Is it, or are you maybe not clear on what you're saying? If I mock the idea of a "libertarian socialist," and your response is "libertarianism originally included many left-wing ideals," the implication of the statement is that left-wing = socialism. Hey now, boyo. If nobody else is allowed to invoke the term "socialism" for anything other than the fully pedantic freshman textbook version, you don't get to pick and choose which aspects you embrace. If you can take it piecemeal, then it's legitimate for someone to observe incremental steps towards socialism.
Your logic is as poor as your comprehension. And you're misquoting me now too. Since I doubt you have any genuine interest in etymology and have have no desire to do other than to continue on your usual ideological crusade, I'll simply direct you toward this passage from Wikipedia.
Paraphrasing. I don't do big quote pyramids. And the point stands. If you didn't mean to associate "left-wing" with "socialism," you should not have substituted one term for the other. Wow. That's really helping me take you seriously. Anarchists are petulant children who want to pretend they can live in society without ever answering to authority. Socialists are petulant children who expect to be handed everything they need. Melding the two alternately conjures images of a playpen, and dumbfuck teenagers with stolen leather jackets and green mohawks, circle-jerking about how they're going to change the world while they huff paint fumes in an abandoned building squat.
I didn't. I said what I meant, and I meant what I said. Socialist is the noun. I was describing my associated adjective. It's your problem if you wanted to read something else. I'm not interested in a pissing contest right now. Suffice it to say that I have refuted your uninformed remark about my being confused in my identification. Later.
Really? You didn't use the term "left-wing"? If only there were some way to confirm this. Like hell. You and your little academic hair-splits.
Your definitions of these concepts make you sound like you got your opinions from American media.... Remember, and this is important, 'left' and 'right' mean different things in different societies.
And I am all about maintaining a pleasant popular perception of myself. All I'm doing is highlighting the ugly sides proponents like to pretend doesn't exist. And in different eras. I am aware. Pass this note along to your buddy Henry up there, with his "left-wing!"..."wait, I never said left-wing!"
Now you're veering off on your own tangent, but no. I have read the precious textbook definition of "socialism" as put forth by more than one source. I get it.
You said that I'd "substituted" left-wing for socialism. And you said that I'd claimed not to have used the word at all. You're talking to the voices in your head, not to me.
Alright, from the top: I said "libertarian anarchist, ha ha!" (look out, I'm paraphrasing again! ) You answered specifically to that with "The word "libertarian" originally referred to a variety of left-wing thought." Now, if you didn't want the two associated, why would you use one term in response to another? Just randomly, for no fucking reason? Cut the bullshit.
Googling for definitions, mainly. You have any particular reason for busting my balls on this? If you think I'm wrong on any specific detail, let's hear it.
That simple sentence can't have taken half a page of posting (and counting) to explain to you. You babbled ignorantly about "libertarian socialism". Since we'd both agree that I'm a socialist, that leaves "libertarian" as the disputed term. To that purpose, I said: That means precisely what it says. It does not mean that all left-wing thought is socialist. It does not substitute one word for another. It does not imply that you should quit your job or go live in a soap-dodging hippie commune with shit smeared on the walls where money is burned for heat. In fact, you are not entitled to make any imaginary substitutions, inferences or associations using other posts so that you have another thinly-veiled excuse to rant about how everyone who differs with your views is petulant or parasitic. You insinuated that I was misusing the word "libertarian", based entirely on your own uninformed and limited usage of it. I explained how you were wrong. I even quoted a source with the history and everything. Deal with it.
And what it says, in context, is that "socialist" and "left-wing" can be interchanged for this particular discussion. Nor does it explicitly rule that out. If you weren't substituting, you would have said "The word "libertarian" originally referred to a variety of [-]left-wing[/-] socialist thought." Doesn't really work that way, but then you were the one to choose that response to defend the notion of "libertarian socialist".
I wasn't, and I've been telling you so in every post since. Stop trying to tell me what I mean by the words I type, just so you can dodge the fact that you're an uninformed oaf. Fuck off and find something more productive.
I'm not speaking to your meaning. I'm just observing what is right there in the letters you typed. You responded to word X with word Y. That is a substitution, and it suggests a strong association if not outright interchangeability.
There is no need for magical unlimited power or replicators or anything remotely similar. The US currently throws away more food every day than would feed every food pantry applicant(terminology?)'s family for a week. Don't believe me? Check out a documentary on Netflix called "Dive". Then research from there - can't tell you all the websites I've visited, but there's plenty out there. and "conservative" thought ("conservative" in the 19th Century meaning) is puritanic today. So what? I'll tell you what. The terms "liberal" and "conservative", in political thought, mean "conservatives" wish to stick with traditional thinking and "liberals" wish to move forward with ideas. Going back to the 18th century, that's why Adams and Hancock and Franklin, et al, were considered liberal for their time. Yet, 25 years later, those who stuck by those same ideals (and no, I don't mean Freedom and Liberty), were the conservative. Jefferson was considered liberal because he wanted to move out westward, many of his previous peers and colleagues said "no, this is the way it was when we signed the declaration and that's they way it should stay". Those guys were considered conservative.
There's a difference between the contemporary definition of "liberalism" which you're trying to apply to the framers and "classical liberalism" referred to in political theory. Whatever you Googled to arrive at your conclusion evidently didn't make the distinction between the two terms for you.
It's probably more like conservatives want change to come slowly and in small, easily-digestible bites while liberals want change in great big globs, regardless of short-term consequences. At least in the modern American meaning of the terms, anyway.
I agree that sometimes some people want to make big sweeping changes without looking at the consequences. But, much of those things that need changing are only being held back because some people need "time to adjust" - like racial equality and equal rights regardless of sexual orientation. And, there's really no need to go slowly in those departments.
This is what Skin likes best about you -- you're an agent of entropy and you don't even know it. You're like a blind, dumb destructive animal that's only barely clever enough to cause a little more harm than the average clumsy dog, just clever enough to pull the glass casserole dish off the kitchen table and scarf up the food and broken glass alike from the floor, but not quite smart enough to know why it shouldn't. That's what makes you Skin's favorite.
Really? Let's take something like "racial equality." Does equality mean equally protected by the law? Does it mean the state SHOULD NOT take race into account in employment, education, etc.? Doest it mean the state SHOULD take race into account in employment, education, etc.? Does it mean equal opportunity? Does it mean equality of outcome? Is it a numbers game where if X percent of the population is race R, then race R should be represented by X percent of the population in every job, group, classroom, etc.? Does it mean compensating members of race R for perceived past injustices? Are you FOR all of these things? All of these things have been part of promoting "racial equality;" if you're not for all of them, explain your conservatism. If you are, be prepared to defend your position because a few of them are contradictory...
Attempting to back me into a corner using affirmative action as an argument won't work. Affirmative action is not "to make up for" past grievances, it's to help raise one group of society that had previously been "kept down" to the same level as the rest of society. Had society not kept them down in the first place, then individual prejudices allowed to fester and influence jobs, housing, even where a person can make purchases or which water fountains to drink from, then affirmative action would not be necessary. I do, however, feel the time for affirmative action is fast coming to an end.
