Wall Street protesters: We're in for the long haul

[Josephus]

I think it's because the American use of the term pejoratively is creeping into Canadian lexicon. When Americans say "socialist" they equate it with un-democratism and the worst excesses of the Soviet Union, long lineups and empty cupboards. When the NDP says Socialist, it's not exactly the image they like to paint. Yet it is the one that even in Canada is now sticking with the mass public. So obviously the NDP wants to move away from that image, but not necessarily from its "progressive" platform. In other words the feeling in the party is one of "Well, we know we are socialists but they don't need to know that."

[Malthus]

I think it's because the American use of the term pejoratively is creeping into Canadian lexicon. When Americans say "socialist" they equate it with un-democratism and the worst excesses of the Soviet Union, long lineups and empty cupboards. When the NDP says Socialist, it's not exactly the image they like to paint. Yet it is the one that even in Canada is now sticking with the mass public. So obviously the NDP wants to move away from that image, but not necessarily from its "progressive" platform. In other words the feeling in the party is one of "Well, we know we are socialists but they don't need to know that."

There is somewhat to the notion that political terms are creeping in from the US, but obviously it is not yet sufficient to actually get them to stop calling themselves socialist yet.

I think the bigger issue is that the NDP, with the taste of actual power in its mouth, wishes to  move into the space mostly vacated by the bumbling Liberals and perhaps govern the country. 

Less "we are actually socialists, just called something else" than "you know, perhaps we oughtta tone down those actually socialist policies we have, and get elected just a bit more in the centre, and we could oust the Cons ... ".

[Berkut]

I think it's because the American use of the term pejoratively is creeping into Canadian lexicon. When Americans say "socialist" they equate it with un-democratism and the worst excesses of the Soviet Union, long lineups and empty cupboards. When the NDP says Socialist, it's not exactly the image they like to paint. Yet it is the one that even in Canada is now sticking with the mass public. So obviously the NDP wants to move away from that image, but not necessarily from its "progressive" platform. In other words the feeling in the party is one of "Well, we know we are socialists but they don't need to know that."

I think the irony of it becoming such a perjorative term in the US is that if you go back 80 years and look at where we are now compared to them, the Socialists won.

The question is not whether or not the US should be Socialist, it is HOW Socialist should we be, at least in terms of pre-WW1 or probably even pre-WW2. Which makes all the angst over the term kind of ridiculous. Republicans? Yeah, they are socialists. I don't see any of them campaigning to repeal Social Security or Medicare or Workers Comp or...

[Sheilbh]

I think you and Oex are making a fundamental mistake: of not seeing an idealism different from your own *as* a form of idealism, as opposed to a mere unthinking impulse of reaction.

I think most of my idealism's an unthinking reaction, a gut instinct that I later justify and intellectualise - though there's a couple of issues where that's not the case.  I think most people are the same.

I think the irony of it becoming such a perjorative term in the US is that if you go back 80 years and look at where we are now compared to them, the Socialists won.

Weirdly in the US they did, in their way.

But this is why I think it's fair to say the modern left have very often become conservative parties looking to preserve the gains made in the 20th century rather than recalibrating.  In much of Europe, though, socialists wanted much more than the SPA (from what I understand).

[Malthus]

I think most of my idealism's an unthinking reaction, a gut instinct that I later justify and intellectualise - though there's a couple of issues where that's not the case.  I think most people are the same.

Even so, you are mistaking the sources of the gut instinct. In the case of libertarian-tinged US folks going against stuff, it is usually "doing this feels like it will lead to less freedom", not "doing this will change things and change is bad".

[Berkut]

I think what annoys me about the characterization is that I do think there are people out there who fit the "reactionary" mold. It is just bizarre to see someone who I respect quite a bit (both SHelf and Oex) as slapping the label on nearly everyone, or claim that the tone is generally reactionary. There are a few true blue, died in the wool conservatives who I think do pretty much reflexively oppose change. But to say that it is the general tone on languish? That is simply crazy talk - languish as a whole is MUCH more liberal that society in general, IMO.

And I am generally very annoyed by label like "reactionary" where the people being labelled by and large don't agree that the label fits them. That to me is a pretty good indicator that the label is inteneded to be used to strawman the opposition within your own side.

It is like pro-life people calling pro-choice people baby killers, or pro-choice people calling pro-life people misogynists. BY and large, pro-coice people hold the position they hold for a particular reason, and it isn't because they like killing babies. And pro-life people hold their views for a particular reason, and it generally isn't because they hate women. And their self-selected labels do a very nice job of labeling them in an accurate manner based on WHY they hold their views.

