How feasible it is to make “liberal” positive again isn’t clear. It would take a lot of pushing. It would take quite a bit more pushing to make “socialist” positive.

I think we are now on the same sheet of music as I cannot disagree with your latest post. I would only add that, once a problem has been identified, it only remains to solve, or address, it. (Not always an easy task, granted, but impossible if not identified). PS: I loved your link!

Dave in Boston (103)

I was having a go at you for your GIYF comment. My Google result was to show that the term ‘liberal’ has many meanings, with most of the more common usages being benevolent. That’s what Google does, by the way. It lists definitions according to usage.

My point is that, to some degree, the understanding of a term can be influenced - by interested parties. There is no reason the word ‘liberal’ cannot be seen as positive in the US - if some intelligent effort is applied. Granted, given the state of US education, this might be more difficult than one would like, but then, there is another ‘problem’ identified - No?

Regarding your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, like Lithox, we are on the same sheet of music now.

“Marxism” can mean a lot of different things, depending on who you ask and on context. It appears that you’re trying to say that China is still authoritarian (one-party state, dissent is mostly not tolerated, etc.) regardless of the economic liberalization that’s been going on. Which it is. If that’s all you’re trying to say, I don’t think there’s any disagreement.

Recently there’s been a bunch of hand-wringing in the press about countries that are “capitalist” (that is, not “communist”) but are not “democratic” or “free”, as if this is a new development. As far as I can tell this is a result of people growing up on Cold War-era rhetoric that equated “capitalist” with both “democratic” and “free”. In point of fact many/most of the West’s client states during the Cold War were, though claiming allegiance to the “capitalist” side, authoritarian dictatorships, and many of these came to power by overthrowing elected governments. (And, for that matter, it’s also fairly common to have a “democratic” country that is not “free”.)

Lihtox: following any nontrivial discussion in wordpress is a real pain. Once upon a time the internet had better tools for this… but the least common denominator won out.

@Detcord: I’d say that the US electorate is often uneducated or miseducated, though no doubt my own bias skews my view of the matter. Many of them only get their news from radio and television, and because they have the power to change the government, what is said on radio and television is very important. Take Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin for examples: they are such ridiculous self-aggrandizers that ignoring them might seem the wise course, but they *can’t* be ignored because their rhetoric is shaping the worldview of a not-insubstantial part of the electorate. And remember, there are a number of armed conservative militias in the US; fortunately there haven’t been any incidents, but their ranks have swelled since Obama was elected, and we have to hope that it isn’t only a matter of time.

In politics, it doesn’t really matter what the dictionary definition of liberal or socialist is; what matters is what the electorate thinks liberal or socialist means. Even though Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, any candidate who labelled herself as “socialist” would lose, automatically, in almost any part of the country. (Bernie Sanders in Vermont is the primary exception; maybe there are others– maybe San Francisco?) One can try to embrace a scornful term and make it one of pride, but that’s a difficult process: teenagers still use “gay” as an epithet even though support for homosexuality among the young is very high; and while “teabagger” may have been embraced by some in the Tea Party movement, it has certainly contributed to their reputation of ridiculousness among the younger part of the electorate.

Anyway, I guess the original argument was whether the Tea Party is racist or not. Maybe the best answer is that it doesn’t really matter, and that it is dumb for my fellow leftists to harp on the question. Call out racist comments and actions certainly, but determining whether a given individual is racist is futile (unless they’re a white supremacist or something, of course), and trying to determine the level of racism in a diverse movement such as the Tea Party is silly. (cf “How to Tell People They Sound Racist” @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Ti-gkJiXc ). There are so many other reasons to dislike the Tea Party, starting from their original panic over raising taxes at the exact same time Obama was cutting taxes.

I like piffle! I’ll accept piffle. … though I don’t think I am writing piffle.

I know, for example, that there are some in the US political spectrum who think it hilarious that they have gotten self-styled members of the Tea Party movement to refer to themselves as, “Teabaggers”. For most people, this is an innocuous (and logical) tag, and thus reasonably acceptable.

What they don’t know is that a certain subculture in the US has a different meaning for the teabag (or rather, teabagging), which if the Tea Party folk were to become aware, they would probably be disgusted. I watched one online episode, where an alternative newsroom (I forget the name, exactly), was having fun getting Tea Party representatives to say teabagger, with regard to themselves.

It was briefly kind of funny. Sort of like being in a room where someone is laughing for no reason, and soon the whole room is laughing. But the Tea Party folk seem to have taken it in their stride, and now I only see it used by Tea Party folk, and proudly too. Sort of like the way Americans (well, Northern ones) embraced Yank (or Yankee) and turned a British slur into a group to be proud of.

The only weakness to my “raise your game” argument is that it is dependent upon a reasonably educated electorate, who would punish infantile debating techniques used in place of reasoned argument. In the past, this was the justification for universal primary education in both Britain and America as democracy does not work nearly so well with an illiterate and uninformed electorate. If educational standards have dropped in the US, then one might argue that name-calling, slurs, and dirty trick would have more play. As you may have gathered, I certainly hope not, as an informed electorate is the greatest strength a democracy has.

So you are saying that the phrase, “Everybody Knows”, is an,”extravagant exaggeration”, that everybody knows. Sounds like tautology to me (i.e. A group of words that merely repeats the meaning already conveyed. Ex: “If you don’t get any better, then you’ll never improve.”).

Nope. Doesn’t work. Try again

How do you square your, “If you don’t believe me, GIYF”, suggestion with your subsequent, “usage information by asking a dictionary is fundamentally doomed”, comment. Are you being obtuse?

RE: Marxism: As I read it, Marxism is supposed to describe the process by which Communism replaces Capitalism. Since Adam Smith defined Capitalism as “Enlightened self-interest”, I assume (and I’m free-wheeling here) that Communism might be defined as, “Enlightened total group-interest”? I have to confess that sounds difficult to implement - unless the “group” is guided by someone - which makes it sound more like an Autocracy.

Wikipedia has this to say about China’s recent development: “China’s growth comes both from huge state investment in infrastructure and heavy industry and from private sector expansion in light industry instead of just exports, whose role in the economy appears to have been significantly overestimated. The smaller but highly concentrated public sector, dominated by 159 large SOEs, provided key inputs from utilities, heavy industries, and energy resources that facilitated private sector growth and drove investment, the foundation of national growth. In 2008 thousands of private companies closed down and the government announced plans to expand the public sector to take up the slack caused by the global financial crisis.”

None of this changes the facts I posted in 88. Still, the subsequent paragraphs do suggest China is seeking a more productive business model, which I believe was your point. I have read that there is a conflict developing between the State Republics (such as Venezuela) and the Democratic Republics (such as the US) over which can deliver the better economic results - and what the social cost of that delivery will be.

It could be ‘Interesting Times’.

Here’s the Wiki link, if you’re interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China