money, or lazy people live off of welfare. Same problem with Capitalism in America is that wealthy people have been able to lobby for leaders to pass laws that help them.
I thoroughly agree. Unfortunately, in any system, the people who seek and gain power are often the worst people to have it. And, of course, even if they were good people on their way to the top, power itself corrupts.
I agree that a pure democracy would be a scary place. Having basic rights defined and defended, whatever the mood of the people, is essential to a civilized society.

I think a libertarian or limited government society would be the best. Basic laws that you can't hurt anyone else or their possessions, but lots of freedom to. I have very conservative moral views but don't think everyone else has to agree so long as they don't hurt other people. Having said that, I've never lived in a libertarian society so who knows!
Logged

"Over the years, I've been accused of not supporting our new music from this era (67-73) and just wanting to play our hits. That's complete b.s......I was also, as the front man, the one promoting these songs onstage and have the scars to show for it."
Mike Love autobiography (pg 242-243)
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.714 seconds with 22 queries.