[dps]

I'll cop to being reactionary on some issues.  For example, I had just posted something in the games forum stating that I think that our old copyright law that we had before Disney convinced Congress to greatly extend the time limts was better than our current copyright law.  I don't see how anyone could hold that position and not acknowledge that it's a reactionary position (that it, a position that seeks a return to a past condition) if they're honest about it.   But I think that most of my political/social views, while unabasedly conservative, are not reactionary.

[Admiral Yi]

What do you call someone who favors change for the sake of change?

What do you call someone who favors protest for the sake of protest?

[crazy canuck]

I don't see how anyone could hold that position and not acknowledge that it's a reactionary position (that it, a position that seeks a return to a past condition) if they're honest about it.

If thinking a change in a particular law is daft then we are all likely reactionaries.  I doubt there is anyone alive that believes all legistlative changes have been good.

[Richard Hakluyt]

What do you call someone who favors change for the sake of change?

What do you call someone who favors protest for the sake of protest?

Hmmm.............young or daft 

[dps]

What do you call someone who favors change for the sake of change?

It depends.  In a political/social system that allows for personal freedom and human rights, I guess I'd call such a person a gadfly.  In a system that doesn't allow those, I might call them desperate.

What do you call someone who favors protest for the sake of protest?

An asshole.

[DGuller]

I'll cop to being reactionary on some issues.  For example, I had just posted something in the games forum stating that I think that our old copyright law that we had before Disney convinced Congress to greatly extend the time limts was better than our current copyright law.  I don't see how anyone could hold that position and not acknowledge that it's a reactionary position (that it, a position that seeks a return to a past condition) if they're honest about it.   But I think that most of my political/social views, while unabasedly conservative, are not reactionary.

I don't think that a reactionary label applies in such a case.  It applies only to bad people, or people holding clearly idiotic views.

[dps]

I'll cop to being reactionary on some issues.  For example, I had just posted something in the games forum stating that I think that our old copyright law that we had before Disney convinced Congress to greatly extend the time limts was better than our current copyright law.  I don't see how anyone could hold that position and not acknowledge that it's a reactionary position (that it, a position that seeks a return to a past condition) if they're honest about it.   But I think that most of my political/social views, while unabasedly conservative, are not reactionary.

I don't think that a reactionary label applies in such a case.  It applies only to bad people, or people holding clearly idiotic views.

Well, then your view is an example of what was under discussion with regards to the term "socialist"--you are twisting the meaning of the word in order to use it in a perjoratve way, rather than in a descriptive manner.  And I don't mean to be insulting when I say that, because almost anyone is guilty of it at some time or the other when discussing political and social issues.  It's like the example Berkut gave of the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" vice "baby-killer" and "misogynist" in the abortion debate--if you can control the terminology used and bend words to mean what you want them to mean, then you can control the debate without actually getting into the actual merits of the differing positions.  It's tempting, because it's often easier to control the terminology, since such control can often be facilitated through sound bites and one-liners.

Or the alternative is that you think our Disneyfied IP laws are actually better now, and anyone who disagrees is a bad person and/or holds idiotic views.

[Admiral Yi]

Agree very much that labelling is a way to avoid discussion of the merits.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think you're right.  Remember how the only people who thought John Brown was right were, like, me and CdM?

I actually defended the righteousness of John Brown's cause, and also defended the concept of using violence to kill an evil system. If I recall much of the argument was that in a democracy there was no justification for it, then there was some argument about what constitutes a democracy. But anyway, I was pro-John Brown's motives, if you see something you truly believe is evil and you cannot work through the normal political system to stop it I believe violence is a valid answer. I believe in a universal right of all slaves to fight and kill their masters, going back to the time of the ancients. I don't morally judge any slave who kills their owner in order to free themselves, essentially. Nor can I blame someone helping slaves to freedom.

But I was opposed to John Brown's specific actions, for a few reasons. One, he killed like two innocent bystanders who were not slaveowners and not even pro-slavery (one of them was a train conductor who himself was an emancipated slave.) Two, his plan was mind-numbingly stupid and put all of the slaves involved at great risk with no chance of success. Basically I agree with Frederick Douglass, who was vaguely supportive but ultimately opposed to JB's plan because he knew it would just backfire and get a bunch of slaves killed.